Secularism: The Forgotten Factor in Falling Fertility

The decline in faith has precipitated a drop in procreation.


James McHenry is a lesser-known American Founding Father. A Scots-Irish Presbyterian born in County Antrim, Ireland, he came to the colonies in 1771, just five years before independence.

McHenry eventually became a military surgeon, signer of the Constitution and Secretary of War for Presidents Washington and Adams. Fort McHenry, of Star-Spangled Banner fame, bears his name. James McHenry was of the early American elite. He wrote:

“The holy Scriptures… can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness.”

Holy Scriptures? How unwoke can you get?

Are we to assume that McHenry was racist, “homophobic,” nativist or a bigot? Can you imagine a member of the Biden cabinet referencing holy Scripture? Why, that would be a violation of “separation of church and state,” the Jeffersonian doctrine intended to prevent government from meddling in matters of faith. Today that doctrine has been wholly transmuted, weaponised to eradicate religious expression from the public square.

A different century

McHenry wasn’t the only American Founder whose words would get him cancelled today. How about the “father of our country” George Washington? Here is what Washington told a gathering of Delaware Indian leaders:

You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.

A compilation of religious sentiments by early American leaders would consume more terabytes than MercatorNet can handle. Needless to say, the Founders were people of faith. Back then, the West was commonly referred to as Christendom. As far as I know, no one found that offensive.

What does any of this have to do with demography?

Well, according to the World Atlas, “American women reaching child-bearing age in 1800 had on average of seven to eight live births in the course of their reproductive life.” In 1800, America was mostly rural and practising Christian.

In the early 1800s, two overarching factors influenced family life. The first was faith. The Biblical injunction “And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.” (Genesis 9:7, KJV) was taken quite seriously.

Also, having children was sound economics. Children meant more hands on deck at the farm and family business. That was early American family planning.

From 1800, however, US fertility steadily declined, bottoming out in the 1940s. Then the postwar “baby boom” brought a 60% bump. The decline has since resumed, attributed to better public health (lower infant mortality), urbanisation, industrialisation, higher incomes and women in the workforce.

However, one tremendously significant reason for fewer children is usually omitted from demographic analyses: secularism.

What is secularism?

The term was coined c.1850 to denote a system which sought to order and interpret life on principles taken solely from this world, without recourse to belief in God and a future life. It is now used in a more general sense of the tendency to ignore, if not to deny, the principles of supernatural religion.
— The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church

According to Merriam-Webster, secularism is indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations.”

The US is today’s secularist imperium. Secularism is a major contributing factor, usually overlooked, for persistent below-replacement fertility worldwide.

It is no secret that, on average, religious folks have more children than the non-religious. Why? Quite often, people of faith seriously follow the Biblical injunction to go forth and multiply. They believe in salvation and are usually somewhat less egocentric and materialistic than the average modern Joe.

But today we are in the age of Economic Man, defined by Merriam-Webster as

… an imaginary individual created in classical economics and conceived of as behaving rationally, regularly, and predictably in his economic activities with motives that are egoistic, acquisitive, and short-term in outlook.

By adopting the model of Economic Man, Western societies abandoned believing that humanity’s intellectual, spiritual and moral essence were in the image of God, a view that had sustained them for at least 18 centuries. This stone-cold secularism would eventually lead to Communism and the many other atheistic ideologies we suffer from today.

Major General JFC Fuller, in volume 3 of his Military History of the Western World, posited that “the myth of Economic Man [was] the fundamental factor in Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism.”

We are also addicted to the Idea of Progress, defined by the web’s Conservapedia as

… a worldview mainly promoted by globalists and liberals that argues “that the human condition has improved over the course of history and will continue to improve.”[1]

It is closely associated with the concept that man is perfectible and at some point in the future will, in fact, be perfect. While popular in contemporary culture, this idea has several serious flaws.

Flawed indeed. Shallow belief in the inevitability of human progress and unlimited temporal advancement disregards the transcendent, giving rise to the “prosperity gospel” and rank materialism.

Many prosper, but post-World War II affluence is proving to be ephemeral. Something is lacking. That is why China popularises Confucius, Russia subsidises Orthodoxy and Hungary promotes Catholicism in hopes of boosting birthrates. The US mandates wokeism and relies on immigration.

Today politicians rarely invoke religious faith except in throwaway lines for public consumption. People made of sterner stuff like James McHenry and George Washington are vilified and cancelled, their names expunged and statues removed. What will tomorrow’s children know of their heritage?

Yes, we’re oh-so-modern, high tech, sophisticated and secular. Having children is uncool. Modernity is slowly but surely killing us. The idea of progress that venerates Mammon, radical environmentalism, egocentrism and wokeism has Homo sapiens on the path to extinction. But as the old saying goes, “Fish are the last to notice the water.”

AUTHOR

Louis T. March

Louis T. March has a background in government, business and philanthropy. A former talk show host, author and public speaker, he is a dedicated student of history and genealogy. Louis lives with his family… More by Louis T. March

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Permanent Male Sterilization’: Vasectomies Soar After SCOTUS Overturns Roe

Biden Admin To Families Suffering High Gas Costs: ‘This Is About The Future Of The Liberal World Order’

RELATED VIDEO: Groomed – How Schools Sexualise Your Children.

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

The Turnaway Study: A Lesson in Politically Incentivised and Twisted Science

Pro-choice ideology has been allowed to infect research on mental health outcomes for women who have had abortions.


Given decades of legal and quasi-legal abortions in developed countries involving millions of women, there should be many studies with various findings on the impact of what was, until “shout your abortion” politics came along, generally regarded as a complex decision for a woman. And yet the Anglo-American lay reader is likely to find only one.

It’s called the Turnaway Study, conducted at the University of San Francisco California in 2008-2010. Mainstream media outlets have been broadcasting its results for nearly a decade, and research articles generated from the same core sample of women have been published in droves.

The study has been touted by academics, professional organisations, and journalists alike as the abortion study to end all studies, offering definitive answers to hotly debated questions on how abortion benefits contemporary women psychologically, relationally, physically and in terms of life satisfaction — among a host of other quality of life indicators.

Not quite, according to Priscilla Coleman, retired Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. Coleman has been studying the psychology of abortion decision-making and mental health outcomes associated with abortion for nearly 30 years. Last month she published “The Turnaway Study: A Case of Self-Correction in Science Upended by Political Motivation and Unvetted Findings” in the top-ranked psychology journal, Frontiers in Psychology.

