COVID-19 Early Stage Therapies Remain Censored

The American Journal of Theraputics published a study on June 17 that found “the drug reduced the risk of death in COVID-19 patients by an average of 62 percent, at a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.19–0.79, in a sample of 2,438 patients,” and “Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the risk of death was found to be 2.3 percent among those treated with the drug, compared to 7.8 percent for those who weren’t, according to the review.”

Meanwhile, in India, the most recent surge of COVID-19 cases was suppressed within weeks after “India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare revised its guidelines on April 28 to include a recommendation that asymptomatic and mild cases be treated with Ivermectin.”

Why isn’t this headline news in the United States? Why is it that early stage, inexpensive therapies for COVID-19, which appear to be effective against the latest variants, remain forbidden topics for national networks? Why are these reports accompanied by warnings and deboosted on social media platforms, if they’re allowed to appear at all?

These forbidden topics slowly give way to truth, as proven with Facebook’s about-face earlier this month wherein they now allow claims that COVID-19 was engineered in a lab, and does not have natural origins.

The suppression by social media platforms of information about Ivermectin and other early stage treatments is both inexplicable and well documented. For over a year, information about Ivermectin therapy was suppressed by the World Health Organization and and censored online. And there is plenty of evidence that the “fact checkers” used by these social media monopolies are in fact partisan “fact blockers.”

In any pandemic there are four steps that public health authorities take. They mandate social distancing, they develop early stage treatment protocols, they develop late stage treatment protocols, and they work on a vaccine. But with COVID, part two was largely ignored. Not only ignored, but maligned.

History will not be kind to the special interests that denied hundreds of thousands of people access to treatments that could have saved their lives. It is not necessary to be against vaccinations, or indulge in conspiracy theories, in order to realize that for some reason, America’s health establishment engaged in murderous negligence, with the full complicity of the media, online and offline.

And they’re still doing it.

EDITORS NOTE: This Winston84 Project column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Calling Europe’s Floods ‘Climate’ is Unscientific Propaganda

“When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” 

To the warming-Left, every natural weather event looks like “climate.”

Europe has been hit by devastating floods with the death toll reaching 188 and rising.  Of course the usual suspects are exploiting this genuine, heart-rending tragedy to advance their climate agenda.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that Germany must “be faster in the battle against climate change.”

“Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo said the link with climate change was clear.”

No less an expert than teenage high school dropout Greta Thunberg posted:

Deadly heatwaves, floods, storms, wildfires, droughts, crop failures…  This is not “the new normal.”

We’re at the very beginning of a climate and ecological emergency, and extreme weather events will only become more and more frequent.

After the catastrophic recent developments – especially in Western Europe – everyone seems to be talking about the climate emergency, and rightly so. But as soon as these tragedies are over we’ll most likely forget about it and move on like before.  Unless we treat the crisis like a crisis all the time, we will not be able to halt the climate emergency.

All three of them, along with the rest of the politicians, media and pressure groups attributing Europe’s flooding to climate are shamefully wrong.

Does anyone rationally believe that Europe’s floods, or the heatwave in the western U.S. for that matter, were meaningfully worse because the temperature of the Earth warmed slightly, far less than climate models projected, almost entirely last century?

Australia’s intrepid Joanne Nova did her usual no-nonsense job of showing that Europe’s floods, devastating though they may be, are historically normal. In fact, in 1714 Europe flooded on Christmas Eve killing 14,000!  “It’s as if European history doesn’t exist,” she writes (posted at

Every so often Europe’s rivers will inevitably flood.  The flooding will be worse when, as happened this time, pressure systems leave the weather lingering in place, rather than pushing the storm rapidly through.  This is how Hurricane Dorian devastated the Bahamas two years ago.  This type of extreme weather event cannot be prevented through taxation, redistribution, carbon trading, windmills, solar panels, or electric vehicles.

We can, however, protect people and property from extreme weather through forecasting, early warning, preparedness and response.

This is where Europe’s bureaucrats devastatingly dropped the ball.  This is the preventable man-made disaster.

The London Times reports that the reason for the flood’s terrible loss stems from  a “monumental failure of the warning system.”  Excerpts via the U.K.’s GWPF at Climate Depot:

The first signs of catastrophe were detected nine days ago by a satellite orbiting 500 miles above the tranquil hills around the Rhine river. 

Over the next few days a team of scientists sent the German authorities a series of forecasts so accurate that they now read like a macabre prophecy: the Rhineland was about to be hit by “extreme” flooding, particularly along the Erft and Ahr rivers, and in towns such as Hagen and Altena.

Yet despite at least 24 hours’ warning that predicted, almost precisely, which districts would be worst afflicted when the rains came, the flood still caught many of its victims largely unawares…

“People should have been receiving warnings; people should have understood the warnings. It’s no use having massive computer models predicting what’s going to happen if people don’t know what to do in a flood.”

Instead, the overwhelming majority of people in the path of the floods carried on with their everyday lives, oblivious to the danger, as the waters began to rise.

Western Europe had all the infrastructure it needed to protect its people.  It failed to use it.

Don’t let Europe’s failed bureaucracy wiggle off the hook by shifting the blame to “climate.”  Europe was going to flood whether you drove to work and used electricity or not.  The weather warnings were clear, but not shared with the public.  Tragic.

There are a few particularly onerous weasel words the global warming campaign uses when natural disaster strikes.  Warming makes extreme weather “more likely” and “more severe,” they say.  The fact that global temperature did not make the disaster meaningfully more likely or severe they leave out entirely.  This is where the media fails its responsibility and declines to ask the relevant questions.

The New York Times reports that team warming is planning to use “rapid attribution” of natural weather events to climate in an attempt to preempt those of us prepared to present the scientific and historical evidence that falsifies their claims.

That’s how human behavior leads to weather that kills — as it did in Europe.


Craig Rucker

Craig Rucker is a co-founder of CFACT and currently serves as its president.

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

Bill Gates, China and COVID-19

“A Thorough Knowledge Of The Bible, Is More Valuable Than A College Education!” – 26th U.S. President, Theodore Roosevelt.

Today’s blog comes from a friend of mine, Pastor Bob Brown, who runs an organization called One Nation Under God. Some of you will remember him from our huge “Save America Foundation” event in Tampa. A great speaker and truly good man. His site has many great articles but this one hit me and I knew you, my informed readers, will want to read it to. I will put all links and credits at the end but ask you share from this blog.


