K-12 schools must allow boys into girls’ private areas to obtain federal funds for lunches, breakfasts, and snacks, the Biden administration announced this month. A U.S. Department of Education spokesman told The Federalist the Biden administration’s press releases from several agencies announcing this policy will be followed by formal rulemaking in June.
“It seems to be playing politics with feeding poor kids, which is really unfortunate,” John Elcesser, executive director of the Indiana Non-Public Education Association, said via phone amid weeks of attempting to sort out these new demands with government officials on behalf of private schools in his state. “Because if a school feels like they cannot participate because it’s in conflict with their mission or values, if a religious exemption is not granted, you’re taking away a program that’s feeding low-income kids.”
Before many schools shut down in response to Covid-19, the National School Lunch Program fed nearly 30 million kids every school day, in approximately 100,000 public and private schools and residential care facilities.
Under this new demand, establishments that accept any federal food funding, including food stamps, must also allow males who claim to be female to access female private spaces, such as showers, bathrooms, and sleeping areas. Such organizations must also follow protocols such as requiring staff to use inaccurate pronouns to describe transgender people and allowing male staff to dress as women while on the job.
Religious institutions, however, qualify for a waiver exempting them from these requirements, said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Greg Baylor in an interview Monday. According to the 1972 Title IX law, he said, religious institutions don’t have to file any paperwork to be exempt, although they can if they wish.
Baylor noted, however, that publicly affirming a commitment to sexual reality by seeking an exemption acknowledgment from federal agencies may assist extremist pressure campaigns. The activist group Human Rights Campaign’s blueprint for the Biden administration pushed for narrowing religious exemptions for multiple federal regulations and for the administration to “out” individuals and institutions who request such exemptions.
The Biden administration appears to be following that blueprint closely. According to Elcesser, USDA officials are telling schools to file paperwork to be exempt, although the Title IX law says that’s an option but not required. The USDA confirmed that to The Federalist Tuesday with this emailed statement: “Organizations may request a religious exemption by submitting a written declaration to the Secretary of Agriculture identifying the provisions that conflict with a specific tenet of the religious organization.”
Government schools can receive no exemption. At best, parents and taxpayers can urge school districts to not comply while inevitable lawsuits over the Biden administration’s interpretation work through courts for years.
“The Biden administration is grossly extending the Bostock holding where it does not belong. Like many of the Biden administration’s power grabs, this imposition transgresses areas of proper state and local authority. As the principal guardians of federalism, state attorneys general have the ability to combat such overreach where it injures state functions,” Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, a Republican, told The Federalist in a statement.
Even if this regulation is ultimately overturned by one means or another, millions of American children will be forced to eat their school lunches with a side of sexual politics.
“There is a lot of harm that comes from inflicting this interpretation of Title IX on public schools and private schools that are not eligible for the exemption,” Baylor said. In Loudoun County, Virginia, in 2021, a young woman was sexually assaulted in a school bathroom by a young man granted access by the district’s transgender policies.
Parents have told The Federalist that their daughters no longer use the bathrooms or locker rooms at their public schools because they don’t feel safe there. Many parents are finding after the fact that school districts are helping their children live as the opposite sex and hide that from their families.
“Some percentage of school districts want to be told by the federal government that they have to implement gender ideology,” Baylor observed. “If anyone complains, they can say, ‘We’re just doing what they told us. Go blame Joe Biden, not me.’”
As Biden promised to do while campaigning, his administration is pushing sexual confusion on as many institutions as it can. This aim has gotten a huge boost from the 2020 Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, an unconstitutional ruling that gives this extremist sexual agenda a legal fig leaf. That 5-4 decision clinched by President Donald Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch, however, concerned sex differences not in education but employment……
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2022-05-28 09:52:102022-05-31 06:34:12Biden Admin: K-12 Schools Must Put Boys In Girls’ Bathrooms To Get Federal Lunch Money
Before and since the Uvalde Massacre there has been an ongoing effort to idolize criminals and criminality. It was a tweet, below, from Barrack Hussein Obama about the Uvalde Massacre that helps understand who and what is important to him and by inference the entire Democrat Party.
In one tweet Obama has chosen a black convicted felon over the police. By doing so he also chosen lawlessness over the rule of law.
As we grieve the children of Uvalde today, we should take time to recognize that two years have passed since the murder of George Floyd under the knee of a police officer. His killing stays with us all to this day, especially those who loved him.
I'm not defending the actions of the officers. But we've demonized law enforcement to the point that there are far fewer rewards for being a hero, for taking risks. When your culture makes George Floyd the hero, real heroes stand down. Cultural rot has consequences. https://t.co/1YvYt121qt
This video interview by Jason Whitlock says everything you need to know about Barrack Hussein Obama, the current policies of Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., his administration and goals of the Democrat Party.
In 2017, a far-left Democrat and supporter of Bernie Sanders, James Hodgkinson, opened fire on a couple of dozen Congressional Republicans during softball practice, seriously wounding Representative Steve Scalise and lobbyist Mike Mika. Yet at no point did members of the Democratic Party or the corporate media begin clamoring for investigations into the dangers of socialism or of far-left Democratic Party activism.
In 2019, 24-year-old Connor Betts shot and killed nine people and wounded 17 others in Dayton, Ohio – an incident the media labeled as an act of racist white supremacy. The problem was, investigations quickly revealed that Betts was an avowed Satanist and supporter of far-left Antifa who hated Donald Trump and urged all his friends to vote only for Democrats.
The conclusion is that its not white supremacy or a gun, its the mis, dis and malinformation of some to further their political agenda.
It’s all about the cultural rot and mis, dis and malinformation that has taken hold in our nation and its consequences.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2022-05-28 09:36:372022-06-02 09:09:44MISINFORMATION WATCH: Young Women Speaks Truth About Upside Down Conditions in America Today [Video]
Monday is Memorial Day when we honor all military members who died while serving in the U.S. armed forces. Unfortunately, the Army just lowered its physical fitness standards, a move critics say will get more U.S. soldiers killed.
Too many women were failing the physical fitness test under so-called “gender-neutral” standards, meaning identical requirements for men and women. So the Army reinstated sex-norming, creating a different test with lower standards for women and older men. They have to pick up less weight and get more time to complete a run. Senator Tom Cotton called the new test a “fiasco” that will “get people killed.” That may be an overstatement, because the new test just measures basic physical fitness and does not change the additional requirements for combat roles or specialized jobs. However, there is already indication that’s what’s coming next. Earlier this year, a whistleblower accused the Air Force of fudging physical fitness standards for a female candidate so she could make it through Special Tactics training. Senator Cotton and other critics have a point when they highlight the Pentagon’s preoccupation with ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ and ‘fairness’ for women. How would you like to be in combat alongside someone who you know didn’t really meet the standards to be there?
Lowering standards in the name of diversity or some other value is also going on outside the military. Critics say the preoccupation with diversity has damaged science and will ultimately mean fewer scientific discoveries in the future. Democrats in Maryland want to keep police from removing homeless camps on public property. Critics say the bill encourages law-breaking and vagrancy.
But nowhere is the lowering of standards more apparent than in education.
California is taking another stab at Woke Math which, like the first version, still lowers standards in the name of promoting racial justice and equal outcomes.
The California University System wants to do away with grades because students don’t all start in the same place and ‘equity’ must be served.
‘Equity’ was the battle cry of a high school principal in San Diego who eliminated racial disparities in honors classes by doing away with the classes altogether. Who did this hurt? Minority students who excel and will now have a harder time getting into top schools.
Some high schools in Colorado are doing away with class valedictorians. Learning is not a competition, they say, and all students can learn at high levels. Following that logic, they should make every student valedictorian. Beats a participation trophy, doesn’t it?
The American Bar Association wants to do away with the LSAT law school entrance exam to increase diversity. That’s funny. MIT is bringing back standardized testing requirements to find talent and identify disadvantaged students, who with a little help, could be ready for MIT.
