K-12 schools must allow boys into girls’ private areas to obtain federal funds for lunches, breakfasts, and snacks, the Biden administration announced this month. A U.S. Department of Education spokesman told The Federalist the Biden administration’s press releases from several agencies announcing this policy will be followed by formal rulemaking in June.
“It seems to be playing politics with feeding poor kids, which is really unfortunate,” John Elcesser, executive director of the Indiana Non-Public Education Association, said via phone amid weeks of attempting to sort out these new demands with government officials on behalf of private schools in his state. “Because if a school feels like they cannot participate because it’s in conflict with their mission or values, if a religious exemption is not granted, you’re taking away a program that’s feeding low-income kids.”
Before many schools shut down in response to Covid-19, the National School Lunch Program fed nearly 30 million kids every school day, in approximately 100,000 public and private schools and residential care facilities.
Under this new demand, establishments that accept any federal food funding, including food stamps, must also allow males who claim to be female to access female private spaces, such as showers, bathrooms, and sleeping areas. Such organizations must also follow protocols such as requiring staff to use inaccurate pronouns to describe transgender people and allowing male staff to dress as women while on the job.
Religious institutions, however, qualify for a waiver exempting them from these requirements, said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Greg Baylor in an interview Monday. According to the 1972 Title IX law, he said, religious institutions don’t have to file any paperwork to be exempt, although they can if they wish.
Baylor noted, however, that publicly affirming a commitment to sexual reality by seeking an exemption acknowledgment from federal agencies may assist extremist pressure campaigns. The activist group Human Rights Campaign’s blueprint for the Biden administration pushed for narrowing religious exemptions for multiple federal regulations and for the administration to “out” individuals and institutions who request such exemptions.
The Biden administration appears to be following that blueprint closely. According to Elcesser, USDA officials are telling schools to file paperwork to be exempt, although the Title IX law says that’s an option but not required. The USDA confirmed that to The Federalist Tuesday with this emailed statement: “Organizations may request a religious exemption by submitting a written declaration to the Secretary of Agriculture identifying the provisions that conflict with a specific tenet of the religious organization.”
Government schools can receive no exemption. At best, parents and taxpayers can urge school districts to not comply while inevitable lawsuits over the Biden administration’s interpretation work through courts for years.
“The Biden administration is grossly extending the Bostock holding where it does not belong. Like many of the Biden administration’s power grabs, this imposition transgresses areas of proper state and local authority. As the principal guardians of federalism, state attorneys general have the ability to combat such overreach where it injures state functions,” Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, a Republican, told The Federalist in a statement.
Even if this regulation is ultimately overturned by one means or another, millions of American children will be forced to eat their school lunches with a side of sexual politics.
“There is a lot of harm that comes from inflicting this interpretation of Title IX on public schools and private schools that are not eligible for the exemption,” Baylor said. In Loudoun County, Virginia, in 2021, a young woman was sexually assaulted in a school bathroom by a young man granted access by the district’s transgender policies.
Parents have told The Federalist that their daughters no longer use the bathrooms or locker rooms at their public schools because they don’t feel safe there. Many parents are finding after the fact that school districts are helping their children live as the opposite sex and hide that from their families.
“Some percentage of school districts want to be told by the federal government that they have to implement gender ideology,” Baylor observed. “If anyone complains, they can say, ‘We’re just doing what they told us. Go blame Joe Biden, not me.’”
As Biden promised to do while campaigning, his administration is pushing sexual confusion on as many institutions as it can. This aim has gotten a huge boost from the 2020 Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, an unconstitutional ruling that gives this extremist sexual agenda a legal fig leaf. That 5-4 decision clinched by President Donald Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch, however, concerned sex differences not in education but employment……
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2022-05-28 09:52:102022-05-28 10:00:17Biden Admin: K-12 Schools Must Put Boys In Girls’ Bathrooms To Get Federal Lunch Money
According to a recent modeling experiment, “Increased contact among vaccinated people can give the false impression that COVID-19 vaccines are not working”
This rationale is dubious at best, considering the unvaccinated have continuously been accused of not taking COVID seriously and going about their lives as normal, while the “vaccinated” are, by and large, more fearful and take “authorities” advice to heart, which includes avoiding large gatherings and close one-on-one interactions without wearing a face mask
Many data sources reveal that COVID-jabbed individuals are now getting COVID-19 at far higher rates than the unjabbed. Death rates, both for COVID and other causes, have also risen in tandem with the number of shots administered
According to an analysis of U.S. data, in September 2021, when Delta was most prominent, 23% of those who died from COVID had received the jab. In January and February 2022, when Omicron started dominating, that percentage jumped to 42%
Many argue that Omicron was more contagious than Delta, hence the higher death toll. But Omicron was also far milder than Delta, and there’s no reason the jabbed would die at a higher rate from a less lethal variant than a more lethal one, unless the injection made the infection worse
A preprint study found adult participants in Moderna’s trial who got the real injection and later got a breakthrough infection did not generate antibodies against the nucleocapsid — a key component of the virus — as frequently as did those in the placebo arm. Their anti-nucleocapsid response was also lower regardless of the viral load. As a result of this reduced antibody response, those who got the jab may be more prone to repeated COVID infections
Well, the COVID jab pushers have had to resort to all sorts of obfuscation to hide the fact that the injections don’t work, and now they’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel of excuses. According to a recent Reuters report,1 “Increased contact among vaccinated people can give the false impression that COVID-19 vaccines are not working.”
This irrational explanation has been levied in response to studies showing COVID-jabbed individuals are getting infected at higher rates than the unjabbed, and there are many such studies.
“These studies are likely to involve statistical errors, particularly if they did not account for different contact patterns among vaccinated versus unvaccinated people,” Korryn Bodner, a research associate in infectious disease modeling in Toronto, told Reuters. Bodner is the first author of a preprint study2 posted on medRxiv at the end of April 2022.
Are the Jabbed More Carefree Than the Unvaxxed?
Bodner’s claim is that those who got the jab may be more likely to throw caution to the wind and mingle with others, hence getting infected more frequently, while the unjabbed may be more cautious because they know they’re vulnerable. This rationale is dubious at best, considering:
a)The unvaccinated have continuously been accused of not taking COVID seriously and going about their lives as normal
b)Those who have taken the jab are, by and large, a far more fearful lot; they tend to listen to the “authorities” and take all of their advice to heart, which would include avoiding large gatherings and close one-on-one interactions without wearing a face mask
Check out the following story, reported by Anchorage Daily News:3
“Arianne Bennett recalled her husband, Scott Bennett, saying, ‘But I’m vaxxed. But I’m vaxxed,’ from the Washington hospital bed where he struggled to fight off COVID-19 this winter … Bennett went to get his booster in early December after returning to Washington from a lodge he owned in the Poconos, where he and his wife hunkered down for fall.
Just a few days after his shot, Bennett began experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, meaning he was probably exposed before the extra dose of immunity could kick in. His wife suspects he was infected at a dinner where he and his server were unmasked at times …
‘He was absolutely shocked. He did not expect to be sick. He really thought he was safe,’ Arianne Bennett recalled. ‘And I’m like, ‘But baby, you’ve got to wear the mask all the time. All the time. Up over your nose.'”
Within days of his third dose, he got a serious case of COVID. Yet they blame it on hypothetical exposure to an apparently healthy food server. This kind of irrational reasoning is prevalent among those who got the jabs and who keep going back for more as they are part of the 30% of the population that have been completely brainwashed.
To reiterate what I’ve explained since 2020, asymptomatic spread is likely to be so rare as to be nonexistent.4 It was a lie perpetuated to drive up fear and prop up rising “case” rates that didn’t really exist. It’s basic virology that you cannot transmit a virus unless you have a “hot” infection, and if you have an active, transmissible infection, you have symptoms. The symptoms are a sign that your body’s defenses are kicking in to rid itself of the live virus.
No symptoms, no transmission. So, unless the server was feeling sick and went to work anyway, the simplest explanation for Bennett’s demise was the shot itself. And if the server was sick, the fact that Bennett got so ill suggests the shot is ineffective, even at two doses.
The pro-pharma shills want you to believe there are so many confounding variables, we can’t possibly draw any conclusions from data showing the shots don’t work. Yet looking at data from a wide spectrum of sources, all show the same alarming trends. What “confounding factor” could possibly account for ALL of them being misinterpreted?
An Unproven Hypothesis
Reuters5 does note that Bodner’s simulations “do not prove that this type of bias affected studies of vaccine effectiveness versus the Omicron variant.” What it does show, according to Bodner, is that “even if vaccines work, increased contact among vaccinated persons can lead to the appearance of the vaccine not working.”
In other words, this is a hypothesis that has yet to be proven. Her modeling suggests it COULD make the jabs appear ineffective IF those who got the jab actually behave very differently from the unjabbed.
But again, it’s highly unlikely that the unvaccinated are avoiding exposure by steering clear of close contacts and crowds to a greater degree than those who got the jab. It’s far more reasonable to suspect that the shots don’t work.
On a side note, Bodner’s study was funded by the Canada COVID-19 Immunity Task Force.6 This task force is housed at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, and McGill University is a long-term recipient of grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.7,8,9,10
What Do the Data Say About COVID Jab Effectiveness?
Based on data from around the world, it seems clear that the COVID gene transfer injections are not working. In fact, they’re having the opposite effect of what you’d expect from a real vaccine. According to a Washington Post analysis of state and federal data,11 in September 2021, when Delta was most prominent, 23% of those who died from COVID in the U.S. had received the jab.