The Corona Virus, COVID-19, was Patented in 2006, under U.S. Patent # 2006257852,
called “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ” (S.A.R.S. is also called a Corona Virus), which is owned by GlaxoSmithKline, a major vaccine manufacturer.

There is also an European patent on this same virus, and its vaccine; Patents # EP3172319A1 & B1, applied for in November 2014, and granted in November 2019 – just ONE MONTH before the debut of the COVID-19 outbreak.

The Chinese Military and Communist Party ONLY further manipulated this VERY SAME Corona Virus, to allow its transmission to humans (SOMETHING THAT IS ILLEGAL, AND ALSO MAKES IT A BIOLOGICAL WEAPON)! Using a Biological Weapon against the world, politically correct verbiage aside; IS AN ACT OF WAR – Regardless of whether or not your politicians have the moral courage to DECLARE that SO in public!!!

The European patents for this virus, are owned by the Pirbright Institute (which is owned by Bill and Melinda Gates, who have been Very Publicly Telling Us that they seek to MANDATE, and then to Vaccinate, The ENTIRE WORLD with “THEIR” vaccines)!!! Only AFTER worldwide Vaccination is complete, does self-appointed World Emperor, Bill Gates think that it would be ok to go back to planet normal!!!

Is this HOW Almighty God Intends for us to deal with, and to Treat – Diseases, Plagues, and Sickness? Read our Bible Study on “Divine Healing, and The Laying On Of Hands”, at for WHAT Almighty God SAYS about Healing and Curing Sickness and Disease!

Note: Most flu vaccines increase the risk of getting the Flu by 36%, according to a recent U.S. Army Study on vaccinated servicemen (if in fact the vaccines did not “GIVE” the 36% percent of our troops the Flu, tested in this Study)!

Remember they stopped giving the Polio vaccine because it was determined that the vaccines were actually transmitting the disease (Vaccine Induced Polio) to the Non-Vaccinated public, instead of curing it!!!

In other words, Vaccinated people were having a genetic reversal occur of the pathogen in their  bodies, and were actually excreting a viral form of the pathogen to non-Vaccinated people around them!!!

In medical terms: The vaccine-derived attenuated virus is normally excreted from vaccinated  people for a limited period; thus, the spontaneous reversal of the vaccine-derived virus to a virulent form and its spreading in the environment, can lead to unvaccinated people becoming infected!!!

Shockingly, in 1960, rhesus monkey kidney cells were used to prepare  the Polio Virus vaccines, which were then later determined to be infected  with the Simian Virus-40 (or SV40), which is a naturally occurring virus that infects monkeys. In 1961, SV40 was found to cause tumors in  rodents!!! More recently, the virus was found in certain forms of cancer  in humans (brain, bone tissue, pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma, and  some types of non- Hodgkin’s lymphoma)!!! Hundreds and Hundreds of Millions of people have been Inoculated and Vaccinated with “Animal DNA” over the last 70 years!!!

What does God Think and Say about those who Defy His Natural Order? READ Romans 1:18-32!!!

Back to the 19th Chinese Originated Viral Infectious Disease (or COVID-19):

COVID-19 only infects humans, because like our previously discussed polio vaccines, they have been genetically manipulated, in laboratories – ON PURPOSE – to specifically infect humans!!! WHY would humans want to infect other humans? Because these “Scientists and Doctors” are Following Satan instead of Almighty God (John 10:10 / Romans 1:18-32 /  Exodus 15:26 / Psalm 91:1-16)!!!

There are some very Wealthy, but very EVIL people, that want to Kill and Control MOST of the people on this earth!!!

So let’s indulge in a fantasy for a moment, and imagine; If YOU were an Evil and Twisted Billionaire, with lots of Mad Scientists on your payroll, HOW would YOU control the ignorant and pathetic masses of people around you?

How To Control The World in Ten Easy Steps:

  1. Develop a virus that will run rampant like the seasonal flu, yet with minimal fatalities (about one third the deaths that annual flu strains cause).
  2. Obtain a patent on the virus, and for it’s vaccines, in European and in American patent offices. YOU now OWN the Disease and it’s CURE!!!
  3. Assist the Chinese Communist Party (The Second Largest Naval Military Powerhouse on the planet – after the U.S. Military and Navy; but without any of the moral scruples or “weak minded” religious views getting in the way), in the infiltration of American Universities, where bio-labs are working on your “patented” flu strains.
  4. Assist Chinese Communist Party Military Officers, acting undercover as  “Foreign Exchange Students”, to steal and transport your viruses back to Military Biological Weapons Labs in China, where they can be Manipulated with Bat DNA to make a simple and benign virus, now transmittable to human hosts!!!
  5. Have China release the viruses worldwide, once patent and vaccine manufacturing are in place; and then work extensively with your paid agents in The World Health Organization  (W.H.O), Center for Disease Control (C.D.C.), and in worldwide media outlets to “Hype” the disease way out of proportion, and well beyond its Actual and True casualty impact.
  6. Use allies in government offices, and in healthcare, to “cook the books”, and give financial incentives to those treating YOUR disease, and to direct resources and manpower at areas with “your false” inflated infection and fatality data.
  7. Shut Down and Control societies, businesses and manufacturing under the guise of a “Major Health Crises”; thus producing hoarding and artificial shortages of certain goods and services. 
  8. Limit individual rights and freedoms, use all available means to appeal to “Sensationalism” and to instill “Irrational FEAR” wherever and whenever possible. Promote the wearing of masks, so that people will “believe” that there is an invisible threat, EVERY time they SEE someone wearing a mask!!!
  9. Blame China as the “Bad Guy”; and when all Hope appears to be lost, Offer a viable, but “Untested”, VACCINE to the masses, using “Deemed Credible” Medical Experts; with the Promises of both Preventing  future outbreaks, and / or, of Substantially Reducing the symptoms and death rates during future and similar Pandemics. (NOTE: Vaccines given to “The Sheeple”, will be later discovered to have an unfortunate side effect: they will have STERILIZED 80-90 percent of school age children, worldwide (those with strong natural immunity), and have caused an Exponentially Greater fatality rate, than COVID viruses ever could). In Essence: Create an Artificial Crises, then Use FEAR to Mandate Worldwide  Vaccines; then after Financial Profits have been Realized – WAIT for Vaccines to Drastically Lower Western Society, and Developing Nations’ Population Levels – BOTH by short term attrition, through Vaccinated Caused Deaths (one year), and through Long Term Attrition, through Vaccinated Caused Sterility!!! Patience PAY$$$!!!
  10. Allow China to dominate Militarily, and Politically in the “Carefully Created Power  Vaccum”; acting as The New Powerhouse for a European Orchestrated and Controlled New World Order!!!