Focusing on Turnaway’s mental health findings, Coleman pulls back the curtain, revealing the details of this large-scale effort to use science to manufacture a false narrative about abortion being preferable to delivering an unintended pregnancy, and as essential for preserving the well-being of women.

The publication of her article is timely given the overturn of Roe v Wade and likely use of Turnaway findings in the raging battles at state level.

More than 50 peer-reviewed spinoffs can’t be wrong?

In the Frontiers in Psychology article, Coleman quotes a January 2022 Kaiser Health News interview with the study’s principal investigator, Diana Greene Foster.

“Data from the Turnaway Study has resulted in the publication of more than 50 peer-reviewed studies, and the answer to nearly all the questions asked, said Foster, is that the women who got abortions fared better in respect to economics and health, including their mental health, compared with those who did not have abortions.”

Better mental health? According to Coleman, these results dramatically contradict a wealth of data from large, methodologically sophisticated studies demonstrating that abortion is associated with a statistically significant increased risk for mental health problems including depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicide. She wanted to understand why.

Motivation and funding

Coleman began by examining the investigators’ incentive for embarking on the study. She soon discovered that the funding came from Warren Buffett, who provided a minimum of $88,000,000 to the University of California San Francisco (UCSF), funds directly supporting researchers who had expressed abortion-rights political views.

A research unit called Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) within UCSF’s Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health housed Turnaway. Research conducted within the centre was aimed at debunking common justifications for abortion restrictions, including increased risks for serious, long-lasting mental health challenges.

Critical analysis of the study’s Operating Procedures Manual and publications led Coleman to identify numerous methodological shortcomings. For a start, the study investigators never describe the plan for sampling women, the precise size of the population, or the manner for selecting sites within the various cities.

The Turnaway women

Participants from three different groups were recruited for Turnaway: (1) women whose pregnancies were past clinic gestational limits for performing abortions and were not permitted a wanted abortion (“Turnaway Group”); (2) women whose pregnancies were close to the clinic gestational limit and had an abortion; and finally, (3) women who had an abortion in the first trimester.

The women were recruited over three years in 21 states at 29 abortion clinics with different gestational age limits. The clinics performed over 2000 abortions a year on average. Coleman calculates that the potential pool of women could have been as high as 162,000. However, only 7,486 women were screened for the study, and of those only 3,045 were approached to participate in it. Ultimately the number of those participating was 1,199. Why only 41% of those screened were asked to participate was not explained by the study authors, says Coleman.

“This is potentially very problematic, because those not screened in or not approached could have been systematically different from those who were screened in or approached relative to background characteristics, situational factors and/or how they presented before, during, or immediately after the abortion experience.”

Further, although “1000” is the number of participants usually cited by the authors, the actual number of women who completed the initial interview (“baseline measures”) was 877. And the total percentage of women who completed the 5-year study was 516 — a mere 16.9% of those approached.

If Coleman’s figure of 162,000 women for the potential population for the study is used, the 516 who actually completed it would amount to a miniscule 0.32% of them. Even at 10% of her population estimate, the final sample of 516 participants would be 3.18% of the total abortions performed at the 29 clinics over three years. As Coleman observes:

“The Turnaway Study researchers attempted to make generalized claims about women seeking abortion when the study itself likely did not even consider over 95% of women receiving abortions at the facilities included in the study. Given the extremely small percentage of women from the population represented in the sample, generalizations are precluded.”

Among the other methodological problems of Turnaway highlighted in Coleman’s article are the following:

  1. Those who underwent abortions near gestational limits included patients whose pregnancies ranged from 10 to 27 weeks gestation, even though women’s reasons for aborting and their psychological responses vary greatly at different times across pregnancy. For this reason, they should not have been grouped together.
  2. Many of the complex outcomes are measured far too simplistically, with anxiety and depression scales containing only six items and self-esteem and life satisfaction only 2 items. Capturing all the components of complex internal states is impossible with so few items and goes against established protocol for reliable and valid assessments.
  3. In many of the analyses, the authors failed to control for abortions that took place before or after the target abortion. This is problematic because previous studies have shown more than one abortion increases a woman’s risk for mental health problems beyond that incurred from a single abortion.

The studies you never hear about — except to dismiss them

Yet, there are well-designed studies coming to different conclusions from those of the Turnaway authors, and Coleman provides the reader with an up-to-date synopsis of some of the strongest of them. She notes:

“The science linking abortion to elevated risk for mental health challenges is published in prominent journals, with dozens of large, prospective studies incorporating comparison groups and additional sophisticated control techniques, enhancing confidence in the published findings. This extensive literature has shown that abortion increases risk for mental health problems including substance abuse, anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and suicide.”

She summarises the results of systematic reviews of literature, including her own, demonstrating this effect and provides overviews of some of the most sophisticated empirical studies published in recent years. There is a table (reproduced at the end of this article) in the Frontiers article highlighting key findings from several large-scale studies, all of which revealed increased risks of psychological problems associated with abortion, in contrast to Turnaway.

And yet professional groups such as the American Psychological Association (in 2008), the Royal College of Psychiatrists (in 2011) and the American Academies of Sciences (in 2018) have published reviews of the literature on abortion and mental health that dismiss findings like Coleman’s and support the “no negative effect” line.

In the last part of her article, Coleman examines these reviews and details a litany of methodological problems with them that include, among others: missing or elusive selection criteria that resulted in selective reporting of studies, shifting standards of evaluation based on study results, failure to conduct a quantitative synthesis or meta-analysis, sweeping conclusions based on very few or a single study, and factual errors. She comes out fighting:

“Journals opening their doors to allow virtually uncontested publication of some of the poorest work in the field, media outlets seizing the information that they believe the public desires, and abortion providers and their advocates using the data in attempts to remove and prevent installation of abortion restrictions: this is the status of mainstream science on the psychology of abortion in our world in 2022.”

Coleman concludes:

“[W]ith widespread dissemination of misinformation generated from studies like the Turnaway Study, hundreds of thousands of women considering an abortion are likely unaware of the expansive literature demonstrating abortion is a significant risk factor for post-abortion psychological distress and mental health detriments.

The science revealing the potential for serious, debilitating mental health consequences underscores the necessity of providing women with up-to-date information on the risks from the most rigorous scientific studies.”