Georgetown Law, my alma mater, is changing its Property class to focus on structural racism and cultural appropriation. Good luck passing the bar exam or serving your clients well if all you know is a bunch of Woke drivel.
A Seattle school has a new disciplinary policy which considers race when handing out punishments for breaking the rules. Critics say this will lead to whites being punished more frequently and severely so the schools can even up the numbers of each racial group getting disciplined.
Thanks to new race-based admissions policies, Thomas Jefferson High School in Virginia – formerly one of the top high schools in the country – is now reduced to offering remedial education and tutoring at the 8th-grade level to entering students. TJ used to be an elite school for smart kids. No more.
Students benefit more from higher expectations than from lower standards, including minority and low-income students. That’s a fact. So, when Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke tells you lowering standards is essential for promoting diversity in college classrooms, she is leading you astray.
As the stories I’ve told you today show, the mindless preoccupation with diversity is a good way to damage science, hold minorities back from being all they can be and, maybe, even get soldiers killed. If we did a poll, I bet we would get a lot of support for lowering standards if diversity is the only goal. But if we changed the poll question to ‘do you support an exclusive focus on diversity given all the drawbacks that will have and all the damage it will do,’ I bet support would drop significantly. It’s easy to say ‘I want free ice cream,’ but not so easy when you factor in rotten teeth and expensive trips to the dentist. It’s time to end the exclusive preoccupation with diversity and bring things into better balance. MIT is showing the way.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Skirmish - Liberato.UShttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Skirmish - Liberato.US2022-05-27 16:05:582022-05-29 11:41:03Are You Ready to Pay the Price of Equity and Equal Outcomes?
The convergence of the Communist and capitalist wellsprings of the new world order – and its ominous implications for Americans and others who love freedom – was on display in Davos, Switzerland yesterday.
At the globalist World Economic Forum, the Chinese Communist Party’s tech giant, Alibaba, unveiled the next big thing in the planet’s inexorable march to the Digital Gulag. It’s called a “personal carbon footprint tracker.”
Evidently, we need not be concerned that Alibaba is a key enabler of the CCP’s totalitarian surveillance state and its uber- Orwellian “Social Credit System.” That’s because, while this tracker will monitor your whereabouts, travel, personal consumption and behavior – offering you inducements to do “the right thing ” – there’s no reason to worry that all of that data will be collected and monitored by Communist China because, you see, it’s “green.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Center For Security Policyhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCenter For Security Policy2022-05-27 12:14:542022-05-27 12:19:03Welcome To The ‘Green’ Digital Gulag
According to a recent modeling experiment, “Increased contact among vaccinated people can give the false impression that COVID-19 vaccines are not working”
This rationale is dubious at best, considering the unvaccinated have continuously been accused of not taking COVID seriously and going about their lives as normal, while the “vaccinated” are, by and large, more fearful and take “authorities” advice to heart, which includes avoiding large gatherings and close one-on-one interactions without wearing a face mask
Many data sources reveal that COVID-jabbed individuals are now getting COVID-19 at far higher rates than the unjabbed. Death rates, both for COVID and other causes, have also risen in tandem with the number of shots administered
According to an analysis of U.S. data, in September 2021, when Delta was most prominent, 23% of those who died from COVID had received the jab. In January and February 2022, when Omicron started dominating, that percentage jumped to 42%
Many argue that Omicron was more contagious than Delta, hence the higher death toll. But Omicron was also far milder than Delta, and there’s no reason the jabbed would die at a higher rate from a less lethal variant than a more lethal one, unless the injection made the infection worse
A preprint study found adult participants in Moderna’s trial who got the real injection and later got a breakthrough infection did not generate antibodies against the nucleocapsid — a key component of the virus — as frequently as did those in the placebo arm. Their anti-nucleocapsid response was also lower regardless of the viral load. As a result of this reduced antibody response, those who got the jab may be more prone to repeated COVID infections
Well, the COVID jab pushers have had to resort to all sorts of obfuscation to hide the fact that the injections don’t work, and now they’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel of excuses. According to a recent Reuters report,1 “Increased contact among vaccinated people can give the false impression that COVID-19 vaccines are not working.”
This irrational explanation has been levied in response to studies showing COVID-jabbed individuals are getting infected at higher rates than the unjabbed, and there are many such studies.
“These studies are likely to involve statistical errors, particularly if they did not account for different contact patterns among vaccinated versus unvaccinated people,” Korryn Bodner, a research associate in infectious disease modeling in Toronto, told Reuters. Bodner is the first author of a preprint study2 posted on medRxiv at the end of April 2022.
Are the Jabbed More Carefree Than the Unvaxxed?
Bodner’s claim is that those who got the jab may be more likely to throw caution to the wind and mingle with others, hence getting infected more frequently, while the unjabbed may be more cautious because they know they’re vulnerable. This rationale is dubious at best, considering:
a)The unvaccinated have continuously been accused of not taking COVID seriously and going about their lives as normal
b)Those who have taken the jab are, by and large, a far more fearful lot; they tend to listen to the “authorities” and take all of their advice to heart, which would include avoiding large gatherings and close one-on-one interactions without wearing a face mask
Check out the following story, reported by Anchorage Daily News:3
“Arianne Bennett recalled her husband, Scott Bennett, saying, ‘But I’m vaxxed. But I’m vaxxed,’ from the Washington hospital bed where he struggled to fight off COVID-19 this winter … Bennett went to get his booster in early December after returning to Washington from a lodge he owned in the Poconos, where he and his wife hunkered down for fall.
Just a few days after his shot, Bennett began experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, meaning he was probably exposed before the extra dose of immunity could kick in. His wife suspects he was infected at a dinner where he and his server were unmasked at times …
‘He was absolutely shocked. He did not expect to be sick. He really thought he was safe,’ Arianne Bennett recalled. ‘And I’m like, ‘But baby, you’ve got to wear the mask all the time. All the time. Up over your nose.'”
Within days of his third dose, he got a serious case of COVID. Yet they blame it on hypothetical exposure to an apparently healthy food server. This kind of irrational reasoning is prevalent among those who got the jabs and who keep going back for more as they are part of the 30% of the population that have been completely brainwashed.
To reiterate what I’ve explained since 2020, asymptomatic spread is likely to be so rare as to be nonexistent.4 It was a lie perpetuated to drive up fear and prop up rising “case” rates that didn’t really exist. It’s basic virology that you cannot transmit a virus unless you have a “hot” infection, and if you have an active, transmissible infection, you have symptoms. The symptoms are a sign that your body’s defenses are kicking in to rid itself of the live virus.
No symptoms, no transmission. So, unless the server was feeling sick and went to work anyway, the simplest explanation for Bennett’s demise was the shot itself. And if the server was sick, the fact that Bennett got so ill suggests the shot is ineffective, even at two doses.
The pro-pharma shills want you to believe there are so many confounding variables, we can’t possibly draw any conclusions from data showing the shots don’t work. Yet looking at data from a wide spectrum of sources, all show the same alarming trends. What “confounding factor” could possibly account for ALL of them being misinterpreted?
An Unproven Hypothesis
Reuters5 does note that Bodner’s simulations “do not prove that this type of bias affected studies of vaccine effectiveness versus the Omicron variant.” What it does show, according to Bodner, is that “even if vaccines work, increased contact among vaccinated persons can lead to the appearance of the vaccine not working.”
In other words, this is a hypothesis that has yet to be proven. Her modeling suggests it COULD make the jabs appear ineffective IF those who got the jab actually behave very differently from the unjabbed.
But again, it’s highly unlikely that the unvaccinated are avoiding exposure by steering clear of close contacts and crowds to a greater degree than those who got the jab. It’s far more reasonable to suspect that the shots don’t work.
On a side note, Bodner’s study was funded by the Canada COVID-19 Immunity Task Force.6 This task force is housed at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, and McGill University is a long-term recipient of grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.7,8,9,10
What Do the Data Say About COVID Jab Effectiveness?
