The Green Movement is a total assault on capitalism, freedom, and our entire way of life by the Far Left global elites. It’s implementation will cause significant economic decline in countries throughout the world. Furthermore, if this movement is not stopped, you can expect massive instability in your cities and your towns, and your communities in the years ahead.
“An unpleasant surprise to the ingenuity and resilience of the international Far Left in its environmental assault upon capitalism has been the venality, cowardice, and invertebrate tactical stupidity of much of the corporate world.” – @ConradMBlackhttps://t.co/vSryieyV4N
Germany’s economy will lose more than 260 billion euros ($265 billion) in added value by 2030 due to the Ukraine war and high energy prices, spelling negative effects for the labor market, according to a study by the Institute for Employment Research (IAB).
In comparison with expectations for a peaceful Europe, Germany’s price-adjusted gross domestic product (GDP) will be 1.7% lower next year and there will be about 240,000 fewer people in employment, said the study published on Tuesday.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2022-08-15 06:10:502022-08-15 06:11:08Germany To Lose $265 billion By 2030 Due To Green Energy Hoax
Imagine if this system were to be extrapolated to other fields.
The present system for pharmaceutical drugs requires a doctor’s prescription as a precondition for their sale to members of the public.
At first glance this seems like a reasonable plan. After all, most people simply lack the necessary information to determine whether they need or can benefit from drugs such as Penicillin, Vicodin, Albuterol, Lisinopril, Levothyroxine, Gabapentin, Metformin, Lipitor, Amlodipine, Tamsulosin, Finasteride, Digoxin, Metoprolol, Celecoxib to name but a tiny sample of those drugs covered by this rule. Moreover, even if people had that knowledge, which the average person most certainly does not, they would be totally lost as far as proper dosage is concerned.
However, all is not well under present institutional arrangements. For here we are not talking about advice and counsel from a physician to a patient. That is all well and good. Rather, the problem is that the horse is placed before the cart: the client must seek the permission of a person who is for all intents and purposes an employee of his, not an employer.
That should be the proper relationship between the two, and in the free society that is exactly what would occur. Instead, nowadays, the patient is not seeking, nor obtaining, information, knowledge, advice. Instead, he must appear on bended knee to beg for permission from his physician.
Imagine if this system were to be extrapolated to other fields of endeavor. Then, instead of the motorist telling the mechanic which of his services he requires, matters would be inverted: the former would have to gain the approval of the latter regarding the proper procedures to be followed. Instead of the customer telling the cab driver where to go, the former would have to seek approval from the latter regarding the destination deemed by him to be the most appropriate.
Similarly, the diner would have to ask the permission of the waiter as to what kind of meal to order; if the latter deemed the former’s choice to be in any way problematic, he would simply reject his request. Travelers would propose destinations to air carriers; the latter would say yea or nay. After all, doctors nowadays sometimes refuse to write prescriptions for patients if they deem those prescriptions harmful; they make the final determination to the request, not the order, of the patient.
Yes, yes, there are disanalogies here. Pharmaceuticals have life and death implications, certainly those for good health. Some, but not all of these examples are fully apropos. But this is a dramatic and accurate way of depicting exactly what is going on in the prescription system.
How should matters work, ideally? Architects give advice to builders. Mechanics give advice to automobile owners. That is exactly the relationship that should prevail between a doctor and a patient. The former should advise the latter as to proper medication. But the patient should be free to ignore what the physician says, to seek a second opinion, and to have access to whatever (legal) drug there is out there. (All drugs should be legal, but that is entirely a different matter.)
Lawyers know more than us about law; the same thing follows; they are our employees, not employers. Physicists, chemists, mathematicians, economists, musicians, plumbers, and electricians are also more knowledgeable about their own specialties than we laymen; still, this gives them not a shred of justification to boss us around.
Yes, doctors, too, know more than us, specifically about medicine. But that shouldn’t make them our bosses. Their brief should not be to permit, or to withhold permission. We, their clients, are not children. We should not be treated as such.
Walter Edward Block is an American economist and anarcho-capitalist theorist who holds the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair in Economics at the J. A. Butt School of Business at Loyola University New Orleans. He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2022-08-15 05:48:532022-08-15 05:50:13Why You Shouldn’t Need a Doctor’s Permission to Get Prescription Drugs
Same-sex relationships keep popping up in Disney’s movies.
Although I enjoyed Dr Strange: Into the Multiverse of Madness, I was disconcerted. Some aspects of wokism don’t concern me. However, one of the new Marvel superheroes introduced in this instalment of Dr Strange has two mums. Eternals, released late last year, features the first gay couple in the Marvel Universe.
Then I heard that one of the main characters in Lightyear, featuring Buzz Lightyear from the Disney-Pixar Toy Story franchise, is in a same-sex relationship.
Then I connected the dots. Who owns Marvel and Pixar? Disney.
Same-sex relationships keep popping up in Disney’s movies. They are being marketed as family-friendly films for children and teenagers – but they are now being used to make same-sex relationships more mainstream and acceptable.
We all need friends, especially in our early years. Same-sex friendship is a profound kind of love. No one has ever disputed that. “Nothing in life is more necessary than friendship,” said Aristotle – and he lived 2500 years ago. But deep affection need not be erotic.
Disney is getting its “love language” all muddled up. Children and teenagers need to be inspired by stories about selfless love, about putting others first, about heroic sacrifice. This comes first, before confusing themes about two women who have a committed sexual relationship who are called wives or mums.
In the past Disney and Marvel stories centred on ideals of love, sacrifice, heroism, perseverance, commitment, kindness, and self-control. They appealed to everyone: people of faith, people from diverse cultures, hippies, progressives, gays, conservatives — pretty much all of us.
