The Collapse of the Traditional American Family

The Joint Economic Committee of Congress has just produced an important new study titled “The Demise of the Happy Two-Parent Home.”

The report exhaustively presents data showing the shocking collapse of marriage and traditional family in America and then explores possible explanations for why it has happened.

In 1962, 71% of women ages 15-44 were married. By 2019, this was down to 42%.

In 1962, 5% of women ages 30-34 had never been married. By 2019, this was up to 35%.


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


In the 1960s, less than 1% of couples living together were not married. Today, it is over 12%.

And the percentage of births to unmarried women has risen from 5% in 1960 to 40% in 2018.

In 1970, 85% of children lived with two parents. By 2019, this was down to 70%.

The relevant questions are: Why should the collapse of marriage in the United States concern us? And why is this happening?

Regarding the first question, it depends on your values. To the large but dwindling number of Americans who care about traditional biblical morality, the collapse of marriage and family, the openness to other lifestyles prohibited by biblical morality, is of concern. It is not a healthy sign about what is happening in our culture.

For those whose concerns are more secular, the collapse of marriage is of concern because the practical results are not good.

A large body of research exists showing the social benefits of traditional marriage and family, and the social costs of their collapse.

There is the oft-quoted observation of Brookings Institution scholar Ron Haskins that American adults who follow three rules—finish high school; get a full-time job; and wait until at least age 21 to get married and have children—have a 2% chance of being poor and a 75% chance of being a middle-class wage earner.

In a recent interview, Nobel Prize-winning University of Chicago economist James Heckman observed: “The main barriers to developing effective policies for income and social mobility is fear of honest engagement in the changes in the American family and the consequences it has wrought. … The family is the source of life and growth. Families build values, encourage (or discourage) their children in school and out. Families—far more than schools—create or inhibit life opportunities.”

Why has traditional marriage and family so dramatically collapsed?

The report examines several possible factors, a major one being the dramatic growth in the welfare state supporting female heads of household.

According to the report, “The value of the safety net for single-mother families is 133 percent higher today than in 1940, and 56 percent higher than in 1960.”

Nevertheless, changes in behavior reflect changes in values. Why do values change?

Gallup has been asking since 1952, “How important would you say religion is in your own life—very important, fairly important or not very important.”

In 1952, 75% said “very important.” In 1970, this was down to about 60%, and by 1978, this was down to 52%.”

It was in this environment of a dramatic drop in Americans’ sense of the personal importance of religion that, in 1973, the Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion.

A wave of court decisions banned religion from the public square. In 1962, prayer in public school was banished.

In 2002 Gallup polling, 45% said to have a baby outside of marriage was morally acceptable. By 2015, this was up to 61%, and by 2019, it was up to 64%.

What seems clear is that the collapse of marriage and family that has been occurring in our nation is not occurring in a vacuum. Values are changing.

For those who are worried about the situation, who want to see marriage and family strengthened again, the beginning must be awareness of the problem. To this end, the Joint Economic Committee report provides an important service to the nation.

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

Star Parker is a columnist for The Daily Signal and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education. Twittter: .


A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


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

Panicking over climate change has a cost, too

False Alarm: How Climate Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet” is the new book by the Danish political scientist and author, Bjørn Lomborg.

In it, Lomborg hones in on the subject which is rapidly becoming the most consequential area of political and social debate: climate change.

The risks posed by climate change, he argues, are exaggerated. Furthermore, the policy measures which governments around the world have embraced – like subsidising solar and wind power – are failing miserably.

Most importantly of all, a continuation of this fear-driven approach will result in serious costs to the world’s population over the next century, particularly poorer people in developing countries who cannot enter the middle-class without access to the affordable and reliable energy which comes from fossil fuels.

In spite of the obvious trade-off, it has almost become an axiom that climate change is an existential threat to mankind, and that all measures which could be taken to cut emissions should be taken, regardless of the financial or practical cost.

Just a few years ago, for instance, calls for a 50 percent reduction in carbon emissions over the next decade would have been dismissed as being completely unachievable.

Yet now, that target is part of a Programme for Government which Ireland has happily signed up to.

These policy changes could not have occurred if a large segment of the population were not deeply worried.

A narrative this dominant inevitably seeps through to most of society. This is shown in polls cited by Lomborg which show that significant percentages of the world’s population – including four in ten Americans – believe global warming will lead to mankind’s extinction.

Here, as he has done in previous books such as “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming,” Lomborg calmly examines the facts and argues that this extreme pessimism is unfounded, given the undeniable progress which humankind has made.

Since 1900, average life expectancy has more than doubled, from 33 to 71. Rates of absolute poverty and illiteracy have shrunk and child labour has become rarer.

On the whole, people are living longer, healthier, more prosperous and more peaceful lives than ever before, and there is a very good chance that this progress will continue, with UN researchers estimating that by 2100 average incomes will be at 450 percent of today’s levels.

This much is hard to dispute given the abundance of data available, but interestingly Lomborg also asserts that the health of the planet is actually improving in ways which benefit us substantially.

“Higher agricultural yields and changing attitudes to the environment have meant rich countries are increasingly preserving forests and reforesting. And since 1990, 2.6 billion more people gained access to improved water sources, bringing the global total to 91 percent,” Lomborg notes. “Many of these improvements have come about because we have gotten richer, both as individuals and as nations.”

This is a core point in his overall argument. While many self-described environmentalists and socialists (these days, the two groups are scarcely distinguishable) claim that economic prosperity threatens the planet, Lomborg takes the opposite viewpoint.

Not only does greater wealth improve the quality of life, enhanced affluence also allows us to focus more attention on protecting the world around us.

To be clear, Lomborg is not a “climate change denier.”

A committed environmentalist, he refrains from eating meat, and welcomes the recent tendency to avoid giving the oxygen of publicity to those who dispute the science about rising temperatures.

Lomborg believes that climate change will have a negative impact overall, and insists it needs to be tackled.

However, he takes aim at those who have exaggerated the damage which has been occurring.

In the wake of any extreme weather events, politicians and campaigners are quick to point to the enormous economic toll as a reason to support measures such as new taxes, the closure of high-emitting industries, anti-car policies or dramatic changes to farming practices.

This, to Lomborg, is a false alarm.

True, the costs related to increased flooding or forest fires have increased, and rare events such as hurricanes or tropical storms can also pose enormous challenges.

But this increased cost comes at a time when we are much better able to afford to repair what nature has wrought, and where our improved material conditions mean we are far less likely to be physically harmed.

As Lomborg observes, deaths from climate-related disasters have dropped dramatically over the last century, at a time when carbon emissions and temperatures were going up. In the 1920s, such disasters killed almost 500,000 people annually, but now claim fewer than 20,000 lives annually, in spite of the world’s population having increased fourfold over the last century.

Higher incomes make for better and more secure housing, and as the developing world continues to make economic advances, the numbers dying needlessly due to natural disasters will likely fall even further.

While increased economic damage over the next century is very likely, there is an explanation for this too. As the world’s population has increased, so too has the number of houses and the amount of infrastructure in place.

The same sized flood or storm today will cause more financial damage than it would have a century ago, but recent economic growth means we are better able to afford this.

One of the areas where alarmist media coverage has been most evident is the issue of rising sea levels.

Prominent media outlets frequently point to a future where many large cities are submerged below water, as if this was going to happen suddenly, and as if humans were powerless to take defensive action.

Here again, Lomborg draws attention to what should be obvious.

Significant portions of the world are already at or below sea level and thriving regardless. The Netherlands and large areas of Vietnam, for instance, have long safeguarded low-lying areas by investing in dikes, dams and other flood protection measures.

As sea levels rise, a large amount of additional investment will be needed elsewhere in the next century, but again, this is far from being beyond the means of developed – and even developing – countries.

The greatest value of Lomborg’s analysis lies in his examination of the costs and benefits of existing policy approaches.