Call this fantasy, if you’d like. But there are some very rich and very powerful people, who are currently Very Drunk with the wine of this very particular fantasy (Revelation 18:3)!!!

Never forget that the W.H.O. has been accidentally “sterilizing” tribes in Africa, since the mid 1980’s (or  causing “insignificant research casualties, necessary for the greater good of Stabilizing the World’s Human Population at Sustainable Levels”)!!!

I’ll bet you that the people “tricked” and sometimes “forced” to take these vaccines in order to be “Exterminated in slow motion”, over one generation, don’t feel insignificant (Matthew  10:26-33 / Genesis 1:26-31)!!!

ALL men and women, and ALL boys and girls, are Precious in Almighty God’s Sight!!! Creating a Pandemic and a Vaccine, in order to MURDER Billions is of Satan, and NOT of  Almighty God or of His Son – Our SAVIOR (John 10:10)!!!

You can read about WHAT Almighty God has to Say, about this, and future “Pandemics”, in Two Great Bible Study Series:

  1. Jesus Christ’s Olivet Prophecy (Parts 1-4)
  2. The Beast of Revelation, and The King of The North (Parts 1-4)

Both are always available, at No Cost, at!!!

Prepare Yourself NOW!!!

We recommend staying Physically and Spiritually Healthy (See below for details on how to Biblically achieve both). Store up a reasonable amount of food, medicine, and supplies as a Prudent and Wise Ant (Proverbs 6:5-11). Contemplate how you could or might have to, withstand future food shortages, riots, looting, and forced inoculations, under your  national laws, under your current financial and employment status; and lastly, we ask you to realistically evaluate your safety and security infrastructure and contingency plans, for your current dwelling’s location.

The Biblical Answer to The Beginning of Sorrows (Matthew 24:1-51), is 90 percent Spiritual; but make NO MISTAKE, Jesus Showed us that it is also 10 percent Physical Preparation and ACTION (Matthew 13:41-43, 25:1-46)!!!

Learn HOW to Keep Alert, and HOW To Stay SAFE in the days, months, and years ahead – EXACTLY AS Jesus Christ Taught Us To DO!

In Jesus Christ’s Mighty Name,

Pastor Bob Brown

©All rights reserved.

Putting Covid Deaths Into Perspective!

350,000 deaths were attributed to COVID-19 here in America in 2020. Now, we all know this number was highly inflated for political and financial gain. Hospitals, cities, counties, states and many organizations benefitted from a Covid related death as opposed to say a Flu death! Shocking huh? Always follow the money! We all know medical professionals with stories of the corruption in reporting Covid and even crazy cases like here in Florida where a motorcyclist died in an accident and cause of death was listed as Coronavirus! Then the New York Nursing Home deaths, almost a deliberate act by their socialist leaders. We will never know the true number or even believe what we hear anymore.

Now, let’s agree that maybe 200,000 people, give or take a few, actually died due to Covid and nothing else. That means taking out those that were going to die like congestive heart failure patients etc. and those they lied about.

Now, let’s look at a statistic that plays directly off the tyrannical and oft times insane Covid era rules and regulations on movement etc..

93,000 people died of a drug overdose that same year, 2020. A 29% increase over 2019. This alone is a staggering number of deaths and the pathetic government policies obviously exasperated the number. People with addiction problems were locked down, unable to attend meetings, clinics, drug counselors and generally any help.

Heroin and fentanyl led the numbers where prescription painkillers once ruled. Fentanyl is a powerful opioid developed to treat terrible pain in patients suffering for instance cancer. This drug was named in 60% of the cases in 2020!

Suicides are an unknown as the CDC, in typical big government style, has not reported statistics for suicides in 2020. This is either on purpose so they can fudge the numbers or as I say, just typical big government laziness! The number being supplied however is just under 50,000. No breakdown on age, sex, race etc. is available yet.

42,060 people died in car accidents in 2020, an increase strangely enough of 7.2% over 2019. Guess the lockdowns didn’t help here either huh?

The final data on flu season in the States 2019/2020 was released by the CDC in April as Covid-19 continued to spread throughout the United States. Between October 1, 2019 and April 4, 2020, the flu resulted in:

  • 39 to 56 million illnesses
  • 410,000 to 740,000 hospitalizations
  • 24,000 to 62,000 deaths
  • 195 pediatric deaths.

( Not sure how they have such wide margins! )

My point here is that people die, 3,358,814 in the USA alone in 2020.

Now – the total number of deaths world wide attributed to Covid-19, ( and as I said earlier that number was greatly upwardly massaged to scare people and promote the leftist agenda ) according to the WHO is copied here below. Notice how they change the figure greatly as I mentioned. “On 30 January 2020 COVID-19 was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) with an official death toll of 171. By 31 December 2020, this figure stood at 1 813 188. Yet preliminary estimates suggest the total number of global deaths attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 is at least 3 million, representing 1.2 million more deaths than officially reported.

So world wide deaths attributed falsely or not to the China Virus is less than the total number of deaths from multiple causes in America in 2020!

For this we ruined our strong economy, jobs, businesses, lives and removed freedoms, rights and liberties in a constant barrage of attacks on our constitution and our constitutional rights.

It is way past time here America to make a stand against the tyrannical government that seized power illegally in the 2020 election fraud cycle. It is time to say NO MORE! We are Americans and by very definition a free personage with liberties and choices. Some are God given, others a constitutional right. Defend them with a firm resolute mind or risk losing them forever.

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: What to Say and Do if Biden Vaccine ‘Strike Force’ Comes Knocking At Your Door

What do you do when they come for you? Watch this to find out. Anti-Strike Force Jab Guidance by Jeffrey Prather:

©Jeffrey Prather. All rights reserved.

Marijuana And Other Drugs Can Kill Babies In First Year Of Life

Drug-related deaths among US infants

For the first time, researchers find that during the first year of life, even infants can die from exposure to addictive drugs, either directly or indirectly. They defined “drug-involved deaths” as those deaths due to underlying or contributing causes. Drugs most frequently mentioned on death certificates included methamphetamine, opioids, opioid treatment drugs like methadone or naloxone, cocaine, and cannabis.

Nearly 92,000 Americans died of a drug overdose in the one-year period ending in October 2020. More than 823,000 Americans have died of an overdose since 2000. Infant deaths comprise less than 1 percent of those deaths, according to the study.

Read CDC interview with the author of the study here.

Read full text of the study here.