In January and February 2022, when Omicron started dominating, that percentage jumped to 42%. In December 2021 and January 2022, just under half of all the COVID patients in intensive care at Kaiser Permanente’s hospital system in Northern California had also received one or more shots.12
Many argue that Omicron was more contagious than Delta, hence the higher death toll. But Omicron was also far milder than Delta, so why would the jabbed die at a higher rate from a less lethal variant than a more lethal one?
One attempt at an explanation is that the fatalities are now occurring primarily among the elderly. Nearly two-thirds of those who died from COVID during the Omicron wave were 75 and older. During the Delta wave, 75-year-olds and older accounted for just one-third of the deaths.13
But that was the case from the beginning, and it still doesn’t answer the question: Why would old people be more likely to die from a milder virus than a more serious one? To answer that question, the injection pushers revert back to the argument of waning potency. Two-thirds of those who died in January and February 2022 did not have a booster shot. According to Anchorage Daily News:14
“Experts say the rising number of vaccinated people dying should not cause panic in those who got shots, the vast majority of whom will survive infections. Instead, they say, these deaths serve as a reminder that vaccines are not foolproof and that those in high-risk groups should consider getting boosted and taking extra precautions during surges.”
So, in other words, the jab only works for a handful of months, and then you have to take another. And another. And another. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,15 the first two doses wear off after five months, necessitating a third dose, and the third dose wears off in just four months, at which time you’re supposed to get dose No. 4.
Israeli data16 show the effectiveness of shot No. 4 in preventing severe disease declines by 56% in just seven weeks. So, it appears the protection you get from the shots keeps getting shorter with each dose. Meanwhile, data show the shots can render you increasingly susceptible to all manner of infection and disease, through a wide variety of mechanisms.
Moderna Trial Data Reveal Repeated Infections Are Likely
Among such data is a preprint study17 posted on medRxiv April 19, 2022, which found adult participants in Moderna’s COVID jab trial who got the real injection, and later got a breakthrough infection, did not generate antibodies against the nucleocapsid — a key component of the virus — as frequently as did those in the placebo arm.
Curiously, placebo recipients produced anti-nucleocapsid antibodies twice as often as those who got the Moderna shot, and their anti-nucleocapsid response was larger regardless of the viral load. As a result of this reduced antibody response, those who got the jab may be more prone to repeated COVID infections. As reported by The Defender:18
“[T]he authors found that using the presence of anti-nucleocapsid (anti-N) antibodies to determine whether a person was exposed to SARS-CoV-2 will miss some infections. Thus, the sensitivity of this kind of test, when applied to vaccinated individuals, is not ideal.
However, there are more important implications19,20 of these findings … Specifically, the study implies that the reduced ability of a vaccinated individual to produce antibodies to other portions of the virus may lead to a greater risk of future infections in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated.
It is important to note that this is not just another argument for the superiority of natural immunity. Rather, this is evidence suggesting that even after a vaccinated person has a breakthrough infection, that individual still does not acquire the same level of protection against subsequent exposures that an unvaccinated person acquires.
This is a troubling finding, and something investigators conducting the Moderna vaccine trial likely knew in 2020.”
UK Data Confirm Results
These findings are corroborated by data from the U.K. Health Security Agency. It publishes weekly COVID-19 vaccine surveillance data, including anti-nucleocapsid antibody levels. The report21 for Week 13, issued March 31, 2022, shows that COVID-jabbed individuals with breakthrough infections have lower levels of these antibodies — a finding they attributed to the protective benefit of the shot:
“These lower anti N responses in individuals with breakthrough infections (post-vaccination) compared to primary infections likely reflect the shorter and milder infections in these patients.”
However, this interpretation is likely flawed, because less severe infection is associated with lower viral load, and as the study above demonstrated, the “vaccinated” have lower anti-nucleocapsid antibody levels than the unvaccinated at all viral load levels, but especially so at the lowest viral loads. As noted by The Defender:22
“This is one of the most significant findings of the study because it overturns the heretofore unchallenged idea that decreased seroconversion in the vaccinated is due to less severe infection in this population — which is a benefit provided by the vaccine.
However, this new study shows that even at low viral loads, the unvaccinated are more likely to seroconvert than those who are vaccinated. In fact, the difference in seroconversion rates is the greatest at lowest viral loads. The decrease in conversion rates is not a result of a benefit from the vaccine. It is a consequence of it.”
Boosted Now Have Three to Four Times Higher Case Rates
The Defender also reviews other U.K. data showing the COVID case rate is three to four times higher among those who have received a booster shot, compared to the unvaccinated. This is true for all age groups with the exception of children under 18:23
“What could explain such a large increase in infection rates among the boosted? Interestingly, the authors … warn that the unvaccinated may have contracted COVID-19 prior to the observation period — in other words, they may have acquired natural immunity previously, giving them added protection …
But their own data tells the opposite story. The boosted are more likely to contract the disease — by a factor of 3 to 4. How do we know whether the larger infection rates in the boosted are due to more robust immunity in the unvaccinated because of prior infection or due to an immune deficiency in the boosted?
The question can be definitively answered by examining the trend of infection rates [using] … the equivalent table from two months earlier. There is still a greater infection rate among the boosted, but it is only two to three times higher. If the authors’ hypothesis was correct, the more recent data should have shown less of a difference, not more.
If anything, their data support the finding that the decreased seroconversion rates in the vaccinated may be causing a greater risk of repeated infections.”
Walgreens’ Data
Data from the pharmacy chain Walgreens in the U.S. also reveal the same trend — COVID-jabbed individuals are testing positive for COVID at higher rates than the unjabbed, and those who got their last shot five months or more ago have the highest risk.
As you can see in the screenshot from Walgreens’ COVID-19 tracker24 below, during the week of May 9 through 15, 2022, 21.4% of unvaccinated individuals who got tested for COVID got a positive result. Of those who had gotten just one COVID shot, the positivity rate was 26.3%.
Of those who received two doses five months or more ago, 31.3% tested positive, and of those who received a third dose five months or more ago, the positive rate was 32.7%. So, after the first booster shot (the third dose), people are at greatest risk of testing positive for COVID.
Perhaps most disturbing of all are the data showing the COVID shots are raising mortality rates, both from COVID and other causes. Above is an animated illustration25 sourced from Our World In Data, first showing the vaccination rates of South America, North America, Europe and Africa, from mid-December 2020 through the third week of April 2022, followed by the cumulative confirmed COVID deaths per million in those countries during that same timeframe.
Africa has had a consistently low vaccination rate throughout, while North America, Europe and South America all have had rapidly rising vaccination rates. Africa has also had a consistently low COVID mortality rate, although a slight rise began around September 2021. Still, it’s nowhere near the COVID death rates of North America, South America and Europe, all of which saw dramatic increases.
Here’s another one,26 also sourced from Our World In Data, first showing the excess death rate in the U.S. (the cumulative number of deaths from all causes compared to projections based on previous years), between January 26, 2020, and January 30, 2022, followed by an illustration of the tandem rise of vaccine doses administered and the excess mortality rate. It clearly shows that as vaccination rates rose, so did excess mortality.
We also have the benefit of more than one risk-benefit analysis, and all show that, with very few exceptions, the COVID jabs do more harm than good. A risk-benefit analysis27 by Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and independent researcher Kathy Dopp, published in mid-February 2022, concluded that the COVID jab is deadlier than COVID-19 itself for anyone under the age of 80.
Another analysis,28 which relied on data in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), concluded that in those under age 18, the shots only increase the risk of death from COVID, and there’s no point at which the shot can prevent a single COVID death, no matter how many are vaccinated.
If you’re under 18, you’re a shocking 51 times more likely to die from the jab than you are to die from COVID if not vaccinated. In the 18 to 29 age range, the shot will kill 16 for every person it saves from dying from COVID, and in the 30 to 39 age range, the expected number of vaccine fatalities to prevent a single COVID death is 15. Only when you get into the 60 and older categories do the risks between the jab and COVID infection even out.
A third risk-benefit analysis by researchers in Germany and The Netherlands was published in June 2021, in the journal Vaccines.29 The paper caused such an uproar, part of the editorial board resigned in protest.30 The journal retracted the paper, but after a thorough re-review, it was republished in the August 2021 issue of Science, Public Health Policy and the Law.31
These researchers concluded that, “as we vaccinate 100 000 persons, we might save five lives but risk two to four deaths.”32 A fourth, still preliminary, analysis — based on more than 1,700 death reports collected by Steve Kirsch — shows the shots do more harm than good in anyone under age 60. Kirsch writes:33
“Figure 1 below is an analysis of survey data I collected. The analysis shows that the vaccines are harmful to those under 60. The red dots higher than the error bar means more vaccinated people observed dead than expected based on the population of vaccinated to all people.
In other words, if we vaccinated 60% of people (middle of the grey bar) and 70% (red dot) of the deaths are vaccinated, we have a serious problem. The precautionary principle of medicine suggests if you are under 60 and thinking of taking a vaccine, you shouldn’t. These preliminary results are both statistically significant …
The conclusion is very clear: nobody under 60 years old should get the vaccine because there is no evidence of a benefit. In fact, if you are between 40-60, it’s clear that vaccination makes it more likely you’ll die, not less likely.”