Based on data from around the world, it seems clear that the COVID gene transfer injections are not working. In fact, they’re having the opposite effect of what you’d expect from a real vaccine. According to a Washington Post analysis of state and federal data,11 in September 2021, when Delta was most prominent, 23% of those who died from COVID in the U.S. had received the jab.
In January and February 2022, when Omicron started dominating, that percentage jumped to 42%. In December 2021 and January 2022, just under half of all the COVID patients in intensive care at Kaiser Permanente’s hospital system in Northern California had also received one or more shots.12
Many argue that Omicron was more contagious than Delta, hence the higher death toll. But Omicron was also far milder than Delta, so why would the jabbed die at a higher rate from a less lethal variant than a more lethal one?
One attempt at an explanation is that the fatalities are now occurring primarily among the elderly. Nearly two-thirds of those who died from COVID during the Omicron wave were 75 and older. During the Delta wave, 75-year-olds and older accounted for just one-third of the deaths.13
But that was the case from the beginning, and it still doesn’t answer the question: Why would old people be more likely to die from a milder virus than a more serious one? To answer that question, the injection pushers revert back to the argument of waning potency. Two-thirds of those who died in January and February 2022 did not have a booster shot. According to Anchorage Daily News:14
“Experts say the rising number of vaccinated people dying should not cause panic in those who got shots, the vast majority of whom will survive infections. Instead, they say, these deaths serve as a reminder that vaccines are not foolproof and that those in high-risk groups should consider getting boosted and taking extra precautions during surges.”
So, in other words, the jab only works for a handful of months, and then you have to take another. And another. And another. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,15 the first two doses wear off after five months, necessitating a third dose, and the third dose wears off in just four months, at which time you’re supposed to get dose No. 4.
Israeli data16 show the effectiveness of shot No. 4 in preventing severe disease declines by 56% in just seven weeks. So, it appears the protection you get from the shots keeps getting shorter with each dose. Meanwhile, data show the shots can render you increasingly susceptible to all manner of infection and disease, through a wide variety of mechanisms.
Moderna Trial Data Reveal Repeated Infections Are Likely
Among such data is a preprint study17 posted on medRxiv April 19, 2022, which found adult participants in Moderna’s COVID jab trial who got the real injection, and later got a breakthrough infection, did not generate antibodies against the nucleocapsid — a key component of the virus — as frequently as did those in the placebo arm.
Curiously, placebo recipients produced anti-nucleocapsid antibodies twice as often as those who got the Moderna shot, and their anti-nucleocapsid response was larger regardless of the viral load. As a result of this reduced antibody response, those who got the jab may be more prone to repeated COVID infections. As reported by The Defender:18
“[T]he authors found that using the presence of anti-nucleocapsid (anti-N) antibodies to determine whether a person was exposed to SARS-CoV-2 will miss some infections. Thus, the sensitivity of this kind of test, when applied to vaccinated individuals, is not ideal.
However, there are more important implications19,20 of these findings … Specifically, the study implies that the reduced ability of a vaccinated individual to produce antibodies to other portions of the virus may lead to a greater risk of future infections in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated.
It is important to note that this is not just another argument for the superiority of natural immunity. Rather, this is evidence suggesting that even after a vaccinated person has a breakthrough infection, that individual still does not acquire the same level of protection against subsequent exposures that an unvaccinated person acquires.
This is a troubling finding, and something investigators conducting the Moderna vaccine trial likely knew in 2020.”
UK Data Confirm Results
These findings are corroborated by data from the U.K. Health Security Agency. It publishes weekly COVID-19 vaccine surveillance data, including anti-nucleocapsid antibody levels. The report21 for Week 13, issued March 31, 2022, shows that COVID-jabbed individuals with breakthrough infections have lower levels of these antibodies — a finding they attributed to the protective benefit of the shot:
“These lower anti N responses in individuals with breakthrough infections (post-vaccination) compared to primary infections likely reflect the shorter and milder infections in these patients.”
However, this interpretation is likely flawed, because less severe infection is associated with lower viral load, and as the study above demonstrated, the “vaccinated” have lower anti-nucleocapsid antibody levels than the unvaccinated at all viral load levels, but especially so at the lowest viral loads. As noted by The Defender:22
“This is one of the most significant findings of the study because it overturns the heretofore unchallenged idea that decreased seroconversion in the vaccinated is due to less severe infection in this population — which is a benefit provided by the vaccine.
However, this new study shows that even at low viral loads, the unvaccinated are more likely to seroconvert than those who are vaccinated. In fact, the difference in seroconversion rates is the greatest at lowest viral loads. The decrease in conversion rates is not a result of a benefit from the vaccine. It is a consequence of it.”
Boosted Now Have Three to Four Times Higher Case Rates
The Defender also reviews other U.K. data showing the COVID case rate is three to four times higher among those who have received a booster shot, compared to the unvaccinated. This is true for all age groups with the exception of children under 18:23
“What could explain such a large increase in infection rates among the boosted? Interestingly, the authors … warn that the unvaccinated may have contracted COVID-19 prior to the observation period — in other words, they may have acquired natural immunity previously, giving them added protection …
But their own data tells the opposite story. The boosted are more likely to contract the disease — by a factor of 3 to 4. How do we know whether the larger infection rates in the boosted are due to more robust immunity in the unvaccinated because of prior infection or due to an immune deficiency in the boosted?
The question can be definitively answered by examining the trend of infection rates [using] … the equivalent table from two months earlier. There is still a greater infection rate among the boosted, but it is only two to three times higher. If the authors’ hypothesis was correct, the more recent data should have shown less of a difference, not more.
If anything, their data support the finding that the decreased seroconversion rates in the vaccinated may be causing a greater risk of repeated infections.”
Data from the pharmacy chain Walgreens in the U.S. also reveal the same trend — COVID-jabbed individuals are testing positive for COVID at higher rates than the unjabbed, and those who got their last shot five months or more ago have the highest risk.
As you can see in the screenshot from Walgreens’ COVID-19 tracker24 below, during the week of May 9 through 15, 2022, 21.4% of unvaccinated individuals who got tested for COVID got a positive result. Of those who had gotten just one COVID shot, the positivity rate was 26.3%.
Of those who received two doses five months or more ago, 31.3% tested positive, and of those who received a third dose five months or more ago, the positive rate was 32.7%. So, after the first booster shot (the third dose), people are at greatest risk of testing positive for COVID.
Perhaps most disturbing of all are the data showing the COVID shots are raising mortality rates, both from COVID and other causes. Above is an animated illustration25 sourced from Our World In Data, first showing the vaccination rates of South America, North America, Europe and Africa, from mid-December 2020 through the third week of April 2022, followed by the cumulative confirmed COVID deaths per million in those countries during that same timeframe.
Africa has had a consistently low vaccination rate throughout, while North America, Europe and South America all have had rapidly rising vaccination rates. Africa has also had a consistently low COVID mortality rate, although a slight rise began around September 2021. Still, it’s nowhere near the COVID death rates of North America, South America and Europe, all of which saw dramatic increases.
Here’s another one,26 also sourced from Our World In Data, first showing the excess death rate in the U.S. (the cumulative number of deaths from all causes compared to projections based on previous years), between January 26, 2020, and January 30, 2022, followed by an illustration of the tandem rise of vaccine doses administered and the excess mortality rate. It clearly shows that as vaccination rates rose, so did excess mortality.
We also have the benefit of more than one risk-benefit analysis, and all show that, with very few exceptions, the COVID jabs do more harm than good. A risk-benefit analysis27 by Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and independent researcher Kathy Dopp, published in mid-February 2022, concluded that the COVID jab is deadlier than COVID-19 itself for anyone under the age of 80.
Another analysis,28 which relied on data in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), concluded that in those under age 18, the shots only increase the risk of death from COVID, and there’s no point at which the shot can prevent a single COVID death, no matter how many are vaccinated.
If you’re under 18, you’re a shocking 51 times more likely to die from the jab than you are to die from COVID if not vaccinated. In the 18 to 29 age range, the shot will kill 16 for every person it saves from dying from COVID, and in the 30 to 39 age range, the expected number of vaccine fatalities to prevent a single COVID death is 15. Only when you get into the 60 and older categories do the risks between the jab and COVID infection even out.