But rather than bringing people from different backgrounds, cultures and beliefs together, Disney is disenfranchising quite a few groups and in the process making life more confusing for kids.
I have a brother with Down Syndrome. He loves Disney films and watches them with great joy. Some of his favourites are Aladdin, The Lion King, Star Wars: A New Hope, and the Toy Story series. These perennial favourites were not ideologically driven.
But films imbued with sexual complexity are going to perplex him. He knows all about the birds and bees –that a child comes from a mother and a father, or at least should come from a mother and a father.
He can tell me who Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia’s parents are or Simba’s in the Lion King, but if he’s ever introduced to the parents of the superhero America Chavez (Xochiti Gomez), he won’t get it.
In the latest Dr Strange, Chavez tells the story of how her two mums were taken from her and she doesn’t know where they are. Someone will have to explain to my brother that Chavez still has a father somewhere in the multiverse, because in our universe, every human being has a mother and a father.
Disney’s LGBTQI+ campaigns will leave him lost and confused – and not just him.
In a company-wide zoom meeting back in March, the president of Disney’s General Entertainment Content, Karey Burke, said the company “doesn’t have enough LGBTQIA leads in their content and don’t have enough narratives in which gay characters just get to be characters”. She vowed to change this “non-inclusive trend”.
Why can’t Disney stick to producing great content, family films which champion what is good, true, beautiful, and universal? Back in 1938 Walt Disney said: “everybody in the world was once a child. So in planning a new picture, we don’t think of grown-ups, and we don’t think of children, but just of that fine, clean, unspoiled spot down deep in every one of us that maybe the world has made us forget and that maybe our pictures can help recall.”
That’s the formula which transformed a small film studio in Kansas City into the world’s greatest entertainment company. Turning The Walt Disney Company into The Woke Disney Company is a betrayal of everything that its founder stood for.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexitieshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexities2022-08-15 05:31:312022-08-15 05:37:48The Woke Disney Company is turning its back on family values
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.2022-08-14 10:02:462022-08-15 05:43:00MEDIA BALANCED NEWSLETTER: We cover COVID to Climate, as well as Energy to Elections.
An AP article featured on Yahoo blamed flooding for a cardiac arrest of a teen who helped clean-up after the flooding. He was “officially added to the list of those who died as a result of the flooding.”
This is media misinformation as they fail to report cardiology findings, says Richard Ruhling, a retired MD who had a Fellowship in Cardiology, citing the American Heart Association’s journal:
“We conclude that the mRNA vaccines dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.” Stephen Gundry, MD, Circulation (November 16, 2021 Vol 144, Issue Suppl_1)
Since Biden gave the media $1 Billion to promote the shot, we do not have a free press that gives truth on this topic. A nursing home healthcare worker reported seeing 32 patients die after the shot, but it didn’t make the evening news—it didn’t fit what they wanted to say, but it’s also a silent warning posted by the FDA in 2020.
Death is one of the adverse events. Biden’s mandate of the shot is a mandate for death and poetic justice could see him die before his term is up for the millions of lives he has disrupted in collusion with a lying pharma, CDC and Fauci. Here are examples:
Marcia Angell, MD was an editor of the New England journal of medicine. She authored the book, The Truth About the Drug Companies; How They Deceive Us. The CDC the CDC makes billions from the patents they own on vaccines and their recommendations for little children to get so many shots when there’s little or no risk, but greed is in the details, says Ruhling, citing “Top Scientists Eviscerate Fauci and Daszak for ‘Silencing Debate’.”
Ruhling cites Bill Gates who said a worse pandemic is coming this fall and the gov is pushing shots again. Ruhling claims worse is coming because the mRNA vaccine has ruined the natural immune system for millions who may die this coming winter, and he offers three tips to help immunity.
Citing Colin Campbell, PhD, that whole foods, plant-based diet is best for immunity and could help most people who take prescription drugs to reduce their toxic levels. Those prescriptions are a significant reason why patients with diabetes high blood pressure and cholesterol have a higher mortality rate with covid, reported by the UK with 90% of people dying from covid are fully vaccinated. Similar figures for Israel, but the US is hiding the truth behind Biden’s billion to media.
Not only do drugs and animal products lower immunity, but sugar is why the flu season hits after the holidays. If we get sick, fasting is helpful as it enhances white blood cell hunger for germs.
Alternate hot and cold showers increase the white blood cells in circulation. Ruhling has finished his showers with 5-10 seconds of cold for 65 years since a high school coach recommended it. Extra Vitamin C can help if coming down with flu.
Ruhling says, Why wait for Biden to die—he should be impeached for pushing the shot when he knows so little of the above facts.
Classic Misinformation on from Media.
This short video could also be instructive to churches that are accepting government mandates.
The CDC dropped its recommendations for social distancing and quarantining, citing the fact most Americans have acquired some form of immunity to COVID-19. The CDC might actually have gotten something right for once, but even a stuck clock is right twice a day. Otherwise, it’s been pure quackery and lies from our public health authorities since the pandemic began.
Presidential advisor Dr. Birx admitted in her book to making things up and to lying to President Trump and to the public about COVID recommendations. ‘Two weeks to stop the spread’ was completely made up, not based on science, and she immediately set out to see how lockdowns could be extended. Social distancing was made up, too, as she had originally wanted 10 feet. She also admitted she knew the vaccines would not protect against COVID infection. They overplayed the vaccines, she said. Now they tell us, after 30,000 people may have been killed by the vaccines.
It’s not just Birx. The CDC was caught cooking the books, overstating the COVID mortality rate among children in order to push childhood vaccination. Moreover, when the CDC was asked to substantiate its claim COVID vaccines don’t cause variants to develop, it couldn’t do so. Small wonder. In country after country, new COVID variants appeared after mass vaccination began.
