Allegations of the Salvation Army Going “Woke”

Is the Salvation Army going woke on racism? (11/26/21) observes: “A Salvation Army guide aimed at ‘courageous conversations about racism’ asks ‘White Americans’ to ‘stop trying to be ‘colorblind.’”

Stop trying to be colorblind? I thought that was the ideal, promoted by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.—to treat people according to the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

There are apparently two prominent documents from the Christian denomination (which is what the Salvation Army is) that deal with the issue of racism, issued by the American headquarters of the group in Northern Virginia.

One of them is “Let’s Talk About Racism.” Joseph Curl quoted from this document in the (11/25/21):

“Many have come to believe that we live in a post-racial society, but racism is very real for our brothers and sisters who are refused jobs and housing, denied basic rights and brutalized and oppressed simply because of the color of their skin.”

As of this writing, the Salvation Army has now pulled this document down—perhaps because of blowback. They recently issued this statement: “…the International Social Justice Commission has now withdrawn the guide for appropriate review.”

Of course, racism is a horrific evil. But some critics are concerned that rather than responding to actual racism, the Salvation Army had aligned itself ideologically with the Black Lives Matter organization, which leverages unfalsifiable and amorphous charges of “systemic racism” to drive racial grievances.

Whatever the stated intentions of Black Lives Matter may be, their stance against the family actually exacerbates poverty—by helping to break down the family.

A Black Lives Matter handout declares:

“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable. We foster a queer-affirming network.”

So much for God’s design for the family. While the extended family can be helpful, studies show what a major difference it makes in the life of the child to have a mom and a dad. The kind of “disrupting” of the nuclear family BLM advocates has actually done incredible damage to the black community.

There’s another document from the Salvation Army. “Study Guide on Racism” is still online, and thankfully it is much better.

The booklet states:

“Racism is fundamentally incompatible with the Christian conviction that all people are made in the image of God and are equal in value. The Salvation Army believes that the world is enriched by a diversity of cultures and ethnicities.”

Yes, and amen.

They also note, “The only race is the human one;” and they add,

“Followers of Jesus Christ now find essential unity in Him, rather than in culture and ethnicity. Such a way of thinking and relating is a powerful force for good. It embodies the ministry of reconciliation.”

Despite its critics, true Christianity practices real diversity, rather than the race-centered, divisive, skin-color-obsessed counterfeit promoted by the left. In Christ, there is no black, there is no white, there is no distinction of socio-economic status.

One of the goals of the Salvation Army, inasmuch as they are motivated by the love of Jesus, is to alleviate poverty. This is why they have worked tirelessly since their origin in the slums of London in 1865. They now work in 131 nations around the globe.

But anyone that promotes the disintegration of the family inadvertently promotes poverty and the further disintegration of society.

The irony is that government policies tend to create more poor people because they penalize functioning families. Welfare programs in the U.S. subsidize out-of-wedlock births, thus, creating more poor people.

The Brookings Institution says that you have a 98 percent chance of avoiding poverty if you do three things: 1) Graduate high school. 2) Work full time. 3) Marry before you have children. Only 2 percent of those who do these things end up in poverty.

As Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation points out, marriage turns out to be the single greatest weapon in the war on poverty.

It would be quite a shame if the Salvation Army ever does go “woke.” I’ve always respected their overall consistent Christian witness. I even had the privilege of once interviewing the worldwide head of the organization in London in 2001. The late John Gowans told me there wouldn’t be a Salvation Army without the Savior, Christ.

Meanwhile, after recently pulling down the controversial racism guide, they said:

” The Salvation Army mission statement clearly outlines the nature of our service: to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and meet human needs in His name without discrimination. The beliefs that motivate our service are based solely on the Bible, and that will never change.”

This is a lesson we should all heed.

©Jerry Newcombe. All rights reserved.

Best Anti-Woke Tweets to The Salvation Army

Supposedly the Salvation Army has withdrawn their policy to their employees and volunteers which stated among other emphasis on diversity, “Sorrow and repentance are needed for any negative legacy that past shortcomings have created. We acknowledge that Salvationists have sometimes conformed to economic, political, social and internal pressures that perpetuate racism”

However, they have damaged their brand as illustrated by the following posts on Twitter.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

Poll: Only 13% of Dems Want Kamala if Biden Doesn’t Run

A new poll from The Hill-HarrisX reveals that only a pathetic 13 percent of Democrats would support Vice President Kamala Harris if decrepit President Joe Biden does not run for a second term in 2024. She only barely edged out former first lady Michelle Obama, who scored 10 percent despite having repeatedly expressed no interest in running for political office.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki confirmed Monday that Biden’s intention is still to run for a second term in office, but no one believes his obviously declining mental or physical condition, at the age of 81, will enable him to finish out even this current term, much less another one. That puts the spotlight on the incompetent, unlikeable Kamala, about whom her own party is, shall we say, less than enthusiastic.

The Hill-HarrisX poll highlights that and the Democrat Party’s dearth of charismatic leadership in general. A whopping 36 percent of responding Democrats claimed they were “unsure” whom they would support for president, and another 13 percent said they would choose someone who was not on the provided list. All the other candidates, which included aging, lifelong communist Bernie Sanders, radical harpy Elizabeth Warren, grandstanding presidential-wannabe Cory Booker, wealthy elitist Michael Bloomberg, uninspiring Andrew Yang, and incompetent diversity hire Pete Buttigieg, received a mere 5 percent or less support.

None of those candidates will stand a proverbial snowball’s chance against former President Donald Trump, who not only is rumored to be running again in 2024 but also arguably won the fraudulent 2020 election to begin with.

Kamala Harris

102 Known Connections

Harris Condemns America’s “Shameful Past” vis-a-vis Native Tribes

At the National Congress of American Indians’ 78th Annual Convention on October 12, 2021 — the day after Columbus Day — Harris delivered a virtual address in which she said: “Since 1934, every October, the United States has recognized the voyage of the European explorers who first landed on the shores of the Americas. But that is not the whole story. That has never been the whole story. Those explorers ushered in a wave of devastation for Tribal nations — perpetrating violence, stealing land, and spreading disease. We must not shy away from this shameful past, and we must shed light on it and do everything we can to address the impact of the past on Native communities today.” Lamenting that “Native Americans are more likely to live in poverty, to be unemployed, and often struggle to get quality healthcare and to find affordable housing,” Harris claimed that President Biden’s multi-trillion-dollar “Build Back Better” agenda, if passed into law, would have “a significant [positive] impact on Indian Country.”

To learn more about Kamala Harris, click here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: New Variant, New Marxist Attack on Liberty

Mankind has no control over viruses unless mankind is stupid enough to create one in a lab in China and then if mankind then is stupid enough to jab millions of humans with “vaccines” that do not stop the spread of said virus! Idiots! Or, are these Marxists simply doing their jobs?

In this edition of The Ledger Report, Graham Ledger looks at the actual science behind the virus and the so-called vax and the constitutional solution to these Marxist attacks.