Given the consistent failure of solar and wind power to deliver results, he is deeply sceptical about large-scale investment in those areas, but he does have a number of policy recommendations, including the dedication of far more resources to efforts to adapt to a warming planet; a universal but modest carbon tax; and a dramatic increase in R&D spending on new technologies.

Above all else, Lomborg’s message is that we need to view the problem differently. Climate change, he writes, “is not like a huge asteroid hurtling towards Earth, where we need to stop everything else and mobilise the entire global economy to ward off the end of the world. It is instead a long-term chronic condition like diabetes – a problem that needs attention and focus, but one that we can live with.”

In this new reality, where every facet of government policy is likely to be impacted by how we respond to our planet’s changing climate, remaining out of this debate is no longer an option.

As such, it is well-worth taking the time to hear the views of a true humanist, a man who is confident that we have the ability not just to adapt and survive, but to prosper and improve as well.

James Bradshaw

James Bradshaw works for an international consulting firm based in Dublin, and has a background in journalism and public policy. Outside of work, he writes for a number of publications, on topics including… 

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

The Core Message of a Major Transgender Study was WRONG

How many times have you read that transgender individuals need surgery to keep them from slipping into bad mental health or even from committing suicide?

“For many trans folks, existing daily in a body that doesn’t match your sense of self isn’t just uncomfortable, it’s traumatic,” Laura A. Jacobs, an LGBT counsellor in New York told NBC earlier this year.

And that’s why transgender advocates are lobbying for quick resumption of sex reassignment surgery during the Covid-19 pandemic. Otherwise, these people could suffer great harm.

“There’s a lot of research that shows that delaying treatment for trans people increases levels of depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation,” says Ms Jacobs.

One of the most-highly praised of these studies was an article published in October in the American Journal of Psychiatry (paywall). It found that transgender individuals who underwent gender-affirming surgery were significantly less likely to seek mental health treatment for depression and anxiety disorders or attempt suicide afterwards.

“This first total population study of #transgender individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria lends support to the decision to provide gender-affirming surgeries to those who seek them,” the journal tweeted.

But, ooops, it didn’t.

This week the journal published a correction (paywall) – a very significant one. After protests, letters to the editor and closer scrutiny of the statistical methods, it appears that “the results demonstrated no advantage of surgery in relation to subsequent mood or anxiety disorder-related health care visits or prescriptions or hospitalizations following suicide attempts in that comparison”.

Furthermore, the authors’ “conclusion that ‘the longitudinal association between gender-affirming surgery and lower use of mental health treatment lends support to the decision to provide gender-affirming surgeries to transgender individuals who seek them’ is too strong”.

There is no question that transgender individuals have mental health difficulties. The journal article was praised even by critics like Mark Regnerus for revealing the scale of the problem. Based on a study of 9.5 million Swedes between 2005 and 2015, it found that: “individuals with a gender incongruence diagnosis were about six times as likely to have had a mood and anxiety disorder health care visit, more than three times as likely to have received prescriptions for antidepressants and anxiolytics, and more than six times as likely to have been hospitalized after a suicide attempt”.

Naturally, the trangender lobby claims that these troubling statistics are due to widespread stigma; sceptics counter that gender dysphoria is a mental health issue.

But the question is what to do about it.

The solutions proposed by transgender activists are first social affirmation, then cross-sex hormones, and finally, amputations – usually mastectomies for women and removal of genitalia for men. Surgery, they tell people suffering from gender dysphoria, will give you peace.

But this, it turns out, is not true. The researchers jumped the gun.

As the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine commented about this debacle, “Sometimes in our eagerness to reach a goal, we opt for the appealing short-cut, but it takes more time in the end. Gender dysphoric people deserve high-quality healthcare. It requires rigorously-designed studies, research that follows the evidence, however hard the path.”

The reality is that there is no rigorous evidence for treating boys and girls and men and women who suffer from gender dysphoria with hormones and surgery. It is basically experimental medicine, a 21st century version of the disasters of thalidomide and frontal lobotomies.

COLUMN BY

Michael Cook

Michael Cook is the editor of MercatorNet 

RELATED ARTICLES:

Problematic Women: Transgender Movement Threatens Future of Women’s Sports

14 Parents Sue a School District Over Secretive Transgender Policy

Belgian euthanasia under scrutiny in European Court of Human Rights

RELATED TWEET:

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

A UK Perspective – The pre-cursor to a Cashless Society. The Wearing of Masks?

These are my views as a woman living in England, on how the culture and spirit of my country has changed over 50 years.   Why the country does not feel protected or strong any more, how it has lost, and is losing it values and decency, and how we are daily losing our free speech.


God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

On July 24th, 2020, the UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, enforced a rule, with a few exceptions, that mask wearing in all shops in the UK was now a mandatory requirement.

Together with various members of the Conservative Party, who have publicly ripped up their membership cards in disagreement with the ruling, many other people across the country have seriously questioned the decision on why this requirement would be enforced now, in the middle of summer, and four months after the initial lockdown?

Mask wearing, according to Mr Johnson, and numerous media outlets, and biased talk show debaters, have stressed it will stem the spread of infection and give more confidence to shoppers!  Some now hold the upper ground in responsibility by believing that only the selfish would not wear a mask, and according to police chief Cressida Dick, those who don’t wear a mask should be ‘shamed’ by shop owners.

Division can be a wonderful thing in a country which keeps promoting the ‘all in it together’ rhetoric.

A Room with a View

This week from my office window, I have observed some wonderful, and yet very bittersweet sights.

Photo by Simon Migaj from Pexels

The Designer mask:  Usually floral or leopard print and colour co-ordinated to the outfit.

The Sports mask:  Depicting your favourite sport or team.

The Bandana:  Tough, casual, slightly rebellious, but does the job.

The Face Shield:  Perspex windscreen minus the wash and wipers.

The Ultimate Survivor:   Tight fit, quality mask with temperature gauge and air filters.

The Whatever:   Those who wear them under their chin, hanging from their ear, or worse, the rear-view mirror in their car.

“Mistrust all enterprises that require new clothes” (a quote from Henry David Thoreau’s Walden)

And then there are those who seriously struggle. They have bright red faces and are obviously breathless, with sad weary eyes.   Some are elderly, or lonely, and have no friendly smile or conversation to great them.

However, aside from genuine people with health and disability issues which are being cruelly overlooked by police chief Cressida Dick and the recruited vigilantes, there could be much more serious consequences to consider apart from your own particular views on the wearing of a mask against a coronavirus.

Whose orders you follow, whether it is via your conscience, the laws enforced by a government, or by God, if you are a believer, can have serious consequences as well.

The organized church who have been told their congregations must wear masks in church, could be complicit in promoting some ‘pre-conditioning programming’ which is required for not being able to buy or sell as indicated in the book of Revelation which states:

It causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. (Revelation 13:17-17)

Is mask wearing the precursor to programming us to not being able to buy or sell at a later date into readily accept a vaccination which will free us from the bondage of our muzzles?

Or, is ‘mandatory’ mask wearing, despite its inefficiency reported by many other experts in the health field, a means to preventing the spread of a virus?

They are points to consider, most especially if you are a preacher leading people to their Creator, whilst standing in front of a congregation of mask wearers staring back at you.

As a friend pointed out.   We do not look for the signs and wonders to prove Gods existence, but the signs of good which is God, and evil which is hell; is all around us.   They do not hide.

The Creator of Confusion

The person of faith of course believes we have an enemy which comes to kill, steal and destroy.   There is a spirit of darkness which is always attempting to build its own kingdom on this earth.

One of its calling cards is usually ‘confusion’ and you can be sure if there is confusion or mayhem in any given situation, there is a source of darkness which is usually at play.

Life out there, after our initial summer holiday at home is now officially miserable if you look at the faces of those who are currently trying to live, shop, travel or work in a state of chaos which has incorporated misleading information, mandated draconian rules, and enforced silencing of speech via different methods of suppression against innocent and healthy people.

As predicted, people are now avoiding their once pleasurable pastime of shopping.   This will close down even more of the small businesses.

Who will you allow to bring in the order which has been systematically been broken down over the years?