©National Families in Action’s The Marijuana Report. All rights reserved

Repudiating Roe: The Most Important Abortion Case in 30 Years

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is a signal moment in America’s constitutional history.

For the first time in a generation and a half — nearly 30 years — there is a realistic chance that the Supreme Court might overrule Roe v. Wade, the Court’s 1973 decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. The Court has agreed to hear a case next fall that presents a direct challenge to the foundations and validity of Roe.

This is a signal moment in America’s constitutional history. One of the most notorious decisions in the Court’s history is likely either to be repudiated and overruled — discarded, finally and definitively — or else reaffirmed and entrenched, perhaps permanently. The case is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. And the stakes could not possibly be higher.

My discussion of Dobbs proceeds in two parts. In this article, I explain why Dobbs is the most important abortion case to reach the Court in nearly thirty years — since Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the case in which a splintered Court, by the narrowest of 5-4 margins, reaffirmed Roe, not because a majority of the justices thought Roe was right, but on the basis of the judicial doctrine of “stare decisis.”

Dobbs is important because it frames a direct challenge to Roe and Casey, forcing the Court to confront the legal indefensibility and radicalism of the Court’s pro-abortion jurisprudence. Dobbs poses the enormously important question whether Roe and Casey, two of the worst constitutional decisions of all time, were wrongly decided and should now, finally, be overruled. On the merits, I submit, the answer must be yes.

Later on, I will take up the somewhat peculiar-sounding question whether the judicial doctrine of “stare decisis” — the (inconsistent) judicial practice of generally adhering to precedents — can properly require the Court deliberately to reaffirm precedents that it is persuaded are egregiously and atrociously wrong. That, I maintain today, is the only true question remaining at issue in Dobbs. And the answer is emphatically no.

Roe’s wrongness

Start with Roe v. WadeRoe is regarded, rightly, as one of the most consequential and controversial — and one of the very worst — constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court in its history.

In simplest terms, Roe created a constitutional right to abortion of the life of a living human fetus. That result, and Roe’s reasoning in support of it, are indefensible from a legal standpoint. No plausible argument from the constitutional text, no rule or principle fairly derived from its structure or internal logic or deducible from other propositions contained therein, and no credible argument from historical understanding or intention remotely supports the abortion right created in Roe.

Roe v. Wade is simply a lawless decision. I know of no serious constitutional scholar who defends Roe’s result as a faithful interpretation of the Constitution’s language, understood according to its natural and original meaning, as understood at the time of its adoption, or as consistent with the original intent of its adopters in 1868.

To be sure, a small cottage industry of legal academics has grown up around the enterprise of attempting to concoct “alternative” legal theories to support the result in Roe. These theories range from the merely strained and historically insupportable — the claim that abortion restrictions constitute sex discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is the most common — to the comically absurd and outlandish.

The latter include wild assertions that abortion laws violate the Constitution’s prohibition of slavery or interfere with the guarantee to women of the right to vote. (I address and refute these theories in a book chapter of a volume collecting many of the most “creative” such contrivances, and also in an academic article.)

The Court has never adopted any of these alternative theories for abortion as a constitutional right. Nor has it come anywhere close to doing so. Instead, it has left the right to abortion where Roe purported to find it, in the guarantee that government not deprive persons of life, liberty, or property “without due process of law.”

That’s the same bogus legal reasoning on which the Supreme Court had rested its infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857, holding unconstitutional Congress’s law prohibiting the introduction of slavery into federal territories. This reasoning, if one can call it that, goes by the oxymoronic label “substantive due process.” It is gibberish, as most sensible people recognize.

In Casey, the Court, while nominally reaffirming Roe’s substantive due process holding, could not bring itself actually to embrace Roe’s reasoning as correct. Indeed, a majority of justices seemed to indicate they believed that the case was wrongly decided. Casey left Roe in place almost purely on the basis of the doctrine of stare decisis. In other words, the justices concluded the Court should stick to Roe “whether or not mistaken,” simply because it was a precedent on which the Court had staked its authority, and it might look bad if it were to reverse itself.

In tomorrow’s essay, I will attack this craven, unprincipled reasoning. For now, my point is simpler: Roe is a relic of abandoned reasoning that almost no one — including the Court itself — any longer thinks correct on its own terms. If Roe retains any legitimacy at all, it is only because it is a precedent and for no reason moored to the text of the Constitution.

It is important to grasp this. Roe v. Wade’s rule no longer rests on any provision of the Constitution. It rests on Roe’s rule being Roe’s rule. The constitutional right to abortion has been cut loose from any tether to the Constitution’s text. It now depends, essentially entirely, on the force of Roe’s status as a precedent and the doctrine of stare decisis.

Roe’s indefensibility as a matter of faithful constitutional interpretation is, frankly, almost no longer a matter of serious dispute. The incorrectness of Roe as a matter of first principles is practically a point of common ground, certainly so for the principled constitutional conservatives that now compose the majority of the justices on the Court. Bluntly put: Roe is as wrong as wrong can be, and everybody knows it.

Roe’s extremism and its human consequences

Roe’s formulation of the abortion right is also quite extreme. In a nutshell, Roe established a constitutional right to abortion of a living human fetus for essentially any reason that a pregnant woman chooses. Under the Court’s decisions, the right to abort exists throughout all nine months of pregnancy, albeit in slightly varying forms depending on the stage of pregnancy.

Prior to fetal “viability” — that is, the point when the child could live outside his or her mother’s womb, now around twenty-four weeks — the right to abort is explicitly plenary. There is no ground on which states may prohibit an abortion from being obtained. This includes, as I have recently written, eugenic reasons — aborting an unborn child because of his or her race or sex, or on account of disability.

After viability, an abortion may be had for any “health” reasonbut “health” is defined broadly (and misleadingly) to embrace emotional, psychological, age, or “familial” considerations. This loophole is big enough to make the right to abortion functionally absolute, even when the child could live outside the womb.

The Court’s opinions concerning “partial-birth” abortion, in 2000 and 2007, bear this out. They uphold a right to kill a fetus capable of living independently of the mother, under the rubric of the need to permit late abortions on “health” grounds. Thus, partial-birth abortion — the gruesome technique of inducing labour, delivering all of the body except the head, puncturing the skull and vacuuming out the child’s brain, collapsing the head, and then completing removal of the dead child — can be prohibited as an abortion method, even after viability, only if there is available some equally safe (to the pregnant woman) alternative method for killing the fetus.

