MISINFORMATION WATCH: Overturning Roe v Wade is about white supremacy, abortion is good for the economy and more…

Misinformation is false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive.

Disinformation is a subset of propaganda and is defined as false information that is spread deliberately to deceive people.

Malinformation or malicious information is having or showing a desire to cause harm to someone; given to, marked by, or arising from malice or malicious gossip.


We are beginning a series of articles to expose mis, dis and malinformation. 

We are witnesses to a massive number of myths being spread about like candy to little children.

As JFK said,

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.

Each week we will be posting videos and links to articles that contain mis, dis or mal-information.

If you wish you may share this with your friends, family, on social media and report it to the DHS Disinformation Governance Board.

CLICK HERE: To Report Suspicious Misinformation Activity in your state to the Department of Homeland Security

Let’s get started.

MALINFORMATION

EXAMPLE 1: Here is a white woman stating that overturning Roe v. Wade is about “white supremacy so white people can preserve their majority.” The reason this is misinformation is because 80% of abortion clinics are located in minority neighborhoods and the most dangerous place for a black or Hispanic is in their mother’s womb. The Guttmacher Institute reports that 59% of abortions are not white. The Guttmacher Institute’s U.S. Abortion Patients infographic shows abortion patients are: 28% are black, 25% Hispanic and 6% Asian/Pacific Islander. For whites it is 39%. If Roe v Wade had not happened it is estimated that the black population of the U.S. would be 31% not 13%.

FACTS: 

  • Abortion is the leading cause of death for African Americans, more than all other causes combined, including HIV, violent crimes, accidents, cancer, and heart disease.
  • Abortions are performed on black women at a rate 3.5 times higher than white women; black women have over 30 percent of abortions though they are only 12.6 percent of the population.
  • Over their lifetimes, black women average 1.6 more pregnancies than White women but are 5 times more likely to have a pregnancy that ends in abortion.
  • Approximately 360,000 pre-born black babies are aborted every year, nearly 1000 per day.
  • More than 16-million black babies have died by abortion since 1973.
  • The percentage of the black population in the U.S. has dropped from 12.6 percent in 2010 to 12.4 percent in 2020. The black population in the U.S. (41 million) has dropped precipitously below the Hispanic population (63 million), numbers that would be radically different had 16 million black lives mattered enough to society to protect them from abortion and raise them to fruitful adulthood.

EXAMPLE 2: In the video below is Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. stating that the “MAGA crowd” is “most extreme” political group in U.S. history. NOTE: This statement also falls under the category of disinformation, which is political propaganda.

MISINFORMATION

In testimony before Congress Biden’s Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen stated unequivocally that abortion is good for the economy. Our question is how does killing future generations of Americans who would become workers and contribute to our economy be good for the economy? It is estimated that over 60,000,000 million unborn Americans have been aborted. If you realize that doing this reduces our population as these unborn were not able to grow up, have families and then children of their own we would not have any labor shortage and our economy would be robust.

DISINFORMATION

EXAMPLE 1: In the below video Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. calls former President Donald J. Trump “The Great MAGA King.” Biden in a speech Wednesday, May 4th, 2022 repeatedly stumbled over the views of pro-Trump Republicans, labeling their agenda as “mega” instead of the MAGA acronym.

EXAMPLE 2: In this video White House press secretary Psaki was asked to clarify Biden’s “ultra MAGA” statement.

EXAMPLE 3: In this video White House press secretary Psaki supports “peaceful to date” abortion protests at SCOTUS justices’ homes. However, 18 US Code §1507 states: “Whoever…with the intent of influencing any judge…in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades…in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned.” Wither a protest outside any judges house may be peaceful it is according to the law illegal and requires fines, arrests and imprisonment. NOTE: Psaki labels what happened on January 6th as an “insurrection.” This statement is mis, dis and malicious information all wrapped into one.

CENSORSHIP

Finally, we have learned that the DOJ and FBI have been monitoring parents and some parents have been placed on a terrorist watch list because they have questioned what their children are learning in public schools, what books are available in public school media centers and questioning why political indoctrination has replaced education and the teaching of reading, writing and arithmetic as the primary goals of school boards, superintendents, principals and teachers. Here is one example of a parent being silenced by a School Board while trying to read from graphic book “Gender Queer” readily available in district’s media centers.

The Department of Homeland Security’s website states that when Americans see something they must say something. It is the duty of every American citizen to report instances of mis, dis and malinformation to the Disinformation Governance Board for appropriate action. Even if this bad information is being passed along by those holding the highest office in the land.

CLICK HERE: To Report Suspicious Misinformation Activity in your state to the Department of Homeland Security

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

FBI Used Terrorism Laws to Investigate ‘Dozens’ of ‘Concerned Parents’ Who Attended School Board Meetings

Biden accidentally admits that abortion kills a “child”

FBI opened multiple investigations into protesting parents, GOP lawmakers say

Biden Supports ‘Peaceful’ Home Protests to Intimidate Supreme Court Justices

Walgreens: Unvaxxed are testing positive for Covid-19 at the lowest rate, Triple Vaxxed at the highest

And yet the Democrats continue to force this poison on we, the people they serve.

Biden: We Have to Double Down on Our Efforts to Get Shots in People’s Arms

What lengths won’t these destroyers go to to achieve their nefarious goals?

Walgreens – Unvaxxed are testing positive for Covid-19 at the lowest rate, Triple Vaxxed at the highest

Triple vaccinated are testing positive at the highest rate!

By: National Conservative, May 8, 2022 (hat tip Gatway Pundit)

Walgreens publishes data on their Covid-19 tests. When people take the test, they are asked about vaccination status. In both of the last two updates, the unvaccinated tested positive at the lowest rate. People with three doses tested positive at the highest rate.

Rates of COVID Positivity 4/27 – 5/3

Not Vaccinated – 16.3%
1 Dose – 21.5%
2 Dose > 5m ago – 26.7%
2 Dose <= 5m ago – 20.2% 3 Dose > 5m ago – 30.1%
3 Dose <= 5m ago – 20.8%

RELATED VIDEO: Biden: ‘Not a Question of If, It’s a Question of When’ We Will Face a New Pandemic.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Follow Pamela Geller on Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social.

Left Condones Violence in Hysteria over Roe — Biden’s DHS, DOJ, FBI do Nothing

Where is Law Enforcement in these examples of leftist violence and harassment? Since O’Biden condones it, does this make it okay?

Following excerpt from the Family Research Council article below:

“At the White House, where Joe Biden refused to condemn the protests against the Supreme Court justices last week, Press Secretary Jen Psaki finally put out a tepid tweet Monday morning, reiterating the president’s support for the demonstrations but finally acknowledging that judges should be “able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety.” As usual, it was too little, too late. Justices like Samuel Alito have already had to cancel events, move to undisclosed locations, and cope with their entire family’s movements now involving “heightened security details.”

“In a pointless gesture, Google finally removed the map of the justices’ houses from the protestors’ website — but not until Sunday, when the harassment was already well underway. Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.) could only shake her head. “I’ve never seen an insatiable desire for a culture of death in this country like what we’re seeing right now… There is nothing sacred left in this country that the radical Left will not go after. If it doesn’t line up with their crooked thinking, then they’re going to oppose it. They’re over the top. They’re extreme… And Americans just don’t agree with [them]… I think we’re going to find that out when all is said and done.”