Navigating your way through the minefield of confusion minus the rose-coloured plastic face shield requires a common sense and simplistic approach.   It requires an uncompromising stance on boundaries and the suppression against your freedom to breath, work and speak how you choose, whilst still observing obvious health issues to both yourself and others.

We are not alone in our fight against ‘the virus’ Speak up,

The very wonderful Lloyd Marcus who sadly passed away recently wrote:


God instructed Pharaoh, “Let my people go.”

God instructs us ,“Let my people know.” Spread truth.

©All rights reserved

63% of US Counties Still Have 5 or Fewer COVID-19 Deaths

As Heritage Foundation researchers have demonstrated throughout the coronavirus pandemic, the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. has been heavily concentrated in a small number of states—and among a small number of counties within states.

Even though the U.S. has seen a rapid rise in cases during the past month, the overall levels of concentration have remained fairly consistent.

As of July 28, for example, just 10 states account for 60% of all U.S. cases and 68% of all deaths (greater than their 50% share of the population).


What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here>>>.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


The five states with the most cases—New York, California, Florida, Texas, and New Jersey—report 44% of all U.S. cases and 46% of all deaths.

In the past 30 days, the five states with the most reported COVID-19 deaths is very similar—Texas, California, Florida, Arizona, and New York (in descending order). Together, these five states reported 52% of all the COVID-19 deaths during the past 30 days, although they account for 36% of the U.S. population.

For comparison, Texas reported approximately 3,500 COVID-19 deaths over the past 30 days. In April and May, New York reported the most COVID-19 deaths—about 21,000 in April and 6,200 in May—as situations began to improve in the state.

Together, New York and New Jersey alone account for 31% of all COVID-19 deaths, though they include only 9% of the U.S. population. Those two states reported 9% of the COVID-19 deaths in the past 30 days.

These state-level figures do not, however, adequately describe the concentrated nature of the spread of COVID-19.

The 30 counties with the most COVID-19 deaths, for example, account for 28% of all the cases in the U.S. and 46% of all deaths, much greater than their 17% share of the U.S. population. That is, just 1% of the counties in the U.S., representing 17% of the U.S. population, are responsible for almost half of the country’s COVID-19 deaths.

Of those 30 counties, 23 are in the Northeast corridor between Philadelphia and Boston, the passageway served by a commuter railway system that runs through Manhattan.

Overall, only about 10% of the counties in the U.S. contain 90% of all the COVID-19 deaths, even though those counties include 60% of the population.

Throughout the pandemic, there have been many U.S. counties with relatively few COVID-19 deaths. For instance, as of May 11, 64% of all counties (16% of the U.S. population) had one or no COVID-19 deaths. As of July 28, 43% of all counties (8% of the population) have no more than one COVID-19 death each.

While these numbers have obviously declined since May, many counties still have a relatively small number of COVID-19 deaths. In particular, as of July 28, 63% of all counties (16% of the population) have five or fewer COVID-19 deaths.

In the past 30 days, the 30 counties with the most COVID-19 deaths account for 39% of the COVID-19 deaths reported in the U.S., almost double their population share of 21%.

Now that COVID-19 testing has dramatically increased and many state and local governments have relaxed stay-at-home orders, it is even more critical to study the trends in deaths along with cases.

To make studying these trends easier, The Heritage Foundation now has two interactive COVID-19 trackers. One tracks trends in cases, while the other tracks trends in deaths.

The trackers describe whether the trend of cases—or deaths—is increasing or decreasing over the prior 14 days, and provides a visual depiction of new cases—or deaths—during that time period.

These tools help put the concentrated nature of the pandemic in perspective with county-level data, and they show just how difficult it can be to use only one metric to gauge whether a county—or state—is doing well.

For instance, on July 14, Harris County in Texas had 2,001 new cases, the most of the previous two-week period. However, the number of cases then trended down for the next 14 days. While the number of deaths has increased as well, an unusually large number was reported on July 27.

Readers are invited to explore the information in the tracker and check back frequently for updates, as well as explore the other visual tools on Heritage’s COVID-19 resources page.

COMMENTARY BY

Norbert Michel studies and writes about housing finance, including the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as The Heritage Foundation’s research fellow in financial regulations. Read his research. Twitter:

Drew Gonshorowski focuses his research and writing on the nation’s new health care law, including the repercussions for Medicare and Medicaid, as a policy analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation. He also studies economic mobility and the Austrian school of economics. Twitter:


A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


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

Covidism as an ‘ideology’

Covidism is considered enlightened and progressive, while skepticism is considered conservative or even reactionary.


The campaign against Covid-19 has had three disturbing features: the presumption of “guilt,” the suppression of deviant scientific, and the anti-religious animus exhibited by many civil authorities.

Churches have been closed while liquor stores, abortion clinics, and gun shops have stayed open, and healthy people have been confined to protect residents of nursing homes, when in fact our policies have exposed such people to grave risk. The effects of such measures can be dire.

Democratic capitalism, fascism, feudalism, and socialism are all ideologies, each with a social and political system that, sometimes very imperfectly, embodies it.

But in circles influenced by Marx, the word ideology has a derogatory sense, and designates a form of false consciousness. There is a Covid-19 ideology (which I shall call covidism) at least in the descriptive sense, and there are reasons to believe that it is an ideology in the derogatory sense as well.

For unclear reasons, covidism is considered enlightened and progressive, while skepticism about it, even when inspired by concern about the fate of restaurant workers, is considered conservative or even reactionary.

Ideology in the derogatory sense contains some elements of truth. But its motto is philosopher David Hume’s belief that “reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions”. The Nazis were right in seeing that Weimar society was gravely dysfunctional, though the cure they offered was immeasurably worse than the disease. The grain of truth in covidism is that Covid-19 is sometimes a deadly disease, about whose transmission we know little. Most cases are mild or moderate – sometimes so much so that the patient is unaware of the disease. The number of cases (and deaths) are exaggerated by counting as Covid-19 cases people sick from other causes. The “silent spreader“ who plays a large role in the covidist narrative remains a controversial hypothesis.

The Covid-19 ideology appeals to what Hobbes called “fear of power invisible,” a fear that is only increased by the precautions taken against it… People reason that unwelcome things they are forced to do must be somehow justified, just some people argue that there must be something wrong with the Jews because so many people hate them.

It also appeals to fear of human beings as such — what I call anthropophobia. We are asked to presume that people, ourselves included, are sources of infection until they prove otherwise – a fear that is most keenly felt when the people we are dealing with are somehow outsiders. And near the core of covidism is the argument that perfectly healthy people are a lethal danger if they venture abroad except for “essential” purposes (liquor, marijuana, guns, or abortions, but not attending church).

The rhetoric of Covid-19 ideology has two elements: scientific fundamentalism and a fallacious argument from fear.

Scientific fundamentalism is signaled by the claim that that those who question the “consensus” are anti-science or guilty of “denial.” As Presidential candidate and sometime Secretary of State John Kerry put it in another context, “I’ve often said that global climate change is an issue where no one has the luxury of being ‘half-pregnant’. You either are or you aren’t. And so it is with climate change. You either understand or accept the science – or you don’t.” The better view is that of the late Charles Krauthammer, “There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge”.

Fear can be rational, but an irrational appeal to fear ignores other sources of danger and urges us to take precautions with unexamined costs.

Covid-19 is not the only killer disease. Fear of it, though, has led to the neglect of other diseases and of other causes of death such as starvation. The partner of a gay friend of mine recently died; he did not receive the life-saving care for a lung disease he needed because he did not have Covid-19.

Covidists hold that any measure, however otherwise destructive, is legitimate if it reduces the incidence of Covid-19, even slightly. I leave the economic effects of precautions to economists. The rest can be summed up in the phrase, “social distancing can kill, too”. California, with a population of 40 million, was thrown into panic mode by one death from coronavirus. By way of comparison, nearly 4,300 Californians killed themselves in 2016, a 50 percent increase from 2001. And California law encourages suicide in some cases.