Study Results
Gong, X., Hao, J., Tao, F., Zhang, J., Wang, H., & Xu, R. (2013). Pregnancy loss and anxiety and depression during subsequent pregnancies: Data from the C-ABC study. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, 166(1), 30–36. Large Chinese study (over 20,000 women), 7683 of whom had an abortion. Abortion was related to increased risk of depression (OR: 1.381) and anxiety (OR: 1.211) in the first trimester of a later pregnancy after controlling for age, education, pre-pregnancy MBI, income, and residence. The comparison group was women experiencing a first pregnancy.
Gissler, M., Karalis, E., & Ulander, V.M. (2015). Decreased suicide rate after induced abortion, after the Current Care Guidelines in Finland 1987-2012. Scand J Public Health, 43(1), 99-101. Examined suicide post-abortion between 1987 and 2012 in Finland. A 2-fold increased risk of suicide was observed even after new guidelines required post-abortion follow-up sessions at 2-3 weeks to monitor women’s mental health.
Jacob, L., Gerhard, C., Kostev, K., & Kalder, M. (2019). Association between induced abortion, spontaneous abortion, and infertility respectively and the risk of psychiatric disorders in 57,770 women followed in gynecological practices in Germany. Journal of Affective Disorders, 251, 107–113. Case-control study from the Disease Analyzer Database (IQVIA). Induced abortion was positively associated with the elevated risk of psychiatric disorders (ORs ranging from 1.75 to 2.01).
Jacob, L., Kostev, K., Gerhard, C., & Kalder, M. (2019). Relationship between induced abortion and the incidence of depression, anxiety disorder, adjustment disorder, and somatoform disorder in Germany. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 114, 75–79. Examined women with a first abortion in 281 gynecological practices in Germany. Included 17581 women with an abortion experience and 17581 matched controls who had a live birth. Induced abortion predicted depression (HR=1.34), adjustment disorder (HR=1.45), and somatoform disorder (HR=1.56) across the 10-year study period.
Lega, I., Maraschini, A., D’Aloja, P., Andreozzi, S., Spettoli, D., Giangreco, M., Vichi, M., Loghi, M., Donati, S., & Regional Maternal Mortality Working Group (2020). Maternal suicide in Italy. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 23(2), 199–206. Data were gathered from 10 regions in Italy. The suicide rate was 1.18 per 100,000 among women who gave birth (n = 2,876,193) and 2.77 among women who aborted (n = 650,549), a statistically significant difference.
Luo, M., Jiang, X., Wang, Y., Wang, Z., Shen, Q., Li, R., & Cai, Y. (2018). Association between induced abortion and suicidal ideation among unmarried female migrant workers in three metropolitan cities in China: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 625. Examined 5115 unmarried females from Shanghai, Beijing, and Guangzhou. Abortion was associated with nearly double the odds of suicidal ideation (OR = 1.89) after adjustment for numerous controls (age, education, years in the working place, tobacco use, alcohol consumption, daily internet use, attitude towards premarital pregnancy, multiple induced abortion, self-esteem, loneliness, depression, and anxiety disorders.) The association was stronger in those aged > 25 (OR = 3.37), among women with > 5 years in the work force (OR = 2.98), in the non-anxiety group (OR = 2.28, and in the non-depression group (OR = 2.94).
McCarthy, F. P., Moss-Morris, R., Khashan, A. S., North, R. A., Baker, P. N., Dekker, G., Poston, L., McCowan, L., Walker, J. J., Kenny, L. C., & O’Donoghue, K. (2015). Previous pregnancy loss has an adverse impact on distress and behaviour in subsequent pregnancy. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 122(13), 1757–1764. Women with one prior abortion had elevated stress (adjusted mean difference=0.65) and depression (aOR= 1.25) at 15 weeks of gestation. Women with two prior abortions had increased perceived stress (adjusted mean difference=1.43) and depression (aOR=1.67).
Sullins D. P. (2016). Abortion, substance abuse and mental health in early adulthood: Thirteen-year longitudinal evidence from the United States. SAGE Open Medicine, 4, In a US sample, after extensive control for other pregnancy outcomes and sociodemographic variables, abortion was associated with increased overall risk of mental health disorders (OR:1.45). A Population Attributable Risk analysis showed 8.7% of the prevalence of mental disorders was attributable to abortion.
Wie, J. H., Nam, S. K., Ko, H. S., Shin, J. C., Park, I. Y., & Lee, Y. (2019). The association between abortion experience and postmenopausal suicidal ideation and mental health: Results from the 5th Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES V). Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 58(1), 153–158. After adjusting for several demographic controls, women who had three abortions experienced elevated risk for suicidal ideation (OR: 1.510). This level of risk was significant even after controlling for depression (OR: 1.391). Risk of depressive mood in daily life was likewise elevated with more abortions even after controlling for depression (OR: 1.657).

AUTHOR

Carolyn Moynihan

Carolyn Moynihan is the former deputy editor of MercatorNet More by Carolyn Moynihan.

RELATED ARTICLE: Dobbs, seen from an outpost of America’s informal empire

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

EXCLUSIVE: Sen. Blackburn To Introduce Legislation Backing National Guard Members Set To Be Fired Over COVID Vaccine Refusal

Republican Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn will introduce legislation Thursday that would ban federal funds from being used to implement any requirement that a National Guard member must receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

The legislation, first obtained by the Daily Caller, comes as up to 40,000 U.S. Army National Guard members are set to be fired Thursday for refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine. Blackburn said she is introducing the legislation to protect the 40,000 guardsmen and said firing them would be a threat to U.S. national security.

“Our servicemembers are the bedrock of America,” Blackburn told the Daily Caller before introducing the legislation. “Firing 40,000 Guardsmen for refusing the COVID vaccine would be both a complete disgrace and a threat to our national security. I am honored to stand beside our National Guardsmen and women by introducing this legislation to protect them from President Biden’s forever pandemic.”

READ THE LEGISLATION HERE: 

(DAILY CALLER OBTAINED) — … by Henry Rodgers

“We’re going to give every soldier every opportunity to get vaccinated and continue their military career. Every soldier that is pending an exemption, we will continue to support them through their process,” Lt. Gen. Jon Jensen, director of the Army National Guard, said in an Associated Press interview regarding the vaccine mandate. “We’re not giving up on anybody until the separation paperwork is signed and completed. There’s still time.” A number of House Republicans have introduced legislation to put an end to vaccine and mask mandates. In late September, a group of House Republicans introduced a bill that would prohibit federal agencies from implementing vaccine mandates.