Unrest Assured in Left’s Hysteria over Roe

For Justice Brett Kavanaugh, it probably feels like 2018 all over again. With a hundred protestors outside his home, screaming at his daughters’ windows, the parallels to his ugly confirmation hearing were everywhere. And thanks to the angry mob’s ringleaders, the family’s flashbacks aren’t going away any time soon. “We’re about to get doomsday,” neighbor Lacie Wooten-Holway said, justifying her decision to share the Kavanaughs’ address, “so I’m not going to be civil to that man at all.”

Long before the Supreme Court leak, Wooten-Holway has stood with her signs on the sidewalk, a one-woman demonstration against a justice she can’t stand. In Facebook posts over the last several months, she’s urged area families to join her. Few have. They “worry about lines being crossed,” one told the Washington Post. “This constant escalation,” another neighbor argued, “makes it dangerous.” In January, when Wooten-Holway moved her vigil to Chief Justice John Roberts’s house, a neighbor drove by, rolled down the window, and yelled, “I may agree with you, but leave the justice alone!”

Months later, the hostile movement she belongs to isn’t about to leave anyone alone. Across the country, churches braced for the Left’s Sunday service threats to come true. In Los Angeles and New York, parishioners were swarmed by anti-life crowds, who either interrupted mass or “swarmed” churchgoers outside. That was tame compared to what happened in Madison, Wisconsin, where a state family policy council, Wisconsin Family Action, was set on fire and then vandalized. “If abortions aren’t safe,” the arsonists spraypainted, “then you aren’t either.”

Julaine Appling, who’s worked with FRC for years, couldn’t believe the damage. “There’s nothing we have done to warrant this,” she told reporters afterward. “We ought to be able to take different sides on issues without fearing for our lives.” The blaze, which was apparently set by a Molotov cocktail thrown through Appling’s window, could have hurt any number of people if the office had been open. “Apparently, the tolerance that the Left demands is truly a one-way street. Violence,” she insisted, “has become their answer to everything. This is what happens when leadership… implies that violence is okay,” Appling said in a nod to the state and federal Democrats who’ve stood by while the situation spirals out of control.

At the White House, where Joe Biden refused to condemn the protests against the Supreme Court justices last week, Press Secretary Jen Psaki finally put out a tepid tweet Monday morning, reiterating the president’s support for the demonstrations but finally acknowledging that judges should be “able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety.” As usual, it was too little, too late. Justices like Samuel Alito have already had to cancel events, move to undisclosed locations, and cope with their entire family’s movements now involving “heightened security details.”

In a pointless gesture, Google finally removed the map of the justices’ houses from the protestors’ website — but not until Sunday, when the harassment was already well underway. Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.) could only shake her head. “I’ve never seen an insatiable desire for a culture of death in this country like what we’re seeing right now… There is nothing sacred left in this country that the radical Left will not go after. If it doesn’t line up with their crooked thinking, then they’re going to oppose it. They’re over the top. They’re extreme… And Americans just don’t agree with [them]… I think we’re going to find that out when all is said and done.”

Even so, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is plowing ahead anyway, forcing a second vote on a bill that already failed this past February. But that’s how desperate the party is. They’re willing to force Democrats back out on the limb of a wildly unpopular abortion measure that cannot pass — or even muster the full party’s support. At the end of the day, Walorksi said, “Schumer can do what he wants to do… But I think we’ll see the forces of life will win no matter what resistance [he] and [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi put up.”

In the meantime, things aren’t exactly looking up for the leadership duo. Despite the Left’s hysterical reaction, party strategists were probably unhappy to learn that this entire fiasco is adding up to a big fat nothing for Democrats this November. As much as it must have pained CNN to admit it, the network’s polling shows that nothing about the controversy so far seems to “have shaken the midterm landscape.” In fact, if either side has been galvanized, it’s conservatives, where the number of Republicans energized about voting this fall rose nine percent to the Democrats’ seven. Even more telling, 38 percent of voters said that overturning Roe would make them “happy” — double digits over the number (20 percent) who said it would make them “angry.”

So while Pelosi calls for national prayer to protect the killing, and justices like Clarence Thomas refuse to bend (“We can’t be an institution that can be bullied into giving you the outcomes you want”), the only thing that’s clear to anyone is what the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel spelled out last week: abortion is all the Democrats have to run on. And so far, it’s turning out to be just as much of a political loser as the rest of Biden’s extreme agenda.

Royal A. Brown, III. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Purging, not packing, the Supreme Court

A 75-Year-Old Warning about Those Who Say ‘Listen to the Science’

When people say “follow the science,” often what they’re really saying is “follow our plan.”


On his first day as president, Joe Biden, flanked by a portrait of Ben Franklin, called on the federal government to “advance environmental justice” and “be guided by the best science.”

In many ways, Biden’s words came as no surprise.

Throughout the 2020 campaign and after, Biden had often repeated the phrases “listen to the science” and “I believe in science,” presumably to contrast himself with his opponent.

Biden didn’t stop there, however. He included the mantra in one of the first executive orders he signed, noting that it would be his administration’s official policy to “listen to the science.”

The phrase seems harmless enough. The scientific method is highly trusted, and for good reason. It has been a boon to humanity and helped bring about many of the marvels of our modern world.

Yet distinguished thinkers new and old have warned us to proceed with caution when confronted with pleas to “listen to the science.”

The economist Ludwig von Mises once observed the problem with using scientific claims to shape the modern world. He suggested that in many cases people invoke science simply to tell people what they must do.

“The planners pretend that their plans are scientific and that there cannot be disagreement with regard to them among well-intentioned and decent people,” Mises wrote in his 1947 essay “Planned Chaos.”

Most people agree that science is a useful tool, and Mises was certainly one of them. The problem Mises was getting at was that science can’t actually tell us what we should do, which is the realm of subjective value judgments. Science can only tell us what is.

“[T]here is no such thing as a scientific ought,” Mises wrote, echoing a famous argument by David Hume. “Science is competent to establish what is.” (For a deeper dive on the is-ought problem, read Hume’s celebrated 1729 work, A Treatise on Human Nature.)

The economist continued:

“[Science] can never dictate what ought to be and what ends people should aim at. It is a fact that men disagree in their value judgments. It is insolent to arrogate to oneself the right to overrule the plans of other people and to force them to submit to the plan of the planner.”

As Mises correctly saw, oftentimes when people say “follow the science,” they’re really saying “follow our plan.”

When teen activist Greta Thunberg exhorts us to follow the science on climate change, she’s not saying we should acknowledge that the planet is warming and that humans play a role in the Earth’s climate. She’s saying people should adopt her plan and that of other climate activists, which includes transitioning off meat, giving up flying (something to be achieved either through shame or coercion), taxing fossil fuels, and myriad other proposals.

Billionaire climate activist Bill Gates explained in February why changes like moving off meat should be done, and how.