Figure 1. Red dot below error bar = vax works. Red dot above error bar = vax likely causes harm. Red dot inside the error bar = Insufficient evidence to justify taking a new, unproven vaccine. Conclusion: Vaccine shouldn’t be considered unless there is a clear benefit. 60 and older seems to justify use based on the data we have so far. Limitations: we are waiting for others to confirm / challenge the analysis. See text34 for more info. Joel Smalley did the analysis.
While some analyses present a direr picture than others, taken together, it’s clear that there appears to be no long term benefits to the COVID jabs. We’re consistently ending up with a higher cost than can conceivably be considered reasonable. The pro-pharma side will likely continue to lob flimsy excuses at the data, but at some point, the truth will be so clear that even the blind will see it. Until that day, continue to inform yourself and share what you find.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MERCOLA Take Control of Your Healthhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMERCOLA Take Control of Your Health2022-05-26 05:57:592022-05-26 06:00:12Why Those Under 60 Are More Likely to Die if Jabbed
The World Health Organization is attempting to seize control over global pandemic monitoring and response and, ultimately, all health care decisions
Bill Gates intends to play a key part in this takeover. He’s building a pandemic response team for the WHO, dubbed the “Global Epidemic Response & Mobilization” or GERM Team, which will have the authority to monitor nations and make pandemic response decisions, such as when to suspend civil liberties to prevent spread of an illness
The globalist cabal plans to seize control through biosecurity governance, and they’re attempting to do this using two different avenues. If we fail to fight off both attacks, we’ll end up under totalitarian governance
The first attack comes in the form of amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), which are currently being voted on by the World Health Assembly. These amendments will strip member nations of their sovereignty and give the WHO unprecedented power to restrict your medical freedoms and civil liberties in the name of biosecurity. Get involved and urge your nation’s leaders to reject the amendments if passed. Unless rejected, they will become binding law in November 2022
The second attack comes through a new international pandemic treaty with the WHO. They intend to eliminate individualized medicine and provide blanket rulings for how a given threat is to be addressed, and this can only result in needless suffering — not to mention the loss of individual freedom
In “The Corbett Report” above,1 independent journalist James Corbett reviews the contents of Bill Gates’ book, “How to Prevent the Next Pandemic.”
“It’s every bit as infuriating, nauseating, ridiculous, laughable and risible as you would expect,” he says. “This is a ridiculous book … There’s certainly nothing of medical or scientific value in here … It’s a baffling book even from a propagandistic perspective …
Gates’ goal in writing the book is to disarm the public and prepare us to accept the agenda that Gates and his allies would like to impose on the world. Ultimately, what this is about is drumming up general public support — or at least general public understanding — of the unfolding biosecurity agenda.”
Another reviewer of Gates’ book, economist Jeffrey Tucker, offered similarly negative feedback:2
“Imagine yourself sidled up to a bar. A talkative guy sits down on the stool next to you. He has decided that there is one thing wrong with the world. It can be literally anything. Regardless, he has the solution.
It’s interesting and weird for a few minutes. But you gradually come to realize that he is actually crazy. His main point is wrong and so his solutions are wrong too. But the drinks are good, and he is buying. So you put up with it. In any case, you will forget the whole thing in the morning.
In the morning, however, you realize that he is one of the world’s richest men and he is pulling the strings of many of the world’s most powerful people. Now you are alarmed. In a nutshell, that’s what it’s like to read Bill Gates’s new book ‘How to Prevent the Next Pandemic.’”
Gates’ Book Chapter by Chapter
Corbett goes through Gates’ book chapter by chapter, so if you’re short on time, you can review the ones that interest you the most:
Chapter 1: Learn from COVID (timestamp: 12:58)
Chapter 2: Create a pandemic prevention team (timestamp: 18:23)
Chapter 3: Get better at detecting outbreaks early (timestamp: 26:21)
Chapter 4: Help people protect themselves right away (timestamp: 31:01)
Chapter 5: Find new treatments fast (timestamp: 37:26)
Chapter 6: Get ready to make vaccines (timestamp: 39:46)
Chapter 7: Practice, practice, practice (timestamp: 47:06)
Chapter 8: Close the health gap between rich and poor countries (timestamp: 50:49)
Chapter 9: Make — and fund — a plan for preventing pandemics (timestamp: 57:40)
Afterword: How COVID changed the course of our digital future (timestamp: 1:03:00)
As Gates explains in a video at the beginning of Corbett’s report, he’s building a pandemic response team for the WHO, dubbed the “Global Epidemic Response & Mobilization” or GERM Team. This team will be made up of thousands of disease experts under WHO’s purview, and will monitor nations and make decisions about when to suspend civil liberties to prevent spread of an illness.3
Alas, as noted by “Rising” host Kim Iversen in the video compilation above, if COVID-19 has taught us anything, it’s that stopping the spread of a virus is more or less impossible, no matter how draconian the rules. Meanwhile, the side effects of lockdowns and business shutdowns are manifold.
People’s health has suffered from lack of health care. Depression and suicide have skyrocketed. Economies have gone bust. Violent crime has risen. Tucker also points out the false premise behind Gates’ pandemic prevention plan, stating:4
“This theory of virus control — the notion that muscling the population makes a prevalent virus shrink into submission and disappear — is a completely new invention, the mechanization of a primitive instinct.
Smallpox occupies a unique position among infectious diseases as the only one affecting humans that has been eradicated. There are reasons for that: a stable pathogen, a great vaccine, and a hundred years of focused public health work. This happened not due to lockdowns but from the careful and patient application of traditional public-health principles.
[T]he attempt to crush a respiratory virus through universal avoidance could be worse than allowing endemicity to it to develop throughout the population.”
Gates’ Destructive Greed
During COVID, we basically traded false protection against one thing for a multitude of other ills that are far worse in the long run. Now, Gates and the WHO want to make this disastrous strategy the norm.
Once again, we see Gates is basically paying the WHO to dictate what the world must do to make him a ton of money, because he’s always heavily invested in the very “solutions” he presents to the world. While he’s built a reputation as a philanthropist, his actions are self-serving, and more often than not, the recipients of his “generosity” end up worse than they were before.
Case in point: After 15 years, Gates’ Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) project has now been proven an epic fail.5 Gates promised the project would “double yields and incomes for 30 million farming households by 2020.”
That false prognosis was deleted from the AGRA website in June 2020, after a Tuft University assessment revealed hunger had actually increased by 31%. February 28, 2022, the first-ever evaluation report6 confirmed the failure of AGRA.
The Globalists’ Double-Prong Attack on National Sovereignty
But getting back to the globalists’ plan to seize global control through biosecurity governance, they are attempting to do this using two different avenues. If we fail to fight off both attacks, we’ll end up under totalitarian governance.
The first attack comes in the form of amendments7 to the International Health Regulations (IHR). The second attack comes through a new international pandemic treaty with the WHO.
Starting with the first takeover strategy, as you read this, countries around the world are in the process of voting on amendments to the IHR.8 By May 28, 2022, the World Health Assembly will have concluded their vote on these amendments and, if passed, they will be enacted into international law in November 2022.
The IHR, adopted in 2005, is what empowers the WHO to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).9 This is a special legal category that allows the WHO to initiate certain contracts and procedures, including drug and vaccine contracts. While the IHR grants the WHO exceptional power over global health policy already, under the current rules, member states must consent to the WHO’s recommendations.
This is one key feature that is up for revision. Under the new amendments, the WHO would be able to declare a PHEIC in a member state over the objection of that state. The amendments also include ceding control to WHO regional directors authorized to declare a Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern (PHERC).
In summary, the IHR amendments establish “a globalist architecture of worldwide health surveillance, reporting and management,” Robert Malone, Ph.D., warns,10 and we the public have no say in the matter.
We have no official avenue for providing feedback to the World Health Assembly, even though the amendments will give the WHO unprecedented power to restrict our rights and freedoms in the name of biosecurity. There’s not even a publicly available list of who the delegates are or who will vote on the amendments.
Summary of Proposed IHR Amendments
A summary of the proposed changes to the IHR was recently provided by Malone.11 In all, the WHO wants to amend 13 different IHR articles (articles 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 48, 49, 53 and 59), the end result of which is the following:12
1.“Increased surveillance — Under Article 5, the WHO will develop early warning criteria that will allow it to establish a risk assessment for a member state, which means that it can use the type of modeling, simulation, and predictions that exaggerated the risk from COVID-19 over two years ago. Once the WHO creates its assessment, it will communicate it to inter-governmental organizations and other member states.
2.48-hour deadline — Under Articles 6, 10, 11, and 13, a member state is given 48 hours to respond to a WHO risk assessment and accept or reject on-site assistance. However, in practice, this timeline can be reduced to hours, forcing it to comply or face international disapproval lead by the WHO and potentially unfriendly member states.
3.Secret sources — Under Article 9, the WHO can rely on undisclosed sources for information leading it to declare a public health emergency. Those sources could include Big Pharma, WHO funders such as the Gates Foundation and the Gates-founded-and-funded GAVI Alliance, as well as others seeking to monopolize power.
4.Weakened sovereignty — Under Article 12, when the WHO receives undisclosed information concerning a purported public health threat in a member state, the Director-General may (not must) consult with the WHO Emergency Committee and the member state. However, s/he can unilaterally declare a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern.
The Director General’s authority replaces national sovereign authority. This can later be used to enforce sanctions on nations.”