The right to abortion is thus essentially absolute. This is especially clear for pre-viability abortions. State governments may adopt certain informed consent and waiting-period requirements, and they may enforce some (but not many) regulations of abortion clinics. But they may not prohibit abortion itself, for any reason, prior to viability.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey tinkered slightly with Roe’s framework but did not alter its essentials. It retained the absolute right to pre-viability abortion and it retained the “health” right to abortion of even viable unborn babies.

It is worth pausing briefly to reflect on just how radical the RoeCasey abortion-rights legal construct is. It is no cautious “balance” of interests. It is almost unreservedly pro-abortion. It adopts one of the most extremely lenient pro-abortion legal regimes anywhere in the world. It fails to recognise any legal rights of the unborn human fetal children, in any respect, at any stage of pregnancy.

It does not recognise them as legal persons in their own right, entitled to the equal protection of the laws from private violence (a debatable but infinitely more plausible legal understanding of the common law and of the Constitution’s guarantees than is Roe’s creation of a constitutional right to abortion). Nor, short of that, does it recognise the unborn as members of the human species meriting protection by the state, whether or not they possess a constitutionally recognised legal “right to life” of their own. The living human fetus is treated, absurdly, as “potential life.”

In short, if Roe were an act of legislation, a bill passed by a legislature, it would be extremist pro-abortion legislation. And, not to put too fine a point on it, Roe is an act of legislation. (As is Casey — a modest, friendly amendment to Roe.) That Roe and Casey are acts of extremist legislation, adopted by a runaway judiciary, only makes matters worse.

The most important point about Roe’s extremism is, of course, its human toll. Roe’s practical and moral consequences have been truly stunning. Roe sanctioned, and Casey perpetuated, in the name of our fundamental law, the killing of over sixty million human beings.

This is not rhetorical overstatement but simple description. That abortion kills should not be a controversial proposition. There is no doubt that abortion results in the death of a distinct living being — an organism that was alive before is now dead. And there is no doubt that the living being killed by abortion is a human living being, distinct from the mother.

Abortion thus ends a human life. To be sure, it is a human life at an early and vulnerable stage in its development. But it is the same human life it will be at all stages of its life cycle, as an embryo, fetus, infant, child, and adult.

Roe created a right of some human beings to kill other human beings. It is important to be clear about that. Since Roe, the running human death toll from abortion in America has exceeded that of the Nazi Holocaust, Stalin’s purges, and the Rwandan genocide combined. Our familiarity with Roe has led to a strange acceptance of, or numbness to, its shocking, murderous radicalism and the scale of its havoc.

Roe is both a constitutional monstrosity and a moral atrocity.  As I wrote in these pages nearly a decade ago, Roe is simply unbearably wrong. It is time — long past time — to overrule Roe v. Wade.

The Dobbs case

That brings us to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Dobbs case poses a direct, head-on challenge to Roe’s framework and, by necessary implication, its legitimacy. Here’s how: As noted, Roe and Casey hold that abortion cannot be banned for any reason before the point of fetal viability, when the child would be capable of living outside his or her mother’s womb, currently at about twenty-four weeks of pregnancy.

Dobbs involves a legal challenge to a Mississippi law forbidding abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy. This is more than two months before the point of viability. Simply put, if Roe is right, Mississippi’s law is “unconstitutional” (to accede, for purposes of argument, to an inaccurate characterisation). And conversely, for Mississippi’s law to be upheld, Roe and Casey must be rejected.

The Dobbs case thus squarely presents the issue of whether Roe v. Wade is wrong and should be overruled. Given what Roe and subsequent abortion decisions hold, and what the Mississippi law in question provides, the issue is practically unavoidable. And the Court’s order granting review shows no desire to avoid it. The legal question on which the justices granted review was stated as follows: “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.” That’s another way of asking whether Roe v. Wade is rightly or wrongly decided and should remain the operative legal rule.

What will the Court do? A solid majority of justices now on the Supreme Court clearly believes that Roe is unequivocally wrongly decided, as flagrant a departure from constitutional text, structure, and history as any precedent in the Court’s history.

There is no doubt in my mind that six of the nine sitting justices firmly believe Roe is wrong. They are, in rough order of certainty: Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice John Roberts.

In truth, I believe Justice Elena Kagan in her heart of hearts is unpersuaded of Roe’s legal correctness, too. But she and fellow liberals Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor can be counted on to vote for unrestricted abortion rights no matter what.

The stakes and snare of “stare decisis

Everything — everything — thus depends on the Court’s treatment of the legal doctrine of “stare decisis.” “Stare decisis” is a fragment of the Latin phrase taken to stand for the general rule of practice and judicial policy, drawn from the common law, that courts tend to follow their own precedents unless they have a good and sufficient legal justification for departing from them.

Significantly, the doctrine has never been thought to be constitutionally required. It is a rule of judicial policy and usual practice only. Nor has the doctrine ever been thought absolute. There are literally hundreds of examples of cases that have been overruled. Even at common law, courts could overrule prior decisions demonstrated to be unsound.

Moreover, the doctrine’s roots in common-law adjudication — where the law actually consists of general principles discerned from the overall course of judicial decisions — mean that it does not transpose neatly (if at all) to constitutional interpretation, where the relevant law consists of an authoritative, written legal text.

Simply put, if the text is the touchstone, judicial precedents contrary to the text are simply not faithful understandings of the relevant law. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in constitutional cases has consistently affirmed that core principle, leading the Court repeatedly to emphasise that adherence to precedent is “not an inexorable command.”

Nonetheless, the doctrine retains some intuitive appeal, especially for “conservatives,” as it purports to advance conservative-sounding values of stability, predictability, consistency, humility, and restraint. And it does advance these values, at least to some extent. But the doctrine is slippery, deceptive, and readily manipulated.

In practice, the doctrine often disserves the very policies it claims to serve, undermining predictability and stability and disguising judicial discretion. There is a strong claim that it is not “conservative” at all — that faithful adherence to the Constitution requires just that: faithful adherence to the Constitution, not to faithless departures from its text, structure, history, and original meaning.

Ironically, the staunchest defenders of stare decisis today are liberal, activist judges, who invoke it selectively and perhaps a bit cynically, as a tool for entrenching liberal decisions that are not defensible under the Constitution. That is, they invoke stare decisis precisely to preserve such faithless departures from the text itself.

Like the apple in the Garden, then, the doctrine of stare decisis can be deceptively enticing. Dangled by the devil for evil purposes, the doctrine has an enormous capacity to mislead and deceive. Some nominally “conservative” members of the Court have succumbed to its appeal in the past, including in abortion cases, substituting a corrupted version of the doctrine for constitutional principle.