A third risk-benefit analysis by researchers in Germany and The Netherlands was published in June 2021, in the journal Vaccines.29 The paper caused such an uproar, part of the editorial board resigned in protest.30 The journal retracted the paper, but after a thorough re-review, it was republished in the August 2021 issue of Science, Public Health Policy and the Law.31
These researchers concluded that, “as we vaccinate 100 000 persons, we might save five lives but risk two to four deaths.”32 A fourth, still preliminary, analysis — based on more than 1,700 death reports collected by Steve Kirsch — shows the shots do more harm than good in anyone under age 60. Kirsch writes:33
“Figure 1 below is an analysis of survey data I collected. The analysis shows that the vaccines are harmful to those under 60. The red dots higher than the error bar means more vaccinated people observed dead than expected based on the population of vaccinated to all people.
In other words, if we vaccinated 60% of people (middle of the grey bar) and 70% (red dot) of the deaths are vaccinated, we have a serious problem. The precautionary principle of medicine suggests if you are under 60 and thinking of taking a vaccine, you shouldn’t. These preliminary results are both statistically significant …
The conclusion is very clear: nobody under 60 years old should get the vaccine because there is no evidence of a benefit. In fact, if you are between 40-60, it’s clear that vaccination makes it more likely you’ll die, not less likely.”
Figure 1. Red dot below error bar = vax works. Red dot above error bar = vax likely causes harm. Red dot inside the error bar = Insufficient evidence to justify taking a new, unproven vaccine. Conclusion: Vaccine shouldn’t be considered unless there is a clear benefit. 60 and older seems to justify use based on the data we have so far. Limitations: we are waiting for others to confirm / challenge the analysis. See text34 for more info. Joel Smalley did the analysis.
While some analyses present a direr picture than others, taken together, it’s clear that there appears to be no long term benefits to the COVID jabs. We’re consistently ending up with a higher cost than can conceivably be considered reasonable. The pro-pharma side will likely continue to lob flimsy excuses at the data, but at some point, the truth will be so clear that even the blind will see it. Until that day, continue to inform yourself and share what you find.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MERCOLA Take Control of Your Healthhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMERCOLA Take Control of Your Health2022-05-26 05:57:592022-05-26 06:00:12Why Those Under 60 Are More Likely to Die if Jabbed
Michael Pakaluk: The idea that the common good can be found in Roe v. Wade is gravely mistaken, since it subordinates the good of the unborn to the born.
Iwant to draw attention to three mistakes about Aquinas’ teaching on the common good which are encouraged by some presentations today of so-called “common good” jurisprudence. If we take Aquinas to represent “the classical view,” then these are mistakes, too, about classical thought.
Begin with Aquinas’s famous, four-part account of the essence of law: any law, he says, is:
(1) a precept of reason,
(2) directed to the common good,
(3) set down by a competent authority, and
Because this is an account of the essence of something, you simply can’t have that thing at all, Aquinas thinks, unless all the parts of the account are somehow verified in it.
What this means is that anything that can in any way count as law, by definition – by its very essentia – is directed to some conception of a common good. Aquinas remarks that even the laws of a tyrant promote a common good: they propose in effect that the citizens should together find their good in promoting the personal good of the tyrant.
This is the firstmistake, then: it’s misleading for any party, or school of interpretation, to claim that they are offering something distinctive or different, because they favor connecting the law to the common good. All law does that, of necessity. Nothing can count as “law” unless it is ordered to a common good.
All the interesting questions, then, involve what conception of the common good is implicit in a law. Does it promote what Aquinas calls “the true good” (verum bonum) or something else? Is its implicit conception something we can really embrace? Is it perhaps incoherent, or self-defeating, or calculated to lead to bad things despite someone’s good intentions?
Even Roe v. Wade contained conceptions of the common good, of course: a conception of the autonomy of the professions (the inviolability of “a decision made in consultation with one’s doctor”); of the equality of women, and what is necessary for that; and a conception of the limits of government’s power to proscribe.
These conceptions were and remain gravely mistaken. Certainly they are disputable by fair-minded persons and cannot be held to be built into the very social compact of the United States. Obviously, too, any “common good” implicit in Roe includes the good only of born human beings, subordinating the good of the unborn to the born. In that sense, Roe’s conception of the common good is tyrannical.
But the point is that both sides claim to promote the common good. The debate hinges on what that truly is, not whether it is invoked. To say that the master key is to introduce the premise that the law should be ordered to the common good is a mistake and a diversion.
The second mistake as regards “the classical view,” is to describe the common good of human law without reference to the virtues and to God, but to regard it as a social system of economic and political instrumentalities, even construing classical language such as “public peace” and “public order” in this way.
Aquinas does not do this. In his discussion of human law specifically, he does not separate peace from virtue: “in order that man might have peace and virtue, it was necessary for laws to be framed.” Indeed, making those subject to it good, he says, following Aristotle, is the goal of law: “if the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on true good, which is the common good regulated according to Divine justice, it follows that the effect of the law is to make men good simply.”
Again, because piety is a central human virtue for Aquinas, not surprisingly he approves of Isidore’s claim that a chief purpose of human law should be “to foster religion.”
On “the classical view” one cannot avoid these matters by saying, as Adrian Vermeule does, that it’s possible to confine one’s discussion to “the order of nature” and avoid “the order of grace.” On Aquinas’s view, human beings precisely as natural creatures, cannot attain even “temporal happiness” except through exercising the virtues – and as rational creatures they are ordered to God, who is the ultimate common good of society. As John Paul II liked to emphasize, it’s inherent in the human person to have a transcendent character, and the common good of human society must be framed correspondingly. Religion after all is a pagan virtue.
The great theologian, Johannes Messner, writing in his 1949 Social Ethics after the horrors of World War II, comments, “Only if a personal God is recognized as creator and lawgiver can the idea of the ‘might of right’ possess its quite definite authority; otherwise, there can be no compelling reason why the principle ‘might is right’ should not in one way or another prevail.”
This brings me to the third mistake, which is that current presentations of the common good seem to downplay the necessity of liberty, identifying liberty with libertarianism and individualism.
This third mistake follows from the second. Liberty is necessary for genuine virtue and for our response to God. Downplay virtue, and liberty is easily lost from sight. Moreover, as James Madison emphasized in his Memorial and Remonstrance, the relationship which a human being has to his creator, prior to political society and government, is a fundamental safeguard of liberty. Prescind from our relationship to God, and how else are fundamental liberties secured?
Let Messner have the last word here: “full humanity depends essentially on [man’s] personal responsibility and self-reliant activity in carrying out the demands of his being. . . .the common good means that social cooperation makes it possible for the members of society to fulfill by their own responsibility and effort the vital tasks set for them by their existential ends. . . .although a domestic animal is not harmed in its essential nature by being provided for, the ‘provider state’ does impair man’s natural status because it takes away from him a sphere of self-determination and personal responsibility.”
Michael Pakaluk, an Aristotle scholar and Ordinarius of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas, is a professor in the Busch School of Business at the Catholic University of America. He lives in Hyattsville, MD with his wife Catherine, also a professor at the Busch School, and their eight children. His acclaimed book on the Gospel of Mark is The Memoirs of St Peter. His new book, Mary’s Voice in the Gospel of John: A New Translation with Commentary, is now available.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Catholic Thinghttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Catholic Thing2022-05-25 06:20:152022-05-25 06:20:15Three Mistakes about the Common Good
While Bill Gates trumpeted his so-called “Decade of Vaccines” in 2010—apparently given a new lease on life with Covid—he’s been understandably quieter about his planned Decade of Pandemics. Of course the two go hand in hand, or perhaps hand in glove, as both are merely tools to further the Davos elites’ two-pronged attack on We the People: genocide and subsequent enslavement of those who survive.