These quacks and liars were wrong about everything, but they possess the soul of a tyrant. Last month, L.A. public health authorities were talking up COVID mandates again acting like it was a crisis, even though doctors there said: “Only 10% of our COVID positive admissions are admitted due to COVID. Virtually none of them go to the ICU, and when they do go to the ICU it is not for pneumonia. They are not intubated… we have not seen one of those since February.” Some crisis.
They were wrong about masks. A recent study found masks are germ factories, some dangerous like staph. It also found the longer masks are worn, the greater the problems with bacteria and fungus become.
They were wrong about natural immunity. Another recent study found immunity from vaccines wears off quickly and natural immunity is better.
They were wrong about vaccine efficacy. Research from Harvard and Yale shows people who were not boosted did better than people who were. In Canada, four out of five people who died from COVID since February were vaccinated. Seventy percent of those were triple-vaccinated.
They were wrong about lockdowns. The lockdowns prevented children from building up immunity to common childhood infections. School closures had devastating impacts on education and did not reduce COVID infection rates. [more here at p. 20]
Our public health authorities are quacks and liars – case closed. And they want our trust? I’ve said many times, you are better off doing your own research and making your own decisions. But here’s what gets me: After all this insanity, there are still people out there who want more government. For the life of me, I can’t understand why.
According to many researchers, the learning styles theory is the biggest myth in education.
Are you a visual, auditory, reading/writing, or kinesthetic learner? For millions of students, this question has become so familiar that they already have an answer ready to go. Some identify as visual learners, which means that, in theory, they learn best by seeing concepts in pictures and diagrams, perhaps on a blackboard or in a video. Others identify as auditory learners, which means they learn best by hearing, or reading/writing learners, which means they learn best by reading books and taking notes. Still others identify as kinesthetic learners, which means they learn best when they can physically engage with things, such as in a chemistry lab.
For most of us, the idea that different people have different learning styles is so obvious that it is simply common knowledge. But there’s a problem here, a big problem. No matter how hard scientists have looked, they haven’t been able to find any good evidence for the learning styles theory. Indeed, many academics who study this for a living consider learning styles to be one of the biggest myths in education.
“There is no credible evidence that learning styles exist,” write psychologists Cedar Riener and Daniel Willingham in a 2010 paper titled The Myth of Learning Styles. “Students may have preferences about how to learn, but no evidence suggests that catering to those preferences will lead to better learning.”
If that sounds far-fetched, well, there’s plenty more where that came from.
In a 2009 review paper entitled Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence, researchers investigated the “meshing hypothesis,” which is the idea that students learn better when instruction is provided in a format that matches their learning style. Their conclusion is a hard pill to swallow. “The contrast between the enormous popularity of the learning-styles approach within education and the lack of credible evidence for its utility is, in our opinion, striking and disturbing,” researchers wrote. “If classfication of students’ learning styles has practical utility, it remains to be demonstrated.”
A 2006 study looking at multimedia instruction came to a similar conclusion. “There was not strong support for the hypothesis that verbal learners and visual learners should be given different kinds of multimedia instruction,” the authors concluded.
But perhaps this is just a few fringe studies? Perhaps there is still some debate on this within academia? Not so, says the American Psychological Association. “Many people, including educators, believe learning styles are set at birth and predict both academic and career success even though there is no scientific evidence to support this common myth,” the APA wrote in a 2019 press release titled “Belief in Learning Styles Myth May Be Detrimental.” The release goes on to say that “numerous studies have debunked the concept of learning styles,” and that there is a “lack of scientific evidence supporting them.”
This lack of evidence stands in stark contrast to popular opinion. Indeed, surveys show that 80-95 percent of people in the US and other industrialized countries believe in learning styles.
Having said all that, it’s important to be clear about what exactly researchers are criticizing when they talk about the myth of learning styles. They aren’t saying there are no differences between students, or that tailored teaching approaches can never be helpful. There are plenty of individual differences between students, such as talent, background knowledge, and interest in the field, and researchers agree that teaching with these differences in mind can have a positive impact.
There is also evidence that using multiple teaching approaches together (such as words and pictures) tends to improve learning across the board, a phenomenon known as the multimedia effect. Again, researchers don’t take issue with this. What they dispute is the idea that each student has a particular learning style, and that teaching to a student’s preferred learning style will improve their educational outcomes.
Questioning the Unquestionable
For many people, the idea that learning styles don’t have scientific support is likely a bit of a shock. How could we be so wrong about something so fundamental? And how could so many people believe this if it wasn’t true? These are good questions, and they’re worth exploring. But a more unsettling question also comes to mind.
If we could be wrong about this, what else might we be getting wrong about education?
What if there are other things we’re doing in the school system that are also seriously flawed, even though we don’t realize it? What if there are other widely-believed assumptions that would also prove untrue upon closer inspection? We fall so easily into habits and routines that we become slaves to the status quo. Is it really a stretch, then, to suggest that we might have missed something else as well? Is it a stretch to wonder whether we’re even getting this whole education thing right?
What if there are better ways to learn than typical schooling, ways we haven’t even thought of? What if we’ve been duped into thinking that what we have now is the best possible approach, but really the only reason we think that is because it’s all most of us have ever known? What if most of the stuff we think is “common knowledge” about education is actually straight-up wrong? These are questions worth seriously considering.
We’re told that sitting in a classroom 6 hours a day is what kids need. But is it really? We’re told that everyone should learn the same thing at the same age, but is that really best? We’re told that everyone needs at least 12 years of formal schooling, and that this schooling should take place between the ages of 6 and 18, but is that really true? Once you start questioning the fundamental tenets of schooling we all take for granted, you realize there’s a lot we might be getting wrong.