Once the amendments are adopted by the World Health Assembly, nations will have only a limited time — six months — to reject them. That would put us into November 2022. Any nation which hasn’t officially rejected the amendments will then be legally bound by them, and any attempt to reject them after the six-month grace period will be null and void.
Attack No. 2: The WHO Pandemic Treaty
The second attempt to gain global control is through an international pandemic treaty with the WHO. An intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) was established as a subdivision of the World Health Assembly in December 2021,13 for the purpose of drafting and negotiating this new pandemic treaty.
In summary, the WHO wants to make its pandemic leadership permanent. It can then extend its power into the health care systems of every nation, and eventually implement a universal or “socialist-like” health care system as part of The Great Reset.
While a WHO-based universal health care system is not currently being discussed, there’s every reason to suspect that this is part of the plan. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has previously stated that his “central priority” as director-general is to push the world toward universal health coverage.14
And, considering the WHO changed its definition of “pandemic” to “a worldwide epidemic of a disease,”15 without the original specificity of severe illness that causes high morbidity,16,17 just about anything could be made to fit the pandemic criterion.
The problem with this treaty is that it simply cannot work. The whole premise behind this pandemic treaty is that “shared threat requires shared response.” But a given threat is almost never equally shared across regions.
Take COVID-19 for example. Not only is the risk of COVID not the same for people in New York City and the outback of Australia, it’s not even the same for all the people in those areas, as COVID is highly dependent on age and underlying health conditions.
The WHO insists that the remedy is the same for everyone everywhere, yet the risks vary widely from nation to nation, region to region, person to person. They intend to eliminate individualized medicine and provide blanket rulings for how a given threat is to be addressed, and this can only result in needless suffering — not to mention the loss of individual freedom.
Are You Ready to Cede All Authority to Gates-Led Group?
In closing, Gates’ GERM team would be the ones with the authority to declare pandemics and coordinate global response.18 Are you ready to cede all authority over your life, health and livelihood to the likes of Gates? I hope not.
In the video above, Del Bigtree with “The Highwire” provides poignant examples where Gates is now admitting what “The Highwire,” I and many others have been saying since the earliest days of the COVID pandemic, and getting censored and deplatformed for it.
Gates is two years behind everyone else, yet despite his apparent inability to interpret the readily available data, he now wants power to dictate health rules to the whole world. We can’t let that happen.
Join the Global #StopTheWHO Campaign
It’s going to require a global response to prevent these two power grabs, starting with the IHR amendments under vote by the World Health Assembly. To that end, the World Council for Health has launched a global #StopTheWHO campaign. Here’s how you can get involved:19
Speak — Raise awareness on the ground and online. Use articles, posters, videos
Act — Campaign through rallies, political mobilization, legal notices and cases and similar campaigns
Collaborate with health freedom coalitions such as the World Council for Health
Explore activist toolboxes such as: www.dontyoudare.info and stopthewho.com
Engage global indigenous leadership to take a united stand against the WHO’s IHR
Notify World Health Assembly country delegates to oppose the IHR amendments
Activate people’s parliaments, legislatures or referendums to oppose power grabs
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MERCOLA Take Control of Your Healthhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMERCOLA Take Control of Your Health2022-05-25 06:34:042022-05-25 06:35:24Who Is Seizing Control Over the Next Pandemic Plan?
Michael Pakaluk: The idea that the common good can be found in Roe v. Wade is gravely mistaken, since it subordinates the good of the unborn to the born.
Iwant to draw attention to three mistakes about Aquinas’ teaching on the common good which are encouraged by some presentations today of so-called “common good” jurisprudence. If we take Aquinas to represent “the classical view,” then these are mistakes, too, about classical thought.
Begin with Aquinas’s famous, four-part account of the essence of law: any law, he says, is:
(1) a precept of reason,
(2) directed to the common good,
(3) set down by a competent authority, and
(4) promulgated.
Because this is an account of the essence of something, you simply can’t have that thing at all, Aquinas thinks, unless all the parts of the account are somehow verified in it.
What this means is that anything that can in any way count as law, by definition – by its very essentia – is directed to some conception of a common good. Aquinas remarks that even the laws of a tyrant promote a common good: they propose in effect that the citizens should together find their good in promoting the personal good of the tyrant.
This is the firstmistake, then: it’s misleading for any party, or school of interpretation, to claim that they are offering something distinctive or different, because they favor connecting the law to the common good. All law does that, of necessity. Nothing can count as “law” unless it is ordered to a common good.
All the interesting questions, then, involve what conception of the common good is implicit in a law. Does it promote what Aquinas calls “the true good” (verum bonum) or something else? Is its implicit conception something we can really embrace? Is it perhaps incoherent, or self-defeating, or calculated to lead to bad things despite someone’s good intentions?
Even Roe v. Wade contained conceptions of the common good, of course: a conception of the autonomy of the professions (the inviolability of “a decision made in consultation with one’s doctor”); of the equality of women, and what is necessary for that; and a conception of the limits of government’s power to proscribe.
These conceptions were and remain gravely mistaken. Certainly they are disputable by fair-minded persons and cannot be held to be built into the very social compact of the United States. Obviously, too, any “common good” implicit in Roe includes the good only of born human beings, subordinating the good of the unborn to the born. In that sense, Roe’s conception of the common good is tyrannical.
But the point is that both sides claim to promote the common good. The debate hinges on what that truly is, not whether it is invoked. To say that the master key is to introduce the premise that the law should be ordered to the common good is a mistake and a diversion.
The second mistake as regards “the classical view,” is to describe the common good of human law without reference to the virtues and to God, but to regard it as a social system of economic and political instrumentalities, even construing classical language such as “public peace” and “public order” in this way.
Aquinas does not do this. In his discussion of human law specifically, he does not separate peace from virtue: “in order that man might have peace and virtue, it was necessary for laws to be framed.” Indeed, making those subject to it good, he says, following Aristotle, is the goal of law: “if the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on true good, which is the common good regulated according to Divine justice, it follows that the effect of the law is to make men good simply.”
Again, because piety is a central human virtue for Aquinas, not surprisingly he approves of Isidore’s claim that a chief purpose of human law should be “to foster religion.”
On “the classical view” one cannot avoid these matters by saying, as Adrian Vermeule does, that it’s possible to confine one’s discussion to “the order of nature” and avoid “the order of grace.” On Aquinas’s view, human beings precisely as natural creatures, cannot attain even “temporal happiness” except through exercising the virtues – and as rational creatures they are ordered to God, who is the ultimate common good of society. As John Paul II liked to emphasize, it’s inherent in the human person to have a transcendent character, and the common good of human society must be framed correspondingly. Religion after all is a pagan virtue.
The great theologian, Johannes Messner, writing in his 1949 Social Ethics after the horrors of World War II, comments, “Only if a personal God is recognized as creator and lawgiver can the idea of the ‘might of right’ possess its quite definite authority; otherwise, there can be no compelling reason why the principle ‘might is right’ should not in one way or another prevail.”
This brings me to the third mistake, which is that current presentations of the common good seem to downplay the necessity of liberty, identifying liberty with libertarianism and individualism.
This third mistake follows from the second. Liberty is necessary for genuine virtue and for our response to God. Downplay virtue, and liberty is easily lost from sight. Moreover, as James Madison emphasized in his Memorial and Remonstrance, the relationship which a human being has to his creator, prior to political society and government, is a fundamental safeguard of liberty. Prescind from our relationship to God, and how else are fundamental liberties secured?
Let Messner have the last word here: “full humanity depends essentially on [man’s] personal responsibility and self-reliant activity in carrying out the demands of his being. . . .the common good means that social cooperation makes it possible for the members of society to fulfill by their own responsibility and effort the vital tasks set for them by their existential ends. . . .although a domestic animal is not harmed in its essential nature by being provided for, the ‘provider state’ does impair man’s natural status because it takes away from him a sphere of self-determination and personal responsibility.”
Michael Pakaluk, an Aristotle scholar and Ordinarius of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas, is a professor in the Busch School of Business at the Catholic University of America. He lives in Hyattsville, MD with his wife Catherine, also a professor at the Busch School, and their eight children. His acclaimed book on the Gospel of Mark is The Memoirs of St Peter. His new book, Mary’s Voice in the Gospel of John: A New Translation with Commentary, is now available.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Catholic Thinghttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Catholic Thing2022-05-25 06:20:152022-05-25 06:20:15Three Mistakes about the Common Good
While Bill Gates trumpeted his so-called “Decade of Vaccines” in 2010—apparently given a new lease on life with Covid—he’s been understandably quieter about his planned Decade of Pandemics. Of course the two go hand in hand, or perhaps hand in glove, as both are merely tools to further the Davos elites’ two-pronged attack on We the People: genocide and subsequent enslavement of those who survive.
Plandemics and their subsequent mRNA vaccines can maim and kill millions of people, while providing the psychopathic elites with plausible deniability. Here’s Gates’ disingenuous warning: “Also, related to pandemics is something people don’t like to talk about much, which is bioterrorism, that somebody who wants to cause damage could engineer a virus. “ [Italics mine.] Hmmm…now why would anyone want to do that, Bill?
In case you were wondering, Stephen Luby, professor of medicine and senior fellow at Stanford’s Wood Institute for the Environment, informs us that: There will be a Sars-CoV-3.
It seems the WHO is planning for ten solid years of pandemics, from 2020 to 2030. How does WHO know what, why and when? Unless, of course, Gates’ minions—the WHO included—are feverishly planning and executing these pandemics. What better way to accurately predict the future than by controlling it?