Plandemics and their subsequent mRNA vaccines can maim and kill millions of people, while providing the psychopathic elites with plausible deniability. Here’s Gates’ disingenuous warning: “Also, related to pandemics is something people don’t like to talk about much, which is bioterrorism, that somebody who wants to cause damage could engineer a virus. “ [Italics mine.] Hmmm…now why would anyone want to do that, Bill?
In case you were wondering, Stephen Luby, professor of medicine and senior fellow at Stanford’s Wood Institute for the Environment, informs us that: There will be a Sars-CoV-3.
It seems the WHO is planning for ten solid years of pandemics, from 2020 to 2030. How does WHO know what, why and when? Unless, of course, Gates’ minions—the WHO included—are feverishly planning and executing these pandemics. What better way to accurately predict the future than by controlling it?
LESSONS FROM FRANKENSTEIN
Among the dwindling numbers of literary classics students are assigned today, one often finds Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein. Written when Shelley was only eighteen, it is quite an achievement and brilliant in concept; although, in my view, far from a literary masterpiece and actually a bit of a slog to read. Nevertheless, students love it.
Unfortunately, they miss the point.
Instead of grasping what I consider to be the genius of the novel—its exposition of the truism that when man plays God, disaster inevitably follows—the kids derive the message that you should be kind to monsters. Many of them write essays to the effect that if only people had not rejected the poor monster—if only they had not hurt his feelings—he wouldn’t have gone on a killing rampage, which many students think was justifiable. I kid you not. This is how your children are being trained to think in public schools.
Perhaps their teachers also fail to point out the moral of this story. In fact, if it was clearly recognized and taught as a cautionary tale about hubris in schools today, I’d wager that the Common Core progressives who put together today’s pathetically weakened and subversive curriculum, would quickly remove it from the syllabi. After all, from man made viruses to gene-altering “vaccines” to transhumanism, we’re being besieged by legions of unleashed Dr. Frankensteins.
Of special note among the legions of domestic Frankensteins must be our own Dr. FauxChi, whom one might describe as a modern-day amalgamation of Josef Mengele, the Nazi’s mad scientist who conducted cruel experiments on prisoners, and Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi’s Minister of Propaganda.
The Fauch’s organization NIAID has given millions of dollars to crazed scientists to bioengineer new and deadly GMO viruses and retroviruses that previously apparently did no harm in bats or other creatures, and couldn’t infect humans, but now can cause worldwide pandemics.
This begs the question: Why perform “Gain of Function” research at all, since the function you gain creates a bioweapon?
Here’s the logic: in case those viruses were ever to naturally jump from bats to people, say in a Wuhan wet market, and make people sick, scientists would be able to recognize the pathogens and presumably make vaccines against them for the huge benefit of… patent holders, like Fauci’s NIAID, and Big Pharma. And if thousands or millions were to die in the process? That’s just collateral damage.
Of course there’s an even more nefarious possibility—dare I say likelihood: that these Frankensteinian viruses and the genetically modified “vaccines” we’re told we must have to combat them, are both designed for genocidal “depopulation” purposes. Pick your poison.
RAND PAUL VS. TEFLON TONY
Recently, Senator Rand Paul bravely stood up to Fauci, perhaps to make amends for having stabbed President Trump in the back along with the majority of his feckless fellow Senators on January 6th—but I digress.
Kudos to Rand for pointing out Dr. Fraudster’s lies and collusion with the Wuhan Institute of Virology to fund the dangerous, illegal and immoral viral-lethality-enhancing “research” that led to Sars-CoV-2 and Covid-19.
But Rand’s main concern, like that of so many others, is that these viruses could escape the lab and infect people. Well, accidents do happen.
Except, as FDR told us, in politics, where “…nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” And for those who refuse to believe Covid-19 was planned—in spite of Event 201 describing the precise scenario of the pandemic and worldwide lockdowns several months prior to the Wuhan outbreak, as well as the perfect timing of the “pandemic” to pull the plug on Trump’s economic miracle and pave the way for flagrant voter fraud through unprecedented national mail-in voting to keep, um, Biden voters “safe”—all I can say is I’m running out of bridges to sell.
The accompanying ghoulish article: Of Viruses & Vectors, by Deni Ellis Béchard, almost reads like a primer on Agenda 21/2030, full of warnings about global warming, climate change and the dangerous “edges where humans and animals come into contact” leading to “human-wild interface with less and less buffer between them.” Who knows what dire diseases may emerge “…at the edge of human habitats.” Did you realize you live in a “human habitat” instead of a city or suburb or small town?
The passage quoted above obliquely refers to the Davos elites’ Wildlands Project, as they plan to make the “wildlands” as off-limits to us as our Capitol was for months after January 6th, while herding us into crowded high-density “districts” à la The Hunger Games.
In his article, Béchard kills two bats with one stone: implying we should stay out of forests, etc., and presumably stop raising livestock (animals are “reservoirs” for “vectors” like mosquitos that spread viruses) though people have done this safely for millennia. So what has changed? The addition of the elite cabal’s phony global warming/climate change psyop, along with their control of the media for propagandizing their mischief.
Referencing climate change and other spurious globalist claims, Béchard blithely assures us we’re in for more pandemics, sooner rather than later, and the next one could stem from the NIPAH virus, with a fatality rate of 75%. Yes, you heard that correctly. Seventy-five percent fatality rate. Compare that to Covid’s measly .1% for all but the frail elderly and those with serious co-morbidities who have a rate from about .2% to 2% or so.
And surprise, surprise, NIPAH is also bat-derived.
What is this fascination with bats? The 2011 predictive-programming movie Contagion—and here’s your spoiler alert—featured a pandemic almost exactly like the one we’ve just endured, which was discovered to have originated from…you guessed it…a bat!
Here’s another unpleasant surprise for you: Look at the American quarter that came out in 2020, a year which should be rechristened by the Chinese as the Year of the Bat:
What a coincidence!
Perhaps the Globalist Cabal—billionaire Gates and Davos pals who can’t wait to depopulate, I mean vaccinate, the world—with their penchant for the occult and demonic, also had in mind the Mayan’s bat god, Camazotz, associated with death and sacrifice, as in the sacrifice of human beings. Pretty remarkable that a spooky-looking pair of bats was the best that American Samoa could come up with in the way of an uplifting emblem.
Here’s another creepy picture of our dystopian virus-laden future by Catrin Welz-Stein from the same article Of Viruses & Vectors.
But it looks as if the monkey may have beaten out the bat, as the WHO is reportedly convening an “emergency” meeting on the Monkeypox which it claims is going global. Hmmm… I don’t recall ever hearing about monkeypox, which sounds as if it affects only, well…monkeys. Does that mean the WHO seeks to make monkeys out of us? If so, it won’t be the first time.
After the manner of Hollywood producers who often follow up a mediocre film with a sequel that’s even worse, it seems the Powers-That-Be are following the same template they used for Covid: First they claim to find a few scattered cases of some exotic or “novel” virus but reassure us that we have no cause for alarm…as yet. This way they can slowly build up a crescendo of fear, then suddenly crank it up to full-blown panic with projections of millions of deaths—ultimately terrifying people into getting a brand spankin’ new mRNA Chimp-22 vaccine that will magically be rushed to market to keep us, you know, “safe.”
GAIN OF FUNCTION = LOSS OF BENIGNITY
Once laboratory scientists re-engineer a virus that has never infected people and/or is benign to humans, in order to make it malignant, they’ve engaged in bioterrorism research and development. There’s no polite way to say this—it’s evil.
On the one hand, as Mary Shelley showed us more than a hundred years ago, messing with nature to create new life forms is bound to be catastrophic. On the other, since Dr. Faustus himself has both funded this kind of “research,” lied about having done so, and presumably gotten his co-conspirators at the Wuhan Institute of Virology to cover for him, we can take this as clear indication that FauxChi knew what he was doing was wrong. And like his fictional predecessor, Dr. Frankenstein, little Tony Fauci will surely pay the price for the hellishness he’s unleashed on the world.