Fortunately, we live in the 21st century, with technology and insights that previous generations simply didn’t have. As such, now is a better time than ever to go back to the drawing board and question the fundamental assumptions that form the bedrock of the education system as we know it.
Change is hard, of course. When we start asking questions that no one has asked for decades, it can be uncomfortable. But in the end, not changing is harder. When we allow myths about education to fester, like the myth of learning styles, we only do a disservice to the next generation. So rather than seeking out validation for our pre-existing views, let’s be courageous and have an open mind about these things. Let’s put our theories about education to the test and see whether they stand up to scrutiny.
The education system has been stagnant for far too long, and the persistence of bad ideas like the learning styles theory is a testament to this fact. So rather than sticking with the status quo, perhaps it’s time to put our old education assumptions aside and seek out a better approach.
Researcher Brian Shilhavy compared VARES reports of cancer after COVID vaccine injections over the last 20 months with the same query of all FDA-approved vaccines throughout the last 30 years.
By: Patrick Delaney, Aug 5, 2022:
(LifeSiteNews) – A researcher who queried the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) discovered a 10,661.4% increase in cancer reports as a result of experimental COVID-19 gene-base vaccines as compared with all FDA-approved vaccines over the last 30 years.
Brian Shilhavy, who is the editor of Health Impact News, traced his steps in the search providing links to documentation of his various findings.
Having first queried the cases of “the most common cancers [that] had been reported following COVID-19 vaccines,” he found “837 cases of cancer, including 88 deaths, 66 permanent disabilities, and 104 life threatening events (Source).”
He emphasized that even these numbers were not exhaustive, and the VAERS database could not handle the larger search of “ALL cancers listed in VAERS” under this category of COVID inoculations.
“Using the exact same search terms for cancer,” he wrote, “I then searched ALL FDA-approved vaccines for the previous 30 years and found only 140 cases of cancer reported (Source).”
“That result is for 360 months (30 years), whereas the 837 cases following the experimental COVID-19 vaccines were reported in just 20 months, since the roll out of the COVID-19 shots beginning in December of 2020,” Shilhavy wrote.
“That is an increase of 10,661.4%!” he concluded.
Shilhavy, whose organization is located in Texas, also made note of the significant number of the cancer cases in the database that were of young people, from age 12 up through many young adults in their 20s.
Last October, a Swedish lab study found that the spike protein associated with the COVID-19 illness, and its experimental vaccines, enters the nucleus of cells and significantly interferes with DNA damage-repair functions, compromising a person’s adaptive immunity and perhaps encouraging the formation of cancer cells.
In March 2021, board-certified pathologist Dr. Ryan Colereported that he was seeing a massive “uptick” in various autoimmune diseases and cancers in patients who have been COVID-vaccinated.
“Since January 1, in the laboratory, I’m seeing a 20 times increase of endometrial cancers over what I see on an annual basis,” he said.
In regard to overall adaptive immunity, Cole describes, “post-vaccine, what we are seeing is a drop in your killer T-cells” that “keep all other viruses in check,” leaving the patient susceptible to a variety of illnesses.
In January, data leaks given by three “decorated high-ranking soldiers who are doctors and public health officials,” in sworn declarations under penalty of perjury, showed enormous spikes in dozens of diseases following COVID vaccine uptake in the U.S. military.
These also include 55,719 permanent disabilities, 50,739 cases of myocarditis/pericarditis, and 14,374 reported cases of shingles.
As such figures are based on voluntary reports, it is important to note that they are very likely just “the tip of the iceberg” in actual figures.
A 2010 Harvard-executed study commissioned by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) revealed that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events” are reported to VAERS, and vaccine manufacturer Connaught Laboratories calculated at least a “fifty-fold underreporting of adverse events” in a confidential study.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2022-08-12 06:05:202022-08-12 06:06:09Gov’t Database Reveals 10,000% Increase in Cancer Reports Due to COVID Vaccines
Boston Children’s Hospital posted a video promoting hysterectomies as a form of “gender-affirming” medical care, along with several other clips explaining vaginoplasty, facial feminization surgery and other medical treatments they offer.
The term “gender-affirming care” refers to sex change treatments to help people with gender dysphoria to present as the opposite sex, including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries. The video featured a doctor describing hysterectomies — the surgical removal of the uterus — as a form of “gender-affirming” treatment while smiling as upbeat music played in the background.
“A gender-affirming hysterectomy is very similar to most hysterectomies that occur,” Dr. Frances Grimstad of Boston Children’s Division of Gynecology explained in the video. “A hysterectomy itself is the removal of the uterus, the cervix — which is the opening of the uterus — and the fallopian tubes, which are attached to the sides of the uterus.”
“Not only has trans ideology taken my daughter, but now it is threatening my vocation and sense of self as a provider of women’s healthcare.”
“We will be examining our gendered naming conventions including the Women’s Clinics and Mother Baby Clinics in order to be inclusive of those who do not identify as women.”
As the Executive Medical Director for Women’s Services for my organization, the email landed like a punch to the gut.
I am an OBGYN and leader in my organization, where we take great pride in the respectful, high-quality care we provide patients. We are especially proud of our partnership with community organizations in our efforts towards reducing disparities in birth outcomes. Our efforts towards inclusivity include sensitivity to different family configurations and use of pronouns with our patients. But now—will we no longer be identified as caring for women or mothers?
My sensitivity to issues involving transgender individuals started as these issues began to seep into the media. I wondered: Why are people fussing over what bathroom is used? Don’t they have something more important to think about? If a child’s path to self-acceptance is through transition to the other gender, why would we object? After all, it’s a rare situation.