Please subscribe free to The Ledger Report by clicking here:

EDITORS NOTE: This Ledger Report video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: The COVID Con is the ’76 Swine Flu Fiasco on Steroids

In a social media feed Monday, I came across a 1979 60 Minutes segment on the propaganda surrounding the 1976 swine flu panic. Many of us had already heard about how the event was reminiscent of today’s COVID-1984 con, but actually watching the segment drives home how striking the parallels between the two disease scares are. Exaggerations of the bugs’ severity, media propaganda and fear-mongering, an effort to vaccinate the whole nation, serious vaccine-coincident side-effects, and an apparent government cover-up of the latter were all elements of the ’76 fiasco just as they epitomize what’s occurring today.

The segment opened with late 60 Minutes host Mike Wallace saying:

The flu season is upon us. Which type will we worry about this year, and what kind of shots will we be told to take? Remember the swine flu scare of 1976? That was the year the U.S. government told us all that swine flu could turn out to be a killer that could spread across the nation, and Washington decided that every man, woman and child in the nation should get a shot to prevent a nation-wide outbreak, a pandemic.

Well, 46 million of us obediently took the shot, and now 4,000 Americans are claiming damages from Uncle Sam amounting to three and a half billion dollars because of what happened when they took that shot. By far the greatest number of the claims — two thirds of them — are for neurological damage, or even death, allegedly triggered by the flu shot.

(Transcript hat tip:

Eerily reminiscent of today, one vaccine-induced problem was Guillain-Barre Syndrome, which also has apparently been induced by the coronavirus genetic-therapy agents (GTAs, a.k.a. “vaccines”). Wallace spoke to a woman thus afflicted; he also mentioned vaccine-coincident deaths. The video is below and well worth watching.

Yet there also were a number of differences between then and now, with a notable one being the 60 Minutes report itself. While Wallace was a liberal, the media was not so much in the Establishment tank that it wouldn’t expose its day’s “COVID” con. Thus did Wallace talk about the “U.S. government’s publicity machine,” reveal lies told by officials and grill ex-CDC head Dr. David Sencer, who devised and pushed the swine flu program and who looked in his interview a bit like a kid who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

(This said, that the swine flu fraud occurred during the tenure of President Gerald Ford, a Republican, certainly must have made the story more appealing to the EneMedia.)

Could you imagine Dr. Mouth (Anthony Fauci — “fauci” means “mouth” in Italian) being likewise grilled by the mainstream media today? Imagining it is a nice fantasy for anyone who’d like to see the imperious Dr. Mouth take one on the chin, but it’s a fanciful fantasy. Only the mainstream media have access to the man, and they’re busy deifying our prevaricating pooh-bah of pandemic prescriptions, who just recently went unchallenged in an interview after saying “I represent science.” (Narcissistic much?)

Another difference between 1976 and today is that because we weren’t as far down the Big Brother rabbit hole and Americans were more faith- and freedom-oriented — and because we weren’t facing a scary “novel” virus — lockdowns and other restrictions never materialized. In fact, I was a child at the time and don’t remember the disease being a factor in our lives at all. Along with a car trip from Jacksonville to Key West, Florida with my mother, most memorable to me about that year is that it was the Bicentennial, and quarters bearing a colonial drummer image; and red, white and blue themes, were everywhere.

We could use the spirit of ’76 — the real ’76 — today. But speaking volumes about our time is that even the spirit of 1976 now seems, relatively speaking, almost quaint and boldly and unapologetically American.

Contact Selwyn Duke; follow him on GabMeWe, or Parler; or log on to

©Selwyn Duke. All rights reserved.

Is it Ximicron or Omicron? Whatever you call it, the argument for boosters sounds like mumbo-jumbo

Politicians are just grasping at straws. That’s not science.

Insanity is famously doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Like writing columns about Covid-19. Or attributing lines to Einstein we have no reason to suppose he really said. In the wise words of Abraham Lincoln, “Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet just because there’s a picture with a quote next to it.” Or everything the government tells you including about how well it’s dealing with a pandemic.

My excuse for writing about Covid-19 again is that it is the biggest, or at least most obsessive, news story I’ve seen in a long, long time in this business. And very revealing, too, about how governments think and how we do.

We have yet another variant, called “Omicron” because they didn’t think “Xi” was funny in Beijing, and what isn’t funny in Beijing isn’t funny to the World Health Organization. And funnily enough there’s this thing called evolution which the materialists were so keen on they put “Darwin” fish with legs on their cars until it turned out diseases get to do it too. Nature is ingenious but not squeamish.

We on the other hand are very squeamish. We don’t want to get sick. Illness is medieval. Back then people had bad teeth and died of stuff. Whereas we moderns have philosopher William Barrett’s “illusion of technique” where there’s meant to be a scientific, mathematics-based solution to any and every problem including the human condition.

Thus when a plague comes along the authorities cannot throw up their hands and go “Bummer, a disease, try not to die.” They must fix it. So they threw us all into massive lockdowns with a firmly fatuous “Two weeks to flatten the curve”.

It has since become a rather poorly-kept secret that their real concern wasn’t our health but that of the government medical system. But for all the lurching about and disingenuous rhetoric, there was a shared assumption between the state and citizens that it was their duty and our right to have the disease banished by technique.

So when lockdowns didn’t do it, they said vaccines would. And when some vaccines came along governments had to say they were totally great and there was this huge supporting conformist hysteria to “get the jab” and if you asked questions you were shamed or worse. Including about why the vaccines didn’t work very well or last.

Here I strike an unaccustomed pose of moderation. I got my shots on the prudent grounds that they posed an even lower risk to me than the virus… and the countermeasures. I didn’t buy the extreme position on either side. But I really wanted the nagging and lockdowns to stop. So I did my part. Now I am routinely asked for proof of vaccination, and when I ask “against what?” people laugh nervously.

Don’t think I’m an anti-vaxxer. On the contrary, I’m vaccinated against many diseases you really don’t want to come calling, like smallpox, pertussis and “hib”. (Google it. Yuck.) I got those shots decades ago. And I’m still immune. Yay vaccines.

Now I hear that because of Omicron “It’s time to start aggressively rolling out boosters to Canadians who received their second dose 6 months or more ago.” And “Wear a good mask. Get vaccinated. Don’t be a jerk.” And “Omicron is already everywhere…. Time for widespread boosters.” All tweeted or retweeted by just one friend who’s a keen, nay obsessive, observer of public affairs.

There are thousands just like him. There’s that conformity again. And the twisted logic, because if the vaccines worked properly we wouldn’t need boosters, whereas if they don’t boosters won’t help. It’s an extension of the argument that everyone must get vaccinated because otherwise the unvaccinated will infect the vaccinated and vice versa, whose reliance on vaccines both working and not working violates the “excluded middle” recognized as fundamental to logical thought since Aristotle’s day. But not in our enlightened times.