But unfortunately, he’s not alone. Not only have a number of “scientists” been working on Gain-of-MalFunction “research,” some of these geniuses have been laboring to create bizarre new life-forms that have even more in common with Mary Shelley’s infamous doctor and his monstrous creation. In fact, transhumanists are busily remaking man in their own benighted image, as the globalist cabal’s plan is not only to do away with our liberty, economy and quality of life, but also with humanity as we know it. For these hubristic New World Order designers, We the Peons are already being described as “legacy humans.” This is analogous to the heirloom tomatoes you may find at your local farmers’ market—the rare varieties from the good ol’ days.
The new human species they plan to create will be merged with AI and/or some form of technological machinery—that is, those who are slated to be the “smart ones,” a la Huxley’s Brave New World. The Epsilons—those at the bottom rung of the societal ladder—will be merged with animals as “chimeras.” Alex Jones was evidently right—these experiments have been going on for many years.
Perhaps it was inevitable that as man discovered more and more about the wonders of our universe and of our own bodies, some would trod this path. It seems there’s nothing new under the sun after all. The Serpent’s promise to Eve in the Garden was if she’d eat the forbidden fruit, she—and her mate—would become “as gods.”
Perhaps the psychopathic Powers-That-Be and their malevolent university-trained cohorts have forgotten the upshot of a devil’s bargain. At the very least, they ought to reread Frankenstein. Either that or the Bible.
President Joe Biden suggested record gas prices were part of an incredible transition away from fossil fuels Monday in Japan.
At the press conference in Tokyo with Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, a reporter asked the president if a recession in the United States was inevitable.
“When it comes to the gas prices,” the president stammered for a moment. “We’re going through an incredible transition that is taking place that God willing when it’s over we’ll be stronger, and the world will be stronger and less reliant on fossil fuels when this is over.”
Biden then mentioned his decision to ease rising gas prices by releasing 180 million barrels of oil from emergency stockpiles in late March, though he noted it hasn’t been effective.
The Biden administration canceled the three remaining offshore oil and gas lease sales last week including the Cook Inlet in Alaska, and two in the Gulf of Mexico reportedly due to factors including conflicting court rulings.
Richard Spinrad, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reportedly said the backlog in permitting was from a miscalculation a sub agency found, according to a late April letter obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
The average pump price nationwide has surged to $4.59 per gallon of regular gasoline compared to $4.11 in April, according to AAA.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2022-05-24 06:59:002022-05-25 06:10:23Biden Soaring Gas Prices Are Part Of Green Agenda—Gas Stations Adding Extra Digit Expecting $10 a Gallon for Gasoline
The Wuhan Institute of Virology assembled a monkeypox virus genome, allowing the virus to be identified through PCR tests, using a method researchers flagged for potentially creating a “contagious pathogen,” The National Pulse can reveal.
The study was first published in February 2022, just months before the latest international outbreak of monkeypox cases which appear to have now reached the United States.
[ … ]
Monkey pox viruses – referred to as “MPXVs” in the paper – have strains that are “more pathogenic and [have] been reported to infect humans in various parts of the world.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Monday alerted gay and bisexual men that monkeypox appears to be spreading in the community globally, warning people to take precautions if they have been in close contact with someone who may have the virus and to be on the lookout for symptoms.
Dr. John Brooks, a CDC official, emphasized that anyone can contract monkeypox through close personal contact regardless of sexual orientation. However, Brooks said many of the people affected globally so far are men who identify as gay or bisexual. Though some groups have greater chance of exposure to monkeypox right now, the risk isn’t limited only to the gay and bisexual community, he cautioned.
“We want to help people make the best informed decisions to protect their health and the health of their community from monkeypox,” Brooks said.
Scientists now say that the simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), which is believed to have been transmitted to humans to become HIV-1—the virus that causes AIDS—didn’t start its life in chimps.
Instead, it was a product of separate viruses jumping from different monkey species into chimps, where they recombined to form a hybrid virus, according to a new study.
Researchers believe the chimpanzee virus is a hybrid of the SIVs naturally infecting two different monkeys, the red-capped mangabey (Cercocebus torquatus) and the greater spot-nosed monkey (Cercopithecus nictitans). Chimps eat monkeys, which is likely how they acquired the monkey viruses. The hybrid virus then spread through the chimpanzee species, and was later transmitted to humans to become HIV-1.
The study suggests striking parallels between SIV infection of chimps and HIV infection of humans. Just as chimps acquired viruses from two different sources, humans are infected by two distinct AIDS viruses: HIV-1 and the less virulent HIV-2, which humans acquired from sooty mangabey monkeys.
“Because of the similarity between chimpanzees and humans, any virus that successfully adapts to spreading among chimps would be a candidate for a further jump to humans—a potential HIV-3,” said Paul Sharp of the Institute of Genetics at University of Nottingham in England, who led the study.
The underlying question is what was Hunter Biden and the larger clan doing to make all that money from these [Chinese] guys?
It’s implausible that Hunter Biden, an unstable crackhead with no self-control, was getting paid a fortune [by the Chinese] for any skill other than his political connections. If Joe Biden had been a retired Senate member, it’s unlikely that Hunter would have gotten this kind of payday.
There’s no scenario in which this was anything except an attempt to use Joe Biden’s crackhead son for his political connections. And those connections all go through Joe.
Thus ends the story on how and why the Chinese have gotten a pass on first creating the Covid pandemic and now exposing the world to the Monkeypox.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2022-05-24 06:18:562022-05-24 06:37:39Déjà Vu All Over Again: China’s Wuhan Lab Does it Again. First Covid now Monkeypox!
Last week, Politico reported on a leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade and return the question of abortion regulation to the states, ending the Court’s invention of a constitutional right to abortion. The draft opinion was greeted with predictable outrage from left-progressives, including those in organized labor.
Now, many people, especially those on the social-conservative right who are re-exploring aligning with organized labor, might not expect union bosses to be among the left-progressive leaders ready to jump on a leaked, not-finalized Supreme Court opinion, but they were. Examples include:
Liz Shuler, who ascended to the presidency of the AFL-CIO after the death of Richard Trumka, argued, “We must be able to control our own bodies—which has a direct impact on economic justice and the ability of working people to make a better life for themselves and their families.”
Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), denounced an “extremist, anti-woman majority of the Supreme Court” (that, it should be noted, is suspected to include Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a woman) for taking away “a woman’s fundamental right to an abortion.”
Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, said the opinion “should be viewed as part of the broader far-right assault on gender-affirming health rights in this country, including the laws targeting trans youth and their families, attacks on LBGTQ individuals, and homophobic bans on the word ‘gay’ in education,” presumably a deceptive reference to Florida’s Parental Rights in Education legislation, frequently misnamed in “objective” press accounts.
I Told You So
These statements and other pro-abortion activities by organized labor, such as SEIU Healthcare Illinois/Indiana rallying with Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) and Planned Parenthood or the new Amazon Labor Union calling for protests in New York City, demonstrate that American labor unions are inseparable from social left-progressivism through an ideological practice known as “social justice unionism.” Back in 2021, we published a serial outlining how organized labor provided financial support to Washington State measures introducing Planned Parenthood–aligned sex education material into public school curriculums.
And what of the expressed hope of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), that union organizations could provide a counterweight to “a requirement that the workers embrace management’s latest ‘woke’ human resources fad”? Well, I was skeptical, noting that “operatives who run the labor unions endorse woke H.R. fads. And to the extent they don’t, they support going even further.”
Now, I may enter into evidence the statement of Sara Nelson, head of the flight attendants’ union AFA-CWA and rumored candidate to challenge Shuler for the leadership of the House of Labor, last seen campaigning to extend the now-enjoined traveler mask mandate when it came up for renewal in March. Nelson explicitly called on her members’ bosses to engage in woke capitalism:
We call on airline management to stand with us and for equality, anti-discrimination, and mutual respect. It is not enough that corporations espouse these principles as core to their missions—now is the time to demonstrate this commitment to their employees and passengers. This is about our safety and our freedom. We cannot work if we are not safe.