“I do think all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef,” Gates remarked in an interview with Technology Review, noting that emissions per pound of beef are not quite optimal. “You can get used to the taste difference, and the claim is they’re going to make it taste even better over time. Eventually, that green premium is modest enough that you can sort of change the [behavior of] people or use regulation to totally shift the demand.”

The proposals offered by Thunberg and Gates—who also said government should just listen to the scientists—may be good ones; they may be bad. The key is to understand that their proposals entail value judgments, not just science.

Similarly, in 2020 we repeatedly saw pleas for Americans to “listen to the science.” But the fundamental disagreement over COVID-19 was not over science (though there was certainly some, evidenced by the CDC’s flip-flops, modeling disasters, and widespread confusion over the lethality of COVID-19).

Nearly everyone understood the overarching science: a new and deadly virus had emerged from Asia and was spreading across continents. The primary disagreement arose over what actions should be taken to limit the spread, who should execute them (individuals or the state), and whether people should be coerced into action.

Many of the questions Americans faced were complicated.

If social distancing saves lives, should businesses be ordered closed? If so, which ones? What should be done if people aren’t social distancing in public? Should sick people be physically confined in their homes? What about healthy people? Assuming that face coverings limit the spread, should they be recommended or forced? What happens when people refuse?

These are important questions. But again, they are ethical ones, not scientific ones. Sound science is merely a tool that can help us reach decisions on these matters. The point is that Americans should heed Mises’s warning and beware planners who say we must listen to them because their plans are scientific.

Complex ethical problems demand solutions, and, as journalist H.L. Mencken pointed out, “for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

Outsourcing our complex ethical problems to people with prestigious degrees may be simple, but it’s also wrong. Ethical questions are about what we ought to do, and, as Mises saw, there is no ought in science.

AUTHOR

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

RELATED ARTICLE: Reuters Director of Data Science: I Was FIRED For Showing Police Do Not Kill More Black Suspects

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

Patriots: Time to Hit the Oregon Trail!

Menstrual products in boys bathrooms at school are a clear sign that Patriots need to leave the Beaver state now!

Please subscribe free to The Ledger Report by clicking here: www.GrahamLedger.com

©The Ledger Report. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Children Should Not Choose Their Gender: An Unapologetic Special

GLOBAL GOV’T ALERT: Threat to National Sovereignty Set to Go Down May 22-28 at WHO World Health Assembly

The World Health Organization is attempting a ‘power grab’ — quietly setting up a single globalized response to all future ‘health emergencies’.


As previously reported at LeoHohmann.com, the deep state predators in the U.S. and Western governments have decided the world needs a centralized pandemic response controlled and run by the United Nations World Health Organization via an international treaty.

According to the WHO’s website, on March 30, 2021, 25 world leaders announced an “urgent call for an International Pandemic Treaty,” stating that such a treaty is needed to orchestrate a single globalized response to pandemics. These “25 heads of government and international leaders” have come together in a joint call to form the treaty.

Don’t forget that Yuval Noah Harari, the chief advisor to Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum, has stated that globalist elites will use “crises” to bring about world government.

“Catastrophe opens the door” to massive changes that people would otherwise never accept, Harari said.

But even more pressing than the treaty itself right now, is something almost no one is paying attention to in U.S. political, religious or media circles, and that involves a set of amendments that will amend an existing treaty, the International Health Regulations. The U.S. government has submitted amendments to 13 articles within those regulations, which are administered by the WHO, and these amendments are seen by many as sovereignty killers.

A UN report from May 2021 called for more powers for the WHO stating that, “In its current form, the WHO does not possess such powers […]To move on with the treaty, WHO therefore needs to be empowered — financially, and politically.

The WHO will be hosting its annual meeting, the 75th World Health Assembly, May 22-28 in Geneva, Switzerland, attended by delegates from at least 194 nations. It is during this Assembly that members will be voting on the amendments that will hand over additional sovereignty, control and legal authority to the World Health Organization. The WHO, if these amendments are approved, will obtain the authority to declare an international health emergency, overriding national governments.

Here is the document with the proposed amendments submitted by the U.S. federal government. Pay particular attention to Article 12: Section 2 on page 8 of the document.

In a sense, the global infrastructure to declare a globalized response to a pandemic was already in place in 2020 and 2021, when many of the strictest lockdowns were advised by the WHO and most nations went along with them. But if this “update” of the International Health Regulations is adopted, the WHO will be given “teeth” in the form of an enforcement mechanism. If that happens, Katy bar the door because the lockdowns will become even more strict and more frequent. Think about the possibilities for a “climate” lockdown.

This means nations will be giving up their sovereignty and rights to control their own healthcare, handing that authority over to an international organization affiliated with the United Nations and run by tyrants like Dr. Tedros.

James Roguski, a researcher and activist who has been studying these amendments, has referred to them as a “five alarm fire” that must be dealt with or they will become part of international law.

These regulations govern the activity of the U.N. World Health Organization.

He says the core of these proposed changes go back to China. Watch the video below:

In the video, Roguski states:

“Whatever we think happened in Wuhan in 2020, the WHO seems to be of the mindset that none of what came afterwards would have happened if they had only been given the power to unilaterally declare an emergency and override the Chinese opposition…. We’re saying it’s an emergency. We’re going to lock everybody down. We’re stepping in…They want to grab power. They’re changing article 12, section 2 (of the International Health Regulations) and it effectively wipes out 192 nations’ sovereignty to decide whether or not they allow an international organization to step in.”

It is important to note that the International Pandemic Treaty will be far more expansive in its scope than these amendments, but these amendments are more urgent because they will be voted on next month.

And no U.S. politician is talking about this. Nor is any mainstream media outlet reporting on it. No pastors that I know of are alerting their congregations to these monumental, some would say biblical, changes.

Roguski set up the website DontYouDare.info to document the drive to establish this one-world health system. The following points are his summary of the draft amendments:

  • The International Health Regulations would be legally binding and supersede the United States Constitution.
  • The United States has proposed amendments to the legally binding International Health Regulations that will be voted upon at the next World Health Assembly May 22-28. CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL DOCUMENT
  • These proposed amendments will cede additional sovereignty, control and legal authority over to the World Health Organization.
  • These amendments will NOT require approval by 2/3 of the United States Senate. If they are approved (as submitted by the United States) by a simple majority of the 194 member countries of the World Health Assembly countries), these amendments would enter into force as international law just six months later (November 2022). The details of this are not crystal clear.
  • It is not known if the amendments will be voted upon individually or as a complete package.
  • The amendments would give the director general of the WHO the power to unilaterally declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) even over the objection of the country dealing with an outbreak of disease. (See Article 12, Section 2 of the IHR document where this change is proposed.)
  • A unilateral declaration of a PHEIC by the WHO will enable the declaration of a Public Health Emergency by the U.S. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
  • The amendments proposed by the United States would also give the director general of the WHO the legal authority to unilaterally issue an “intermediate public health alert (IPHA).” The criteria for the issuance of an IPHA is simply that “the Director-General has determined it requires heightened international awareness and a potential international public health response.”
  • The amendments would also give “regional directors” within the WHO the legal authority to declare a Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern (PHERC).