Since Ximicron is a new variant we don’t even know whether current vaccines would protect us against it with or without boosters. Or if it’s very virulent. But we’re dealing with mumbo-jumbo with social benefits not medicine, just as politicians going we’re totally ready one day and everybody under the bed it’s safe there the next is reassurance not information.

There was a time when new medical treatments had to undergo prolonged, even excessive, testing with none of that “her body her choice” nonsense about experimental options. Now they’re pumping us full of novel spike proteins over and over in a panic and calling us jerks if we worry that it might not be entirely safe or sensible.

Why? Because a technique must work, and this one’s all we have, so it must be the ticket.

Somebody has lost their mind. And it wasn’t Einstein.


John Robson

John Robson is a documentary film-maker, columnist with the National Post, Executive Director of the Climate Discussion Nexus and a professor at Augustine College. He holds a PhD in American history from… More by John Robson


Hello world, Omicron hasn’t made Africa more dangerous!

If you want assisted suicide in Germany, first you must get vaxxed

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Decline and Fall of Journalistic Integrity

The decline of American journalism has been realized by reporters and editors acting as partisan foot soldiers instead of watchdogs. This is not the free press envisioned by the Founding Fathers or taught by my journalism mentor.

Media collusion has always been essential for enabling authoritarian government and dictatorial rule. Historically, state-run media systems have been used to disseminate propaganda as news, control the flow of information, and quash dissent, whether in Nazi Germany, the former Soviet Union, communist China, or the Islamic Republic of Iran. Though the US Constitution contemplates a free press to safeguard against governmental excess and tyranny, journalists abdicate this role when they engage in political activism through lobbying and selective reporting.

It is common today for reporters to manipulate news to fit their politics, disparage opponents, and belittle those who dare to expose their biases. Partisanship can influence reporting to such a degree that news frequently resembles state media – or public relations copy. And for all their handwringing about how conservatives and Republicans supposedly threaten democracy, it is US mainstream journalists who censor speech they find disagreeable, undercut the Constitution by misrepresenting its contents, and discourage voter choice by suppressing news that is unflattering to liberal Democrat candidates, e.g., stories of Biden family corruption that were downplayed or ignored during and after the 2020 election.

This was not how I learned when I started in the business more than thirty years ago.

When I began writing in the 1980s, I worked for Vernon Merritt, III, a southern gentleman born and raised in Alabama and an acclaimed photojournalist during the 1960s and 1970s. We met when he was publishing science and medical news magazines, but he made his reputation covering the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam War for Life Magazine and other publications. Vernon was a gifted photographer responsible for some of the most iconic magazine covers of that era. He was also an exacting editor and generous mentor.

The sociopolitical turbulence of those years turned journalism into an activist profession by encouraging reporters to inject subjective viewpoints into their reporting. Exponents of the “New Journalism” as defined by Tom Wolfe and others borrowed literary devices from fiction to infuse stories with personal perspective.

Vernon taught me to resist such trends and instead report factually. Opinions were fine for the editorial page, he said, but they should never affect the presentation of news. Though reporters as individuals may have idiosyncratic beliefs, the traditional standard was always to set opinion aside and report as accurately as possible.

But neutrality became passé as editorial standards bowed to social activism.

Vernon was older than me but despite our age difference we developed a close friendship and discussed many things – from literature and history to religion and baseball. We eventually got around to the Arab-Israeli conflict, though he was initially reluctant to broach the subject. One day, he said to me in his mellifluous Southern accent, “Lad, I have a question, but I don’t want to offend you.”

After I assured him he couldn’t offend me, he asked me why certain Jewish writers and activists he knew from the ‘60s seemed to turn against Israel after the Six-Day War. He couldn’t understand how they could be hypercritical of Israel while ignoring the belligerence of Arab nations that had launched several genocidal wars against the Jewish state and persecuted their own citizens. Likewise, he asked how they could so readily endorse a competing national narrative that repudiated the Jewish past and advocated Israel’s destruction. The more we discussed Jewish history, the less sense it seemed to make.

And this started a dialogue between us that lasted until his untimely death in 2000.

In answering his initial question, I explained that many journalists he knew were probably motivated by the politics of the day more than journalistic objectivity. When their political agenda adopted the Palestinian cause, they proceeded to falsely portray Israel as colonial and Jews as strangers to their homeland, using their media platform to advance revisionist claims over objective history.

I also explained how maligning Israel was natural for a press that harbored anti-Jewish bias long before Israel’s independence – as indicated by its shameful Holocaust coverage during World War II. He hadn’t known that the New York Times and other newspapers downplayed the Nazi genocide – often burying news of atrocities on the back pages or neglecting to mention the targeting of Jews. Or that Jewish activists who sought to raise awareness of the Shoah (e.g., Hillel Kook a/k/a Peter Bergson) were regarded as obstreperous rabble-rousers by both the press and President Roosevelt’s liberal Jewish acolytes, who defamed and slandered them.

As our discussions evolved, we agreed that blasé acceptance of media bias against Jews and Israel could pave the way for dishonest reporting on other issues and ultimately blur the line between fact and fiction. Consequently, he told me I should write articles and commentary addressing these distortions and inequities.

Commentary based on fact is truthful, he said, but activist reporting reflecting prejudice, assumption, and innuendo is not.

It seems our dialogue was prescient considering how the decline of American journalism we discussed years ago has been realized by reporters and editors acting as partisan foot soldiers instead of watchdogs against political excess and government overreach. As they have come to revel in one-sided hyperbole, they no longer serve the purpose of a free press envisioned by America’s Founding Fathers.

As Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” Jefferson understood that fulfilling this purpose required the press to remain independent and above government. Today’s mainstream media does not seem to agree, however, and instead views itself as a collective political operative. During the Trump administration, many journalists saw themselves as part of “the resistance” and disingenuously portrayed him as a fascist; and since then, they have continued to be guided by partisan loyalties that impair reportorial neutrality.

Such conduct was not unique to the Trump era but has longstanding historical precedent.

Progressive journalists in the 1930s concealed reports of Stalin’s starvation of the Ukrainian Kulaks, which left millions dead, and regurgitated Soviet propaganda when covering the Moscow Show Trials. They did this to support Stalin. Many of them admired the communist government and suppressed news that exposed Soviet brutality. Though the pro-communist sensibilities of star reporters like Walter Duranty should have been suspect at the time, their stories were generally published without counterbalance.

The problem has only worsened in recent years as the media establishment has become a platform for woke radicalism and anti-Israel propaganda.

For years now, mainstream news organizations have attempted to undermine Israel’s legitimacy with classical antisemitic canards. The ancient blood libel has been updated and restated in press reports of massacres that never occurred (e.g., the Jenin hoax); fictitious IDF assaults on schools, mosques, and hospitals; supposed killings of Arab civilians to harvest organs; and false casualty statistics provided by terror organizations like Hamas.

The same deceptive tactics employed against Israel are now used to besmirch anybody disliked by the press. One need not be a supporter of former President Trump to see how during his administration the media suspended its objectivity, touted fantastic conspiracy theories, and routinized editorial double standards – or that these practices continue today.