The Daily Caller contacted the Department of Defense (DOD) and the White House about this legislation and about the jobs of the 40,000 National Guardsmen who remain unvaccinated. White House Press Sec. Karine Jean-Pierre would not answer the questions and referred the Caller to the Army. The DOD did not immediately respond.

AUTHOR

HENRY RODGERS

Senior Congressional correspondent. Follow Henry Rodgers On Twitter

RELATED ARTICLES:

Up to 40,000 Unvaccinated Army Guard Troops at Risk of Dismissal as Deadline for Vaccine Mandate Looms

EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Clyde, House Republicans Introduce Legislation To Block Future OSHA Vaccine Mandates

EXCLUSIVE: House Republicans Introduce Bill That Would Prohibit Agencies That Received COVID Funds From Issuing Vaccine Mandates

Youngkin Urges Pentagon To Ease Up On Vax Mandate As Tens Of Thousands Of Troops Face Discharge

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

Here’s Why The Government Can’t Set Up Abortion Clinics On Federal Land

Despite demands from several prominent Democrats, the federal government is prohibited from using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions.

The Hyde Amendment, first included in federal appropriations bills in 1976, prohibits the federal government from funding abortions unless “the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or where the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.” Activists estimate that the Hyde Amendment prevents at least 60,000 abortions every year.

The amendment is named for Republican Illinois Rep. Henry Hyde, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who championed it.

Although support for the amendment was initially bipartisan, Democrats in recent years have attempted to pass federal budgets that do not include the provision. President Joe Biden flip-flopped on support for the amendment during his 2020 presidential campaign, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi attempted to jettison the provision for an early COVID-19 relief package. Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin’s demand that the Hyde Amendment be included in a social spending package was a key factor in the breakdown in Build Back Better negotiations.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, several Republican-controlled states instituted trigger laws limiting abortion. In response, prominent left-wing Democrats urged the Biden administration to take actions to protect abortion access in those states.

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren both called on the federal government to make abortions available on federal lands like national parks, where state governments could not regulate the procedure.

Warren and Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith claimed in a New York Times op-ed that Biden could provide “federal resources for individuals seeking abortion care in other states” and use “federal property and resources to protect people seeking abortion services locally.” Warren also claimed that the administration could designate “federal lands as a place where abortions can occur.”

Ocasio-Cortez added that providing abortion services on federal lands is the “the babiest of the babiest of the baby steps” that the federal government can take.

Neither Warren nor Ocasio-Cortez responded to the Daily Caller’s request for comment on whether or not they believe that such actions would violate the Hyde Amendment.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre rejected the congressional Democrats’ suggestion Monday, but two cabinet members did suggest that they would use their agencies to promote abortion access.

“Nothing is more important to me or to this Department than the health and well-being of our Service members, the civilian workforce and DOD families,” Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said in a Friday statement shortly after the ruling. “I am committed to taking care of our people and ensuring the readiness and resilience of our Force.”

“The Department is examining this decision closely and evaluating our policies to ensure we continue to provide seamless access to reproductive health care as permitted by federal law,” he added.

When contacted for comment, a Department of Defense (DOD) spokesperson cited a memorandum released Tuesday by Undersecretary of Defense Gilbert Cisneros. The memorandum stressed that the DOD will comply with the conditions laid out by the Hyde Amendment, and “will continue to follow existing departmental policy.”

Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Xavier Becerra promised to “increase access” to abortifacients, claiming that his agency has been planning for “every action necessary to protect women’s access to reproductive healthcare.”

A spokesperson for HHS did not respond to the Daily Caller’s request for comment on compliance with the Hyde Amendment.

AUTHOR

MICHAEL GINSBERG

Congressional reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

EXCLUSIVE: 48 Senate Republicans Tell Schumer They Will Block Any Bill Undermining Hyde Amendment

‘Simply Ignore’: Military Expert Sounds Alarm On Pentagon’s Abortion Stance

New York Attorney General Demands Google Scrub Crisis Pregnancy Centers From Search Results

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

War on Parents: Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah, Here I Am At Camp Gender-Change-You-Oughta

UPDATE 7/7/2022: TODAY’S DEMOCRAT PARTY: Democrat RI Senator TWERKS In Campaign Ad


I told you about the War on Parents being waged in the schools.  It’s being waged on other fronts, as well.

Some summer camps are assigning kids to cabins based on gender identity, not biological sex, forcing children with parents dumb enough to send them to those camps to sleep and undress next to the opposite sex.

A Florida church jumped into LGBT advocacy with a Pride celebration and drag show for students as young as 12.

Disney is back at it with a same-sex kiss in ‘Lightyear’ which is banned in 14 countries.  Disney introduced a bisexual character in the Disney+ series Loki.  Disney sold rainbow-spangly shirts, backpacks, and other merchandise for Pride Month, leaving homosexuals everywhere to ask, ‘where’s my cut?’

Medical professionals are also hustling for dough.  A new book published by the American Academy of Pediatrics brainwashes kids into believing it’s perfectly fine for Olivia now to be Oliver who should be undressing in the boys locker room.   Assigning sex at birth is so unfair, and ‘have we got drugs and surgery to fix that – for a modest fee, of course.’  That’s the best advertising campaign for grooming new customers I’ve heard since Edward Bernays got women to smoke cigarettes so they could be independent from men.  The Transgender-Industrial Complex is lighting new ‘Torches of Freedom’ that are even more dangerous.

Your federal government, meanwhile, is all in.  The Secretary of Education is pushing to add ‘nonbinary’ as a sex characteristic in public schools, supports biological males in girls’ sports, and won’t say it’s bad for schools to keep student gender transitioning hidden from parents.  The Department of Education is now demanding schools collect student gender identity data.  This will take an estimated two million hours of effort and is being done set up lawsuits by the feds against school districts that fail to provide “equity” for students who identify or – get this – are perceived to be – nonbinary.  Perceived?  By who?  To what degree?  What a mess in the courts that’s going to be.

Attorney General Merrick Garland told Congress the Justice Department wasn’t using antiterrorism tools against parents who protest school board actions, but it turns out the FBI is.

Joe Biden’s new parents and families council has members from such far-left groups supporting critical race theory and transgender ideology as LULAC which has called for suppressing speech online, the National School Boards Association that kicked off the whole targeting of parents thing, and Al Sharpton’s National Action Network.  The latter specializes in shaking down corporations for big donations.