That is what happened in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision in which a 5-4 majority of the Court voted to reaffirm Roe v. Wade on the supposed basis of the doctrine of stare decisis — even while changing Roe’s standards and framework and overruling two cases.

Is there a risk that something like this could happen again in Dobbs? Is there a risk of another Casey? Might the Court hold, in the name of stare decisis, that Roe and Casey should be upheld, no matter how wrong they were, how extreme they are, and how atrocious their consequences, simply because they were decided before?

I take up that question next: Does the doctrine of stare decisis require adherence to an egregiously wrong, legally indefensible precedent, in conflict with a proper understanding of the Constitution, simply because it is a precedent?

Republished with permission from The Public Discourse.


Michael Stokes Paulsen

Michael Stokes Paulsen is Distinguished University Chair & Professor of Law, at the University of St. Thomas, in Minneapolis. More by Michael Stokes Paulsen

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

What is China doing?

On May 26, 2021, President Joe Biden announced that he had asked the U.S. intelligence community to redouble its efforts to determine the origins of the COVID-19 virus. The U.S. findings are expected in about 90 days. So now we know what the Biden administration is doing, but what will the Chinese government, or the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), do? In light of China’s obfuscation so far, it is absurd to imagine that it will be cooperating with the U.S. investigation. Neither will it be sitting idly by waiting to learn of the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusions. Instead, the CCP will be doing everything it can to shape the report and ensure that the findings will be released in a context saturated by Chinese propaganda.

What does China want the narrative to be? The ideal outcome would be that the virus originated outside of China. Failing that, an acceptable outcome would be, as highlighted in a recent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article, that the virus “that killed millions of people and shattered the global economy” would be “among the world’s most consequential mysteries.”

There is one outcome that would be unacceptable to the CCP: China will do almost anything to keep the U.S. from concluding that the virus was developed in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The CCP is already taking steps to encourage the U.S. to reach “the right” judgment, and it appears to have people in the West, including in the U.S., who are willingly supporting those efforts.

On July 5, 2021, The Lancet published “Science, not speculation, is essential to determine how SARS-CoV-2 reached humans.” This letter was written by the same “reputable” experts who in early 2020, shortly after the outbreak of the pandemic, hurried to state — despite egregiously insufficient evidence — that the virus developed naturally and could not have been manufactured in a lab. That false narrative set the tone for more than one year.

Now, one-and-a-half years later, The Lancet has again come out with an unjustified dismissal of the lab leak theory, couched in support for the G7’s call for a new COVID origins study, led by the World Health Organization (WHO). Among repeated affirmations of “solidarity… with those in China who [have] confronted the outbreak,” the letter piously cautions that “it might take years of field and laboratory study to assemble and link data essential to reach rational and objective conclusions…” This type of delay, strategically accompanied by a strong but carefully hedged reassertion of the original claim that “we believe the strongest clue from new, credible, and peer reviewed evidence in the scientific literature is that the virus evolved in nature, while suggestions of a laboratory leak source of the pandemic remain without scientifically validated evidence that directly supports it in peer-reviewed scientific journals,” is exactly what the WSJ warned might happen. More significantly, it is exactly what China wants. Nothing could be better for China than having The Lancet as the messenger, lending scientific credibility to what the CCP wants the world to believe.

Click HERE to read more.

Originally published by the Gatestone Institute


 Pete Hoekstra

Pete Hoekstra is a former Representative in Congress from Michigan. He served as the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. More recently he was U.S. Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Vaccine Mutations: Devastating Side-effects Crippling, Mutilating All Americans

Listen to the real-life, heart-breaking stories of innocent Americans, many of whom volunteered for the early vaccine trials in December 2020 and January 2021, tell their stories of devastating side-effects from the so-called Covid vaccines. These people are suffering daily, life-crippling events and their stories are being ignored by the Biden team and cast-aside by the mainstream media. Graham Ledger speaks with Dr. Bryan Ardis about how even folks who did NOT get the so-called vaccine are in danger of being affected by fallout from these shots.

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

IT WAS ALWAYS ABOUT THE KIDS: Gay Men’s Choir Video Unvarnished

“You think that we’ll corrupt your kids if our agenda goes unchecked. Just this once … you’re correct. We’ll convert your children, happens bit by bit, quietly and subtly. We’ll convert your children, reaching one and all. There’s really no escaping it. We’re coming for your children! We’re coming for your children! We’re coming for your children!”

Creepy or what? You’re probably wondering where I found this terrifying threat. An early episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer? The trailer to Blumhouse Productions’ latest horror blockbuster, perhaps? A dream journal lifted from an insane asylum?

Nope. These are song lyrics from an organization more sinister and frightening than any scary movie you had in mind: the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus (SFGMC), a crying circle for Bay Area pederasts. It’s what happens when clerical sexual abuse meets soullessness, joylessness and tunelessness. The song, which keeps disappearing from YouTube because even leftists are shocked by its accidental truthfulness, cannot be unseen. Musically, it is terrible, and of course boring — because ideas this ugly cannot be expressed in beautiful words or melodies. The singers look haunted — because they are. The message is unvarnished, explicit, unequivocal: It was always about the kids.

The ugliest hues in the gay rainbow are the nebulous pastels of transgenderism, because trans ideology compels mothers to sacrifice their own children, just as pagan cults promised fertility through blood sacrifice. At its heart, homosexualism is a form of demonic grasping for transcendence, a perversion of our natural longing for our Almighty Father, which follows naturally from these pagan origins. But gay men are nothing if not competitive, and this video represents male homosexuality’s attempt to reclaim the top spot of terror from the Korybantic priests of trans acceptance.

The “message from the gay community” 

The shabby, earthly cult of homosexualism has always been laser-focused on children because it is really a reimagining of a very old, pagan form of worship: blood sacrifice, especially of children by their own kin, in the hope of supernatural reward. It is also, as betrayed by the chillingly robotic performances from these spiteful Californian songbirds, an inversion of divine joy. Everything they do is a pathetic inversion of the good, the whole and the true — even their wretched rainbow, a reappropriation of the symbol of God’s covenant with Noah, explicitly associated with fertility because the ark was populated by heterosexual pairs of animals.

The immediate physical objectives of the LGBT movement are diabolical because they militate against human fertility. Sterile homosexual congress, castration and the corruption of children stand in defiant opposition to the fertility of Christianity. Believing in Jesus Christ requires an act of faith in a Holy Patriarch and a rejection of the demonic terror of transsexualism. Trannies are the castrated priests of Cybele whom Augustine saw dancing in the streets of Carthage, dressed like women but not women.