This all changed when the gender storm hit my family. My daughter was bright, and social with adults from an early age. She had always been a typical girl. Her friends were virtually all girls. She begged for Cinderella dresses and preferred to wear purple and pink. She ignored her older brother’s books and toys, instead preferring crafty activities. She never asked to wear his hand-me-downs. In early high school, she started going by a gender-neutral name. I laughed when I started receiving emails addressed to the mother of “X”. I assumed it was just another one of my independent daughter’s quirky pranks.
This was followed by her hair getting shorter and shorter, finally culminating in a shaved head. I know now that is a typical foreshadowing of what was to come but, at the time, I was naïve. It simply never occurred to me that this was anything beyond a teenager trying on different styles. A year into the pandemic, her mental health deteriorated. She would fly into rages easily, and became intolerant of any request or slightly negative comment. It became more difficult for her to attend on-line classes and she began missing commitments. Finally came the statement: “Mom, I am a boy.”
My first response was a deep sigh as I braced myself for a shared struggle to figure this out. I took responsibility for communicating this news with my family. I reiterated my support for my daughter. Despite my initial affirming response, her anger at me only grew.
My husband and I met with an on-line support group for families of trans-identified kids. There we heard similar stories of previously gender-conforming girls whose declining mental health was not reversed when they began testosterone. One family of a 5-year-old natal male shared, “We are a gender expansive family. We asked our child if they are a boy or a girl. She said a girl and we are here to learn how to support her.” This announcement was met with accolades from the group. My husband and I got off the call and turned to each other. What on earth is happening? Are they really willing to engage in this social experiment with their child?
The 14 months since then have been a whirlwind of learning and crisis. I have since immersed myself in understanding the literature as it relates to the care of gender dysphoric children and young adults. I now know the science doesn’t support transition as a path to well-being. I recognize the steps of my daughter’s journey into the cult of transgender ideology. I see how her middle-school body dysmorphia and conflicted relationship with her dad set her up for this. While I spent those years watching for signs of an eating disorder, I now see that I should have been on the lookout for the “new anorexia”, gender dysphoria. As things became even stormier at home during these months after her announcement, my daughter moved out and into the home of a friend. She has since graduated from high school, started college, dropped out of college and spent three weeks in a psychiatric facility. I have periodically raged at her, raged at the world and always raged at myself.
My grief has been dominated by a deep fear for her future. The 60 Minutes segment featuring detransitioners was aired in the same month she shared her news with me. The tragedy of the detransitioners’ regret has always been front and center for me. I grieve the loss of the beautiful young woman with a passion for singing that my daughter used to be, now replaced by this unkempt, angry, gravelly-voiced stranger. Grief has often been mixed with self-hatred. Why didn’t I catch this sooner? How did I not protect her from the harm that put her at risk? What kind of a woman am I that my daughter would want to be a man? My grief has been tinged with a deep sense of betrayal. How can you just quit the team?
Through all the turmoil and my great despair, I have had great support. My husband is a rock. My family has wrapped their arms around me and are bravely, persistently positive to my daughter.
And I have taken tremendous refuge in work. As I berate myself for my apparent failure parenting a daughter, I take comfort that I am contributing to an organization that provides for women. I take joy in the work, knowing that we support women as they grow into young adults, as some of them become mothers and throughout their lifespans.
Many times, in the depths of my anguish over my daughter’s wellbeing and our damaged relationship, I had been pulled into a position of equanimity by the sense of accomplishment or good that had been done as part of the woman’s health team I work with.
The afternoon the email arrived I had left the office for a haircut. As I waited in the lobby, I quickly checked my phone for any needs that had arisen in the past hour, and my heart started pounding as I digested the message. When my hairdresser called me back and I laid my head back into the sink, the shock of the email washed over me. Tears crept out of the corners of my eyes and mixed with the soapy water. By the time I returned to my inbox, several colleagues had responded to the email with messages of support for the effort. I felt alienated from the team with whom I work so closely. I spent the evening in a new state of grief—not only has trans ideology taken my daughter, but now it is threatening my vocation and sense of self as a provider of women’s healthcare.
Subsequently, the team acquiesced to my plea that the needs of women to have sex-specific medical care should not be subjugated to the needs of men, even when those “men” have female reproductive parts. We are setting aside renaming our services for now and are instead considering sensitivity training to ensure our staff are well prepared to accommodate transmen in our care settings.
I was able to influence the direction for two reasons only: 1. I have a position of power and 2. my colleagues know the situation my daughter is in and are trying to treat me gently. But I have only kicked the can down the road. Either I will ultimately decide I am not the right leader for the organization at this moment in time or, hopefully, others will see the pendulum has swung too far and attitudes will settle into a more moderate position. For the sake of the women we serve, I desperately wish for the latter.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexitieshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexities2022-08-10 10:43:552022-08-10 10:44:57Trans: A threat to my daughter, my family, and women’s healthcare
“This is a new poverty that scares me. It is the generative poverty of those who discount the desire for happiness in their hearts, of those who resign themselves to watering down their greatest aspirations [family], of those who are content with little and stop hoping for something great.”
And here’s billionaire Musk on Twitter: “A collapsing birth rate is the biggest danger civilization faces by far.”
As expected, PC corporate media pushed back against both the pro-natalist Pontiff and the flaky father-of-nine world’s richest man.
In the midst of this comes yet another survey on the opinions of Americans about having children. The study in the journal Scientific Reports, “Prevalence, age of decision, and interpersonal warmth judgements of childfree adults,” is authored by Michigan State University professors Zachary P. Neal and Jennifer Watling Neal. It grabbed headlines.