Kinda makes you want to vote Democrat in November, doesn’t it?

That’s all the news from Camp Biden. Oh, please don’t make me stay another day.

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

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

NEA Teachers Union To Vote On Mandatory Masking, Enemies List, Rejecting Words ‘Mother’ And ‘Father’

Dem School Board Director Hosting Sex Class for Kids Ages 9-12 in Her Adult Toy Shop

America College of Pediatricians Says Encouraging Transgenderism is Child Abuse

MassResistance parent infiltrates “transgender” training session for elementary school teachers – asks presenters hard questions.

Supreme Court Delivers Massive Blow To Biden’s Climate Agenda

The Supreme Court delivered a massive blow to the Biden administration’s climate change plan Thursday, severely limiting the power of federal agencies.

The Court, in a 6-3 decision, limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants, significantly curtailing the power of the federal agency. The decision restricts the agency to regulating individual power plants and not the entire power sector.

“Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan,” Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

The case stems from an Obama-era EPA climate rule and addresses the scope of Congress’s ability to delegate legislative authority to executive agencies.

In August 2015, the EPA adopted the Clean Power Plan that sought to cut carbon emissions by 32% from power plants by 2030.

However, in early 2016, the Supreme Court blocked the plan’s implementation in a 5-4 vote. Plaintiffs successfully argued that the EPA had exceeded its congressional mandate under the 1970 Clean Air Act, which broadly authorizes the agency to issue the “best system of emission reduction.”

The Trump administration repealed the Clean Power Plan and created the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, which included looser restrictions and allowed states to regulate their standards.

“Unlike the Clean Power Plan, ACE adheres to the Clean Air Act and gives states the regulatory certainty they need to continue to reduce emissions and provide a dependable, diverse supply of electricity that all Americans can afford,” former EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement at the time.

Hillsdale College Associate Professor of Politics Joseph Postell said the case has to do with the EPA’s authority to regulate major sources of air pollution that are stationary, like smokestacks.

“Does the statute allow the Obama administration to force the state of West Virginia to put more clean power into its energy grid as a means of reducing carbon emissions or does the Clean Air Act force the states to implement technology controls at the actual existing plants?” Postell said.

Postell said the new Trump rules regulated only the existing sources of air pollution rather than requiring new energy generation from sources like wind and solar.

“The Trump administration basically advanced version of what is now known as the major questions doctrine,” Postell said. “When there is a question of major importance or a major question. It has to be resolved by Congress and cannot be kicked over to the agency.”

In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated everything the day before Biden’s inauguration, according to SCOTUSblog. While the Biden Administration could reinstate the Clean Power Plan, it has instead chosen to draft alternate power plant emissions rules.

The Biden Administration was awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling before releasing its plan, the Washington Post reported.

Following the repeal, West Virginia led a coalition of 20 other Republican-led states and coal companies to file an appeal to ask the Supreme Court to challenge the appeals court decision.

The plaintiffs argued that the appeals court wrongly grants “an agency unbridled power—functionally ‘no limits’—to decide whether and how to decarbonize almost any sector of the economy.” They asked the Supreme Court to preemptively intervene before the EPA issues additional emissions reduction plans or rules using this authority.

Click here to read the full decision: Supreme Court — West Virginia vs EPA

AUTHOR

JOSH HYPES

Contributor. 

RELATED ARTICES:

Jen Psaki Says US Needs To Move Away From Crude Oil Altogether Amid Ukraine Crisis

Biden Backs Changing Filibuster To Codify Roe V. Wade

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

CDC Caught Using False Data To Recommend Kids’ COVID Vaccine

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showcased highly misleading data about the risk of COVID-19 to kids when its expert vaccine advisers voted to recommend vaccines for children under five years old.


CDC Caught Using False Data To Recommend Kids’ COVID Vaccine

By DC Caller, June 29, 2022:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showcased highly misleading data about the risk of COVID-19 to kids when its expert vaccine advisers voted to recommend vaccines for children under five years old.

The agency featured a pre-print study ranking causes of death in children when it presented data to its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) earlier this month, after which the committee voted to recommend kids aged six months through four years get vaccinated for COVID-19. The study claimed to show that COVID-19 was a leading cause of death for children in the United States during the coronavirus pandemic, but observers quickly pointed out major flaws in the data which rendered it misleading.

The paper ranks COVID-19 as a top six cause of death for age brackets from 0-19, including under one year old, 1-4 years old, 5-9 years old, 10-14 years old and 15-19 years old. It’s unclear why the authors include 18- and 19-year-olds in pediatric data. A majority of the researchers involved in the paper are from the United Kingdom, where the age of majority is 18 in most jurisdictions.

However, one misleading aspect of the paper, as first pointed out by covid-georgia.com, is that it ranks cumulative COVID-19 deaths alongside annual rates for other causes for death. For instance, in the 1-4 age group, the paper ranks cumulative COVID-19 deaths as the 5th leading cause of death, ahead of heart disease and influenza. But further down the list, it ranks annual COVID-19 deaths in eighth. For every single age group, the cumulative COVID-19 death rate is more than double the annualized death rate.

Another big issue with the CDC data presentation is the conflation of deaths caused directly by COVID-19 versus those for which COVID-19 was just a “contributing” factor. The authors state “we only consider Covid-19 as an underlying (and not contributing) cause of death,” but that is false.

The paper cites data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which tabulates COVID-19 deaths by including any death certificate on which COVID-19 is mentioned, not just cases where it was the primary reason for death. The NCHS data cited by the researchers claims there have been 1,433 pediatric COVID-19 deaths through April 30, 2022. However, the CDC’s own data, which counts only deaths where the virus was the underlying cause, reported 1,088 pediatric deaths during that time period. That’s nearly 25% lower.

When the data is annualized and only includes deaths where the virus was the underlying cause, COVID-19 does not rank as a leading cause of death for young children. For kids under one year old, it ranks 9th, behind influenza and pneumonia, heart disease and homicide. Accidents are about 25 times as likely to kill an infant than COVID-19, according to the CDC data.

Among kids aged 1-4 and 5-9, COVID-19 ranked in a four-way tie for the 8th leading cause of death. For ages 10-14 it ranked in a two-way tie for 8th. For teenagers between 15 and 19 years old, it dropped in the cause of death ranking from 4th to 6th.