Witness the media’s excoriation of Trump for claiming voter fraud in the 2020 election, after it spent four years delegitimizing his presidency by validating a Russian collusion narrative that, as suggested by Special Counsel John Durham’s ongoing investigation and indictments, was actually concocted by Democratic operatives who supported Hillary Clinton. If the media were fulfilling its Constitutional purpose, it would have reported the Russian story objectively and exposed the inconsistencies that debunked its core allegations instead of peddling it as unalloyed truth.

The media’s bias can also be defined by what it chooses to overlook. Considering its preoccupation with Trump’s mental status during his presidency, for example, the failure to report on concerns over Joe Biden’s cognitive abilities would be inexplicable if not for willful ignorance. Biden’s performances at press conferences – where he calls on pre-approved reporters, responds to unanticipated queries with, “I’m not supposed to be answering all these questions,” or simply turns his back and walks away – should be ripe for inquiry. The pushback, however, has been minimal.

One need not love Trump or hate Biden to recognize the disparities.

These are not the signs of a responsible media, and they don’t represent the professional values instilled in me years ago by a mentor I admired and respected. Rather, the deterioration of traditional standards has led to a crisis of journalistic integrity. In today’s toxic media environment, the only cure is for reporters and editors to return to those standards and conduct themselves accordingly, regardless of partisan affiliation.

But I won’t hold my breath.

©Matthew Hausman, J.D. All rights reserved.

Salvation Army’s Woke ‘International Policy on Racism’

In case you’re interested.  Following is the Salvation Army’s International Policy on Racism. This is WOKENESS personified! I understand they might have withdrawn this  from their Guide to Employees .  under pressure from donors.

We have laws e.g. Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 65 which have eliminated so called “systemic racism” in the United States – yes there may be some individuals who are still bigots but, as a nation we are not nor are 99.99% of our white population.

Those who foster such Marxist principles espoused by BLM and inculcated into CRT; who extort businesses and charities into turning totally WOKE and keep people of color thinking they are victims of an evil, racist country are the true bigots and racists.

International Policy on Racism

PRACTICAL RESPONSES The universality of God’s love is clearly declared in Scripture, and must be actualised in the daily living of people (1 John 4:20).

Racism is a wrong that needs to be countered and calls for truthful acknowledgement, rectification and reconciliation on an organisational, individual and societal level. Responding at an organisational level: The Salvation Army is committed to equality, disavows discrimination and affirms racial diversity.

Sorrow and repentance are needed for any negative legacy that past shortcomings have created. We acknowledge that Salvationists have sometimes conformed to economic, political, social and internal pressures that perpetuate racism

  •  The Salvation Army will make and encourage efforts to challenge and overcome racism wherever it exists.
  •  The Salvation Army must always be vigilant and guard against the infiltration of racism in our organisation.
  •  The Salvation Army recognises the importance of robust systems to report and discuss racism without fear and will endeavour to provide these. • The Salvation Army will continue to make efforts to ensure ethnic diversity in international and territorial leadership.
  •  The Salvation Army will promote the value of ethnic diversity and inclusiveness in all expressions of Salvation Army life including prioritising resources for the education and development of all personnel.
  •  The Salvation Army will regularly review its investment portfolios to ensure that they are consistent with the values and beliefs it proclaims. Responding at an individual level: • Salvationists are expected to take personal action against racism motivated by their obedience to the example of Jesus and their respect of the image of God in every person.
  •  Salvationists are expected to seek to influence the attitudes of others by expressly rejecting racial stereotypes, slurs and jokes.
  •  Salvationists should raise their families to appreciate the diversity of cultures and ethnicities.
  • Salvationists are encouraged to join with others in combined efforts to bring about justice for the victims of racism. Responding at a societal level: The Salvation Army will seek to influence governments, businesses, civil society and other faith communities to:
    • Pursue goals of racial and economic justice. This should include efforts to achieve fair working conditions, adequate income, safe and secure housing, educational opportunities that will enhance life, and health care that is accessible irrespective of ethnicity.
    • Be aware of its responsibility to promote racial justice and ethnic diversity in private and public sectors of life.
    • Avoid and resist rhetoric that can contribute to ethnic stereotyping.
    • Encourage all people – especially leaders in society – to recognise the negative effects of racism in society and commit to rid the world of this injustice.

©Royal A. Brown, III. All rights reserved.


Trump’s White House Doctor Calls Omicron A Midterm Elections Trick

Omi-con is merely the Democrats’ ticket to stealing 2022 mid-terms.

Trump’s White House doctor calls omicron a midterm elections trick

“Here comes the MEV – the Midterm Election Variant!” Ronny Jackson tweeted Saturday.

By Joseph Guzman | The Hill, Nov. 29, 2021

  • Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) spoke out on news of the omicron variant Saturday.
  • “They NEED a reason to push unsolicited nationwide mail-in ballots. Democrats will do anything to CHEAT during an election – but we’re not going to let them!” he said.
  • The World Health Organization (WHO) classified a new coronavirus variant, dubbed omicron, a “variant of concern” on Friday.

A Republican lawmaker who previously served as White House doctor under former presidents Trump and Obama claims Democrats will use the new coronavirus variant of concern to cheat in the midterm elections.

The World Health Organization (WHO) classified a new coronavirus variant, dubbed omicron, a “variant of concern” on Friday due to preliminary evidence suggesting it carries an increased risk of reinfection compared to other variants. WHO officials said the new variant poses a “very high” risk across the globe, but noted that there is still much to learn about the strain.

Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) spoke out on news of the variant of concern Saturday, saying the strain would serve as a pretext for absentee voting, which Democrats would use to somehow cheat in the 2022 midterm elections.

“Here comes the MEV – the Midterm Election Variant!” Jackson tweeted Saturday

“They NEED a reason to push unsolicited nationwide mail-in ballots. Democrats will do anything to CHEAT during an election – but we’re not going to let them!” he added

Jackson’s office did not immediately respond to Changing America’s request for comment.

Jackson was appointed as a White House physician during the George W. Bush administration and shot to national prominence in 2018 when he gave former president Trump a glowing medical evaluation.

A March report from the Pentagon’s inspector general found that Jackson carried out “inappropriate conduct” during his time as White House doctor. The report said Jackson disparaged, belittled, bullied and humiliated subordinates, creating a toxic work environment. It also found that he used alcohol while on duty.

Jackson has explicitly denied the report’s findings.

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden Now Telling Americans To Wear Masks Indoors

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Mini-Mengele: Fauci Declares “I AM SCIENCE!”

He’s a madman. Mad with power. Unelected, unpopular with immense power.

Anthony Fauci Unleashes the Fury of Conservative America

By Darragh Roche, November 30, 2021:

Fauci Fires Back At Rand Paul After He Tells Him To Resign: ‘He Is Egregiously Incorrect’

Dr. Anthony Fauci’s recent interview with CBS’s Face the Nation has been met with anger and strong criticism by several figures in conservative circles after he said he represents science.