The headline? “More than 1 in 5 US adults don’t want children.”
As the authors more accurately explain:
In a 2022 study of 1,500 adults in Michigan, wefound that 21.64% of adults do not want to have children and therefore are choosing to be childfree. While our survey wasn’t nationally representative, the 2021 Census showed that Michigan is demographically similar to the United States in terms of age, race, education and income. If the pattern we have observed in Michigan reflects national trends, it would mean 50 million to 60 million American adults are childfree.
Given the times, this is not surprising. In many quarters it is considered thoroughly modern, environmentally conscious, and propitiously PC to foreswear progeny. While Pope Francis and Elon Musk see it differently, what do they know? (Sarcasm, OK?)
The authors describe those not wanting to have children as “childfree” and those unable to have children as “childless.” The semantic implications are obvious. Being “free” of something, as in debt-free or disease-free, is considered positive. “Childfree” carries a similar semantic connotation.
Some say that willfully not having children – aka “childfree” – is exercising “reproductive freedom.” The American Civil Liberties Union defines reproductive freedom as the right that “every person can make the best decision for themselves and their family about whether and when to have a child without undue political interference.”
Reproductive freedom is the right to have children. Let’s talk about that.
The globalist establishment’s colossal cash cow, the American middle class, is being milked dry. For generations the American family has been under all-out attack. Debased entertainment, a debilitating social welfare system, callous manipulation by big business, big government (including education) and big media are bad enough. Then there is “pride” propaganda celebrating practically any social arrangement other than the loving traditional nuclear family.
America’s families are ensnared in a real-life Big Squeeze: besieged by woke anti-family propaganda on one side and an exploitive, corrupt crony capitalism masquerading as a “free market economy” on the other. Brainwashed up-and-comers believe such a regime is “the free enterprise system.” In their blind naivety they happily condone wage slavery as vociferously as they would condemn chattel slavery.
Reproductive freedom? The problem is a profound one of social priorities. The family is no longer the focal point of life in America. Money and lifestyle are. Family values are supplanted by hedonism and greed, those glittering globalist assault weapons pounding the American family.
The family is by far the most battle-scarred victim of globalism’s fanatical philarguria (that’s Biblical Greek for greed on steroids). The days when a middle-class parent could stay home and care for children are long gone. Think that affects reproductive freedom?
Women may enjoy their work but work they must. Fine – but safeguard their reproductive freedom by not making it professionally ruinous to bring a child into this world.
Then there are the usual family pressures, such as the ever-present specter of unemployment, escalating debt and the demand for employee fealty to the point where supervisors come before spouses. Talk about skewed priorities! Any wonder that broken homes, broken lives, drug addiction and other social pathologies increase? How does that impact reproductive freedom?
Bottom line: Where do families most feel the pinch? They are being denied their reproductive freedom. The pernicious reality is that there is no specific law prohibiting procreation, but rather the circumstantial deprivation of that basic human right by a thousand cuts, driven by a fashionably materialistic anti-natalist worldview.
How so? Having children is (1) unaffordable — not enough money and (2) struggling to make ends meet, so not enough time for children. Plus, the relentless tsunami of PC negativity about our heritage, “antiracist” guilt propaganda, environmental scaremongering, etc. discourages legions of impressionable young people from aspiring to have a family.
Multitudes have borne the sadness and loss of being unable to have the children they desire – a wholesale robbery of reproductive freedom. That is the biggest and most underreported story of the last 50 years.
Pope Francis and Elon Musk understand this.
So the next time you hear folks yapping about reproductive freedom, remember that means the right to have children, and the deprivation of that basic human right in any way is viciously anti-family. Period.
Louis T. March has a background in government, business and philanthropy. A former talk show host, author and public speaker, he is a dedicated student of history and genealogy. Louis lives with his family… More by Louis T. March
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexitieshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexities2022-08-10 10:34:032022-08-10 10:35:57Reproductive choice is a choice to have children. Anything else is a fraud. Period.
The so-called ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ passed by the Senate contains $250 billion in Energy Department loan guarantees for, among other things, renewable energy. This should scare the bejeezus out of anybody who remembers the Solyndra green energy scandal during the Obama administration overseen by none other than Joe Biden.
The scandal resulted in $2.25 billion taxpayer dollars lost and a hundred criminal investigations. The centerpiece of the scandal was the disastrous $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra which went bankrupt. Many other companies went bankrupt as well, like electric car maker Fisker Automotive which received a $529 million dollar loan to build a factory in Delaware, of all places. Hmm, wonder how Delaware got selected. Battery maker A123 went bankrupt after getting $250 million in stimulus money. Then there was the Crescent Dunes thermal solar power plant in Nevada which got almost a billion dollars in federal financing, but never reached its energy output targets, and went bankrupt in 2014.
Strict controls were promised for the loan guarantee program but, instead, we got good old-fashioned graft and corruption dressed up in a shiny new eco-friendly coat. Now we can expect a new round of companies to go bankrupt because they’re ill-conceived and have to turn to government for funding after finding no one in private financing will touch them.
The government loan office is already back in business. In May, the Energy Department announced a $500 million loan guarantee for a hydrogen storage facility in Utah, the first clean energy loan guarantee since 2014. But federal spending on fanciful environmental projects never really stopped. For example, $5.5 billion in funding for electric public transit vehicles was announced in March. Too bad about that electric bus that caught fire and burned up in Connecticut in July. The taxpayers got smoked on that one.