Once you take away national sovereignty and start holding America up against a global standard, that opens up endless opportunities for the elites running the global system to regulate, or confiscate, whatever they believe is “bad for our health.”

What if the WHO decides we all need jabs and digital passports to address a public health emergency? Wait a minute, the WHO has already decided that! All it lacks is the power to override national governments. These amendments would grant such power.

These amendments, along with a future treaty, could also be used to take away Americans’ First and Second Amendment rights. What about the Bible? Is it a matter of your religious faith or is it a tool for “hate speech?” Guns, the Bible and too much free speech are bad for our collective “health” and therefore could be declared an international or regional emergency, providing a pathway for the WHO to apply regulations.

Kit Knightly, in an article for Off Guardian, also raises the question of countries being punished for “non-compliance” under a new global health treaty. According to the WHO documents:

[The treaty should possess] An adaptable incentive regime, [including] sanctions such as public reprimands, economic sanctions, or denial of benefits.

In other words, Knightly explains:

  • If you report “disease outbreaks” in a “timely manner”, you will get “financial resources” to deal with them.
  • If you don’t report disease outbreaks, or don’t follow the WHO’s directions, you will lose out on international aid and face trade embargoes and sanctions.

As Patrick Wood reminds us, harsh punishments were already meted out during the Covid pandemic.

“The presidents of Burundi and Tanzania banned the WHO from their borders, refusing to go along with the pandemic narrative: Both died unexpectedly within months and were replaced with pro-WHO Presidents,” Wood writes. “Obviously, the WHO doesn’t care about global health or the life or death of any particular citizen. The warning has been sent out to national leaders: take our deal or we will eliminate you.”

This is a spiritual war, and we are living in a time when all of the prayer warriors must be engaged and called into battle. Pray for people’s eyes to be opened and all deceptions and delusions to be smashed in the name of Jesus Christ.

©Leo Hohmann. All rights reserved.

Climate True Believers Should Doubt Their Faith

Beyond the Left’s climate change chants lie big problems, big enough to destroy the faith of any climate change true believer who accidentally pays attention to reality.

We can start with exploding electric buses. Two caught fire in France, one exploded.  Not a pretty picture – public buses engulfed in flames.  You can add to that electric scooter fires in India, where a dealer said, “Lithium has a natural affinity for fires.’’  Do tell.  Makes me want to close my climate change hymnal.  In my area, a big school board is requiring electric school buses for transporting kids.  Hmm….

While I’m on the subject of electric vehicles, where are you going to put all those old dead batteries?  It’s a huge issue nobody’s talking about.  And what are you going to say to the six-year-olds who mine the cobalt that goes into the batteries? Nobody wants to talk about the child labor problem, either.

Ask a climate true believer where the power comes from to run electric vehicles and you are likely to get a blank stare.  The fact is it comes from the electrical grid, but utilities are warning the addition of solar and wind energy to the grid has not kept pace with the retirement of fossil fuel plants.   They warn of price hikes and electricity shortages, even rolling brownouts ahead.  With the prospect of energy supplies becoming unreliable, businesses are rethinking whether they want to be in Illinois where these problems, arising from state green energy mandates, are already in sight.   State lawmakers are looking for ways to ease the mandates, which is surely a mortal sin in the High Church of Climatology.

Another feature of Climatology is animal sacrifice.  “(W)ind turbines have been annihilating eagles for decades,” and there’s no way around it if you want those blades to keep spinning.  One wind company acknowledged 150 eagles have died at its wind farms in the last 10 years, and just paid the government $35 million in fines and restitution.  A new government study documents that wind and solar facilities have reduced the bird population of California.

Before he left office, climate true believer Bill de Blasio signed a bill banning natural gas in new construction in New York City.  I’m sure he felt the climate gods were smiling down on him when he did so.  The idea was to reduce emissions by requiring electric heat and electric stoves, but there’s just one problem:   Most of New York City’s electricity comes from natural gas.  It takes twice as many fossil fuels to run an electric stove as a gas stove.  Oops.  Hope those climate commandments weren’t on stone tablets.

Another problem is the apostates in China who are saying one thing, but doing another.  China will tell you it aims for carbon neutrality, but it’s increasing coal production by 300 million tons this year, sending coal usage up more than 12 percent from two years ago.

That ought to shock the faithful.  I wonder when they’ll wake up to the true mission of their church and what their Jim Jones’s really have in store for them.  The point of Climatology is not to save the planet.  It’s to reduce your energy use to lower your standard of living.  The high priests want you poor, immobile, and malnourished so you will be easier to control.  All the while they are telling you to atone for raping Mother Earth, they are focused on amassing wealth and power for themselves.  Being a true believer is one thing.  Being a sucker is another.  If it were me, I’d stop going to church and putting money in the collection plate until John Kerry and Leonardo DiCaprio get rid of their private jets.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: We need to get serious about the renewable energy revolution—by including nuclear power

What is at stake in Roe vs. Wade goes far beyond a squabble between left and right

What about the personhood of the unborn child?


A few days ago, a draft opinion of the United States Supreme Court was leaked to Politico, suggesting that the majority was inclined to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision enshrining a connotational right to abortion. The court has confirmed that the draft is authentic.

Although the draft is not final, it does strongly suggest that the court has already voted on the case and that a majority of justices is in favour of overturning Roe vWade. If that happens, it will bring an end to the notion that there is a right to abortion protected by the American constitution, and effectively leave the definition of abortion policy back in the hands of the individual States.

The extraordinary leaking of such an important draft opinion predictably opened a firestorm of political controversy.

It was insinuated by a report in The New York Times, for example, that the court had become unduly politicised or had become an instrument of conservative ideology rather than law. Apart from the fact that the original 1973 ruling was hardly an orthodox piece of constitutional interpretation, this sort of charge fails to engage the questions before the Court on their legal merits. As such, it looks more like a rhetorical deflection than a serious argument.

Fundamental issues

Even someone who is an ardent supporter of abortion rights should be more than capable of recognising that Roe v. Wade touches upon ethical and constitutional matters of fundamental importance that go far beyond the question of one’s political affiliations, or of whether this or that ideology, be it conservative or liberal, holds sway on the court.

The original majority opinion of Roe v. Wade in 1973 assumed that the unborn human being inside the mother is not deserving of the same fundamental protection of the law as that afforded born infants. It essentially contended that the mother’s choice to abort was indeed protected by the Constitution, whereas the Court has never, to my knowledge, suggested that anyone had a constitutional right to end the life of an infant after birth. In other words, it was unwilling to authorise infanticide.

In Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court found that the Constitution contained an implicit right to privacy, and that this right prevented governments from unduly restricting a woman’s access to abortion services. Many of those alarmed by the leak suggesting Roe v. Wade was about to be overturned have focused on this aspect of the decision.

But it also set down another important principle. The majority opinion deemed that the unborn foetus was not to be considered a “person” protected by the law, in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing “equal protection of the laws” and the rights to “life, liberty, and property” to all persons.