Social justice unionism means that organized labor is an additional pressure point forcing capitalists to be woke, not a point of opposition. The reaction to the Supreme Court leak should prove that beyond doubt.
Michael is Research Director for Capital Research Center and serves as the managing editor for InfluenceWatch. A graduate of the College of William and Mary, he previously worked for a…+ MORE BY MICHAEL WATSON
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Capital Research Centerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCapital Research Center2022-05-24 05:34:152022-05-24 05:36:34Social Justice Unionism Means Pro-Abortion Big Labor
Discovery+ is releasing Generation Drag. Produced by Tyra Banks, the show documents five young drag queens as they participate in a drag show, “Dragutante,” designed for LGBTQ kids ages 8-18. In celebration of Pride Month, Discovery+ plans to release the six-episode docuseries on June 1.
The Warner Bros.-owned streaming platform, Discovery+, is wrong to produce this type of program. Many would consider it child abuse to encourage these children to dress in drag, question their gender, and sexually exploit themselves.
The parents shown on camera who celebrate their child’s decision to become transgender should be ashamed. 1MM knows that God makes no mistakes. These children were designed in His image before they left their mother’s womb.
While normalizing the drag queen lifestyle, Generation Drag attempts to make the lifestyle appear glamourous by using young cast members to lure a young audience. The reality show depicts transgenderism as the way a person is born but then glorifies this lifestyle as a decision. Tolerance is one thing, but acceptance or affirmation is another.
Obviously, Discovery+ is attempting to desensitize America’s youth by airing programs starring young people. This docuseries covers the real life of young people and will attract both young and old viewers. Children and teens are being desensitized, but parents can do something about this hidden agenda.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00One Million Momshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngOne Million Moms2022-05-24 04:57:202022-05-24 05:12:25TAKE ACTION: Discovery+ Promoting Drag Queen Lifestyle to Children
I’ve been censored by Twitter for telling the TRUTH about Transgenders – come on Elon Musk – we need you to make Twitter an honest information forum. Here’s Twitter’s rationale for censoring me.
Violating our rules against hateful conduct.
You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.
Perhaps it’s time to pound the drums more loudly than ever about what I think as the greatest medical fraud in our nation’s history. 30% of transgenders commit suicide because their mental disorders remain undiagnosed, and as such will not be treated.
I have long held that individuals who suffer from gender distress have one of handful of unresolved mental illnesses that exists side by side with their gender stress. The gender distress is not acting alone but binds with an additional co-morbid mental illness. “We found 90% of these diverse patients had at least one other significant form of “psychopathology” says a study reported in 2009 by the Department of Psychiatry, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. The psychopathologies they found in their study were “mood and anxiety regulation and adaption in the world”. (1)
Everywhere we see the constant rhetoric about gender change success and yet not one sound media report that acknowledges 30% of transgenders commit suicide because of untreated mental illness.
Suicide.org states that 90% of all suicides are the direct result of untreated mental illness.
What other treatment focuses on surgery while 30% of the patients commit suicide?
The second link in my tweet was to a May 21st, 2022 byKevin Haggerty article titled “‘Someone needs to say it’: Maher accuses trans movement of ‘literally experimenting on children’.” Haggerty wrote:
Joining the argument that conservatives have presented all along, comedian Bill Maher with the same scientific backing that the “trendy” trans movement is “literally experimenting on children.”
During Friday’s episode of “Real Time with Bill Maher” the HBO host took an at-length look at many of the knowns and unknowns surrounding the trans movement that, he expressed, has come to prominence more out of a youthful rebelliousness than any serious conviction. As such, the fact that adults are validating kids going through a phase should be a concern to everyone.
“The answer can’t always be that anyone from a marginalized community is automatically right; trump card, mic drop, end of discussion. Because we’re literally experimenting on children,” Maher contended.
Watch Bill Maher’s commentary:
If this spike in trans children is all biological, why is it regional? Either Ohio is shaming them or California is creating them. pic.twitter.com/t3Tx23MOsu
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Royal A. Brown IIIhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRoyal A. Brown III2022-05-23 14:24:492022-05-23 14:27:25Censored by Twitter for Stating Transgenders are Mentally Ill
What would we do without the Department of Homeland Security? Those intrepid defenders of our liberties are showing these days how richly they deserve our taxpayer billions, as DHS officials, ever on the watch, warned on Monday that “domestic violent extremists” are “infiltrating” the national debate over abortion, with nefarious plans to “incite violence amongst their supporters.”
Now, I must admit, I’m not as sharp as the all the knives in the drawer over at the DHS, and I don’t have my finger on the pulse of threats to “our democracy,” which Leftists are constantly telling us is in imminent peril from people who believe in the U.S. Constitution and the basic goodness of the American experiment. So I hope that Alejandro Mayorkas and his henchmen, that is, colleagues, at the DHS will forgive me for not realizing that domestic violent extremists have only recently infiltrated the abortion debate. I had the crazy idea that domestic violent extremists had actually infiltrated the abortion debate decades ago; in fact, I thought they had been there from the very beginning. After all, there are people out there who think that those who dismember babies in the womb are performing a decent and righteous act; if that’s not domestic violent extremism, what is?
But that is, of course, not the kind of domestic violent extremism that the DHS has in mind. To be sure, our intrepid defenders didn’t specify exactly what kind of domestic violent extremism they did have in mind. ABC News reported that the DHS official who disclosed this warning “did not specify which side, if any, the extremists were taking.” However, it’s not hard to figure out which side the DHS has in mind. The FBI, as well as DHS officials, have quitefrequentlyrepeated the claim that “white supremacists” are the most formidable “domestic extremist” threat that the nation faces today.
This is an administration that has likened parents who have protested at school board meetings against Communist indoctrination and transgender propaganda in public schools to terrorists, while not saying a thing about genuine Antifa violence and thuggery, so when the DHS warns that “domestic violent extremists” are infiltrating the abortion debate, it’s absolutely certain that the people they are tarring with this label are pro-lifers. And while there have been a handful of pro-lifers who were violent in the past, it’s far more likely that DHS is equating dissenting words with violence.
Why do I say that? Because it has happened to me. Last year, the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT), an organization created by Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, and YouTube to police terrorism on the Internet, bizarrely designated my organization Jihad Watch a “violent extremist” group, despite the fact that pretty much all we do is type and report on jihad activity in the U.S. and around the world. In response to a letter from my attorney demanding a retraction, the GIFCT refused to back down. Those who designated Jihad Watch as a “violent extremist” group explained that we reported on violent activity — terrorist bombings, murders, etc. — and that this in some way “dehumanized” Muslims.
How we did this was left unexplained; it would have been impossible to explain, as it was absurd on its face. If reporting news that puts some group in a bad light is “dehumanizing,” the GIFCT and DHS should go after the establishment media for “dehumanizing” Trump and his supporters. The response to my attorney’s letter was essentially the increasingly common Leftist argument that speech that dissents from its party line is violence, and hence must be shut down.
DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, fresh from defending his sinister and Orwellian new Disinformation Governance Board, promises that his department is right on top of this alleged “domestic violent extremist” threat: “Over the past year, we in the Department of Homeland Security have improved and strengthened our approach to combating this dynamic, evolving threat.”
How reassuring. Meanwhile, Leftist pro-abortion ideologues have been demonstrating at the homes of the Supreme Court Justices who are likely to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade in a naked attempt to intimidate them into changing their vote. Despite the fact that it is a felony to demonstrate at private homes, the Biden administration has applauded these protests. The government is presently in the hands of thugs who believe that bullying and frightening people into submission is an acceptable political tactic. Can the DHS, in such an environment, spare even a few agents to try to head off any possible Leftist violence regarding a possible overturning of Roe? After all, Leftists are much, much more likely to be violent than pro-lifers. This is true both historically and recently and is indicated by the nature of what they’re so avidly defending.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Center For Security Policyhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCenter For Security Policy2022-05-23 14:09:422022-05-23 14:10:13DHS: ‘Domestic violent extremists’ are ‘infiltrating’ the abortion debate
Here are the key points made by Dr. Lehr and Tom Harris:
The utility companies have thus far had little to say about the alarming cost projections to operate electric vehicles (EVs) or the increased rates that they will be required to charge their customers. It is not just the total amount of electricity required⏤but the transmission lines and fast charging capacity that must be built at existing filling stations.