Loneliness can kill, in recognition of which the United Kingdom has appointed a Minister for Loneliness. (I doubt that she will accomplish much.)

Deaths of despair include not only deaths by suicide, but also drug and alcohol poisoning, as well as alcoholic liver disease and cirrhosis, to which I would add heart failure where the patient is depressed. The rate of such deaths has been steadily rising. They have two social causes, economic insecurity and social isolation.

I need not choose between these explanations: both of them are certain to be increased by the measures taken against Covid-19. Suicide prevention hotlines have been kept busy during the Covid-19 crisis. Domestic violence cases have spiked during the pandemic, as have cases of child abuse. A surge of divorces is expected when the crisis ends.

Coronaphobia has generated a perverse morality, for which staying home and watching Netflix is an act of heroism like that of the soldiers who fought in the invasion on D-Day. Avoiding fellow human beings, even crossing the street to avoid them, and wearing a mask when you cannot avoid them, is an expression of solidarity; forcing troubled families to spend more time together will improve their relationships, and the love of Jesus means denying people the Eucharist.

For how long? Until it is “safe” — which may mean for ever.

Americans like to think of their country as a constitutional democracy despite the abridgements of liberty associated with the War on Terror. The hope of a revived democracy requires the overcoming of what Charles Taylor calls our “self-imposed isolation,” which the covidist ideology massively reinforces.

We are experiencing what Denis Praeger has called “a dress rehearsal for a police state“. Anthropophobia turns quickly into fear of social outsiders. Religious and racial minorities around the world have served as scapegoats for Covid-19. And in states like Maine, fear of Covid-19 has been used as a vehicle for long standing resentment of “out-of-staters.” Tensions between African-Americans and the police have exploded, leading to absurd proposals to abolish the police. And a class conflict has arisen between those people able to shelter themselves against the consequences of our precautions and those who cannot.

Citizens and politicians, in making prudential decisions about public health, need to free themselves, so far as humanly possible, from ideological distortions. The precautions taken against Covid-19 may do more harm than the virus itself. A reader may ask: do I think that I am immune to ideological distortion? On the contrary, we are all sinners – cognitively as in every other way.

The best I can do is to think as well as I can.

COLUMN BY

Philip Devine

Phil Devine is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Providence College. 

RELATED ARTICLES:

63% of US Counties Still Have 5 or Fewer COVID-19 Deaths

23 countries will lose half their populations by 2100

RELATED VIDEO: The Lockdown Through Mass Hypnosis and Entrancement.

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

CENSORED VIDEO: America’s Frontline Doctors Speak Out about COVID-19

LIVE from the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. America’s Frontline Doctors – Physicians from around the country address the American people about Covid-19 and the importance of reopening schools and our society.

America’s Frontline Doctors address the big tech censorship and double down on their experience with hydroxychloroquine.

WATCH:

©All rights reserved.

‘The End of Gender’: A Courageous Book in Times of Trans

Sexologist Debra Soh pens an incisive tome examining the claims of the transgender movement.


Most authors dedicate their books to loved ones or inspirational teachers. Debra Soh, sexologist and neuroscientist, dedicates her new book, The End of Gender: Debunking the myths about sex and identity in our society to “everyone who blocked me on Twitter.”

It’s a fitting tribute, since aggressive opposition to Soh’s spirited defence of science against the prevailing theory-based doctrines of the trans movement has guided Soh’s professional trajectory for a number of years now.

As Soh informs readers at the outset, she left her eleven-year research career in academia, because it was clear her field had been compromised by trans activism, and her freedom to explore her subject — gender, sex and sexual orientation — was continuously shrinking. Assessing the “long, ugly history between transgender activists and sexologists,” she could see no foreseeable end to the tensions, and segued to a career in journalism (Playboy, the Globe and MailScientific AmericanQuillette, and others).

From her first article, arguing against early transition for children, the mobbing began and never let up. But neither did supportive encouragement from ordinary people who find themselves baffled and disturbed by dogmas and vocabulary — “people who menstruate” — that make no sense to them, and which many women find offensive (I certainly do). Soh wrote the book for them: “to answer your questions at a time when it’s next to impossible to tell apart politically-motivated ideas from scientific truth.”

The book is organized around a series of trans-movement assumptions Soh identifies as myths: that “biological sex is a spectrum”; that “gender is a social construct”; that “there are more than two genders”; that “sexual orientation and gender identity are unrelated”; and so forth.

It would take thousands of words to do justice to the book as a whole, as it covers such a wide gamut of trans-related issues, and each one handily. Soh’s chapter on the social contagion of “rapid onset gender dysphoria” (ROGD) in teenage girls, for example, is superb. But wordage is the usual pesky constraint for columnists, so this cannot rise to the level of the review the book deserves.

Instead, I’ll focus on what I find to be Soh’s core message, delivered via her beautifully calm, rational and precision-guided dissection of the inherent contradictions within the movement’s catechism. For many readers who have been half persuaded to acquiescence from constant exposure to the mantras Soh challenges, her exposé will fall like rain on parched earth.

According to Soh, then.

Fact: There are only two biological sexes, and they are not “assigned” at birth. Male and female gametes (eggs, sperm) determine our sex, and sex is binary, “not a spectrum.”

Fact: Gender, too, “both with regard to identity and expression,” is biology-based and therefore binary. “It is not a social construct, nor is it divided from anatomy or sexual orientation.”

Classic feminists gave us the concept of “social construction.” Feminists believe gendered differences in interests, presentation and behaviours are due to patriarchy and learned behaviour. Science tells us otherwise, Soh says. Male and female brains are demonstrably different. Now, Soh says, feminist chickens are coming home to roost, because — this is a trenchant insight —

“If gender is thought to be learned, masculinity will remain the gold standard and femininity will be reduced to aberrations of it.”

Gender fluidity is trending briskly amongst millennials, many of whom self-identify as transgender, agender, bigender or genderqueer (which can mean just about anything). “As more people take on these labels,” Soh observes, “being nonbinary has become a way to find community, a sense of belonging and acceptance.”

She cites a Pew report that a third of Gen-Zers and a quarter of millennials know someone who uses non-binary pronouns like “they” as compared to a sixth of Gen Xers. (Soh’s observation is backed up by a recent questionnaire out of Evergreen State College, in which a full 50 percent of students self-identify as LGBT or “questioning.” )

By normalizing and banalizing the concept of gender fluidity — that is, by inviting the whimsically transient, the mentally fragile, the mentally ill, even the opportunistic and sexually predatory into a small forum traditionally reserved for those with irreversible gender dysphoria, therefore legitimately entitled to medically-aided transition — the movement has radically increased the numbers within the trans-identifying fold.

But this artificial demographic swell has come about at a huge cost to credulous children, vulnerable troubled teenagers, women athletes, and indeed, all women who are now forced to share intimate space with male bodies on the sole basis of uninterrogated gender self-identification. Soh is particularly troubled by one of the more grievous consequences of the “cultlike” trans movement’s social self-promotion, namely the concomitant social demotion (tending to erasure) of gays and lesbians.

“By nonbinary activists’ definition, everyone on planet earth is gender nonbinary,” Soh says. The result is that merely gender-nonconforming children — effeminate boys, the great majority of whom would realize they were gay after puberty, and “butch” girls who would become lesbians — are encouraged in childhood to gravitate towards some form of trans self-identification instead of being allowed to grow into their biology-accepting, authentic sexuality. “I’m constantly amazed,” Soh writes in dismay, “at the number of gay men who will publicly defend childhood transitioning when the movement is leading to the extermination of gay children.”

Shouldn’t we all be dismayed by the harms this movement is causing? Soh and her publishers, Simon and Schuster, have shown courage in standing firm for science and reason in the midst of a moral panic that has gripped our institutions and scattered objectivity to the four winds. For that, they merit our material and moral support.

This has been republished from a Facebook post by the author with permission.

COLUMN BY

Barbara Kay studied English Literature – undergrad at U of Toronto and graduate studies at McGill. For many years she taught literature and composition part time at various Quebec Cegeps. She was also… 

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

Why Have So Many American Conservatives Embraced COVID-19 Pseudoscience?