Finally, the court attempted to sidestep the question of when human life begins, on the grounds that this question was medically and philosophically unsettled:

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, in this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Yet even if some medics and philosophers dispute the exact moment when human life begins, the unborn foetus is biologically and genetically identical and continuous with the human being after birth. Under these circumstances, a strong case could also be made for treating the unborn as a person rather than a non-person under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment. For surely we should err on the side of protecting rather than stripping away fundamental rights from beings who are indisputably human from a biological and genetic perspective.

Politicization

Many important ethical and constitutional questions have the potential to be politicised. And abortion is perhaps as clear an example of this as any. For example, currently, in the United States (according to this Pew Research Center poll conducted in April 2021), a majority of self-identifying “conservative Republicans” tend to oppose widely available legal abortion, while a majority of self-identifying “liberal Democrats” tend to favour the “right to choose” affirmed in Roe v. Wade.

The politically charged nature of the abortion debate tends to lead people to reduce all arguments for and against essentially as ornamentation for a predefined political posture. But just as the political explosiveness of the slavery question did not automatically invalidate argumentation about the moral and legal standing of slaves in the US before the Civil War, the political explosiveness of abortion does not automatically invalidate thoughtful argumentation about the moral and legal standing of the unborn or reduce it to a form of political cheer-leading.

The personhood of the unborn

The two questions touched on in Roe v. Wade — the constitutional standing of the choice to abort and the moral and legal standing of the unborn — are intimately connected.

If, for example, one takes the view that the unborn is a full member of the human family and as such, is deserving of full legal protection in virtue of his or her humanity, then it would be very strange indeed if one also took the view that the choice to abort were protected from interference by third parties by the federal constitution of the United States. For that would amount to saying that the choice to take an innocent human life was not only permitted by the federal constitution but protected by it from third-party interference.

If one concedes that unborn human life is in fact deserving of legal protection in virtue of the humanity of the unborn (or that humans should be considered as “persons” under the Fourteenth Amendment), one cannot coherently argue that the Constitution prohibits a State government from protecting unborn human life.

Indeed, if we assume that unborn human beings deserve full legal protection, it would seem strange if a Constitution that protects other fundamental human rights, such as the right to a fair trial, or the right to property, did not extend a similar protection to the bodily integrity of the unborn.

In order to endorse the mother’s right to abortion established by Roe v. Wade, one would have to take the view that unborn human life was not in fact deserving of full legal protection in virtue of its humanity, and that whatever potential interests the unborn may have in living and in thriving, may be overridden by the prerogatives of his or her mother, or her own interest in not being burdened with a child, or not carrying a child to term.

That  puts the supporter of Roe v. Wade in a difficult position. For having rejected humanity as a sufficient basis for full legal protection, it is difficult to see a principled reason for ruling out infanticide if that is what the parents want. Indeed, the plausibility of “after-birth abortion” has been defended by some bioethicists.

Supporters of Roe v. Wade who would not go so far as advocating infanticide need to find a basis for legal protection of newborn infants that does not entail a similar level of protection for unborn infants. They need to point to characteristics of newborn infants that place them squarely within the rights-bearing community, which are not morally arbitrary and which are not shared by their unborn counterparts.

That seems like a rather tall order to me.

This is a slightly edited version of a post on the author’s Substack, The Freedom Blog.

AUTHOR

David Thunder

David Thunder is a researcher and lecturer at the University of Navarra’s Institute for Culture and Society. More by David Thunder

RELATED ARTICLES:

Jake Tapper Calls Potentially Disabled Children ‘Tragedy’ During Abortion Debate

SNL Claims SCOTUS Draft Opinion Argues ‘Abortion Is A Crime,’ Compares Court To Medieval Idiots

‘I told you so’ – the dissenters in Roe predicted its collapse

The problems of putting off children

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

Spiritual Warfare – The Gloves Are Off!

Spiritual Warfare – The Gloves Are Off!

By Jason A Brown

The gloves are off, and the demonic forces that have long resided in Washington, D.C. have taken off the mask.  Protestors outside the Supreme Court, throwing a fit because the so-called abortion rights, (aka right to murder children) may be left to state legislators to decide.  Yes, that’s right, this Supreme Court decision does not ban abortions nationwide.  It just gives blue states that are ruled by demons the ability to legalize murder.  However, in responding to the evil that consumes our national and some state governments right now, we must be consistent in our faith and know where we stand.  Furthermore, we have to be able to cite scripture to back up our claims in this fight, and that is not always easy.

Those of us that are pro-life, have said for a long time, that the slippery slope here a ticking time bomb.  Not that the act itself is not reprehensible, but most people that have their eyes open recognized that this kind of disregard for the sanctity of human life will only lead to more devilish acts down the road that will be given legal status by the government.  And we were at a point where even partial birth abortion was given legitimacy by the deviants that pedal this evil to the masses.  Now we have the California Assembly committee, that has passed Assembly Bill 2223, that prevents criminal liability for parents that that have a newborn that dies within 28 days of birth.  This would effectively legalize the killing of a newborn baby.  The vote was 11-3.  Can you imagine a committee consisting of 14 people, where 11 of those 14 voted to allow the murder of a child?

This continues to expand the definition what constitutes life, by deciding that the killing isn’t a killing but merely a termination of a clump of cells.  So, a newborn baby is now just a clump of cells?  Really?  So, this SCOTUS decision would only cite the 10th amendment and the lack of authority that the federal government has to preside over these matters.  That is the constitutional argument, and the correct one from a legal standpoint.  But then there is the moral argument that murder in any form is wrong and not righteous in any way.  Why should states have the right to legalize murder, that is dismissed, due to the false narratives that are put forth by a disingenuous media?

Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”   

Some would ask about death penalty and the morality of putting someone to death for crimes that they have committed.  My views have changed on this issue over the years. I used to support the death penalty 100% but now I feel like that original view was wrong. It is still government sanctioned murder.  Incarceration gives people a moment or sometimes a lifetime to reflect.  We all have up until we take our dying breath to submit to God and repent, accepting Jesus as our Savior, the perfect human lamb (100% God and 100% human) that was sacrificed to pay for the sins of humanity.  The punishment for sin is death, but not death at the hands of another man, government or not.  We do not have the moral authority to make such decisions, only God Himself.  Every day that someone lives is another chance for them to repent and come to God before they shed their physical vessel that houses their eternal soul.

Every day that someone spends on death row, is another day that they have the opportunity to exercise their free will and submit to the Glory of the Lord and His sacrifice so that we may live forever with Him in His Father’s Kingdom.  So, to end that life prematurely and not according to God’s will, we are potentially depriving a person of an opportunity to be saved and still live for eternity.  Putting someone to death could literally make the difference between eternal suffering, and being part of God’s Kingdom.  We unfortunately allow our emotions to cloud our thinking and even distort our belief in God, and forgiveness.  Forgiveness is not convenient, nor is it always the popular stance to take.  But, if Jesus forgave those that were beating Him, and driving nails through His wrists, we need to find that forgiveness in ourselves, even at the most inconvenient of times.

I had to go into the death penalty even though it is off topic from Roe v Wade, because so many people call conservatives hypocrites because we condemn abortion while cheering the death penalty.  While it does not justify killing a child of God, they do make a valid argument regarding consistency.  We don’t get to cherry pick scripture and assign our own morals to the Word of God.