LESSONS FROM FRANKENSTEIN
Among the dwindling numbers of literary classics students are assigned today, one often finds Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein. Written when Shelley was only eighteen, it is quite an achievement and brilliant in concept; although, in my view, far from a literary masterpiece and actually a bit of a slog to read. Nevertheless, students love it.
Unfortunately, they miss the point.
Instead of grasping what I consider to be the genius of the novel—its exposition of the truism that when man plays God, disaster inevitably follows—the kids derive the message that you should be kind to monsters. Many of them write essays to the effect that if only people had not rejected the poor monster—if only they had not hurt his feelings—he wouldn’t have gone on a killing rampage, which many students think was justifiable. I kid you not. This is how your children are being trained to think in public schools.
Perhaps their teachers also fail to point out the moral of this story. In fact, if it was clearly recognized and taught as a cautionary tale about hubris in schools today, I’d wager that the Common Core progressives who put together today’s pathetically weakened and subversive curriculum, would quickly remove it from the syllabi. After all, from man made viruses to gene-altering “vaccines” to transhumanism, we’re being besieged by legions of unleashed Dr. Frankensteins.
Of special note among the legions of domestic Frankensteins must be our own Dr. FauxChi, whom one might describe as a modern-day amalgamation of Josef Mengele, the Nazi’s mad scientist who conducted cruel experiments on prisoners, and Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi’s Minister of Propaganda.
The Fauch’s organization NIAID has given millions of dollars to crazed scientists to bioengineer new and deadly GMO viruses and retroviruses that previously apparently did no harm in bats or other creatures, and couldn’t infect humans, but now can cause worldwide pandemics.
This begs the question: Why perform “Gain of Function” research at all, since the function you gain creates a bioweapon?
Here’s the logic: in case those viruses were ever to naturally jump from bats to people, say in a Wuhan wet market, and make people sick, scientists would be able to recognize the pathogens and presumably make vaccines against them for the huge benefit of… patent holders, like Fauci’s NIAID, and Big Pharma. And if thousands or millions were to die in the process? That’s just collateral damage.
Of course there’s an even more nefarious possibility—dare I say likelihood: that these Frankensteinian viruses and the genetically modified “vaccines” we’re told we must have to combat them, are both designed for genocidal “depopulation” purposes. Pick your poison.
RAND PAUL VS. TEFLON TONY
Recently, Senator Rand Paul bravely stood up to Fauci, perhaps to make amends for having stabbed President Trump in the back along with the majority of his feckless fellow Senators on January 6th—but I digress.
Kudos to Rand for pointing out Dr. Fraudster’s lies and collusion with the Wuhan Institute of Virology to fund the dangerous, illegal and immoral viral-lethality-enhancing “research” that led to Sars-CoV-2 and Covid-19.
But Rand’s main concern, like that of so many others, is that these viruses could escape the lab and infect people. Well, accidents do happen.
Except, as FDR told us, in politics, where “…nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” And for those who refuse to believe Covid-19 was planned—in spite of Event 201 describing the precise scenario of the pandemic and worldwide lockdowns several months prior to the Wuhan outbreak, as well as the perfect timing of the “pandemic” to pull the plug on Trump’s economic miracle and pave the way for flagrant voter fraud through unprecedented national mail-in voting to keep, um, Biden voters “safe”—all I can say is I’m running out of bridges to sell.
The accompanying ghoulish article: Of Viruses & Vectors, by Deni Ellis Béchard, almost reads like a primer on Agenda 21/2030, full of warnings about global warming, climate change and the dangerous “edges where humans and animals come into contact” leading to “human-wild interface with less and less buffer between them.” Who knows what dire diseases may emerge “…at the edge of human habitats.” Did you realize you live in a “human habitat” instead of a city or suburb or small town?
The passage quoted above obliquely refers to the Davos elites’ Wildlands Project, as they plan to make the “wildlands” as off-limits to us as our Capitol was for months after January 6th, while herding us into crowded high-density “districts” à la The Hunger Games.
In his article, Béchard kills two bats with one stone: implying we should stay out of forests, etc., and presumably stop raising livestock (animals are “reservoirs” for “vectors” like mosquitos that spread viruses) though people have done this safely for millennia. So what has changed? The addition of the elite cabal’s phony global warming/climate change psyop, along with their control of the media for propagandizing their mischief.
Referencing climate change and other spurious globalist claims, Béchard blithely assures us we’re in for more pandemics, sooner rather than later, and the next one could stem from the NIPAH virus, with a fatality rate of 75%. Yes, you heard that correctly. Seventy-five percent fatality rate. Compare that to Covid’s measly .1% for all but the frail elderly and those with serious co-morbidities who have a rate from about .2% to 2% or so.
And surprise, surprise, NIPAH is also bat-derived.
What is this fascination with bats? The 2011 predictive-programming movie Contagion—and here’s your spoiler alert—featured a pandemic almost exactly like the one we’ve just endured, which was discovered to have originated from…you guessed it…a bat!
Here’s another unpleasant surprise for you: Look at the American quarter that came out in 2020, a year which should be rechristened by the Chinese as the Year of the Bat:
What a coincidence!
Perhaps the Globalist Cabal—billionaire Gates and Davos pals who can’t wait to depopulate, I mean vaccinate, the world—with their penchant for the occult and demonic, also had in mind the Mayan’s bat god, Camazotz, associated with death and sacrifice, as in the sacrifice of human beings. Pretty remarkable that a spooky-looking pair of bats was the best that American Samoa could come up with in the way of an uplifting emblem.
Here’s another creepy picture of our dystopian virus-laden future by Catrin Welz-Stein from the same article Of Viruses & Vectors.
WHO’S MONKEYSHINES
But it looks as if the monkey may have beaten out the bat, as the WHO is reportedly convening an “emergency” meeting on the Monkeypox which it claims is going global. Hmmm… I don’t recall ever hearing about monkeypox, which sounds as if it affects only, well…monkeys. Does that mean the WHO seeks to make monkeys out of us? If so, it won’t be the first time.
After the manner of Hollywood producers who often follow up a mediocre film with a sequel that’s even worse, it seems the Powers-That-Be are following the same template they used for Covid: First they claim to find a few scattered cases of some exotic or “novel” virus but reassure us that we have no cause for alarm…as yet. This way they can slowly build up a crescendo of fear, then suddenly crank it up to full-blown panic with projections of millions of deaths—ultimately terrifying people into getting a brand spankin’ new mRNA Chimp-22 vaccine that will magically be rushed to market to keep us, you know, “safe.”
GAIN OF FUNCTION = LOSS OF BENIGNITY
Once laboratory scientists re-engineer a virus that has never infected people and/or is benign to humans, in order to make it malignant, they’ve engaged in bioterrorism research and development. There’s no polite way to say this—it’s evil.
On the one hand, as Mary Shelley showed us more than a hundred years ago, messing with nature to create new life forms is bound to be catastrophic. On the other, since Dr. Faustus himself has both funded this kind of “research,” lied about having done so, and presumably gotten his co-conspirators at the Wuhan Institute of Virology to cover for him, we can take this as clear indication that FauxChi knew what he was doing was wrong. And like his fictional predecessor, Dr. Frankenstein, little Tony Fauci will surely pay the price for the hellishness he’s unleashed on the world.
But unfortunately, he’s not alone. Not only have a number of “scientists” been working on Gain-of-MalFunction “research,” some of these geniuses have been laboring to create bizarre new life-forms that have even more in common with Mary Shelley’s infamous doctor and his monstrous creation. In fact, transhumanists are busily remaking man in their own benighted image, as the globalist cabal’s plan is not only to do away with our liberty, economy and quality of life, but also with humanity as we know it. For these hubristic New World Order designers, We the Peons are already being described as “legacy humans.” This is analogous to the heirloom tomatoes you may find at your local farmers’ market—the rare varieties from the good ol’ days.
The new human species they plan to create will be merged with AI and/or some form of technological machinery—that is, those who are slated to be the “smart ones,” a la Huxley’s Brave New World. The Epsilons—those at the bottom rung of the societal ladder—will be merged with animals as “chimeras.” Alex Jones was evidently right—these experiments have been going on for many years.
Perhaps it was inevitable that as man discovered more and more about the wonders of our universe and of our own bodies, some would trod this path. It seems there’s nothing new under the sun after all. The Serpent’s promise to Eve in the Garden was if she’d eat the forbidden fruit, she—and her mate—would become “as gods.”
Perhaps the psychopathic Powers-That-Be and their malevolent university-trained cohorts have forgotten the upshot of a devil’s bargain. At the very least, they ought to reread Frankenstein. Either that or the Bible.
Discovery+ is releasing Generation Drag. Produced by Tyra Banks, the show documents five young drag queens as they participate in a drag show, “Dragutante,” designed for LGBTQ kids ages 8-18. In celebration of Pride Month, Discovery+ plans to release the six-episode docuseries on June 1.
The Warner Bros.-owned streaming platform, Discovery+, is wrong to produce this type of program. Many would consider it child abuse to encourage these children to dress in drag, question their gender, and sexually exploit themselves.
The parents shown on camera who celebrate their child’s decision to become transgender should be ashamed. 1MM knows that God makes no mistakes. These children were designed in His image before they left their mother’s womb.