The CDC did not respond to multiple requests for comment when asked why it presented this misleading data and how that study made it though the agency’s rigorous review process. The FDA did respond after multiple attempts at contact, stating that “FDA speakers in the June 14-15th meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) did not cite the study in question in their presentations. FDA’s press release announcing the authorizations explains the basis for our determinations.”

Read the rest.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Florida study shows mRNA COVID vaccines kill kids

FDA approve COVID Vaccine for 6-month-old Babies despite Data proving Vaccinated Children are 30,200%/303x more likely to die than Unvaccinated Children

Vaccines for 6-Month-Olds ‘Makes Absolutely No Sense’: Dr. Jeffrey Barke

Publix Publicly Announced Its Refusal To Offer Vaccinations For Children Under 5

MIT: COVID Vaccines ‘Significantly Associated’ with Spike in Heart Attacks in Young People

Data Proves ‘Sudden Adult Death Syndrome’ Fiction Is Death by Covid Vaccination

FDA Authorizes Emergency Use COVID Vaccine Boosters for Children Ages 5 -11

3-year-old girl dies of heart attack one day after taking COVID vaccine

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

Clueless Kamala Can’t Say How to Lower Gas Prices Besides a Gas Tax ‘Holiday’

In an interview with CNN on Monday, cerebrally-challenged Vice President Kamala Harris couldn’t name any other actions the Biden administration could take other than a gas tax holiday to lower gas prices.

In response to a question on what other steps could be taken to bring down the cost of gas, the most unqualified and useless VP in American history responded with her usual rambling word salad: “Well, first of all, let’s just say that this is a very real issue, and we have to do something about it and it’s one of our highest priorities as an administration. So, there is the piece that is about gas and bringing down the cost of gas, which, in large part, has exploded because of Putin’s war on Ukraine.”

Fact check: inflation and the price of gas were skyrocketing before Putin invaded Ukraine. These are not Putin’s gas prices; they are the Biden administration’s gas prices.

“The president is in Europe right now, talking, as he has been, to bring our allies and partners together so we can have a common defense around what we believe to be democratic principles, around sovereignty and territorial integrity,” Kamala continued to blather. “But there are other things we need to do. And so, for example, bringing down the cost of prescription drugs. One of — we are fighting to say something like insulin should cost no more than $35 a month. We are fighting to say that we should have affordable child care so that families — working families shouldn’t pay more than 7% of their income in child care.”

Translation: Kamala has no clue, about how to bring down gas prices or on any other issue.


Kamala Harris

111 Known Connections

Harris Gives Simplistic Explanation of Russia’s Recent Invasion of Ukraine

During a March 1, 2022 appearance on the syndicated “Morning Hustle” radio program, Harris was asked by co-host Headkrack to explain the conflict “in layman’s terms for people who don’t understand what’s going on and how can this directly affect the people of the United States.” Speaking slowly, Harris replied: “So, Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country. Russia is a powerful country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine. So, basically, that’s wrong, and it goes against everything that we stand for.”

To learn more about Kamala Harris, click here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Just Days After Roe Reversal, Abortion Is Already Banned In Almost A Quarter Of America

Barely more than 72 hours after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, abortion is already illegal in roughly one-quarter of the states in America.

A number of Republican-controlled states have had “trigger” laws activated, which are laws put in place to impose restrictions on abortion in the event the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade. Others have moved to enact new abortion restrictions, with some banning the practice entirely.

Abortion is now outlawed in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Ohio, South Carolina, Texas and Tennessee have enacted six-week bans, and the others have fully banned abortion, according to NPR.

Other states are poised to follow suit in the near future. Republican North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley announced Tuesday that his office had certified the overturning of Roe, and the state’s abortion ban will go into effect July 28. Republican Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds is asking courts to lift an injunction holding up the state’s heartbeat abortion ban.

“Trigger” laws are currently pending in several more states, including Idaho, Mississippi and Wyoming, and Georgia’s six-week ban is currently subject to an injunction.

Analysts expect roughly half the states in America could ultimately ban abortion entirely, or come close to doing so, now that Roe has been overturned, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Democrats have been scrambling to find ways to maintain abortion access, and no blue states have so far implemented any new restrictions.

AUTHOR

DYLAN HOUSMAN

Healthcare reporter. Follow Dylan on Twitter

RELATED ARTICLES:

White House Encourages Girls ‘15 Or Younger’ To Abort Without Their Parents’ Consent

These Companies Are Promising To Pay For Their Employees’ Abortions After SCOTUS Decision

Judge Blocks Texas Trigger Law From Going Into Effect, Rules Abortions Can Proceed

Army Chaplain Under Investigation For Sending Pro-Life Message To Troops

‘A Lot Cheaper To Get Rid Of Them’: Tucker Carlson Says Corporations Are Telling People They Can’t Have Children

SCOTUS ‘Assassination Challenge’ Pushed By Trans Creator Of ‘Gender Unicorn’ Graphic

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

Weather Modification, Another Way to Starve Americans

“Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.” —  Thomas Jefferson

“Government has within it a tendency to abuse its power.” —  John C. Calhoun

“There is danger from all men.  The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.” —  John Adams

“The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant.” —  Maximilien Robespierre

“Men would rather be starving and free than fed in bonds.” — Pearl S. Buck


A large portion of America is suffering through extremely high temperatures and drought conditions destroying the ability of what’s left of our farming community to raise and harvest what is needed to feed us.  The planned starvation of Americans is well on its way to becoming reality.  And now, they’re using weather modification to make sure farmers endure another 1931 dust bowl.  Tell the average American that our weather can be manipulated and they look at you with a “deer in the headlights” stare.

You don’t believe me? The Sirius Report gives us a list of 100 U.S. patents related to weather modification.  The first patent listed was in 1891 and the patent numbers are included with each.  Scroll through the list as some of the titles are really quite telling.

In Jerry Tyson’s 2017 article, Consider the Weather, on the Prophetic Observer website, he lists just a few of the weather modification patents from 1964 to 2010.  Portions of the information below have been garnered from Tyson’s article.  Even Bill Gates is involved in weather modification and that should not surprise us as it fits well into his genocidal plans for humanity.

One of the earliest listed patents was designed to manipulate weather via “cloud seeding” or the ability to produce more rain.  Louis Gathmann of Chicago, Illinois is credited with the patent.

In August of 2013, a patent was granted to James M. Cordray for a “Rain-Maker” balloon able to produce rain at any given time, including during drought.