I was intent on writing this today, and making it about politics, the constitution, and other things that are part of our physical world, and that appeal to the flesh. But as I started to write, I felt compelled to take this in a different direction, and while it may be seen as preachy, it had to be done this way. I am not afraid to speck truth, even when that truth may be condemned by the masses. I am not ashamed.

©Jason A Brown. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Dr. Naomi Wolf on Pfizer Documents from April 5th, ‘They hid, they concealed, they redacted.’ Its bad

Still waiting for an authoritative analysis of the most recent massive data dump from Pfizer. But lets have a look at what the last batch of 55,000 pages had. Naomi breaks some of it down.

And yes, we have posted this before. But to get a sense of scale of how much and easily these agencies tell massive lies, its good to be reminded. Especially when you hear people say, “They never said the vaccines would stop the spread or stop you from getting sick! They always said it would reduce the number of hospitalizations!”

UPDATE: There IS some analysis on the newest data dump. Please check this link. A small fraction is below.

Happy Cinco de Mayo kids! You might wanna grab a margarita or a Corona with a lime before you read this one.

This drop had 80,000 pages of data.  So I had to prioritize what needed to be read first.  Interesting findings.

OK first.  Remember how we discussed the vaccine likes to congregate in the liver?  Like, within HOURS of getting vaccinated?  I thought those poor Wistar Rats probably met their fate at the 48 hour mark.  But here we find a crumb of data that says nope, they now produced 300 hour post vaccine data comparing the lipid nano particles from the vaccine in the blood plasma versus in the liver.  THIS IS HORRID. Plasma levels peaked and dropped.  The liver?  Not so much.  It is still SEVERELY ELEVATED with mass nano particles at the 300 hour mark hanging out in the liver.  What does the liver do?  Metabolizes and excretes body waste.  Metabolizes medications.  Wonder if THIS is why we are seeing autoimmune hepatitis happening in kids right now?  You don’t suppose breastfeeding babies with moms full of lipid nano particles and spike proteins could possibly cause baby to have issues with THIER liver now, do you?

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column by Eeyore is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Can the Sarasota County School Board fire staff for teaching students dis/mis/mal-information?

“Teachers retain their rights as citizens in a public school environment, but those rights are altered. Public school teachers enjoy, for example, the right to freedom of expression, but they cannot promote a personal political agenda in the classroom. Teachers also enjoy freedom of association, privacy, and a limited right to academic freedom. Finally, teachers not only need to be aware of how the law affects them, they also need to know how the law impacts their students.”Center for the Advancement of Digital Scholarship


There has been growing concern about what is happening in public school classrooms nationwide. Parents are beginning to take note of what subjects are being taught in public schools, what books are being used by classroom teachers, what books are in school libraries and media centers and what clubs are being promoted by school administrators.

There is also a growing concern that there is a lot of mis, dis and mal-information being promoted in public schools. The most recent examples include:

And on and on and on.

Teachers teaching dis, mis and mal-information

There is a growing concern that dis, mis and mal-information has creeped into public school classrooms. So much so that the Florida legislature passed a bill preventing mis, dis and mal-information in elementary schools.

Parents, grandparents and interested organizations are now focused on having children in public schools be taught only the critical personal skills of reading, writing and arithmetic. Only a solid foundation in reading, writing and cyphering will make our next generation successful citizens. However, Florida’s Department of Education recently removed 41% of mathematics books because they contained mis, dis and mal-information.

Watch Florida Governor DeSantis comments on dis, mis and mal-information in math books:

It would seem obvious that it is not the role of school teachers, or librarians, to:

  1. Lie to students by teaching dis, mis or mal-information.
  2. Use textbooks that promote an ideology versus the truth.
  3. Have books in libraries and media centers that are pornographic, not age appropriate or promote homosexuality.
  4. Push a particular political position in the classroom.
  5. Reject science in favor of global warming disinformation in the classroom.
  6. Fail to teach a child to read, write and cypher.

We decided to look at what the rules are for teachers to not teach dis, mis or mal-information in the classroom because Amber Mercier a gay teacher in Florida said she is willing to break the law and keep hiding sexual information about students from their parents even if she loses her job and gets thrown in jail for it.

We are concerned because PJMedia reported, “There is a disturbing trend of public schools actively keeping secrets from parents, which has led to suicide attempts and harm to children.”

Sarasota County School Board

We decided to look at our local Sarasota County School Board, their Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Sarasota County Schools Employee Handbook for information on holding teachers and administrators accountable for promoting mis, dis and mal-information upon K-12 students.

The only thing we found was in Chapter II – Being a School Employee of the handbook:

Political Activities

Florida Statute 104.31 and School Board policies 2.51 and 6.34 govern political activities of school public employees. Some things to remember are:

(1) Political posters shall not be displayed in schools
(2) Political literature shall not be distributed in schools or on school property
(3) Solicitations for votes or contributions shall not be conducted in schools or on school property
(4) Students shall not be required to distribute campaign literature
(5) Employees shall refrain from participation in partisan politics on school property during the hours school is in session

School Board employees shall not solicit support of any political candidate, partisan or nonpartisan, during regular work hours. A School Board employee who offers him/herself as a candidate for public office shall notify the Superintendent immediately upon qualifying for election. He/she shall conduct his/her campaign so as not to interfere with his/her responsibilities. Personal leave without pay may be taken during the campaign period.

We noted that the Sarasota County School Board uses the word “refrain.” The word refrain is defined as “stop oneself from doing something.” It implies that teachers, librarians and school administrators self-govern themselves when it comes to promoting mis, dis and mal-information.

The following questions came to mind:

  1. Who is ensuring teachers, school staff and administrations are refraining?
  2. What is considered political literature?

We also found this on the Sarasota County School District’s Human Resources website page:

Equity Procedures for Employees/Applicants/Students

The Sarasota County School Board prohibits discrimination in its educational programs, services or activities, or employment conditions or practices on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, ethnic or national origin, genetic information, marital status, qualified disability defined under the ADAAA, or on the basis of the use of a language other than English, except as provided by law. The Sarasota County School Board also ensures equal access to school facilities for the Boy Scouts of America and other patriotic youth groups. Any person who believes he or she has experienced any such prohibited discrimination may file a complaint with the district Equity Coordinator Al Harayda by calling (941) 927-9000, ext. 31217, or writing him at 1960 Landings Blvd., Sarasota, Florida 34231.

Equity coordinator? Really? When we asked Craig Maniglia, Director Communications and Community Relations, how many non-binary, cis-gender, gender-queer, lesbian, gay or bisexual teachers and staff in the district he wrote, “Dr. Swier, We do not track that information.” Hmmmmm.

Contacting the Superintendent of Sarasota County Schools

We decided to contact Dr. Brennan Asplen the Superintendent of Sarasota County Public Schools. His office referred us to Craig Maniglia, Director Communications and Community Relations. We both called and emailed Mr. Maniglia our questions.