While normalizing the drag queen lifestyle, Generation Drag attempts to make the lifestyle appear glamourous by using young cast members to lure a young audience. The reality show depicts transgenderism as the way a person is born but then glorifies this lifestyle as a decision. Tolerance is one thing, but acceptance or affirmation is another.
Obviously, Discovery+ is attempting to desensitize America’s youth by airing programs starring young people. This docuseries covers the real life of young people and will attract both young and old viewers. Children and teens are being desensitized, but parents can do something about this hidden agenda.
Please sign our petition urging Discovery+ to drop plans to air the docuseries ‘Generation Drag’ immediately.
Let Discovery+ know that you and your family will not be watching ‘Generation Drag’ or anything else on the streaming platform in protest of this new show.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00One Million Momshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngOne Million Moms2022-05-24 04:57:202022-05-24 05:12:25TAKE ACTION: Discovery+ Promoting Drag Queen Lifestyle to Children
What would we do without the Department of Homeland Security? Those intrepid defenders of our liberties are showing these days how richly they deserve our taxpayer billions, as DHS officials, ever on the watch, warned on Monday that “domestic violent extremists” are “infiltrating” the national debate over abortion, with nefarious plans to “incite violence amongst their supporters.”
Now, I must admit, I’m not as sharp as the all the knives in the drawer over at the DHS, and I don’t have my finger on the pulse of threats to “our democracy,” which Leftists are constantly telling us is in imminent peril from people who believe in the U.S. Constitution and the basic goodness of the American experiment. So I hope that Alejandro Mayorkas and his henchmen, that is, colleagues, at the DHS will forgive me for not realizing that domestic violent extremists have only recently infiltrated the abortion debate. I had the crazy idea that domestic violent extremists had actually infiltrated the abortion debate decades ago; in fact, I thought they had been there from the very beginning. After all, there are people out there who think that those who dismember babies in the womb are performing a decent and righteous act; if that’s not domestic violent extremism, what is?
But that is, of course, not the kind of domestic violent extremism that the DHS has in mind. To be sure, our intrepid defenders didn’t specify exactly what kind of domestic violent extremism they did have in mind. ABC News reported that the DHS official who disclosed this warning “did not specify which side, if any, the extremists were taking.” However, it’s not hard to figure out which side the DHS has in mind. The FBI, as well as DHS officials, have quitefrequentlyrepeated the claim that “white supremacists” are the most formidable “domestic extremist” threat that the nation faces today.
This is an administration that has likened parents who have protested at school board meetings against Communist indoctrination and transgender propaganda in public schools to terrorists, while not saying a thing about genuine Antifa violence and thuggery, so when the DHS warns that “domestic violent extremists” are infiltrating the abortion debate, it’s absolutely certain that the people they are tarring with this label are pro-lifers. And while there have been a handful of pro-lifers who were violent in the past, it’s far more likely that DHS is equating dissenting words with violence.
Why do I say that? Because it has happened to me. Last year, the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT), an organization created by Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, and YouTube to police terrorism on the Internet, bizarrely designated my organization Jihad Watch a “violent extremist” group, despite the fact that pretty much all we do is type and report on jihad activity in the U.S. and around the world. In response to a letter from my attorney demanding a retraction, the GIFCT refused to back down. Those who designated Jihad Watch as a “violent extremist” group explained that we reported on violent activity — terrorist bombings, murders, etc. — and that this in some way “dehumanized” Muslims.
How we did this was left unexplained; it would have been impossible to explain, as it was absurd on its face. If reporting news that puts some group in a bad light is “dehumanizing,” the GIFCT and DHS should go after the establishment media for “dehumanizing” Trump and his supporters. The response to my attorney’s letter was essentially the increasingly common Leftist argument that speech that dissents from its party line is violence, and hence must be shut down.
DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, fresh from defending his sinister and Orwellian new Disinformation Governance Board, promises that his department is right on top of this alleged “domestic violent extremist” threat: “Over the past year, we in the Department of Homeland Security have improved and strengthened our approach to combating this dynamic, evolving threat.”
How reassuring. Meanwhile, Leftist pro-abortion ideologues have been demonstrating at the homes of the Supreme Court Justices who are likely to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade in a naked attempt to intimidate them into changing their vote. Despite the fact that it is a felony to demonstrate at private homes, the Biden administration has applauded these protests. The government is presently in the hands of thugs who believe that bullying and frightening people into submission is an acceptable political tactic. Can the DHS, in such an environment, spare even a few agents to try to head off any possible Leftist violence regarding a possible overturning of Roe? After all, Leftists are much, much more likely to be violent than pro-lifers. This is true both historically and recently and is indicated by the nature of what they’re so avidly defending.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Center For Security Policyhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCenter For Security Policy2022-05-23 14:09:422022-05-23 14:10:13DHS: ‘Domestic violent extremists’ are ‘infiltrating’ the abortion debate
Please use social media, etc. to pass on this Newsletter to other open-minded citizens…
If at any time you’d like to be added to (or taken off) the distribution of our popular, free, worldwide Media Balance Newsletter, simply send me an email saying that.
Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone, as some documents (e.g. PDFs) are much easier to read on a large computer screen… We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize display issues.
Note 2: For recent past Newsletter issues see 2020 Archives & 2021 Archives & 2022 Archives. To accommodate numerous requests received about prior articles over the twelve plus years of the Newsletter, we’ve put together since the beginning of the Newsletter — where you can search by year. For a detailed background about the Newsletter, please read this.
Note 3: See this extensive list of reasonable books on climate change. As a parallel effort, we have also put together a list of some good books related to industrial wind energy. Both topics are also extensively covered on my website: WiseEnergy.org.
Note 4: I am not an attorney or a physician, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or any of my websites) should be construed as giving legal or medical advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent, licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues, and consult a competent physician regarding medical matters.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00John Droz, Jr.http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJohn Droz, Jr.2022-05-23 06:32:222022-05-23 06:32:22AWED NEWSLETTER: We cover COVID to Climate, as well as Energy to Elections.
Founded in 1933 by Archbishop of Cincinnati John T. McNicholas the National Legion of Decency was an organization dedicated to identifying and combating objectionable content, from the point of view of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, in motion pictures. Bishop Cicognani warned against the “massacre of innocence of youth.” The Legion originally included many Protestant and even some Jewish clerics. The National Legion of Decency caused the movie industry to create a rating system. To learn more read our column: Is it time for the Motion Picture Association of America to Add a “Q” Rating?.
Recently Bill Mahar did a monologue during his “New Rule” segment titled “Along for the Pride.” Mahar took a look at on what has happened to children identifying as gay overtime. Bill used a chart showing the increase in the number of Americans who self-identify as LGBTQ (click here to view the chart).
Bill’s concern, like that of Bishop McNicholas, is the “massacre of the innocence of youth” over time by social pressures, chemically and via medical procedures. Watch:
Bill Mahar asked a key question about why trans children are more likely to be from Los Angeles, Californian rather than Youngstown, Ohio, “If this spike in trans children is all natural why is it regional?”
Mahar answers his own question stating, “Either Ohio is shaming them (gays) or California is creating them.”
Bill is spot on. America is creating gays and this is the goal of public schools, colleges and universities, corporations from Apple to Amazon to Disney to the Democrat Party.
Shaming versus Creating Homosexuals
The National Legion of Decency shamed the movie industry into creating a system to classify film based upon “objectionable material.” In 1968 the MPAA set up a rating board that classified films as G, M, R, and X. The MPA ratings are now as follows:
G, for general audiences;
PG, parental guidance suggested;
PG-13, parents strongly cautioned, because film contains material inappropriate for children under 13;
R, restricted to adults and to children under 17 accompanied by parent or guardian;
and NC-17, no children under 17 admitted.
Is it not feasible and reasonable to do the same with those who are encouraging, promoting and thereby creating more who self-identify as LGBTQ+? We agree with Bill Mahar that this conversion to LGBTQ+ is regional but its reach is both national and global.
It is national because the U.S. public schools are brainwashing American children into believing that be gay is good, when just the opposite is true.
In the 1830s Horace Mann, a Massachusetts legislator and secretary of that state’s board of education, advocated for the creation of a national system of public schools with the focus on training students to become skilled workers while teaching them the traditional core academic disciplines (i.e. reading, writing, arithmetic and applied science).
Today public schools are under the microscope for teaching “objectionable material” children about the gay lifestyle, thereby creating more children who self-identify as gay.
LGBTQ individuals are more than twice as likely as heterosexual men and women to have a mental health disorder in their lifetime. They are 2.5 times more likely to experience depression, anxiety, and substance misuse compared with heterosexual individuals.
There has been a concerted effort to stop others from “shaming” those who act gay. Gay organization like GLSEN have called it bullying and many public schools have implemented programs to stop bullying. But these anti-bullying programs are as Bill Mahar said are creating more gays.
But you see that is the objective. They want to shame heterosexuals to become gay.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2022-05-22 08:12:412022-05-23 06:48:21Time For A New National Legion of Decency to stop the social and medical ‘massacre of the innocence of youth’
There is a growing concern, which has turned into a national movement, to warn parents about efforts to groom their children in public school classrooms, public school media centers, by corporations like Disney, Amazon, and Apple and other publishers and distributors of books, films and TV programs.
Add to this the calls to expose misinformation, disinformation and mal-information. We are witnessing a perfect storm to expose untruths and myths in every media format.