With almost 150,000 COVID-19 deaths, the United States, putative leader of the free world, now is competing with Brazil and Russia for global supremacy in pandemic mismanagement. Not only does the United States lack any kind of coherent federal leadership on this issue, but even state and city leaders have fallen into bickering—and even lawsuits—over the correct response. While many Western nations have all but extinguished COVID-19 within their borders, the American pandemic is raging with a new ferocity. Yet some conservatives continue to protest even basic public-health measures, including masks. How could some of America’s best and brightest abet their country’s collapse into dysfunction in the face of a once-in-a-century pandemic?

The most obvious answer lies with their president, Donald Trump, who has continued to hold large rallies even into July. He and his most fervent supporters boosted the patchwork of conspiracy theories, crank medical science, and plain apathy that informed much of the American response. At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) conference in Washington, D.C. back in February, the president’s then acting cabinet chief, Mick Mulvaney, assured everyone that no country is better equipped to deal with this kind of crisis, and that “the press was covering their hoax of the day because they thought it would bring down the president… That’s what this is all about.” This was in late February, a full five months ago, when the American death count was still in double digits. Yet now that it is well into six digits, we still get the same script. People die all the time, from all sorts of causes, they tell us. Take the flu. It kills tens of thousands every year, right?

As someone who has a wide network of conservative friends and ideological allies, cultivated over decades of writing on the Middle East conflict, anti-Semitism, terrorism, and related issues, I’ve watched in horror as writers I’ve long respected succumbed to this nonsense. On January 30th, well before many people had even heard of COVID-19, in fact, American Thinker writer Jeffrey Folks was already warning that this was merely a case of “Dems rooting for a global pandemic”:

Russiagate didn’t work. Ukraine didn’t work, the economy is growing at a healthy rate. Nothing works against this president—but maybe the coronavirus will do it! … Things would have to be a lot worse than [the SARS outbreak] in 2002–3, when there were 8,098 cases and 774 deaths worldwide.

Of course, plenty of leaders and pundits botched their response to COVID-19 in January and February. But even in March, by which time it had become obvious that COVID-19 wasn’t just another iteration of the seasonal flu, Trump continued to act as if the disease could be fought on the basis of hunches and pseudoscience. Confiding in Fox News host Sean Hannity, the president said that reports of a high mortality rate were false. Around the same time, an American Thinker writer blithely assured everyone on the basis that “the odds of recovering are far higher than the odds of dying” (which is also true of many kinds of cancer). In the conservative blogosphere, the idea of communist China waging germ warfare against the West was conflated with alleged Democratic efforts to profit from the political fallout—with Trump cast as the adult in the room resisting the call for panic. Or as one writer put it: “Thank God for the cool, calm, collected and seasoned business mogul, President Donald J. Trump, who is guiding us.”

In his weekly articles on the American Greatness site, New Criterion publisher Roger Kimball conferred legitimacy on the no-big-deal approach to the unfolding pandemic with highbrow literary references and Latin phrases. As the body count climbed, he began insisting on picayune distinctions between “dying from the virus [or] with the virus.” This pedantry continues to this day, as various conservatives spin the death numbers this way and that, in order to present the plague as an artifact of testing, natural mortality cycles, or media bias.

Meanwhile, the actual scientists trying to save lives, Anthony Fauci foremost among them, have been demonized. In May, Kimball proclaimed that “the country has been on a moral bender, intoxicated by fear and panic,” and then luridly demagogued the “Svengali-like Anthony Fauci” as some kind of Rasputin figure, noting that the doctor was accompanied by “his comely, Vanna White-like assistant Dr. Deborah Birx.” To this day, Trump himself insists that Fauci is an “alarmist.” Among the president’s supporters, Sweden’s failed effort to let the disease progress toward a state of herd immunity remains an object of admiration.

Even the usually sure-footed Heather Mac Donald wrote that:

Fear-mongering news stories should begin by admitting that there is [as of March 13th], a total of 41 deaths in the United States, half of them from a ‘poorly run nursing home outside of Seattle.’ The chances of dying from the disease in America are infinitesimal compared to the economic damage. In 2018–19, 34,200 people died from influenza. The annual death toll from automobile accidents is 38,800. Even if the current Covid-19 fatality rate were multiplied by a factor of one thousand, it would outnumber traffic deaths by a mere 2,200.

As of late July, in fact, the death toll already has spiked upward, compared to March 13th, by a factor of about three thousand—and no one knows how high it will go. As for the dead, Mac Donald nonchalantly noted that no children under the age of nine had died, while 89 percent of the Italian victims were over 70, “nearing the end of their lifespans. [They] might have… died from another illness.” Succumbing to Godwin’s Law, Dennis Prager argued that the economic effects of the lockdown would be worse than the disease itself, and, in the same breath, that “the Nazis came to power because of economics more than any other single reason.”

The demand that the medical community recognize the miraculous COVID-19-curing qualities of hydroxychloroquine formed another absurd subplot. In his in-depth report on Didier Raoult, the controversial French professor who championed the drug, journalist Scott Sayare explained that much of the misinformation began spreading in early March, when Gregory Rigano—who falsely presented himself as an advisor to Stanford Medical School—self-published a Google Docs report on the subject that he’d formatted so that it looked like a legitimate scientific paper. Fox News host Laura Ingraham picked up on his misinformation, and pronounced hydroxychloroquine to be a “game-changer.” Sean Hannity followed suit. Rigano appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show, where he claimed that Raoult’s study had shown a 100 percent cure rate. At a March 19th White House task force briefing, President Trump repeated the claim that the drug was a “game changer.”

In time, the debate over hydroxychloroquine became suffused with misinformation on both sides, as even the debunkers who opposed Trump’s claims ignored the usual scientific safeguards. In May, the Lancet published a report declaring that hydroxychloroquine wasn’t merely ineffective in regard to COVID-19, but dangerous, too. In June, that work was retracted. This was around the same time that progressive media and public-health groups were insisting that mass attendance at Black Lives Matter events was perfectly safe because the underlying political cause was important—an absurd contradiction of the same health protocols these same experts had properly defended since March. When it comes to COVID-19, Trump and his followers may have led the assault on the sanctity of science. But many of his opponents have made a bad situation worse, proving that political extremism can be a risk to human health no matter which direction it comes from.

What I have described here represents a crisis of ideology—an abstract, electronic-media-driven phenomenon by which conservatives prioritized partisanship and wishful thinking over saving lives. But the results played out all over real-world bricks-and-mortar America: Healthcare workers begging for PPE, governors bidding against federal emergency-management officials for desperately needed supplies, scenes of triage at hospitals, and chaotic protests outside state capitols. Meanwhile, the nation’s elderly remained holed up as prisoners in nursing homes (the decrepit state of which has been revealed as a scandal in and of itself). The whole world is now watching Trump’s America degenerate into the kind of dysfunction that we usually associate with failed states.

As with all important policy issues, the best approach to fighting COVID-19 is open to debate. Even scientists don’t fully understand the role of drugs, including hydroxychloroquine, or the medical side effects of lockdown. But what I’m describing here isn’t evidence-driven debate: It’s angry, ideologically driven luddite mysticism masquerading as hard-headed conservative skepticism.

Here in France, I’ve already lost two precious friends to COVID-19: Jewish community leader Claude Barouch and senior politician Claude Goasguen. Others who are close to me have suffered horribly from this illness. Ideologues didn’t create the virus that struck these people. But they did let themselves become trapped in a partisan rabbit hole at a time when they could have been lending their influential voices to productive, scientific, life-saving ends.

©All rights reserved.