Fauci, who is director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), offered his own criticism of Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) during his Sunday interview, laughing off Cruz’s call for him to be prosecuted for lying to Congress.

The Republican senator responded to Fauci’s remarks on Fox News on Monday and he was not alone in his harsh assessment of the infectious diseases expert’s comments.

Cruz told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that Fauci was “the most dangerous bureaucrat in the history of the country.”

He said Fauci had talked “about hurting science but I don’t think anyone has hurt science, has hurt the credibility of the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], has hurt the credibility of doctors more than Dr. Fauci because throughout this pandemic, he’s been dishonest, he’s been political, he’s been partisan.”

Cruz went on to reiterate his accusation that Fauci had lied to Congress over National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for gain-of-function research in a lab in Wuhan, China and cited U.S. law under which those who lie to Congress can be prosecuted.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, gain-of-function research is “research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease.” It is generally intended to better study or understand certain diseases.

Fauci has denied lying to Congress and laughed off the idea he could face prosecution on Sunday. He has also denied that the NIH funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan. Coronavirus is thought to have originated from the Chinese city, and some have said that it may have leaked from a lab in the vicinity.

“I have to laugh at that. I should be prosecuted? What happened on January 6 senator?” Fauci said, responding to a question about Cruz’s push for prosecution.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), who has frequently clashed with Fauci, shared a clip of the CBS interview on Twitter on Sunday where the NIAID director said “I represent science” while responding to his critics.

“The absolute hubris of someone claiming THEY represent science,” Paul said. “It’s astounding and alarming that a public health bureaucrat would even think to claim such a thing, especially one who has worked so hard to ignore the science of natural immunity.”

Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) accused Fauci of being partisan during an interview with Fox News’ The Ingraham Angle on Monday.

“It’s just another example of the incompetence of the Biden administration. They think Tony Fauci remains a credible and impartial messenger about the Wuhan coronavirus,” Cotton said.

RELATED ARTICLE: Rand Paul: Fauci Science Declaration ‘Conjures Up Images of the Medieval Church’


EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Omicron Crackpots

I wish I could say I trust my government, but I don’t, not when they’re so obviously full of phony-baloney about COVID and trying to get me to believe the stupidest things.

Joe Biden said yesterday people should get vaccinations and booster shots to ward off the Omicron variant.  What he didn’t tell you is that people infected with the Omicron variant in Africa and Australia were fully vaccinated.  He also didn’t tell you Moderna’s chief executive is out there saying the current vaccines most likely won’t protect you against the Omicron variant and new vaccines are needed.

This whole vaccine thing is out of whack to begin with.  The emphasis has always been on vaccines, while the idea of effective treatment for COVID, strangely, has never gotten much attention.  Hydroxychloroquine was dismissed early on, despite the fact a survey of 6,000 doctors worldwide found it was the best treatment based on their clinical experience.  Ivermectin also got short shrift, even though it’s been endorsed by the Tokyo Medical Association and basically fixed India’s COVID problem.   Now comes the nail in the coffin for our government’s phony narratives about hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin:  There are now 67 studies showing Ivermectin and 298 studies showing hydroxychloroquine are effective in treating COVID-19.  But you have to sue your doctor and your pharmacist if you want to be treated for COVID with Ivermectin.  Why is that?  Do you want to follow the science or follow the government pied pipers who, themselves, might just be following the money?

Speaking of science, there are a hundred studies showing masks are not materially effective in reducing COVID transmission and are actually harmful to wear.

So much for the mask narrative, but the wheels are coming off other government narratives about COVID, too.  ‘The vaccines are effective’ – no, breakthrough cases are on the rise as vaccine efficacy drops below 50 percent.  They said close the schools even though the risk to kids was miniscule and closing schools didn’t lower the child mortality rate.   They ignored natural immunity and kept pushing the vaccines even though almost 150 million Americans have natural immunity from having been exposed to coronavirus.

Recently, Fauci claimed to be the science and above criticism – the same guy who first said masks are meaningless and ended up telling you to wear two of them.  If it’s true he is now the science, how do you explain this? – Fauci said in the 1980s that kids could get AIDS from routine nonsexual contact.  Not true.  He also said heterosexual AIDS would become 10 percent of all AIDS cases.  It’s never even been close to that.  Flash forward to COVID and we see Fauci initially saying it’s nothing to worry about, it’s just a bad flu, and you can’t rely on models to make predictions, but then he went on to rely on models to make predictions.  Fauci also claimed hydroxychloroquine was actually dangerous, but he was already in possession of information showing it was effective.  Sorry Fauci lovers, but something’s not right with that guy.

To sum up, everything government officials are telling you about COVID is wrong and there is no reason for you to believe them.

Some people are speculating about motive, saying public health officials are deliberately lying, in cahoots with the vaccine manufacturers, and deliberately killing people.  I’ll leave the speculation to others.  it’s enough for me to know I can’t rely on the government, that it’s up to me to seek out the correct information, and I’m ultimately responsible for the choices I make.  That may sound novel to you, but it’s the way it’s supposed to be in a self-governing Republic composed of what are supposed to be self-governing individuals.

Sorry if I’ve shattered your faith in government, but you never should have had that much in the first place.

Visit The Daily Skirmish

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.



A Weapon to Transform America

How Democrats are using multiculturalism and immigration to destroy America

A former Democrat governor reveals his plan to dismantle our constitutional democracy.

“Multiculturalism” refers to the progressive teaching that every culture is equally valid, and that cultural norms different from our own should be immune from criticism. In other words, if another person’s culture is cool with female genital mutilation and throwing gay men from rooftops—accepted practices in some Muslim countries—who are we to say those things are wrong? Multicultural ideology demands that America open its arms to immigrants and refugees from all cultures, even ones that condone things such as mutilating the genitals of young girls and throwing gay men to their death.

In June 2004, a conference was held in the nation’s capitol about the mortal danger multiculturalism and unchecked immigration pose to America. One of the speakers was Victor Davis Hanson, a conservative Republican whose best-selling book, “Mexifornia,” chronicles how multiculturalism and massive immigration have virtually destroyed his home state of California. A few months after the conference, former Colorado governor Dick Lamm, a liberal Democrat, delivered a stunning address that described how multiculturalism and massive immigration will, if not reversed, lead to the destruction of America as we know it.

As published on the website of conservative journalist Michelle Malkin, below are highlights of Gov. Lamm’s 8-point plan to destroy America.

I have a plan to destroy America

By Richard D. Lamm

I have a secret plan to destroy America. If you believe, as many do, that America is too smug, too white bread, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. History shows that nations are more fragile than their citizens think. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and they fall, and that “an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.” Here is my plan to destroy America.