In 1951, Harvey M. Brandau of Wilton, Wisconsin filed his patent to modify weather.  “Process for controlling weather” had some key items that are of interest.  He said his process could dissipate clouds and fog by clearing the atmosphere of moisture particles.  Mr. Brandau also said his invention could control weather by dissipating typhoons, hurricanes and other storm centers by the dissipation of clouds forming the weather phenomena, even controlling weather causing snow and sleet.  He stated he could provide rain in designated areas and provide desirable weather.

By the 1970s, biologically active chemicals began to appear as well as “altering” precipitation by artificial means.  And in the early 1990s, the Pentagon funded HAARP.

HAARP – High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program

Many of us have heard of Alaska’s HAARP.  The Pentagon erected a powerful transmitter designed to beam more than a gigawatt of energy into the upper reaches of the atmosphere.  The experiment involves the world’s largest “ionospheric heater,” a device designed to zap the skies hundreds of kilometers above the Earth with high-frequency radio waves. Their patent showed the “use of altering weather by transmitting electromagnet radiation from the earth’s surface through the region or regions to be altered.”  This could also be “established at select locations for communication or other purposes.”  The magnetic force lines that radiate from pole to pole are manipulated most effectively for these purposes.

HAARP – The Pentagon’s Ultimate Weapon, Whistleblowers Say written in August of 2021, states the following:

Ever since the existence of HAARP became public, a number of independent researchers have warned the operation has a secret agenda including:

  • weather modification
  • mind control
  • hi-tech military experiments
  • triggering of earthquakes

HAARP is the ultimate in geoengineering.  Their patent proves weather manipulation is a reality, and since this is true, it’s no longer a conspiracy theory – it’s a conspiracy fact.

U.S. Patent 20100224696 A1 describes a space-based technology for generating and controlling hurricanes to weaken or dissipate the weather element.  If they can weaken or dissipate it, they can also strengthen and direct it.

Some of the weather wars people are actually saying that the hurricanes are not generated wholly by artificial systems, but rather that they are steered or influenced in terms of their direction or intensity.  Multiple patents obviously say it is factual and the U.S. patent office didn’t reject those patents.

Cutting Edge Ministries tells us about GWEN Towers— Ground Wave Emergency Network — These are huge towers that have as many as 100 copper wires fanning out at the base of the tower system underground. The Defense Department built these systems with the cover story that they would be useful for communication during and after a nuclear strike. But that story will not hold up when you understand that a thermonuclear blast at the right altitude will completely fry all communications equipment, and will render it impossible to communicate by radio at all for several hours.  What GWEN towers really do is to work in conjunction with HAARP transmitters to create storms and alter weather patterns.

Weather Control as a Cold War Weapon

The Smithsonian Magazine’s Matt Novak related the history of a 1946 pilot.  The article originally appeared in Collier Magazine in 1954.

“On November 13, 1946 pilot Curtis Talbot, working for the General Electric Research Laboratory, climbed to an altitude of 14,000 feet about 30 miles east of Schenectady, New York. Talbot, along with scientist Dr. Vincent J. Schaefer, released three pounds of dry ice (frozen carbon dioxide) into the clouds.  As they turned south, Dr. Schaefer noted, ‘I looked toward the rear and was thrilled to see long streamers of snow falling from the base of the cloud through which we had just passed. I shouted to Curt to swing around, and as we did so we passed through a mass of glistening snow crystals! Needless to say, we were quite excited.’ They had created the world’s first human-made snowstorm.

“After the experiments of G.E.’s Research Laboratory, there was a feeling that humanity might finally be able to control one of the greatest variables of life on earth. And, as Cold War tensions heightened, weather control was seen by the United States as a potential weapon that could be even more devastating than nuclear warfare.”

Weather Weapons are real, they have a treaty to regulate them.  In fact, Patent Number 4,686,605 of August 11, 1987 by inventor Bernard J. Eastland of Spring, Texas is titled, Method and Apparatus for Altering a Region in the Earth’s Atmosphere, Ionosphere, and or Magnetosphere.

UN Treaty on Weather Modification

In this cover letter dated October 27, 1978, the United Nations Treaty was in effect.  The name of the treaty is “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques Approved by the General Assembly of the Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1976.”

So, what kind of weather modification could be used in military warfare?  Floods, intense rains, droughts and lack of water, severe heat, volcano eruptions, tsunamis, earthquakes and even tornadoes…and more.  You can examine the document here or here.

From the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs:

“In July 1974, USA and USSR agreed to hold bilateral discussions on measures to overcome the danger of the use of environmental modification techniques for military purposes and three subsequent rounds of discussions in 1974 and 1975. In August 1975, USA and USSR tabled identical draft texts of a convention at the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament (CCD), where intensive negotiations resulted in a modified text and understandings regarding four articles of this Convention in 1976.

“The Convention was approved by resolution 31/72 of the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1976, by 96 to 8 votes with 30 abstentions.”

This Treaty, or Convention, does not forbid political leaders from using these Weather Warfare weapons against their own people!  The elitists in power, and we all know who they are by now… Blackrock and Vanguard who are controlling America’s food production technologies and will have nearly total control of our food supply in America, Bill Gates with his ownership of 242,000 acres of America’s farmland, the torching of over 100 food procession plants, 10,000 cattle mysteriously dying all at once in Kansas, ranchers destroyed by the Bureau of Land Management, (remember LaVoy Finicum’s death by the FBI).  And of course, Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum (WEC) and his top advisor, Yuval Noah Harari.

Check out this map to see a small (500+) list of all the food and energy companies who have suffered serious problems in the past two years.  Scroll down the list on the right.

Olive Tree Ministries states, Harari is praised by the Zuck, Bill Gates, Barack Obama, Klaus Schwab (founder of the WEC), and others. He suggests that after the Great Reset, we will enter what he describes as the “next industrial revolution,” in which we will produce, not machines, products, or services as we do now. Harari suggests we will produce “human bodies and minds.”

Dane Wigington of Geoengineeringwatch.org states, “Ionosphere heater-induced high-pressure heat domes are baking parts of the Northern Hemisphere while chemical ice nucleation cloud seeding operations cool-down parts of the Southern Hemisphere. Climate intervention operations continue to wreak havoc on ecosystems and populations all over the world. The global controllers are now more desperate than ever before, what cards will they play next?”