Personhood Florida’s Pro-life PAC Endorses Over 65 Candidates for the 2020 Primary and General Election

Personhood Florida’s Pro-Life PAC has endorsed the following 65 Pro-life Candidates for the 2020 Primary and General Election:

2020 Federal ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
US Representative – District 19 REP Dane Eagle

2020 State ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
State Representative – Dist 27 REP Zenaida Denizac
State Representative – Dist 42 REP Fred Hawkins
State Representative – Dist 84 REP Eileen Vargas

2020 Brevard County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
City of Palm Bay Mayor NP Rob Medina
Republican State Committeewoman REP Kim Adkinson

2020 Citrus County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
Property Appraiser REP David Gregory
Superintendent of Schools REP Paul John Reinhardt
Supervisor of Elections REP Maureen “Mo” Baird

2020 Clay County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
Clerk of the Court REP David Coughlin
School Board District 2 NP Beth Clark
Superintendent of Schools REP Charlie Van Zant

2020 Flagler County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
Sheriff REP Rick Staly

2020 Indian River County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
Board of County Commissioners – Dist 3 REP Tim Zorc
School Board – Dist 3 NP Laura Zorc
School Board – Dist 5 NP Alla Kramer
Sheriff REP Charles Kirby

2020 Jackson County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
Superintendent of Schools REP Dallas Ellis

2020 Lake County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
County Commission District 1 REP Tim Sullivan
County Commission District 3 REP Kirby Smith
County Commission District 5 REP Josh Blake
North Lake Co. Hospital Board NE Seat 3 REP Ralph Smith
North Lake Co. Hospital Board NW Seat 5 REP Anita Swan
School Board Member District 2 NP Patricia Nave
School Board Member District 4 NP Betsy Farner
School Board Member District 4 NP Sandy Gamble

2020 Lee County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
COUNTY COMMISSIONER 1 REP MICHAEL J DREIKORN
PROPERTY APPRAISER REP MATT CALDWELL
SCHOOL BOARD 2 NON MELISA GIOVANNELLI
SCHOOL BOARD 3 NON BRIAN DIGRAZIO
SHERIFF NPA CARMEN MCKINNEY
SHERIFF REP JAMES A LEAVENS

2020 Manatee County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
Linda Ivell REP Republican State Committeewoman

2020 Marion County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
COUNTY COMMISSIONER – DIST 1 REP Mike Behar
COUNTY COMMISSIONER – 3 REP Bobby D. Dobkowski
COUNTY COMMISSIONER – 3 REP Jeff Gold
PROPERTY APPRAISER REP David Moore
PROPERTY APPRAISER REP Neil Nick Nikkinen
REPUBLICAN PARTY STATE COMMITTEEMAN REP John H. Townsend IV
REPUBLICAN PARTY STATE COMMITTEEMAN REP Randy Osborne
REPUBLICAN PARTY STATE COMMITTEEMAN REP William Richhart
SCHOOL BOARD – 1 NP Allison B. Campbell

2020 Martin County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
Property Appraiser REP Kelli Glass Leighton

2020 Okaloosa County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
County Commissioner, Dist. 1 REP Wayne Richard Harris
County Commissioner, Dist. 5 REP Richard Scott Johnson
County Commissioner, Dist. 5 REP Mel Ponder
Superintendent of Schools REP Ray Sansom

2020 Palm Beach County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
Republican State Committeewoman REP Cindy Falco-DiCorrado

2020 Pasco County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
County Commissioner – Dist 4 REP Gabriel (Gabe) Papadopoulos

2020 Santa Rosa County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
County Commissioner – Dist 1 REP Geoff Ross

2020 Sarasota County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
Sarasoto County Hospital Bd., At Large Seat 1 REP AUDIE ELIZABETH BOCK

2020 St. Lucie County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
City of Fort Pierce Commission, District 1 NP Kenneth Robinson
City of Fort Pierce, Mayor NP Donna Diehl Benton
City of Port St. Lucie, City Council District 2 NP David H. Pickett, Jr.
City of Port St. Lucie, City Council District 2 NP John Francis Haugh
County Commissioner, District 1 REP Betty Jo Starke
County Commissioner, District 5 DEM Fritz Masson Alexandre
School Board, District 4 NP Jason William Palm
School Board, District 4 NP Jennifer Anne Richardson
Sheriff REP Richard Williams, Jr.

2020 Volusia County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
County Council Member, District 3 NP Johan D’Hondt
County Council Member, District 4 NP Heather Post
Daytona Beach Commissioner Zone 4 NP Stacy Cantu
Edgewater Council District 4 NP Eric Rainbird
South Daytona Council Seat 4 NP Theodor Eric Sander
State Committeeman REP Santiago Avila, Jr.
State Committeewoman REP Debbie Phillips
State Committeewoman REP Maria Trent

2020 Walton County ProLife Candidates

Race Party Name
School Board – Dist 4 NP Jeri Michie
School Board – Dist 4 NP Marsha Winegarner

©All rights reserved.

The Cover-up of the Contaminated Blood Supply and Vaccines

Dr. Judy Mikovits, a high-level researcher who worked in the government program to combat AIDS, discovered that the nation’s blood supply from healthy donors was contaminated with disease causing retroviruses from mice and monkeys and that the source was in vaccines given to infants and young people.

Originally from the East Coast, Mikovits got her BS from the University of Virginia, spent 22 years working for the National Cancer Institute and got her PhD in biochemistry from George Washington University. Her thesis, according to Wikipedia was titled, “Negative Regulation of HIV Expression in Monocytes.”

Finding out that the blood supply from healthy donors was contaminated would be a blessing, but this wasn’t something the vaccine industry and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) looked upon with favor.  A massive coverup was launched by both industry and the CDC to prevent the public from learning the truth.

We can immediately see why this discovery had to be covered up for it leads into all the warnings over the past several years by many scientists, medical experts, pharmacists and others of the dangers of vaccines.

Vaccine Dangers

The late Alan Stang pointed out in one of his books that one man whose name could not be revealed, had been high up in the medical establishment, and after retirement gave a very secretive interview to one whom he could trust.  He stated that if he had children that could not avoid being vaccinated, he would move to another country where vaccination was not compulsory. He also stated that there was no doubt in his mind vaccines being given to infants as well as other young children were definitely the cause of autism.

He went on to reveal why he could not risk going public with what he knew because of the power and money behind these vaccines. If he went public with the information, this power would come down on him in such a way that would affect not only his retirement, but very possibly his life.

Shane Ellison, a developmental pharmacist, and former contributor to News with Views, authored several articles which were published by News with Views that explained in detail the dangers involved with vaccination. In one article he warns against giving your child the HINI flu vaccine. Several other articles on the same subject should be read by everyone before subjecting their children to vaccines.

In the opening paragraph to Shane’s article entitled, Swine Flu Alert: Medical Chemist says, “Think Before You Vaccinate”, he states, “As a young chemist working in the chemistry labs of corporate America, I watched as they promoted cancer causing drugs as anti-cancer remedies (tamoxifen). I also witnessed the pharmaceutically complaint media convince the world that depression was a disease and you needed the so-called antidepressant drug Prozac to treat it. I began to wonder, how gullible are the masses?  The reaction to the swine flu scare answered this.”

Shane Ellison’s article, Should I Vaccinate My Child?is another necessary read.  He states, “Vaccine talk is riddled with shoddy science, emotional arguments, convoluted explanations and all out quackery. Very little common sense shines its way through the murky vaccine debate.”

Another extremely important Ellison article is, Modern Medicine’s Deceit and why I abandoned itShane states, “Western Medicine has become a billion-dollar empire. Not out of keen science, but rather deceit. The end result has been one nation under drugs. This subjugation has set a standard of health in America that, by definition, is sick care disguised as health care.”

For years there has been evidence submitted to support the claim that a certain vaccine or vaccines are the cause of Autism. However, a series of massive public relations campaigns managed to prevent the evidence from being considered despite Democrat Robert Kennedy Jr.’s massive efforts.

Nevertheless, more claims and evidence of autism being the result of vaccines are surfacing every day. If Dr. Mikovits goes public, as she plans to with her exposure about the contaminated blood supply, it’s going to focus a lot of attention down the back-trail concerning the truth about vaccines, and especially the forced vaccinations of newborns and pre-school children.