History of Movie Censorship
In 1907 Chicago became the first city to regulate and censor movies. The United States Supreme Court upheld Chicago’s right to do this. In 1909, New York City, by order of Mayor George B. McClellan, closed 550 theaters because the police chief claimed that “most movie material was reprehensible.” A 1915 United States Supreme Court landmark decision firmly established that censorship could be applied to film.
The MPAA was founded as the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA) in 1922 as a trade association of member motion picture companies. At its founding, MPPDA member companies produced approximately 70 to 80 percent of the films made in the United States. In 1930, the MPPDA set up the Motion Picture Production Code (also known as the Hays Code). It didn’t wield any real power until it joined forces with the Legion of Decency, an organization created by the Catholic Church (as well as other religious organizations) dedicated to combating “objectionable material.” From that point forward, the MPPDA would only approve films that had the Catholic Church’s seal of approval. The Legion of Decency would also assign ratings to the approved films.
The MPPDA became the MPAA
In 1968 the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) established a system of movie ratings for parents to use as a guide to determine the appropriateness of a film’s content for children and teenagers. The ratings system is voluntary, and there is no legal requirement that filmmakers submit their films for rating.
In 1968 the MPAA set up a rating board that classified films as G, M, R, and X. After various changes the MPA ratings are now as follows:
G, for general audiences;
PG, parental guidance suggested;
PG-13, parents strongly cautioned, because film contains material inappropriate for children under 13;
R, restricted to adults and to children under 17 accompanied by parent or guardian;
and NC-17, no children under 17 admitted.
X-rated films are now considered pornography.
Should the MPAA add a “Q” to each of its ratings?
The use of and promotion of LGBTQ+ characters has grown since the release of the film The Best Man (1964), where a character, played by Shelley Berman, is accused of being homosexual. This was the first American film to use the word “homosexual”. Brock Peters played one of the first expressly homosexual characters in an American film The Pawnbroker in 1964.
Since 1964 there have been a growing number of homosexual characters introduced into films by all of the studios, from Disney, to Marvel, to Sony. Some studios like Disney have made it their goal to increase the number of homosexual characters in films and cartoons. This includes online streaming services who produce films such as Netflix, HBOMax, Hulu, Amazon Prime and others.
Given the growing concern by parents, healthcare professionals, psychologists, psychiatrists, politicians and the general public, we suggest it is time that the MPAA add a new rating. This rating is “Q.”
This is not a stand alone rating but rather a rating added to the current ratings of films as follows:
G-Q, for general audiences;
PG-Q, parental guidance suggested;
PG-13-Q, parents strongly cautioned, because film contains material inappropriate for children under 13;
R-Q, restricted to adults and to children under 17 accompanied by parent or guardian;
and NC-17-Q, no children under 17 admitted.
We also suggest that we have a rating of X-Q.
The Bottom Line
We recently went to see the Disney Studios and Marvel film Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. The film was rated PG. One of the scenes is of the parents of the Marvel character America Chavez played by Xochitl Gomez. America Chavez’s parents are two lesbians.
What message is Disney and Marvel Studios sending to Hispanic children who’s families are predominantly Catholic?
After seeing the most recent Dr. Strange film we learned that Zara Phythian, the martial arts stuntperson and actress who appeared in 2016’s Doctor Strange, and her husband, had been sentenced to eight years of prison after being found guilty of sexually abusing a 15-year-old girl.
We also watched as Corporate President Karey Burke of Disney, Inc. declared that she was determined to have 50% of Disney characters be homosexuals. Watch:
SCOOP: Disney corporate president Karey Burke says, "as the mother [of] one transgender child and one pansexual child," she supports having "many, many, many LGBTQIA characters in our stories" and wants a minimum of 50 percent of characters to be LGBTQIA and racial minorities. pic.twitter.com/oFRUiuu9JG
— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 29, 2022
Disney, Inc. alone owns the following franchises:
ABC
ESPN (80% stake)
Touchstone Pictures
Marvel
Lucasfilm
A&E (50% equity holding with Hearst Corporation)
The History Channel (50% equity holding with Hearst Corporation)
Lifetime (50% equity holding with Hearst Corporation)
Pixar
Hollywood Records
Vice Media (10% stake)
Core Publishing
It is past time for movie goers to understand what is in each film whether viewed in theatres or via online streaming services or on television.
Knowledge is power. Knowing before one goes to see a movie should be an individual choice but that choice must be based upon the truth of what the film contains. If the film contains any LGBTQ+ character or promotion of the LGBTQ+ agenda then it is up to the buyer to beware.
In the eyes of many Americans what is on the silver screen today is “reprehensible.” It is time for the Motion Picture Association of America to catch up with the valid concerns of we the people.
Better safe than sorry by warning movie goers of “objectionable material.”
Readers who wish to contact the Motion Picture Association of America about adding a “Q” rating please click here.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2022-05-21 06:28:322022-05-23 06:45:06Is it time for the Motion Picture Association of America to Add a “Q” Rating?
And with that the Biden regime doubles down on vaccines for the young…..
In light of the FDA’s approval of booster shots for children, my story. I was a 33 year old avid hiker, biker, and traveler. I received the Pfizer booster on 12/15/21. That was the last normal day of my life. I have not been able to walk more than 80 feet since that day. #FDApic.twitter.com/vpMXB1GaKX
BY: Expose News, May 14, 2022 (hat tip Ben Armstrong):
Official figures published by the UK’s Office for National Statistics show that deaths per 100,000 among double vaccinated 18-39-year-olds were on average 91% higher than deaths per 100,000 among unvaccinated 18-39-year-olds between January 2021 and January 2022.
This means it can no longer be denied that the Covid-19 vaccines are deadly because even the official Government published figures now prove it
The Office for National Statistics is the UK’s largest independent producer of official statistics and the recognised national statistical institute of the UK. It is responsible for collecting and publishing statistics related to the economy, population and society at national, regional and local levels.
Its latest dataset on deaths in England by vaccination status can be found here. It contains a large amount of data on age-standardised mortality rates for deaths by vaccination status between 1 January 2021 and 31 January 2022.
Table 2 of the dataset contains data on the monthly age-standardised mortality rates by vaccination status by age group for all deaths in England. The following table shows an example of how the numbers are presented in the dataset –
What immediately catches the eye when looking at this data is the mortality rate per 100,00 person-years among 18-39-year-olds in the month of January 2021. The figures show the death rate among the unvaccinated in this month was 67.7 deaths per 100,000 person-years. Whilst the death rate among the partly vaccinated (at least 21 days ago) was 119.9 deaths per 100,000 years.
This shows that vaccinated 18-39-year-olds were more likely to die in January 2021, suggesting the Covid-19 injections increased the risk of death or played a part in causing death. So we dug further and extracted all the figures on 18-39-year-olds for each month between January 2021 and January 2022, and this is what we found –
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2022-05-20 16:21:082022-05-20 16:21:58Vaxxed Young Adults are 92% More Likely to Die than Unvaccinated
And now we are sending BILLIONS over there. The more we know, the darker, more evil it gets.
This is a catastrophe of unimaginable proportion.
Excerpt:
There is one Sub-Award that stands out among the rest, and it was awarded to Labyrinth Global Health INC for “SME Manuscript Documentation and COVID-19 Research”.
An award for Covid-19 research isn’t exactly shocking when the world is allegedly in the grip of a Covid-19 pandemic, but considering the fact the sub-contract was awarded 12th November 2019, at least one month before the alleged emergence of the novel coronavirus, and three months before it was officially dubbed Covid-19, the award for Covid-19 research should come as a shock to everyone. [Click here to view the document]
But the shock doesn’t end there, because the place the contact for Covid-19 research was instructed to take place was Ukraine, as was the entire contract awarded by the DOD to Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.
The world first started to hear about a novel coronavirus in early January 2020, with reports of an alleged new pneumonia-like illness spreading across Wuhan, China. However, the world did not actually know of Covid-19 until February 2020, because it was not until the 11th of that month that the World Health Organisation officially named the novel coronavirus disease Covid-19.
So with this being the official truth, why does United States Government data show that the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) awarded a contract on the 12th November 2019 to Labyrinth Global Health INC. for ‘COVID-19 Research’, at least one month before the alleged emergence of the novel coronavirus, and three months before it was officially dubbed Covid-19?
The shocking findings, however, do not end there. The contract awarded in November 2019 for ‘COVID-19 Research’ was not only instructed to take place in Ukraine, it was in fact part of a much larger contract for a ‘Biological threat reduction program in Ukraine’.
Perhaps explaining why Labyrinth Global Health has been collaborating with Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance, and Ernest Wolfe’s Metabiota since its formation in 2017.
The Government of the United States has a website called ‘USA Spending‘, an official open data source of federal spending information. According to the site as of 12th April 2021, the US Government has spent a mind-blowing $3.63 trillion “in response to COVID-19”. But that’s not the only information on Covid that can be found on the site.
Hidden within the ‘Award Search’ are details on a contract awarded by the Department of Defense to a company named ‘Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp‘, which is allegedly “a global engineering, procurement, consulting and construction company specialising in infrastructure development”.
The contract was awarded on September 20th, 2012 and is described as “Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services”. Obviously, this is very vague and most likely of little interest to anyone who happens to stumble across it. But there is something contained deep within the details that should be of interest to anyone and everyone.