And yet, the blinding light of eternal truth makes man’s defiance look tiny. In Christianity, we embrace a longing for the “gender fluidity” of the incarnation, of the marriage of human and divine. This is a more dangerous ambition than anything the squalid bedwetters of trans Twitter can conceive: Our God became incarnate — wedding his divinity to our humanity in Mary’s womb — to become the sacrifice.

Against my Christian instincts, I want to summon hatred for the smug, gyrating malefactors of the SFGMC. But I can’t. These men aren’t pedophiles — though many of them were turned into homosexuals by pedophiles. For the most part, they are simply misguided, afraid and damaged children who have no clue how to behave or who to be because they have never experienced an authentic, platonic relationship with another man. They are hopelessly disconnected from their ordained purpose, seized by fear, sprinting as fast as their legs will carry them from their responsibilities and the growing suspicion that they were destined for leadership and fatherhood.


Milo Yiannopoulos

Milo Yiannopoulos is a New York Times-bestselling author, an award-winning investigative reporter, a reformed sodomite, a global political sensation, a free speech martyr, an accomplished serial entrepreneur, a hair icon, a penitent, and, to the annoyance of his many enemies, a happy person. Nicknamed the “pop star of hate” by jealous fatties in the media, Milo is the most censored, most lied-about man in the world, banned from entire continents for his unapologetic commitment to the sound of his own voice. His first book, Dangerous, sold over 200,000 copies despite never being reviewed in any major publication. Milo lives in Florida, where he is preparing to open a reparative therapy clinic for men plagued by same-sex attraction. He welcomes letters from readers, and can be reached at

RELATED ARTICLE: San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus sings ‘We’re coming for your children’

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

Ivy League Study Shows How U.S. Media Created a Climate of Fear Over COVID-19

A new NBER paper titled “Why Is All COVID-19 News Bad News?” shows how US media fanned the flames of public panic.

n February 18, the Oxford Mail published an article headlined “Scientists working on a coronavirus vaccine in Oxford.”

The article explained that Sarah Gilbert, a British vaccinologist and professor at the University of Oxford, was leading a team of scientists at Oxford’s Jenner Institute in rapid development of a vaccine.

The article was short (less than 200 words), featured a quote from Gilbert, and was reported without any predictions on possible death tolls.

For months, Gilbert’s research was not covered in the US. And when US media did cover it months later, the successful track record of the Oxford researchers was downplayed, as was the possibility of getting a vaccine developed quickly.

“The earliest available (major outlet) U.S. story is from CNN on April 23rd and begins with a quote from England’s Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty saying that the probability of having a vaccine or treatment ‘anytime in the next calendar year’ is ‘incredibly small,’” authors of a new National Bureau of Economic Research paper explain.

The authors of the NBER paper—titled “Why Is All COVID-19 News Bad News?”—use media coverage of Gilbert’s vaccine research as a case study to highlight a larger trend: the unique way US media covered the coronavirus pandemic.

The authors of the paper—Bruce Sacerdote, Ranjan Sehgal, and Molly Cook, who hail from Dartmouth College and Brown University—analyzed the tone of COVID-19 related news articles written since January 1 and found a striking difference in the way US media covered the pandemic compared to media in other countries.

“Ninety one percent of stories by U.S. major media outlets are negative in tone versus fifty four percent for non-U.S. major sources and sixty five percent for scientific journals,” the authors concluded.

To be sure, pandemics are hardly a cheerful topic. We’re not talking about a firefighter rescuing a kitten from a tree or a local man winning the lottery. But that wouldn’t explain the discrepancy in media coverage or the fact that positive developments do occur in pandemics.

This invites an important question: how did US media respond to positive developments?

“The negativity of the U.S. major media is notable even in areas with positive scientific developments including school re-openings and vaccine trials,” the authors found. “Stories of increasing COVID-19 cases outnumber stories of decreasing cases by a factor of 5.5 even during periods when new cases are declining.” (emphasis added)

The trend toward pessimistic news coverage was so acute, James Freeman noted in the Wall Street Journal, that the media mostly missed the amazing vaccine development story that took place right under their nose.

As the NBER report states, US media stories discussing President Donald Trump and hydroxychloroquine alone outnumber all the stories on vaccine R&D media produced during the pandemic.

In his classic book Dune, Frank Herbert wrote about the power of fear.

“Fear is the mind-killer,” wrote Herbert. “Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.”

For many, 2020 has been the most fearful year of their lives. The coronavirus pandemic has brought uncertainty, change, and deadly risk. A certain amount of fear during a pandemic is warranted, of course. But there are rational ways to respond to threats and irrational ways, and that is a line America crossed in 2020.

Indeed, new research developed by scientists working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests the virus appears to have arrived in the US in December 2019. This would mean the coronavirus was in the US for months and Americans didn’t even know it.

But once the media caught wind of the disease and fanned the flames of public panic, the fear took on a life of its own. Americans and, worse, lawmakers, began to respond to the virus in irrational ways. Basic virology went out the window as 15 days to flatten the curve devolved into a mad idea that we must close down society and shelter from the virus, unleashing unprecedented restrictions on economic freedom and destroying untold numbers of lives and livelihoods in the process.

This is the power of fear. It caused many rational people, such as Rich Lowry of National Review who in April called opponents of lockdowns “absurd,” to suddenly view the sacrifice of timeless civil liberties as entirely reasonable because they believed it would save lives.

Today, of course, we know the lockdowns were worse than useless. While they did little to nothing to slow the spread of the virus, their collateral damage speaks for itself. A global collapse in economic output. A projected 150 million people falling into extreme poverty. A historic surge in depression and social isolation that will have consequences that reverberate for decades. Millions of children thrust into learning environments that appear to be even worse than their previous situations, despite the fact that health officials have for months said closing schools is not an effective way to curb the spread of the virus.

Again, this is the power of fear, and it caused Lowry and lockdown proponents to forget an age-old truism from Benjamin Franklin.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety,” Franklin once observed.

Sadly, that is usually what they get.


Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of 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,, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

5 Charts That Show Sweden’s Strategy Worked. The Lockdowns Failed

WHO Reverses Course, Now Advises Against Use of ‘Punishing’ Lockdowns

4 Life-Threatening Unintended Consequences of the Lockdowns

Lockdown Despotism and the “Control Panel” Delusion

Harvard Researchers: Nearly Half of Young Adults Showing Signs of Depression Amid Pandemic

Why Sweden Succeeded in “Flattening the Curve” and New York Failed

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

VIDEO: Facts About SLÁVERY They Don’t Teach You at School

For a deeper look into the real history of slavery, read ‘Black Rednecks and White Liberals‘ by Thomas Sowell.