  1. We must first make America a bilingual-bicultural country. History shows, in my opinion, that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. One scholar, Seymour Martin Lipset, put it this way: “The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy.”
  2. I would then invent “multiculturalism” and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal: that there are no cultural differences that are important. I would declare it an article of faith that the black and Hispanic dropout rate is only due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation would be out-of-bounds.
  3. We can make the United States a “Hispanic Quebec” without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with a salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural sub-groups reinforcing their differences, rather than Americans emphasizing their similarities.
  4. Having done all this, I would make our fastest-growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50 percent dropout rate from school.
  5. I would then get the big foundations and big business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of victimology. I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.
  6. I would establish dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity. “Diversity” is a wonderfully seductive word. It stresses differences rather than commonalities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other–that is, when they are not killing each other. A “diverse,” peaceful or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together, and we can take advantage of this myopia.
  7. Then I would place all these subjects off-limits–make it taboo to talk about them. I would find a word similar to “heretic” in the 16th century that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like “racist”, “xenophobe” halt argument and conversation. I would have the large foundations fund the doctrine of “victimology.” Then, I would make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra –“because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good.” I would make every individual immigrant sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact.
  8. Lastly, I would censor Victor Davis Hanson’s book “Mexifornia.” This book is dangerous; it exposes my plan to destroy America. So please, please–if you feel that America deserves to be destroyed—please, please–-don’t buy this book! This guy is on to my plan.

When Gov. Lamm finished his speech, the conference room was silent, as everyone in the overflow audience realized that what they’d just heard was being methodically carried out by the post-1960s Democratic Party in its ongoing attempt to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” through multiculturalism and massive immigration.

An immigration video worth watching and sharing

Unless significantly reduced, present immigration levels, legal and illegal, will destroy America as we know it. Prepared by the Center for Immigration Studies, the video presentation below shows the ruinous impact massive immigration is having on the country your children and grandchildren will live in. How you vote matters.

©John Edison. All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Here’s Why Your Christmas Gifts [and other essentials] are Stuck at Sea

Joe Biden says Americans aren’t smart enough to understand the supply-chain crisis.

Really? Are we that stupid?

I hate it when bureaucrats treat us like idiots and pretend to be smarter than us. Sure, Biden thinks he understands why store shelves are empty and why Christmas gifts are stuck at sea somewhere. But Biden also thinks most Americans graduated from the School of Rock and are just too dumb.

In my recent podcast, I breakdown why your favorite items are bottlenecked at sea rather than arriving at your door steps or stocked in your local store.

To help explain it all, I invite Bob Hinkle, the CEO of Southwestern Trucking in Atlanta, as a guest. Bob gives his professional insight and experience about what truck drivers are really facing during this supply-chain crisis. His stories will both fascinate and help you understand where to point your fingers.

Is the problem a lack of truck drivers, like the Biden administration wants you to believe? Or is it because of failed government policies? Lockdowns. Stimulus packages. Factory shutdowns. Covid mandates. Unemployment handouts. Green policies.

Biden doesn’t want to explain, not because you’re not smart enough, but because the answers will make him and his staff look like characters from the Dumb and Dumber movie.

Watch my recent podcast here:

©Martin Mawyer. All rights reserved.

Dr. Marik: Medical Tyranny Continues

“There are far, far better things ahead than anything we leave behind.” – C. S. Lewis.

The judge in Dr. Marik’s Virginia case denied an order to preliminarily stop the Norfolk hospital from interfering with Dr. Marik’s administration of Ivermectin and other proven Covid treatments to his in-hospital patients.

However, the court granted a future trial on the merits. It’s mindboggling why the judge didn’t see an urgency to immediately stop the hospital from killing its patients. There is nothing humane or normal when it comes to genocide.

Also note the hospital lied by omission in the preliminary hearing that no retaliation against the doctor would or had occurred when the administrator was doing just that by taking action to suspend the doctor’s in-hospital privileges.

This case is a big deal and the arrogant hospital administrator has now damaged his credibility before the judge by lying to the court in the preliminary hearing. Let’s hope there is a speedy trial in the case. I’m sure Dr. Marik will not have difficulty coming up with a host of renowned medical doctors in support of his case.

The world has gone mad when doctors and their consenting patients have to get court orders to practice medicine that will save a patient’s life.

Here is the full story:- A little long but a must read and share. Fred B.

Top ICU Doctor Suspended After Suing Hospital for Banning Life-Saving Covid Treatments.

A top critical care physician who filed a lawsuit against Sentara Norfolk General Hospital over its ban on administering life-saving drugs to treat COVID patients, has had his hospital privileges suspended.

Dr. Paul Marik, chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School and director of the ICU at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital, learned about the 14-day suspension when he arrived to work on Saturday and found a letter on his desk.

The letter was dated Nov. 18 — the same day Marik appeared before a judge in Norfolk Circuit Court requesting a temporary injunction to lift the ban, Marik’s attorney said.

Judge David Lannetti did not grant the temporary injunction, but did determine Marik had standing to bring his lawsuit, allowing the case to move forward which will give Marik the opportunity to “establish his right to administer life-saving treatments that patients have been prohibited access to by Sentara,” the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) said in a statement.

Sentara’s attorneys didn’t tell Marik about the suspension during Thursday’s hearing, nor did they mention it to the judge, said Marik’s attorney, Fred Taylor, a partner at the Virginia law firm Bush & Taylor.

In a Nov. 22 letter to the judge, Marik’s attorney accused Sentara of making a material misrepresentation during the hearing by failing to disclose the letter and telling the court the hospital would not retaliate against Marik for filing the lawsuit.

“Evidently Sentara chose, for reasons of its own, not to disclose this suspension either to the court or the plaintiff during the hearing,” Marik’s attorney told the judge.

In his letter, Taylor told the judge:

“The letter [from Sentara to Marik] gives no explanation whatsoever for the ‘coincidence’ of Sentara’s choosing to suspend Dr. Marik at this particular moment, leaving only one realistic conclusion. Sentara has engaged in a blatant act of retaliation against Dr. Marik for filing this suit and for exposing to the public Sentara’s unlawful unjustified denial of safe, potentially life-saving medicines to its COVID patients in violation of Virginia statutory law and public policy.”

In Sentara’s letter to Marik, hospital officials summoned Marik to a proceeding scheduled for Dec. 2 during which, the hospital said, “no lawyer representing Dr. Marik will be permitted and no recording/video or transcript … will be made.”

Sentara said its suspension of Marik was based in part on an allegation that he informed COVID patients that his “hands were tied” and there was nothing more he could do for them.

Taylor’s letter to the judge stated:

“At the just-concluded hearing on November 18, 2021, Sentara expressly represented to this Court that it would not discipline Dr. Marik in any way for informing his COVID patients that Sentara was preventing him from giving them alternative treatments that are, in his medical judgment (and based on unrefuted evidence) safe, and potentially life-saving and medically appropriate for them.

“Yet, Sentara has now done exactly that. Indeed it had apparently already done exactly that when it was representing to the Court that it would not do so. International or not, this was a materially false representation made to the court, and Plaintiff respectfully requests that Sentara be held to account for it.”

During the Nov. 18 hearing, Sentara’s attorney, Jason Davis, raised the issue of whether Marik has standing in the case. To have standing in a lawsuit, Marik needed to show he had a stake in its outcome or suffered an injury.