When the vaccine industry and the CDC launched their cover-up campaign to prevent the public from learning about it, Dr. Mikovits told her superiors she would go public with her discovery. The next day, she was arrested and sent to prison without a warrant or any charges of a crime. The press reported that she removed government documents from the laboratory. What she removed, however, was her own personal notebook, containing her handwritten summary of meetings, deadlines, and appointments.

The story was an attempt to demonize her in the public mind so no one would believe her. She was warned that if she spoke to anyone about the contaminated vaccines she would go back to prison – for life. Now, she has decided to speak out at all costs. She says that all of this was orchestrated by Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of President Trump’s Coronavirus task force, and chosen by none other than Vice President Pence.

If it was, and I believe her for the simple reason that it plays into the modus operandi, of the agents of the New World Order agenda. And this fits Fauci to a “T.”

The Chosen Plandemic

The Deep State is a part of this agenda. According to the Birch Society Bulletin for July, the Deep State has long been preparing to use the fear of a pandemic to weaken American’s rights, erode the middle class, and lead our people into their One World Order.

One example of this, cited by the Birch Bulletin is “Event 201,” a tabletop exercise that simulated a pandemic. Held in New York City on October 18, 2019, just a week before the Wuhan coronavirus was exposed, Event 201 was sponsored by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  That alone should give everyone pause.

The by-invitation-only audience watched while the panelists engaged in scenarios simulating a worldwide pandemic and formulated what the globalists could do to solve the problem on a global scale. The simulation was based on a coronavirus as the cause of their pandemic. While coronaviruses are quite common, in light of the worldwide outbreak of the Covid-19 epidemic only weeks after Event 201, it is interesting this was chosen for their scenario.

The Birch Bulletin further pointed out,that many interactions within the American government health community involve the Chinese. Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, gave $3.7 million of U.S taxpayer dollars to the Wuhan laboratory for coronavirus development, even after the United States declared a moratorium on such funding.” This is only one example of China using American funding for viral research.

The obvious question arises here as to why and for what purpose is the development of the coronavirus necessary? As we have seen, its only use has been destructive. Actually, from all the evidence we have seen it is quite evident that the Wuhan laboratory was purposely brought into existence for the very thing it is being used for at present – to destroy America, her president and to coerce nations into accepting the New World Order.

In addition, in 2010, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched the “Global Vaccine Action Plan” to guide the discovery, development, and delivery of lifesaving vaccines. The leadership council for this initiative included Dr. Fauci, Anthony Lake, executive director of  UNICEF, who failed in his attempt to become Bill Clinton’s head of the CIA due to his openly pro-communist proclivities; and Tachi Yamada, president of the Global Health Program at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The plan called for ID technologies to track those vaccinated, conditioning people to accept the idea that they will need to prove their vaccination and health status before being allowed to engage in activities that heretofore were allowed by a free people without government restriction, such as the freedom to travel.

All this was only a part of the Birch report; there was much more along this same line.  I would urge everyone to join the Birch Society to receive both their bulletins and the New American Magazine.  Their research is impeccable.

What I have reported here is indicative of the proof of the conspiratorial interactions of many people who are involved in changing our republic into a one world communist totalitarian dictatorship. Americans (those who have a heart for America’s freedoms and liberties), should equate these vaccine pushing traitors as an armed invasion.  They are just as diabolical as BLM/Antifa and other destructive communist organizations.

Conclusion

Ironically, the commanding general of this invasion, Dr. Fauci, has been placed in authority over our defense against the invasion. How has this happened? It’s happening because President Trump doesn’t seem to know all his real enemies, and he has people surrounding him who have been placed there to pull the wool over his eyes.

We must continue to support Donald J. Trump for he is the only person we truly have on our side.  And don’t forget that he often plays chess while his enemy is playing checkers and even those of us who watch closely miss the cues of what he’s really up to.  The man is not a fool, and we desperately need him to continue to be at the helm of our government.

©All rights reserved.

WATCH President Donald J. Trump’s News Conference on 7/21/2020

At 5 p.m. ET on July 21, 2020 , President Trump held a news conference from the White House Briefing Room. The White House posted President Trump’s full news conference on YouTube.

NOTE: President Trump begins his remarks at the 40:30 minute mark.

WATCH:

©White House. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Condemning Police Led To Nationwide Spikes In Violence, Tom Cotton Says

White House Says 40 U.S. Code 1315 Gives Trump, DHS Jurisdiction To Act In Portland

Sen Hawley Calls Charges Against St Louis Couple ‘Miscarriage Of Justice’

RELATED VIDEO: The violence in Portland must end

“The well-organized mob in Portland has become increasingly aggressive, especially against law enforcement officers,” Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters during a press briefing this morning.

“Individuals have thrown bricks, chunks of concrete, glass bottles, feces, balloons filled with paint, pigs’ feet, slingshots to hurl ball bearings, and batteries at Federal agents and the courthouse. Multiple attempts to barricade officers in the Hatfield Courthouse have occurred.” The violence has raged on for more than 50 days.

UK Rightly Pushes Back on Gender Transitioning for Minors

On both sides of the Atlantic, advocates for transgender rights are increasingly substituting ideology for biological reality.

But while here in the U.S. the Supreme Court last month was writing into Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act legal protections for people who identify as transgender that the authors of the law never intended, the United Kingdom appeared to be moving in the other direction, standing up for common sense.

On the other side of the pond, just five days before the Supreme Court handed down its decision, bestselling “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling published an intensely personal essay in response to criticism of her position on the issue of gender identity.

In the essay, Rowling, who is British, revealed her past experiences with sexual assault and domestic abuse, and expressed concern about transgender activists’ attacks on single-sex spaces for women.


Two regimes are fighting an ideological war in America today. But what side are you on? And how can you sharpen up on how to defend your position? Learn more now >>


As a former teacher and a supporter of children’s charities, Rowling also stated her discomfort with the rush to medically transition children with gender dysphoria and especially the massive increase in young girls suddenly identifying as transgender.

Despite the vitriol she received in response from the left, Rowling refused to back down from her stance.

The comments by Rowling, along with other recent developments in the United Kingdom, show promising signs that the relentless advance of transgender ideology in medicine and public policy finally might be encountering some resistance across the Atlantic.

Britain’s minister for women and equalities, Liz Truss, recently announced plans to ban sex-change procedures for anyone under the age of 18.

Truss told a parliamentary committee April 20: “I believe strongly that adults should have the freedom to lead their lives as they see fit, but I think it’s very important that while people are still developing their decision-making capabilities that we protect them from making those irreversible decisions.”

Transgender activists frequently recommend those medical interventions—which include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery—for children who suffer from gender dysphoria.

Parents of children questioning their biological sex are advised to unquestioningly affirm the child’s new, self-identified gender and help them to transition socially with the help of a new name, pronouns, and wardrobe.

Little attention is paid to the adverse effects of that treatment, however. As Ryan T. Anderson and Robert P. George have written, such interventions “should be prohibited”:

Prudent legislation is needed to prevent adults from interfering with a child’s normal, natural bodily development.

‘Gender affirmation’ procedures violate sound medical ethics. It is profoundly unethical to intervene in the normal physical development of a child as part of ‘affirming’ a ‘gender identity’ at odds with bodily sex.

Activists have frequently brushed off concerns about possible regret following gender transitions, ignoring evidence that shows that they carry a number of physical and psychological risks.

The use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones can lead to increased cancer risk, decreased bone density, and adverse effects on brain development. In addition, hormones and surgeries can sterilize children who would normally be considered far too young to make such a serious—and permanent—medical decision.

In contrast, a “watchful waiting” approach allows children time to accept their biological sex instead of rushing to alter it and can help address any underlying issues causing the distress.

Studies show that 80% to 95% of children experiencing gender dysphoria who do not transition eventually come to accept their bodies, while nearly all children who are placed on the path of social transition go on to pursue medical interventions.

The U.K.’s decision to prevent those under 18 from being subjected to those unproven procedures demonstrates the importance of considering the best medical and scientific evidence, even if it contradicts the activists’ narrative.