In order to match the 2,000 cars that a typical filling station can service in a busy 12 hours, an EV charging station would require 600, 50-watt chargers at an estimated cost of $24 million and a supply of 30 megawatts of power from the grid. That is enough to power 20,000 homes.
The government of the United Kingdom is already starting to plan for power shortages caused by the charging of thousands of EVs. Starting in June 2022, the government will restrict the time of day you can charge your EV battery.
The average used EV will need a new battery before an owner can sell it, pricing them well above used internal combustion cars. The average age of an American car on the road is 12 years. A 12-year-old EV will be on its third battery. A Tesla battery typically costs $10,000 so there will not be many 12-year-old EVs on the road. Good luck trying to sell your used green fairy tale electric car!
Although the modern lithium-ion battery is four times better than the old lead-acid battery, gasoline holds 80 times the energy density. The great lithium battery in your cell phone weighs less than an ounce while the Tesla battery weighs 1,000 pounds. And what do we get for this huge cost and weight? We get a car that is far less convenient and less useful than cars powered by internal combustion engines.
The electric automobile will always be around in a niche market likely never exceeding 10% of the cars on the road. All automobile manufacturers are investing in their output and all will be disappointed in their sales. Perhaps they know this and will manufacture just what they know they can sell. This is certainly not what President Biden or California Governor Newsom are planning for. However, for as long as the present government is in power, they will be pushing the electric car as another means to run our lives. We have a chance to tell them exactly what we think of their expensive and dangerous plans when we go to the polls in November of 2022.
To make matters worse we recently received a link to a study on all electric vehicle (EV) charging stations (EVSEs) in the San Francisco Bay Area. The study was titled “Reliability of Open Public Electric Vehicle Direct Current Fast Chargers” done by David Rempel, Carleen Cullen, Mary Matteson Bryan and Gustavo Vianna Cezar from the Department of Bioengineering, University of California, Berkeley. The study found,
“the cable was too short to reach the EV inlet for 4.9% of the EVSEs and 22.7% of EVSEs that were non-functioning were unresponsive or unavailable screens, payment system failures, charge initiation failures, network failures, or broken connectors…This level of functionality appears to conflict with the 95 to 98% uptime reported by the EV service providers (EVSPs) who operate the EV charging stations.”
So, 27% of the EVSEs had serious enough issues that you could not charge your EV.
There is not now, nor ever will there be, sufficient electric power for us to travel hither and yon with battery-powered vehicles. So, who decides who gets what electricity will be available? Answer: your friendly liberal, “progressive,” leftist government who we, mistakenly or not, placed in power.
The electric vehicle (EV) is clearly one of the most hyped innovations of our lifetime. While our federal government and the state of California think that the internal combustion engine will soon end up in the dustbin of history, it just isn’t going to happen for a variety of reasons:
The most obvious is that the expense of EVs will not allow the average American to own one. The alternative will always be far cheaper and will transport you much farther.
EVs can never be produced in the numbers the government wants because of a lack of necessary rare earth minerals held hostage in China.
Availability of charging stations will never be adequate either. And the time required to recharge on a long trip will make you cancel any long trip.
The cost of a battery replacement will be a significant turn-off as well.
Dr. Jay Lehr is a Senior Policy Analyst with the International Climate Science Coalition and former Science Director of The Heartland Institute. He is an internationally renowned scientist, author, and speaker who has testified before Congress on dozens of occasions on environmental issues and consulted with nearly every agency of the national government and many foreign countries. After graduating from Princeton University at the age of 20 with a degree in Geological Engineering, he received the nation’s first Ph.D. in Groundwater Hydrology from the University of Arizona. He later became executive director of the National Association of Groundwater Scientists and Engineers.
Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition, and a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute. He has 40 years experience as a mechanical engineer/project manager, science and technology communications professional, technical trainer, and S&T advisor to a former Opposition Senior Environment Critic in Canada’s Parliament.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2022-05-23 13:45:322022-05-25 06:04:48Do Not Sell Your Gas Vehicle Yet! Read: The Electric Vehicle Scam
A new book is now available titled “Global Warming: The Great Deception.” The book askes the key question: Why do the U.N. and certain politicians in the U.S. and Western Europe continue to promote the fraudulent global warming hypothesis?
The answer is: With regards to the U.N., it is all about the money – money for research and to affect socio-economic change. For many politicians, it is all about the power – the power to control the lives of the electorate. Power is the ultimate narcotic. And money follows power in politics. In his new book, Guy Mitchell addresses all of these issues in detail and explains why you should care about the triumph of dollars and politics over science.
“Global Warming: The Great Deception-The Triumph of Dollars and Politics Over Science and Why You Should Care” is the definitive new work on the subject of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. Guy Mitchell, a businessman with the mind of a scientist, takes a holistic approach and combines scientific analysis with an in-depth review of the political and economic aspects of the subject. He uses proven science and scientific facts to refute every claim of the climate alarmists and proponents of the man-made global warming hypothesis. He exposes the true reasons that the UN, certain politicians and global investment firms promote the global warming fraud. His analysis is an unbiased, scientifically based, insightful, no holds-barred approach to the subject.
There has been no significant warming of the world’s oceans, atmosphere or land mass since accurate satellite measurements were initiated in 1979. The average temperature of the Earth is an abstraction; it is a figment of the imagination of climate scientists, conjured up in an effort to support a fraudulent hypothesis. The concept has no validity in scientific analyses of the Earth’s climate. Increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere does not cause global warming or climate change; the geometry of the Earth’s orbit about the Sun and the Sun-spot cycle are the primary fundamental natural causes. Man has had no measured impact on the Earth’s climate. The melting of polar ice is the result of a natural oceanic cycle and is not affected by man’s activities. Empirical evidence of global warming is the result of local atmospheric conditions that have nothing to do with so-called climate change.
Mitchell employs his keen sense of business acumen to expose the real drivers behind the claims of man-made global warming: research funding, politics and global economics. Over $1 trillion world-wide has been spent on global warming research with nothing of substance to show for it. UN climate models are fundamentally flawed; they can not predict historical results or the future. Certain politicians in the US and Western Europe embrace the fraudulent hypothesis with no apparent understanding of the science or the socioeconomic impact that the abandonment of fossil fuels would have on the world economy or the reliability of the power grids that drive it. The man-made global warming hypothesis has been declared an existential threat and some US politicians want to use the “crisis” to erode fundamental civil liberties that are protected in the US Constitution. They want to use global warming to limit consumer choice, economic freedom and usher in socialism.
During the term of the failed Kyoto Protocol, world-wide CO2 emissions increased by 32%! The results of the Paris Climate Accord will be no different.The stated objective of UN climate treaties is to address socioeconomic inequalities world-wide within the context of climate change by transferring wealth from the developed nations to the developing nations. The vehicles involved include the trading of carbon credits. The world-wide market for trading carbon credits was over $200 billion in 2020; it is projected to exceed a trillion dollars in the near future. The practical effect of trading carbon credits is not to reduce the emission of CO2; it is to enrich those individuals and global investment firms who engage in the activity.
Why do the U.N. and certain politicians in the U.S. and Western Europe continue to promote the fraudulent global warming hypothesis? With regards to the U.N., it is all about the money – money for research and to affect socio-economic change. For many politicians, it is all about the power – the power to control the lives of the electorate. Power is the ultimate narcotic. And money follows power in politics. In his new book, Guy Mitchell addresses all of these issues in detail and explains why you should care about the triumph of dollars and politics over science.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Committee For A Constructive Tomorrowhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCommittee For A Constructive Tomorrow2022-05-23 13:14:452022-05-23 13:14:45Global Warming: The Great Deception