You can already catch whiffs of corruption in federal energy project spending under the Biden administration. A Biden mega-donor got a $500 million government loan to build a solar company in India. The federal agency involved has a history of prioritizing politically connected projects backed by huge political contributors. Joe Biden’s choice to head the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is all in for Biden’s green energy push and with good reason. He spent years lobbying for a company that is behind an offshore wind farm backed by the administration. A Democrat congressman from Illinois pushed for $273 billion in ‘tax credits for clean energy’ without disclosing his ownership interest in an alternative energy company that stood to benefit from the subsidies.
A top deputy for Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm pushed several policy recommendations from an energy storage industry lobbying group she used to work for. Granholm herself comes from the green energy swamp, being a big investor in a green energy company until ethics rules forced her to sell her stake for a cool $1.6 million profit.
So, what we have here is a new Solyndra Corruption Act handing a bunch of green energy cronies a huge new pile of federal money with which to enrich their friends in the green energy swamp. Expect prior patterns from the Solyndra scandal to hold. Expect more green energy companies to gorge themselves on government dough and go bankrupt. Expect taxpayers to lose billions more, and expect some of the loot to end up in the pockets of Biden cronies. We know this is going to happen and a lot more of our money will go down the drain. The only question is, how much are we going to be scammed out of this time?
The meth epidemic is normally described as the concentrated spread of methamphetamine throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. But because of the advent of OxyContin in 1996, the opioid epidemic soon took a front seat in the discussion of drugs in America. It is common to assume that America has transitioned from a meth problem, then to an opioid problem, and now to a benzo problem. But did the meth epidemic ever go away? Here’s what you need to know about this forgotten epidemic and how meth addiction continues to spread across America.
Developed, Modified, and Regulated
The evolution of meth might have a deeper history than you think. Amphetamine was originally developed in Japan and used to heighten the alert of military soldiers. By the 1960s this drug found its way into widespread use across the globe and grew in popularity for another two decades. At that point, the problem exploded in size, as the chemical process to create meth from amphetamines was discovered. With this backdrop, the highly potent new drug was ready to hit the ground running, producing what is known as the meth epidemic between the 20th and 21st centuries.
Since then, regulations over the last two decades can attribute to the downward trend of meth. However, worldwide meth statistics show that this drug is anything but ‘old news’. It is a difficult battle to shut down a drug that is made from cold medicines found over the counter. In places like Mississippi, the plan of attack has been to require a prescription for the purchase of cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine, the key ingredient to cook meth. While this has been an effective way to curb the spread of meth, that regulation in Mississippi was reversed just this month. Many are worried that this will rewind the clock of progress for meth decline in Mississippi, and across the country as new production sites begin to pop up again.
Despite the bad news that potential meth labs now have a strong footing to take hold of America and make up for lost time in places like Mississippi, there remains another important piece of information that signals a growing threat. One DEA chemist involved in numerous meth takedown operations around the world has noted that the chemical structure of meth today has changed from the last few decades. Now, chemists involved in black market meth production have found a way to make the drug more potent and decrease some of the adverse side effects. However, this does not change the effects of meth as a deadly neurotoxin. In fact, some producers are moving away from ephedrine and using harsh chemicals such as those used in tanning oils, perfumes, and even racing fuels. But when people can get their hands on a drug that produces an intense high with less negative experience during the high, such as heart palpitations, they will likely not be concerning about what the ingredients are.
The silencing of such warning signs from our body only makes overdoses that much more likely. Many deaths attributed to meth overdose occur when people’s hearts suddently stop beating, but this normally occurs after users experience the repeated warning signs from the body that an overdose has occured. When these more potent forms of meth are taken, the intensity of the high and the silence of the body’s warning signs creates a fine line between drug use and drug overdose.
The Way Forward
Unfortunately, overdose rates are increasing severely, with recent numbers showing a 180% increased fatality rate from 2015-2019. The drug is also spreading at an alarming rate among Alaskan Native, African American and Native American communities. And while this can relate to the more potent form of meth being made, it also speaks to the growing problem of drug cutting. There is an ever-growing list of illicit drugs being cut with the deadly opioid fentanyl, and meth is no exception. Fentanyl is a deadly drug on its own because of its high potency and risk of overdose. But fentanyl (an opioid) mixed with meth (a stimulant) creates a perfect storm of destruction on the body, and this deadly mixture is being found more and more in the bodies of those dying from an overdose.
Meth use has not gone away. With new production innovations and varieties of the drug, meth is as dangerous and as accessible as ever. Drug cartels and dealers are not going to give up such a profitable industry, despite what laws and restrictions are in place. The way forward starts at the ground level. It starts with informing those who are interested in the drug about the widespread dangers and high potential for meth addiction. But it also starts with encouraging meth users to seek dedicated treatment, designed to help them get through the detoxing process in a safe and effective way. The day that this epidemic goes away will not come until enough people decide that the risk is not worth the fleeting reward.
As with anything you read on the internet, this article should not be construed as medical advice; please talk to your doctor or primary care provider before making any changes to your wellness routine.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Kevin Morris Delphi Behavioral Health Grouphttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngKevin Morris Delphi Behavioral Health Group2022-08-10 08:55:052022-08-10 08:55:05The Forgotten Epidemic: How Meth Addiction is Spreading Across America
Week before last, I told you about a lawsuit brought by the state Attorneys General of Missouri and Louisiana against the Biden administration for colluding with Big Tech to censor free speech on COVID, the 2020 election, Hunter Biden’s laptop, and mail-in voting, among other things. The case is getting interesting because the judge is allowing the plaintiffs to proceed with discovery and because people who were censored – the Gateway Pundit and scientists and doctors who criticized the COVID lockdowns – have joined the suit.
So keep your eye on that one, but understand the move to silence the political Right in this country is not confined to the Biden administration. Every corner of the Left is jumping in.
A professional Gay Gestapo group called for more censorship of information from the Right on social media and said the platform companies should become pronoun police.