Britain’s National Health Service recently made another change related to its treatment of gender dysphoria in minors.

The Health Service’s website, which provides information about medical conditions and treatment, includes a section on gender dysphoria in children. A section on the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues to prevent puberty in children who identify as transgender previously stated, “The effects of treatment with GnRH analogues are considered to be fully reversible, so treatment can usually be stopped at any time.”

That’s a common talking point for transgender activists, often employed to support early transitions while avoiding discussion of detrimental side effects or the lack of medical evidence supporting the use of puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria.

Surprisingly, that section on the National Health Service website was recently updated to read:

Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria. …

It’s also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children’s bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue, and mood alterations.

Rowling noted those concerns in a tweet, writing, “Many health professionals are concerned that young people struggling with their mental health are being shunted towards hormones and surgery when this may not be in their best interests.”

The National Health Service site also notes that the use of cross-sex hormones can lead to irreversible physical changes, such as deepening of the voice in females and breast development in males, as well as permanent infertility.

The changes to its site were made without fanfare, suggesting that the Health Service still fears activists’ outrage against even reasonable medical cautions.

Despite its own update, the Health Service continues to recommend and administer these medical treatments to minors. The Minister for Women and Equalities’ report on banning some of those treatments is not expected until later this summer, and its exact recommendations remain to be seen.

The changes to the Health Service’s website and the minister’s comments provide reason to hope that they will move toward a more cautious approach to treating children with gender dysphoria, protecting vulnerable youth from rushed, ideologically motivated—and often irreversible—interventions.

Policymakers in the United States would be well advised to do the same.

COMMENTARY BY

Andrea Jones is a research assistant in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion & Civil Society.


A Note for our Readers:

These are trying times in our nation’s history. Two regimes are fighting an ideological war in America today, with polar opposite viewpoints on public policy and the government’s role in our lives.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation asked world-class speaker, educator, and researcher David Azerrad to walk you through his research and outline the differences between the “two regimes” in our society today—conservatism and progressivism—and their primary differences.

When you get access to this course today, you’ll learn key takeaways like what it means to be a conservative, what “modern progressivism” is, how a conservative worldview differs from a progressive one, and much, much more.

You will come away from this online course with a better understanding of the differing points of view, how they align with your principles, and how to defend your beliefs.

Don’t wait—start taking “The Case for Conservatism” course online now.

GET YOUR FREE ACCESS NOW »


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

PODCAST: BLM organization, domestic terrorism, how lawlessness destroys a civil society!

GUESTS AND TOPICS

ANGELA BOX

Angela Box is a former actress and elementary school teacher who came to prominence due to her politically incorrect comments about radical Islam, President Obama, and the leftist Democrats on a local cable access television show. The hard Left targeted Angela for #cancelling (before cancelling was a thing). Instead of capitulating or apologizing, Angela fought back against her detractors with conviction. Since leaving teaching, Angela has been working with a political consultant who helps conservative candidates get elected in all levels of government.

TOPIC: BLM organization, domestic terrorism, how lawlessness destroys a civil society!

RICH MANNING

Rick Manning is a Conservative Commandoes and AUN-TV alumnus and the President, Americans for Limited Government. Rick also served on President Trump’s transition team. And he is also the author of the new book with Starr Parker — “Necessary Noise: How Donald Trump Inflames the Culture War and Why this is good for America!”

TOPIC: American pension funds investing in communist Chinese business.

PAUL DRIESSEN

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and author of articles and books on energy, environmental and human rights issues. We will discuss how the Left supports and enables child slave labor in mines in third world hell holes because it helps their “green new deal” agenda. Imagine that! Democrats voted to strip out provisions that would limit child slave labor because it would limit their “green new deal.”

TOPIC: Absurdly unrealistic “renewal energy” agenda.

©All rights reserved.

J.K. Rowling and the Cursed Woman

Breaking the transgender spell has cost the author a lot.


Did she impose the Unforgivable Curses? Did she condemn anyone to Azkaban? No; she claimed that a woman should not have forfeited her job for maintaining that men and women are different. And she followed that up by arguing that in fact they are different.

The position J.K. Rowling defended was one which, a few years ago, nearly everyone would have agreed with. In fact, I believe that today also nearly everyone would agree. But a violent and vocal minority not only believe otherwise but viciously attack anyone who disagrees with them. Ms Rowling has been the target of vicious verbal attacks and has even received death threats.

It is sad to see the three principal actors in the Harry Potter stories criticising the author without whom they would not be millionaires. Harry, Hermione and Ron would be ashamed of them.

It is an evident biological and psychological fact that men and women are different; a matter of science and of common sense: they complement each other. This is so obvious that no reasoned case can be made against it: which is why those who oppose it must resort to blind emotion and even physical threats.

Rowling’s statement in defence of her position is moderate and reasonable, yet it has provoked outrage. But the critics have not answered her arguments. Why? Because they can’t.

Through her personal experience and her study of the issues involved she has become deeply concerned about the detrimental effects the trans rights movement is having, and its push to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender.

She points out that there is an explosion of young women wishing to transition, and increasing numbers are taking steps that have permanently altered their bodies and taken away their fertility. In those transitioning “autistic girls are hugely over represented in the numbers”.

Rowling refers to researcher Lisa Littman, who wrote a paper expressing concern about Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, and who “…had dared challenge one of the central tenets of trans activism, which is that a person’s gender identity is innate, like sexual orientation. Nobody, the activists insisted, could ever be persuaded into being trans”.

Littman was “subjected to a tsunami of abuse and a concerted campaign to discredit both her and her work”.

Rowling shows great sympathy for young people who want to transition, partly because of her own experience when young. She suffered severely with OCD, and her father said openly that he would have preferred a son. Had she been born 30 years later she might have tried to transition. “The lure of escaping womanhood would have been huge.”

Noting that we are living through the most misogynistic period she had experienced, she points out that it’s not considered enough for women to be trans allies. “Women must accept and admit that there is no material difference between trans women and themselves.”

That statement expresses the essence of the problem: women are expected to annihilate themselves. Instead of there being two complementary ways of being human, male and female, the trans activists would blur the distinctions and cancel out the distinct qualities of each sex.

This program has dire consequences for both men and women, but holds special dangers for women, as in the insistence that biological men (there’s really no other kind!) be free to use women’s bathrooms and showers.

As Rowling observes: “When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he is a woman – and as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones –then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside”

It should really be no surprise that Rowling takes the stand that she does, for it is in accord with the healthy outlook on human nature implicit in the Harry Potter stories. Women there are portrayed as equal to men, but expressing their humanity in a feminine way. Large families are implicitly defended, as in the Weasley family: seven children with a loving father and mother: a rather poor family but happy.

And when Harry and Ron become romantically interested in girls, it is a healthy attraction.

An underlying theme is the power of a mother’s love, exemplified by Harry’s mother sacrificing her life to save him from the evil Lord Voldemort.

In fact, the theme of a mother’s unique love for her children is manifested when Molly Weasley hurls herself into battle against the formidable Bellatrix Lestrange, in order to defend her daughter Ginny. It is shown too when Narcissa Malfoy, in gratitude to Harry for telling her that her son is alive, lies to Voldemort, thereby risking her own life.

The Potter stories show a contrast between a healthy world and the world of Voldemort and his Death Eaters. And in this vendetta against Joanne Rowling we see something of a parallel. She defends a healthy view of Woman against a sick view that implicitly annihilates Woman.

J.K Rowling deserves support for her courageous stand. And it is good to read in her letter that the overwhelming majority of responses she received were positive, grateful, and supportive.

Professor Dumbledore warned the students at Hogwarts that a time may come “when you have to make a choice between what is right, and what is easy” (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, chapter 37) It is all too easy right now to buckle to a fashionable trend, against all reason.

COLUMN BY

John Young

John Young is a Melbourne based writer on theological, philosophical and social Issues. He is author of several hundred articles and three books: The Natural Economy, Catholic Thinking, and The Scope of… More by John Young

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