The ‘Award History’ for the contract contains a tab for ‘Sub-Awards’ detailing the recipients, action date, amount, and a very brief description for 115 Sub-Award transactions. Most of the Sub-Awards are extremely mundane for things such as “laboratory equipment for Kyiv”, or “office furniture for Kyiv”.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2022-05-20 05:03:042022-05-20 06:08:16United States D.O.D issued a contract for ‘COVID-19 Research’ in Ukraine 3 months before COVID-19 officially existed
Yesterday, I filed suit in federal court against HHS for failing to give me records on COVID vaccine safety I had requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
Let me back up to the beginning. In 1976, U.S. regulators pulled the swine flu vaccine from the market after it was linked to 25 deaths. In stark contrast, U.S. regulators have not pulled the COVID vaccines from the market despite almost 28,000 deaths in the U.S. alone that could be linked to the vaccines. So here we have a situation that is potentially more than a thousand times worse than the swine flu vaccine, but the government has left the COVID vaccines on the market. Not only that, the government spent a billion dollars to have media outlets like CNN and the Washington Post tell us the vaccines are safe. We have gotten government by phony narrative instead of a legitimate public health response. If the vaccines are safe, the government would not have had to spend a billion dollars trying to convince us of that.
In 1990, the government instituted a vaccine adverse event reporting system – VAERS. There have been a relative handful of adverse reactions to various vaccines reported every year since, but the line went straight up off the chart when the COVID vaccines were introduced. The purpose of the reporting system is to prompt the government to conduct safety studies when it looks like there’s a problem. I hadn’t seen any government safety studies of the COVID vaccines so, last November, I asked HHS for any studies they had performed and for any memo explaining their decision to perform, or not perform, such studies.
In response, I got back a government website URL where a number of studies are posted. As a group, they claim various adverse reactions to the COVID vaccines do not outweigh the benefits of the vaccines. Only one of the studies addresses mortality – the elephant in the room, the idea that the COVID vaccines just might be killing people by the thousands. That study, performed by a mix of CDC, Kaiser Permanente, and Pfizer-tied scientists did not look at the VAERS data. It performed a statistical analysis on another database. Unsurprisingly, it found “no increased risk for mortality among COVID-19 vaccine recipients.” However, “causes of death were not assessed” in individual cases and it was published last October. There have been an additional 12,000 deaths in the U.S. alone possibly caused by COVID vaccines since then [see The Daily Skirmish – 10/20/21], deaths your government has not investigated.
I never got the decision memo or most of the other records I requested. HHS was in bad faith because they referred my request to the CDC, a single component of HHS, when the decision about safety studies might have been made by the HHS Secretary or other leadership office. The CDC, from whom I received a handful of records, was in bad faith for initially claiming my request was burdensome and that other agencies and the manufacturers would have to be consulted. This was a lie because, when I asked for expedited processing, they gave me records the very next day. I went back to HHS, asking for an agency-wide search on an expedited basis limited in some respects to the subject of mortality, but there was no response. So I sued them yesterday. Now it’s out of their hands and a federal judge will decide what records I get.
I filed requests for expedited processing with the CDC and HHS because the CDC had initially wanted to leave the document production schedule open-ended and HHS had delayed matters by closing my case file in bad faith. I wasn’t willing to wait 75 years to find out when I might get records, which is how long the FDA, another HHS component, had demanded to produce records in another FOIA case, that one regarding the Pfizer vaccine. The FDA was shot down by a court which initially shortened the record production schedule from 75 years to eight months, although the litigation went on from there.
The government has 30 days to answer my complaint, and we’ll see what happens.
In the course of all this, I amassed over a hundred articles pointing to safety problems with the COVID vaccines, including mortality, and saw in a database there are thousands more. No, the government does not get to sweep this under the rug. I want to know what the government decided about mortality studies and why. I want to know why the government did not pull the COVID vaccines from the market when the situation is potentially more than a thousand times worse than the swine flu vaccine disaster.
Tomorrow, I’ll tell you about some of the COVID vaccine adverse reaction articles I gathered. They’re eye-opening.
EXPOSED – Pfizer vaccine in the UK. Deaths and injuries include: strokes, heart attacks, miscarriages, Bell’s Palsy, nervous system disorders, immune system disorders, psychiatric disorders and blindness.
16 people are now blind after covid jab – Latest AstraZeneca deaths and injuries. As well as blindness, some of the many injuries include: strokes, heart attacks, miscarriages, sepsis, paralysis, Bell’s Palsy, deafness and covid-19.
22 residents dead in three weeks in Basingstoke nursing home – ‘It is understood the outbreak started as residents began to have their coronavirus vaccines…’
A 41-year-old Portuguese mother of two who worked in paediatrics died at a hospital in Porto just two days after being vaccinated against covid-19
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Skirmish - Liberato.UShttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Skirmish - Liberato.US2022-05-19 11:36:302022-05-19 11:36:30COVID Vaccine Deaths: What Did the Government Know and When Did It Know It?
A Democratic witness testified that men can get pregnant and have abortions during a Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday on abortion access and care.
Republican North Carolina Rep. Dan Bishop first asked witness AVOW executive director Aimee Arrambide how she defines a “woman.”AVOW is a pro-abortion non-profit organization working to secure unrestricted access to abortion for Texas.
“I believe that everyone can identify for themselves,” Arrambide said.
“Ok. Do you believe then that men can become pregnant and have abortions?” Bishop followed up.
“Yes,” Arrambide responded.
Q: "Do you believe that men can become pregnant and have abortions?" –@RepDanBishop
— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) May 18, 2022
Bishop also asked reproductive healthcare Dr. Yashica Robinson, who uses “she/her” pronouns, if she could define what a “woman” was prior to questioning Arrambide.
“It’s important for you to understand why I said I use ‘she/her’ pronouns,” Robinson said. “It’s because I understand that for people-”
Bishop then cut her off and again asked “what is a woman?”
“I think it’s important that we educate people like you about why we’re doing the things we do, and so the reason why I use ‘she’ and ‘her’ pronouns is because I understand there are people who become pregnant that may not identify that way, and I think it is discriminatory to speak to people or to call them in such a way that they desire not to be called,” Robinson said.
Bishop again asked if she was going to answer his question about the definition of a “woman.”
“I’m a woman,” Robinson said.
“Is that as comprehensive a definition you could give me?” Bishop asked.
Robinson said that the most comprehensive definition she could provide for the time being.
A “woman” is defined as “an adult female person,” according to Merriam-Webster. A female has XX chromosomes while men have XY chromosomes. Men do not. have the same reproductive organs that females have and are unable to get pregnant or receive an abortion.
Robinson and Arrambide are not the only ones unable to provide a definition of what a “woman” is. The Daily Caller reached out to every Senate Democrat to see if any of our leaders would provide a definition. Each request was met with silence. Only 15 Republican Senators were willing to provide a definition of what a “woman” is when questioned by the Caller.
Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson also dodged the question during her hearing, telling Republican Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn she is “not a biologist” and therefore could not define what a “woman” is.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2022-05-19 07:15:052022-05-19 07:17:01Dem Witness Says Men Can Get Pregnant And Have Abortions
The Evangelical Lutheran Church, a mainstream church with around 3,000,000 U.S. members and its very own openly Transgender Bishop the Rev. Megan Rohrer, a former lesbian who claims now to be non binary and who likes to be known as “they or them” pronouns, just declared that their 1991 social teachings document is the basis of their support for abortion – otherwise known to others as murder.
That transgendered female former lesbian Bishop, who will lead 65 synods from its church in San Francisco stated prior to the ordination, “ I step into this role because a diverse community of Lutherans in Northern California and Nevada prayerfully and thoughtfully voted to do a historic thing. My installation will celebrate all that is possible when we trust God to shepherd us forward.”
Really?????? This was Gods work?????
Bishop Elizabeth Eaton, the actual head of the ECLA, says the church rightly teaches that abortion should be regulated BUT NOT outlawed. The church – if you can call it that – says that a fetus is a human life and is a neighbor of – wait for it – the woman and the community!!!
So the developing life, the future human being and the mother of that human life are just neighbors!! The Church teaches that abortions of fetuses from their church members is not only a decision of the mother or father but rather it happens in the community. That is with God, family, partners, friends, doctors and pastors.
Her words:- “While the leaked draft does not represent the Supreme Court’s ruling in its final form; nevertheless, it contradicts this church’s teaching. This church teaches that abortion and reproductive health care, including contraception, must be legal and accessible.”
I am sure God, my God, is not ever on the side of murdering the fetus in a disgusting and savage act that is acceptable to the extremists and leftists in our country. All the others in on the decision are doing the work of Satan. Plain and simple.
America. How is this even remotely acceptable to any bible believing, Christian male or female? How can those 3,000,000 so called members even insult God by calling themselves Christians? These people are not only sick, they are evil.
Let me tell you all one thing that is as sure as the nose on your face. This humble scribe will not EVER be calling anyone who claims to be a different sex to that they were born, a “they” or “them.” They can call themselves whatever the heck they want to but guess what? They have either an X or Y chromosome which makes them a male or female.
In 1000 years, if a body is dug up and examined, do you think they will say ahhhh… that was a transgender? A non binary? A member of the LGBTQUI community? A confused individual? A pervert?
No is the answer. They will run a test and the result will be either male or female, the two sexes placed on earth by God. Placed to breed and raise families together.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Save America Foundationhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSave America Foundation2022-05-19 06:41:382022-05-19 06:42:58The Evangelical Lutheran Church Comes Out in Support of Abortion!