Here are the questions we asked the Sarasota County School District to answer:

  1. What action is taken if these individuals don’t refrain?
  2. What is the policy on teachers lying to their students?
  3. What is the policy on teachers teaching a political agenda in the classroom?
  4. What is the policy on librarians and teachers obtaining recommending or using pornographic materials or age inappropriate material in libraries and the classroom?
  5. What is the policy on librarians ordering pornographic or age inappropriate materials?
  6. What is the policy on suspending or firing teachers for doing any of the above?
  7. What is the policy of suspending or firing librarians for doing any of the above?
  8. What is the role of the school principal and superintendent in supervising these activities and where can I find them in School policies?
  9. Who specifically is responsible for policing the use of age inappropriate or pornographic materials in schools and libraries?
  10. Has the School Board or any school hosted an “Anti-Racism Fight Club” presentation by Doyin Richards? Does the district have in its classrooms or libraries the “Fist Book“?
  11. What after school clubs  approved by staff, are promoting political agendas?

We also asked Mr. Maniglia to provide references to School Board policies and documents to address each of these questions.

We are waiting for Mr. Maniglia’s replies and when we have them we will update this column.

Parents are challenging books in school libraries and classrooms in record numbers.  They’re objecting to sexually explicit content, profanity, anti-police messaging, and other left-wing indoctrination found in schoolbooks. The most-challenged books are “Gender Queer” and “Lawn Boy”, the latter a gay story normalizing sex acts between 4th-graders which has been criticized for encouraging pedophilia.

Understand that mis, dis and mal-information is propaganda writ large. Those teaching, promoting or ignoring this do so at the risk of harming children. It is child abuse!

We hope that the Sarasota County School Board, the Superintendent, principals, assistant principals, district staff all take notice.

©Dr. Rich Swier, Ed.D. All rights reserved.

References:

Teachers and the Law: Evolving Legal Issues

Legal Issues in Teaching

RELATED VIDEO: Nina Jankowicz: “Gender Disinformation is a Threat to National Security”

All Oregon Public Schools Must Declare the Right to ‘Menstrual Dignity, Sanitary Protection’ In Boys Bathrooms

Democrat Governor Brown thinks its crucial to have tampons available in elementary boys’ bathrooms. Insane.

Oregon forces all schools — elementary and up — to put ‘menstrual products’ in boys’ bathrooms with ‘instructions on how to use’ them

The law aims to ‘affirm the right to menstrual dignity for transgender, intersex, nonbinary, and two-spirit students.’

By: Phil Shiver, The Blaze, May 04, 2022

Every public school in Oregon — including elementary institutions — will soon be required to provide tampons and other feminine products in boys’ bathrooms with “instructions on how to use” them.

The controversial requirement is in accordance with the state’s new Menstrual Dignity Act, signed into law by Democratic Gov. Kate Brown last year, which mandates that menstrual products be made available in “every student bathroom.”

Following the bill’s passage, the Oregon Department of Education developed and distributed a “Medical Dignity for Students” toolkit to aid local districts and set forth a phased plan for districts to meet the law’s standards and requirements.

Read the full article.

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

No Increase in Flight Cancellations After CDC Mask Mandate Lifted, Data Show

Data suggest that fears of widespread cancellation of flights in the wake of the CDC mask mandate being lifted are baseless, thankfully.


It’s been two week since a federal court threw out the CDC’s transport mask mandate, to the glee of some and the outrage of others.

While many people—including flight attendants and passengers on planes—celebrated the court’s decision, others predicted the move would have dire consequences.

CBS News, for example, reported that European airlines were forced to “cancel hundreds of flights as they grapple with coronavirus-related staffing shortages weeks after they ditched rules requiring passengers and staff to mask up in the air.”

The news agency noted that UK airlines alone canceled 769 flights in total between March 31 and April 7 because of a shortage of flight crews due to illness. CBS quoted Eric Feigl-Ding, an epidemiologist and health economist, who said such outbreaks were needless and predictable.

“It’s very clear that the airline industry is particularly vulnerable, and this creates a cascading effect on society more than, say, a restaurant closing would,” Feigl-Ding said. “This is critical infrastructure and these are essential employees, and we’re endangering our economy. Stopping COVID is good for our economy, ‘letting it rip’ is the exact opposite.”

Few would disagree with Feigl-Ding that airlines are important infrastructure, but his claim that mask mandates are crucial to their success bears scrutiny.

First, it’s worth noting that the 769 UK flights canceled between March 31 and April accounted for just 4 percent of those flights, which means that 96 percent went off without a hitch. Even more importantly, a single airline—EasyJet—accounted for roughly 40 percent of the canceled flights.

This suggests the UK’s numbers were skewed to a large extent by a single outbreak that disrupted many flights. Whether a mask mandate would have prevented this outbreak from occurring is impossible to know. But what we do know is that similar cancellations—much larger ones, in fact—occurred when mask mandates were still in place, so the idea that such mandates can prevent cancellations is simply not true.

We also have fresh data on cancellations of US flights since the CDC’s mask mandate was lifted. One astute Twitter user analyzed the data, which can be found here, and pointed out that in the two weeks since the CDC’s mask order was struck on April 18, there was no widespread cancellation of flights.

On the contrary, the four largest airlines in the US—American Airlines, United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and Southwest Airlines—all had a cancellation rate of 0 percent, as did JetBlue and Allegian. Frontier Airlines, meanwhile, had a cancellation rate of 1 percent, and Alaska Airlines had a cancellation rate of 7 percent. (Since the publication of the tweet, Alaska’s cancellation rate has fallen to 4 percent, and Delta’s has increased to 1 percent.)

The total number of canceled flights within, into, or out of the US in the past two weeks currently stands at 72—about 0.15 percent of the roughly 45,000 flights the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) oversees each day, on average.

To be sure, we’re still in a pandemic, at least in the sense that many people are still getting COVID-19, still getting sick, and still dying. This means that we can expect there will be times when flights are interrupted by spikes of illness.

That said, so far the data suggest that fears of widespread cancellation of flights in the wake of the mask mandate being lifted are baseless, thankfully.

In many ways, this should not surprise us.

Even mask champions like The New York Times have come around to the idea that cloth masks are not very effective against Covid, which is why many scientists have long doubted their efficacy. (And even if cloth masks are effective, are we really supposed to just overlook the fact that there’s a period of time on flights when patrons just remove them to eat and drink, which hardly seems like an effective virus containment strategy?)

None of this is to say masking isn’t or can’t be effective. Perhaps it is. But I think we have an abundance of evidence that shows mask mandates are not effective, and the absence of a surge in flight cancellations following the striking down of the mask mandate is one more piece of that evidentiary record.

All of this brings to mind a crucial lesson of economics. The Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman once observed that one of the biggest problems of the modern world is how we assess public policy.

“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results,” Friedman noted.

There’s no better example of Friedman’s adage, I think, than masks, which became a symbol of supporting “the common good,” which is why so many people publicly vowed to continue wearing them even after the CDC policy requiring them on transportation was struck down.

If people wish to continue wearing masks to show they’re not “selfish” or because they believe it will protect them, they are of course perfectly free to do so. That’s the beauty of choice.

But how much pain could have been avoided during this pandemic if only we’d embraced the freedom of choice from the beginning, instead of succumbing to fear?

This article was adapted from an issue of the FEE Daily email newsletter. Click here to sign up and get free-market news and analysis like this in your inbox every weekday.