Sentara said Marik did not have standing to bring his case because he hadn’t been harmed.

“Obviously, patients who are dying in the ICU can’t come to court,” Marik told The Defender. “Sentara hospital lied continuously and incessantly but at this type of hearing, I was not in a position where I could challenge the falsities.”

Taylor accused Sentara of attempting to deprive Marik of standing through a “retaliatory, pretextual suspension that Sentara kept secret from the Court, perhaps hoping Dr. Marik would respond to Sentara by offering to drop his suit if Sentara would withdraw its suspension.”

In his letter to the judge, Marik’s legal team called for a supplemental hearing to redress the new facts previously hidden from the court by Sentara.

Sentara ban on certain COVID therapies violates U.S., Virginia medical laws, lawsuit alleges

Marik filed his lawsuit against Sentara Healthcare on Nov. 9, arguing the organization is endangering the lives of its COVID patients by preventing him from using his treatment protocol, which he says has reduced mortality rates in the ICU from approximately between 40% and 60% to less than 20%.

The lawsuit alleges Sentara’s ban on the use of certain therapies against COVID violates U.S. and Virginia medical laws and the concept of informed consent — whereby “patients have the right to receive information and ask questions about recommended treatments so that they can make well-considered decisions about care.”

Marik called Sentera’s ban on administering certain medicines for COVID patients “unprecedented” and “cruel” during his Nov. 18 testimony requesting a preliminary injunction to lift the ban.

In his motion, Marik said patients are dying “unnecessarily and unlawfully” because Sentara Healthcare is “preventing terminally ill COVID patients from exercising their right to choose and to receive safe, potentially life-saving treatment determined to be appropriate for them by their attending physician.”

In an interview with The Defender, Marik said the hospital is prohibiting the use of a COVID protocol called “Math +.” The protocol includes treating COVID patients with many drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which has determined the drugs are safe and effective.

Instead, according to the lawsuit, Sentara recommends doctors use “toxic drugs” like Remdesivir — an expensive medication associated with severe side effects — because the hospital receives a bonus each time doctors prescribe it.

In a press release, Marik said:

“This case is about doctors having the ability to honor their Hippocratic Oath, to follow evidence-based medicine, and to treat our patients the best we know how. Corporations and faceless bureaucrats should not be allowed to interfere with doctor-patient decisions, especially when it can result in harm or death.”

“Our COVID-19 protocol is based on the best scientific data available, yet Sentara claimed the medications I used were toxic and harmful, which is an absolute lie,” Marik told The Defender. “It is so outrageous.”

Marik explained:

“What happened was I was using MATH+ and I was using these medications, which I think are effective. All drugs we use are FDA- approved and very safe and they’ve been proven to be very effective for COVID, but I was banned from using them because they were dangerous, toxic and there was supposedly no data to support their use. It’s a big lie.

“What they [the hospital] want me to use is Remdesivir. We know Remdesivir increases death by 3%, increases the risk of hospital stay and increases the risk of kidney and liver failure. It does not improve patient outcomes. It is toxic. But the hospital gets a bonus if Remdesivir is prescribed. They profit from the expensive drug but not the cheap drug that people can afford.”

Marik, a highly published physician with 35 years of experience, said Sentara also tried to criticize his character, even though they appointed him as the director of ICU.

Marik said he could no longer stand by while patients died unnecessarily without proper treatment, so he had no choice but to file a lawsuit allowing him and his colleagues to administer a combination of FDA-approved drugs and other therapies that have saved thousands of critically ill COVID patients in the last 18 months.

Until September, doctors had been allowed to use ivermectin and the other medicines — ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) IV, bicalutamide, dutasteride, finasteride and fluvoxamine — to treat COVID patients.

But after the FDA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) warned against using ivermectin and other medicines for COVID patients, Sentara officials created new guidelines ordering doctors not to use the drugs.

​​Marik argued Sentara’s COVID Comprehensive Treatment Guidelines are “preventing terminally ill COVID patients from exercising their right to choose and receive safe, potentially life-saving treatment.”

Math+ protocol used around the world to safely treat COVID

According to an FLCCC press release, the MATH+ protocol, used by Marik and physicians around the world to treat COVID, is saving lives. However, since the prohibition went into place, there has seen a sharp rise in inpatient mortality.

Marik said he and his colleagues started using the Math+ to treat COVID in March 2020, because the national and international bodies provided no guidance. “So we put together guidelines and started using the protocol on March 24, and it has evolved over time as science has evolved,” he said.

The MATH+ protocol, designed for hospitalized patients, counters the body’s overwhelming inflammatory response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

The protocol is based on numerous medical journal publications and decades of research — and is founded upon the belief that hyper-inflammation, not the virus itself, damages the lungs and other organs and leads to death.

The MATH+ protocol is well-tolerated with no reports of adverse medical events, FLCCC said in a press release.

According to Dr. Joseph Varon, a renowned critical care specialist recently recognized by the United Nations for his life-saving work, the MATH+ COVID treatment protocol has achieved at least a 50% reduction in deaths from the virus in the hospitals where he serves as chief of staff.

“We take an oath as doctors to do no harm,” said Dr. Pierre Kory, president and chief medical officer of FLCCC. “I can’t think of a way of doing more harm to a patient than to not administer a treatment that you know can help them. No doctor should be forced to watch their patient die knowing that more could have been done to save them, and that is exactly what Sentara is doing.”

Medications are safe and FDA-approved, but hospital wants to use ‘toxic’ drugs

Marik said until Oct. 5, he was able to use most of the medications on the MATH+ protocol except for ivermectin, which was banned in May or June.

“They’re turning this into an ivermectin thing and it’s a very safe drug — more people have died from aspirin or Tylenol,” Marik said. “It is one of the safest drugs on the planet and the data is irrefutable, but somehow with COVID it has become a toxic medication.”

Marik explained:

“What do you have to lose when a patient is dying? When a patient is dying we do everything we can to save their lives and this system and many others are prohibiting them from getting every possible medication they can. That’s how we practice medicine, we do what we can to save the person.”

Marik said it is important for people to understand that 40% of drugs in the ICU are used off-label. “That’s the standard of care,” Marik said. “Pre-COVID, the FDA encouraged use of off-label drugs and you didn’t need informed consent to use them.”

Marik said 30% of drugs prescribed in the hospital settings are used off-label and 90% of people are discharged with prescriptions for drugs being used off-label.

For example, Marik said aspirin is recommended for atrial fibrillation — an irregular heartbeat — but that’s an off-label use. With MATH+, Marik said he can talk to families to see if they want to do it, but he can’t prescribe it. Their only option is to take a toxic therapy or transfer to another hospital potentially hundreds of miles away to utilize an alternative protocol.

Marik said:

“I try to emphasize these patients are dying. That’s why they’re there. It’s an absurd proposition to propose that I get consent from the family — or tell the families they have alternatives, but I can’t use them here, and then I have to transfer them to another hospital, which is very time-dependent.