A trans mafia group got a theater in Minneapolis to cancel a show by comedian Dave Chappelle whose jokes they didn’t like. Twitter supports the trans mafia, suspending Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, and a dozen others for poking holes in the phony transgender narrative. Heck, Twitter even canceled me for posting Tea Party information a few years ago.
A Democrat Senate candidate in Iowa demanded a town mayor take down a ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ flag outside somebody’s house. This guy is a real authoritarian because, when he was a Vice Admiral in the Navy, he banned Fox News at meal time, and wouldn’t let his sailors watch it.
A medical board threatened to decertify doctors for telling the truth about abortion; for example, how abortion is linked to breast cancer and infertility. Congressional Democrats and the New York Attorney General asked Google to hide information about pro-life pregnancy centers in its search results.
The Fairfax County school board in Virginia – professional left-wing activists all, and not a single parent among them – voted for mandatory speech guidelines and will now suspend any student as young as ten who misgenders another student or calls them by the name they had before they transitioned.
College administrators are using ‘bias reporting systems’ to punish the free speech rights of conservative students on campus. Under these systems, students are asked to inform on each other and report supposed incidents of bias regarding race, sexual orientation, and even ‘smoker status’ and ‘intellectual perspective’. The threat to free speech is obvious even before you get to ‘intellectual perspective’. Informing on your neighbor for saying ‘I don’t like the Democrats’ – are you kidding? Inform – that’s what they do in communist countries.
California Democrats introduced a bill to strip nonprofit groups on the Right – but not the Left – of their tax-exempt status if a claim can be made the groups endorse ‘insurrection’ or engage in ‘conspiracies’. Sounds like a roadmap for political persecution to me. I think they should throw in “conspiracy to undermine national integrity” while they’re at it. That’s the phony charge the Sandinista regime just used to put an opposition figure in prison for 10 years.
NPR formed a ‘disinformation team’ which is rich because NPR covered up the Hunter Biden laptop story and claimed there was no evidence Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, among other fits of disinformation of its own. In a recent speech, Barack Obama called on social media to “detoxify our discourse, particularly the scourge of ‘disinformation’.” You can dress that up any way you want, but it’s still censorship and thought control.
Controlling the information environment is a cult technique. Preventing information from coming in from the outside and telling members only to rely on what the cult leaders tell you is a cult technique. You don’t want people to think you belong to a cult, do you?
Maybe you like belonging to a cult, but I’ll tell you this: you’ll never shut me up until you pry this microphone out of my cold, dead fingers. And there are many more just like me and we’re organized. Seventy-five of us grassroots writers and media hosts with sizeable platforms of our own have formed a group and you’ll never succeed in silencing us all. If you start with me, I will sue you into oblivion and I have the trial experience to do it.
“In 2021, by far the most common reason given was that the woman ‘[did] not want children at this time.’” — Sarah Terzo, LifeNews.com
We have long reported that abortions are done to correct an error “named pregnant” and not because of rape or incest. We have interviewed women who committed adultery or just take the necessary steps, like take birth control pills or have their sex partner use condoms, to get rid of their “mistake.”
We reported that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, envisioned a world with no “tradition” or “moral taboos.” A mother killing its unborn child is the ultimate in having no moral taboos or morality at all.
The Bottom Line: Abortion — Birth Control — Population Control.
Now we have a report that proves our reports were spot on.
Minnesota has released its report on abortion in the state in 2020 and 2021. The report points out reasons why women had abortions. In 2021, by far the most common reason given was that the woman “[did] not want children at this time.” Eighty-four percent of women who responded gave this reason for their abortions.
According to a poll from January 2022 summarized by Live Action News, “54% of voters polled said abortion should be illegal at all or most of the time, and 43% percent said it should be illegal except in cases of rape.”
Less than 1% of Minnesota abortions in 2021 and 2020 were committed because the mother was a victim of rape or incest, and no abortions were reported either year to save the life of the mother.
Here is the breakdown of Minnesota’s other statistics. The numbers don’t add up to 100% because some women gave more than one reason. Of the 65% polled who answered the question:
84% of abortions were committed because the woman “does not want children at this time”
20% of abortions were committed due to economic reasons
14.5% of abortions were committed due to the woman’s emotional health
8% of abortions were committed due to the woman’s physical health
2% of abortions were committed because the baby was disabled
0.6% of abortions were committed due to rape
0.4% of abortions were committed because “Continued pregnancy will cause impairment of major bodily function”
0.1% of abortions were committed due to incest
There is no indication of the type of “physical health” concern or how serious it was.
Read full article.
In July we reported,
Women who seek out abortions are disproportionately poor and members of minority groups. 75% are low income and half are below the poverty line. 85% are unmarried, among those 61% had been shacking up with the baby’s father, and 61% already had one child. Those making over $100,000 a year have the highest rates of support for abortions and the lowest among those who make only $30,000. From Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, on down abortion is how the Elizabeth Warrens manage the social problems of the underclass.
Kamala Harris met with pro-abortion state lawmakers Friday at the White House to discuss ways to expand the killing of unborn babies in abortions in Hispanic-American communities.
Harris has been attempting to improve her image with the American people by portraying herself as a champion for abortion. In recent months, she has been meeting regularly with abortion activists and pro-abortion lawmakers as well as traveling to swing states to promote pro-abortion candidates.
The Biden agenda is built upon three pillars: queering America, aborting America, controlling America.
Choose wisely when you vote in in the 2022 midterm elections. The choice is between tyrants and patriots.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2022-08-09 07:01:582022-08-09 07:14:43Report Confirms Most Abortions Done for Birth Control, Just .7% for Rape and Incest