AUTHOR

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

RELATED TWEET:

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

ABSURD: AG Merritt Garland’s New Office of ‘Environmental Justice’ yet another Marxist attack on science and free speech

My God, just when I thought it can’t get any worse, the Department of In-Justice and its Chief Arbiter, Marxist Merritt Garland announces a new Federal Agency the “Office of Environmental Justice.”  This is yet another Marxist frontal assault on science and freedom of speech. Watch:

The Office of Environmental Justice,

“[W]ill seek to redress health risks from climate change faced by minorities and low-income people in the United States.”

Another draconian measure designed to force and enforce their Climate Change Agenda. I’ll bet it will also create more Federal Agents with unchecked arrest power as well.   If you think we have bad inflation roaring at 8.5% just wait until this ridiculous agency kicks in and causes costs of everything to soar.

Biden DOJ Announces New ‘Office of Environmental Justice’

“Although violations of our environmental laws can happen anywhere, communities of color, indigenous communities, and low-income communities often bear the brunt of the harm caused by environmental crime, pollution, and climate change”

Merrick Garland announced on Thursday that the Department of Justice is launching the Office of Environmental Justice. It speaks volumes about the priorities of this administration.

There are so many major problems in the country right now, and this is their concern.

It’s likely that this is just to remind the left how committed Biden is to fighting climate change. And of course to politicize the language around the topic and criminalize dissent.

Breanne Deppisch reports at the Washington Examiner:

DOJ launches new Office of Environmental Justice

The Justice Department is launching a new Office of Environmental Justice, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced on Thursday, which will seek to redress health risks from climate change faced by minorities and low-income people in the United States.

You can guess where this is going.

Read full article.

RELATED ARTICLE: Free speech concerns mount over DHS ‘disinformation’ board as lawmakers, critics weigh in

RELATED TWEET:

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

A Cloud Hangs Over Trans Medicine + Video Documentary ‘Transbarnen’ [Trans Kids]

“For almost forty years, I’ve considered it an honor to be a doctor. I believe in our role as healers, and I believe in our role as truth-tellers. The truth we need to confront right now is that medicine and science are being politically perverted around the country in ways that destroy human lives.”

That’s Assistant Secretary for Health Admiral Rachel Levine, a USA Today Woman of the Year, and the Biden Administration’s most prominent transgender bureaucrat.

Speaking a few days ago at Texas Christian University, Levine declared: “Gender-affirming care is medical care. It is mental health care. It is suicide prevention care. It improves quality of life, and it saves lives. It is based on decades of study. It is a well-established medical practice.”

However, transgender care is far from being “well-established”, as Admiral Levine must surely know. In recent months, health authorities in one country after another in Europe have expressed their alarm, citing serious medical and psychological problems amongst people who have received “gender-affirming care”.

  • In France, the National Academy of Medicine declared on February 25: “great medical caution must be taken in children and adolescents, given the vulnerability, particularly psychological, of this population and the many undesirable effects and even serious complications that can be caused by some of the therapies available”.
  • In Sweden, the National Board of Health and Welfare issued new guidelines for gender-affirming care in February. It said, based on current knowledge: “the risks of puberty suppressing treatment with GnRH-analogues and gender-affirming hormonal treatment currently outweigh the possible benefits, and that the treatments should be offered only in exceptional cases.”
  • In the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published two systematic reviews of puberty blockers in March 2021. It found that they “lead to little or no change in gender dysphoria, mental health, body image and psychosocial functioning. In the few studies that did report change, the results could be attributable to bias or chance, or were deemed unreliable.”
  • In Finland, the Finnish Health Authority (PALKO/COHERE) reversed course in 2020. Its new guidance stated that “psychotherapy, rather than puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, should be the first-line treatment for gender-dysphoric youth”.

Admiral Levine would benefit from viewing the last of four programs produced by the Swedish national broadcaster SVT about transgender medicine. Transbarnen (The Trans Children) examines the case of “Leo”, a ten-year-old girl who decided that she was really a boy. It is an appalling tale of abysmal medical care – at one of the world best hospitals, the Karolinska. The searing revelations from the SVT’s investigative reporters were one factor in the new guidelines in Sweden.

Here’s what Uppdrag Granskning (Mission Investigation) found.

At the age of 11, Leo embarked upon puberty blockers. The child and her mother were told that this was standard treatment and reversible.

“Leo was little when she wanted to become a he,’ her mother Natalie told the reporter, Carolina Jemsby. “I thought if this was his wish, I should agree with it. Everyone said Leo was brave to come out and I should be proud of him.”

The puberty blockers were meant to stop Leo from developing breasts, wider hips and menstruating. Their use is based on the so-called Dutch Protocol, developed in the Netherlands in 2011. But, as Jemsby points out, some experts have grave misgivings about this repeatedly-cited research. “The worry comes from the lack of long-term studies and that the Dutch study alone is not sufficient evidence. It has too few subjects, no control group and was done at only one clinic.”

Since a well-known side-effect of puberty blockers is a serious decrease in bone density, patients are supposed to be checked regularly. They should receive the powerful drugs for no longer than two years.

Leo was on the medication for four years and his bone density was never checked.

The effects were little short of catastrophic. Leo now suffers from severe osteoporosis, a weaking of bones which is normally seen in people in their 60s and 70s. It is almost irreversible. His mother says that he was in pain from skeletal damage; he was constantly depressed; and he attempted to commit suicide several times.

“But information about the potential risks and lack of evidence never reaches Leo and his family,” says Jemsby.

In fact, one of the most dismaying features of the Swedish journalists’ report is mismanagement in the medical bureaucracy. One group diagnosed children’s gender dysphoria; another administered the medications. They didn’t appear to communicate with each other. If this is one of the world’s best hospitals, what happens elsewhere?

Jemsby showed doctors incident reports not only on Leo, but on several children who had serious complications after embarking upon puberty blockers. The response? A lot of creased brows and finger-pointing and no answers. No one, it appears, was responsible.

“I think everyone involved in this case had good intentions,” Dr Ola Nilsson, a paediatric endocrinologist, says. “But now it’s time to take a step back and try to get really good data regarding what’s best – how best to diagnose and treat this group so we do more good than harm. Much more good than harm. Minimal harm and a lot of benefit is the goal of all healthcare.”

Unfortunately, the picture painted by the Swedish journalists is one of minimal benefit for children and a lot of buck-passing by doctors.

Leo’s back, shoulder and hips are constantly aching. His distraught mother says: “A 15-year-old shouldn’t have to deal with that. His bones shouldn’t look that way. A healthy skeleton that’s been destroyed by this medicine.”

Gender-affirming care “improves quality of life, and it saves lives,” says Admiral Levine. But it didn’t for Leo and for many other children. So many, that European healthcare regulators are slamming on the brakes for transgender care – while the Americans are turbo-charging it.

To cite Rachel Levine’s ill-chosen words, medicine and science are being “politically perverted”, but not by trans sceptics, but by the Biden Administration.

AUTHOR

Michael Cook

Michael Cook is the editor of MercatorNet. He lives in Sydney, Australia. More by Michael Cook

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