“The longer I wait, the worse the outcome and it’s a major undertaking. To transfer an ICU patient hundreds of miles away to another hospital is impracticable.”

Marik said the hospital thinks they can do whatever they want because they control the media and they control the press, and he was put in a position where we had no option but to bring the suit.

Sentara pressured scientific journal to retract paper on COVID treatments co-authored by Marik

According to MedPage Today, the same day Marik filed his lawsuit, the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (JICM) retracted an article, co-authored by Marik, on the MATH+ protocol, which includes the use of ivermectin.

Marik said the hospital pressured the journal to retract the article because it supported the use of alternative protocols, and showed a reduction in ICU mortality.

The retraction notice cited a communication it received from Sentara Norfolk General Hospital, “raising concerns about the accuracy of COVID-19 hospital mortality data reported in the article pertaining to Sentara.”

In an email to MedPage Today, Sentara wrote:

“Sentara Healthcare felt obligated to reach out to JICM with our concerns about Sentara Norfolk General Hospital data that the authors used to make conclusions, and provide accurate data to the journal. After a thorough review by JICM’s editorial board, the article was retracted. The journal followed their retraction guidelines and procedures.”

Taylor told MedPage Today in an email, the lawsuit is not about a journal article.

“This case is about whether a hospital administration can legally prohibit critically ill COVID patients from receiving information — and treatment, if they so decide it is medically appropriate for them — about safe, FDA-approved, and potentially life-saving medicines as determined by their attending physician,” Taylor said.

A Sentara spokesperson said in a statement to MedPage Today:

“Sentara generates treatment guidelines by engaging multi-disciplinary groups of clinicians to review literature, care standards and provide expert advice. In most situations, physicians are able to deviate from guidelines to individualize care for patients. However, in some scenarios, treatments that may potentially harm patients or that are widely considered to be outside the standard of care may be limited.”

The spokesperson said the CDC, NIH and FDA “currently do not recommend the use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 due to a lack of evidence regarding its safety and efficacy.”

Marik said when he and his colleagues published their paper on MATH+, they published statistics from Sentara.

“The hospital has their own protocol and they weren’t happy the director of the ICU was using his protocol and not their protocol,” Marik said. “It was a review paper and in it we quoted mortality statistics from Sentara. The chief of the hospital gave me the data on the mortality statistics, and we had approval from the Institutional Review Board to collect data and publish it.”

After it was published, Marik said they accused them of providing false and misleading data.

“The data is accurate but obviously, with time there are some additional patients that are going to die, and that’s inevitable with any paper,” Marik said. “On follow-up, mortality went from 6.6% to 10%. They complained to the medical school, and the medical school agreed with me.”

Marik said he updated the journal article to include a note, but Sentara pressured the journal to retract the article, claiming the data was false, and then used the fact the journal article was retracted against him.

Marik said he did not bring this lawsuit because he has something to gain, it’s because he has a responsibility to his patients and physicians across the country and the world.

“I think what they need to know is that the hospital is interfering with the physician and patient relationship. The physician decides what is in the best interests of the patient, and what they’re doing is unprecedented,” Marik said. “The hospital is telling me how to treat my patients, and it goes against basic Hippocraticic principles.”

Marik said he refuses to watch another patient die from COVID knowing he was not allowed to give them proven treatments that could have saved their life.

“This case is a test case that will have implications for physicians and patients across the country,” he said.

© 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.


Megan Redshaw

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Maskless Joe Biden Caught Violating Mandates (Again)

NYC Democrats To Allow 800,000 Illegal Immigrants to Vote

Ensuring the corrupt Democrat political machine for generations to come. Buh bye, NYC.

Democrats on New York City Council to Allow Illegal Immigrants to Vote

From the story: A veto-proof majority of the Council, backed by incoming mayor Eric Adams, plans to allow over 800,000 green-card holders and non-citizen residents with work permits to vote in municipal elections. This is not a small number of additional voters: no candidate for Mayor of New York has received 800,000 votes since Rudy Giuliani in 1993. The immediate objection to the plan, which prompted even Bill de Blasio to veto it previously, is that it violates the state constitution, which provides that “Every citizen shall be entitled to vote at every election for all officers elected by the people . . . provided that such citizen is eighteen years of age or over and shall have been a resident of this state, and of the county, city, or village for thirty days next preceding an election,” and that “laws shall be made for ascertaining, by proper proofs, the citizens who shall be entitled to the right of suffrage hereby established.” It further requires the secret ballot for “elections by the citizens.” No state permits non-citizens to vote.

NYC may soon let 800,000 non-US citizens vote

Bill calls for allowing legal residents and others to vote in city elections

By Ronn Blitzer | Fox News November 29, 2021:

Fox News Flash top headlines are here. Check out what’s clicking on

New York City may soon permit hundreds of thousands of noncitizens to vote in municipal elections, while Mayor Bill de Blasio and his successor, Eric Adams, feel differently about the prospect.

The bill aims to amend the city’s charter by including a new chapter with provisions for allowing green card holders and those with work authorization to register to vote and take part in citywide elections through the creation of a separate municipal voter registration. Adams supported the concept when he was campaigning for mayor earlier this year.

“We cannot be a beacon to the world and continue to attract the global talent, energy and entrepreneurship that has allowed our city to thrive for centuries if we do not give immigrants a vote in how this city is run and what our priorities are for the future,” Adams said in February, according to the New York Daily News.

A Board of Election official opens the voting machine after Republican mayoral candidate Curtis Sliwa’s ballot got stuck at a polling place on the Upper West Side on Nov. 2, 2021, in New York City.

De Blasio, meanwhile, said on “The Brian Lehrer Show” in September that there are “two problems” with the bill.

“One, I don’t believe it is legal. Our law department is very clear on this,” the mayor said. “I really believe this has to be decided at the state level, according to state law.”

The other issue, he said, is that it undermines efforts to get people to become citizens.

“I think there’s a real set of mixed feelings it generates in me about what’s the right way to approach this issue,” he said.


The New York Times reports that the bill would allow an estimated 808,000 noncitizens to vote.

Brooklyn Borough President and New York City mayoral candidate Eric Adams listens as President Biden speaks during a meeting on reducing gun violence, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Monday, July 12, 2021, in Washington.

The bill says residents must be living in the city for at least 30 days prior to an election. It also specifies that it only applies to municipal elections and calls for a separate form of voter registration to reflect that.

“Nothing in this chapter shall be construed so as to confer upon municipal voters the right to vote for any state or federal office or on any state or federal ballot question,” the bill says.

Mayor of New York City Bill de Blasio speaks during the opening of a vaccination center for Broadway workers in Times Square on April 12, 2021, in New York City.

That difference is what leads Anu Joshi, the vice president of policy at the New York Immigration Coalition, to believe the bill would stand up to a legal challenge, despite de Blasio’s concerns.

“Any restrictions that are currently on the books really only apply to federal and state elections,” Joshi told the Times.

The bill is next scheduled for a vote by the city council on Dec. 9.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.