©All rights reserved.

Democrat Mandated COVID-19 Lockdowns Caused More Deaths Instead Of Reducing Them, RAND study finds

The Democrat media complex was an accomplice to this mass murder.

COVID-19 lockdowns caused more deaths instead of reducing them, RAND study finds

By: Michael McKenna,  June 30, 2021 Washington Times,:

COVID-19 lockdowns caused more deaths instead of reducing them, study finds

Those who pushed ‘shelter in place’ policies share the blame, but everyone feels the consequences


As we begin to pick through the rubble of the early days of the coronavirus that started in Wuhan in an effort to determine with some specificity the origins of COVID-19, and whether it was accidentally or purposefully released from a Chinese lab, it is important, too, that we assess the wisdom of our public health approaches to the disease.

Chief among those approaches was the institution of lockdowns across a broad range of populations.

The pathologies of the lockdowns are clear and have been both predicted and recorded. They include increased risk of preventable deaths from cancer, heart disease, etc., as well as psychological trauma, resulting in increased homicides, accidents and suicidal ideations, caused by long periods of isolation.

What is less clear is whether the lockdowns served any useful medical purpose.

Fortunately, two researchers at the RAND Corporation and two researchers from the University of Southern California have done an analysis of the medical value of the lockdowns (which they refer to as “sheltering in place,” or SIP, policies). They looked at 43 countries and all of the states in the union, and published their assessment in June as a working paper of the National Bureau for Economic Research.
Shelter-in-place orders didn’t save lives during the pandemic, research paper concludes

You may have missed the report. It has not received much coverage from the media, who must be busy with some incredibly important and hard-hitting story about Dr. Anthony Fauci or the first lady.

Let’s remedy that oversight.

The RAND/USC team is unsparingly direct: “[W]e fail to find that SIP policies saved lives. To the contrary, we find a positive association between SIP policies and excess deaths. We find that following the implementation of SIP policies, excess mortality increases.”

So, the lockdowns didn’t reduce the number of deaths, failed to prevent any excess deaths, and in fact resulted in increased deaths.

Additionally, countries that locked their citizens in their homes were experiencing declining — not increasing — excess mortality prior to lockdowns. In other words, lockdowns probably made the situation worse.

The researchers were again direct. “If SIP were implemented when excess deaths were rising then the results … would be biased towards finding that SIP policies lead to excess deaths. However, we find the opposite: countries that implemented SIP policies experienced a decline in excess mortality prior to implementation compared to countries that did not implement SIP policies.”

Moreover, unless you lived on an island, it did not seem to make any difference when the lockdowns were implemented. They were ineffectual at best and led to increased mortality at worst.

From the study: “It is also possible that the average effects in our event studies might hide heterogeneity (differences) in the impact of policies across countries and U.S. states. For example, SIP policies might be more effective when implemented early in the pandemic or SIP policies might work better when community transmission is high. … Overall, we find little evidence of heterogenous effects except that SIP policies seem to be more effective in island nations or … Hawaii.”

Finally, there was no advantage to locking down early or staying locked down longer. The researchers noted: “We failed to find that countries or U.S. states that implemented SIP policies earlier, and in which SIP policies had longer to operate, had lower excess deaths than countries/U.S. states that were slower to implement SIP policies.”

So, the duration of the lockdowns made no difference.

The simple fact is that COVID-19 was and is a highly infectious respiratory disease to which everyone is eventually going be exposed either naturally or through vaccines. The disease tends to kill older people and those with preexisting respiratory challenges or who are obese.

The RAND/USC study makes it clear that all the lockdowns accomplished was to add personal, psychological and economic devastation to the terrible personal and societal toll of illness and death.

Everyone involved — from President Trump and his public health advisers who initiated the first lockdown (remember “15 days to slow the spread”), right on through to those who continue to insist that isolation for everyone, even those not at risk, is the correct course of action — share the blame.

But all of us share the consequences.

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

Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permanently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Help us fight the great fight.

And if you can, please contribute to Geller Report. YOU make the work possible.

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Gender Case, Gives Up On Protecting Basic Values

Our elected representatives and their appointees need to do their duties, even when it isn’t politically expedient. That’s why the Supreme Court’s recent actions are cause for concern.

Earlier this week, the court announced that it wouldn’t review a 2019 ruling by a lower court that granted a gender-confused female high school student in Virginia the right to use male restrooms. Notably, none of the three justices appointed by President Donald Trump argued in favor of considering the appeal. Last December, the court declined to review a similar case, when parents in Oregon tried to challenge school policies allowing gender-confused students the right to use opposite-gender restrooms.

The Supreme Court’s submission on this issue is deeply troubling. Six of the nine justices are supposedly principled conservatives who should recognize the risks of normalizing gender confusion. Girls and young women across the country will have to endure humiliating privacy violations, and free speech will be at risk if public schools cannot state simple realities about biological sex. Perhaps the heightened agitation around the issue during “pride” month made the justices too wary of a backlash. If so, they are abandoning their responsibility to protect basic freedoms to appease a small group of activists who will never be appeased either way.

This dangerous trend hasn’t just taken root in Virginia. In 2016, the Obama administration tried to force public schools across the country to let boys into girls’ private spaces or risk losing funding. And when North Carolina passed a law protecting the rights of private businesses – not government – to affirm the reality of biological gender, activists pressured corporations to boycott the state, and the Obama administration sued.

The Supreme Court must protect the right to call a man a man and a woman a woman. And it needs to ensure that the wellbeing of children – including young people driven to gender confusion – is protected by not normalizing transgender ideology.

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: How Many Healthy Teenage Boys Must Die to Satisfy Fauci?

The CDC and Team Fauci are on the verge of recommending the COVID shot and/or masks for school children this fall. Liberty is under attack by this bunch with a helping hand from Bill Gates and his immoral “Daily Pass” which forces school children to input sacred and personal health information into a phone app! 700,000 adverse side effects are estimated from the so-called vaccines in the age group 12-17, mostly affecting young males.

This must stop!

Graham Ledger speaks with attorney Robert Tyler who is suing the one of the largest school districts in the nation to prevent forcing children to get the shot, wear a mask, and share private information with Microsoft!

©The Ledger Report. All rights reserved.