Fear

Manufactured fear has been used countless times throughout history to sway the masses into compliance and to surrender their God given freedoms for their “protection.”

The Nazi Party had Germans terrified that enemies were at the gates, and only a massive war, and the murder of millions of European Jews, Romany, dissidents and homosexuals could keep Germany safe. The evil desires of one man would ultimately cost over 50 million lives, and left Germany in ruins.

The 1938 War of the Worlds radio drama by Orson Welles caused panic and massive fear among the listening audience.

The polio fears of 1949 to 1952 had everyone rushing to get the Salk vaccine and then in 1960, the Sabin sugar cube vaccine, both of which were tainted with SV-40 monkey virus causing soft tissue cancers.

The September 11, 2001 hijackings and attacks on the World Trade Center threw the nation into disbelief and yes, fear.

For two years, COVID was parroted as the worst killer pandemic to ever hit America, worse than the 2018 flu epidemic.  Fear erupted throughout the nation, except for a few who kept their wits about them.  Deadly virus causing and oxygen debilitating masks were donned even by toddlers, lockdowns destroyed a massive portion of small businesses and transferred trillions to gigantic corporations.  Drug and alcohol use skyrocketed as did suicide rates.

Hospital protocols denied cheap, safe, lifesaving medications and the federal government paid for COVID diagnoses, for oxygen masks, for ventilators and ultimately for the patients’ deaths from the Wuhan virus.  Fear was hyped…there is no cure…we must have a vaccine!  Instead, Americans received a DNA changing, emergency use authorization, rat, monkey and cat trialed “Operation Warp Speed” messenger RNA injection that failed to protect anyone from the virus.  Those injections have caused millions of deaths throughout the world, and adverse effects have destroyed the productive lives of millions more.

The virus was ultimately the culling of society’s elderly by five state governors who sent infected humanity into nursing homes, but the injections are now causing far more deaths than the actual virus itself.  Now the FDA is promoting three injections for toddlers who don’t even get the virus.  Should they manage to live through it, they’ll most likely be sterile or have Vaccine induced Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (VAIDS).

Food shortages are on the horizon, all planned and executed over the last several decades.  Henry Kissinger allegedly stated, “Control the food and you’ll control the people.”

This brings us to the few corporate and family farms left in operation.  The agricultural states are burning up with high temperatures and dry conditions.  The bread basket of the world is being dismantled.

In 1891 the first patent was listed for weather modification.  Imagine what they’re capable of 131 years later, another dust bowl and starvation.

Conclusion

In 1962, President Lyndon Baines Johnson said, “He who controls the weather will control the world.”  The Great Reset, the New World Order, and ultimately United Nations Agenda 21/30 are one and the same thing, the godless control of humanity by Luciferian forces.  Their goal is depopulation and the enslavement of remaining humanity.

Convincing Americans that our Industrial Civilization is so polluting the world that all of these unnatural storms, temperatures and disruptions are a natural result so that our citizens will be amenable to changing our civilization and moving into the already mapped out U.N. Biodiversity Areas is just part of the enslavement goal via the elites.

Starvation just may convince them.

We’ll then see how many, “Men would rather be starving and free than fed in bonds.”

©Kelleigh Nelson. All rights reserved.

Hurricane Risk is Real For Offshore Wind

The danger from too much wind.


My regular readers know that I have been fussing about the threat of hurricanes destroying proposed Atlantic coast offshore wind arrays. The issue arises because the offshore wind industry is based in Europe, which does not get hurricanes. My focus has been Dominion’s massive project off Virginia, but the whole East Coast is hurricane alley.

Now I have found some research that actually quantifies the threat and it is very real. It looks like wind generators will have to be redesigned specifically to withstand hurricanes. In fact that work is underway. In the meantime we should not be building conventional offshore wind towers.

The 2017 press release is succinctly titled “Offshore wind turbines vulnerable to Category 5 hurricane gusts.” The PR says this: “The study, which was conducted in collaboration with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, highlights the limitations of current turbine design and could provide guidance for manufacturers and engineers looking to build more hurricane-resilient turbines in the future.”

We certainly want hurricane-resilient turbines! Actually they also mean towers and blades, not just the turbines. It is the towers and blades that are most likely to collapse in extreme wind, although the turbines can be damaged as well.

The research report itself has a more specific but equally scary title: “Gusts and shear within hurricane eyewalls can exceed offshore wind turbine design standards.”

Mind you what they did is computer modeling. But what they found confirms prior observations that people were having trouble believing.

Simply put they found that hurricane wind gusts can hit an incredible 200 miles per hour (mph), while wind towers are only designed to withstand 160 mph. If those extreme gusts hit an offshore wind farm, catastrophe is pretty much guaranteed.

In addition to extremely damaging gusts, the press release says this: “Furthermore, current standards do not account for veer, a measure of the change in wind direction across a vertical span. In the simulation, wind direction changed by as much as 55 degrees between the tip of the rotor and its hub, creating a potentially dangerous strain on the blade.”

Here is how they make the fundamental point:

“The findings could be used to help wind farm developers improve design standards as well as to help stakeholders make informed decisions about the costs, benefits and risks of placing turbines in hurricane-prone areas.”

I have yet to see any sort of hurricane risk assessment from any of the proposed East Coast wind projects, most of which involve billions of dollars. In the Virginia case, the primary stakeholders are the ratepayers who are on the hook for an estimated ten billion dollars. In their case hurricanes have not even been mentioned by Dominion.

A more recent article comes to similar conclusions—”Hurricane eyewall winds and structural response of wind turbines

The article is technical but here is their plain language summary:

“Offshore wind energy is a burgeoning area of renewable energy that is at an early stage of development in the United States. Exposure of offshore wind turbines to hurricanes must be assessed and mitigated to ensure the security of the renewable energy supply. This research assesses the impact of hurricane wind fields on the structural response of wind turbines. Such wind fields have characteristics that may pose heretofore unforeseen structural challenges to offshore wind turbines.”

I have not done a literature search but there may well be a large literature on this huge problem. If so then the wind developers are carefully ignoring it.

Before we build tens or hundreds of billions of dollars worth of massive offshore wind facilities off the East Coast we need to be sure that they will withstand strong hurricanes. (It may well be that even Category 4 hurricanes will exceed today’s design standards.) Otherwise both the ratepayers and the grid will be at great risk.

This hurricane design case may be something that NERC should Issue a Reliability Standard on. Such a Reliability Standard would lay out the kind of hurricane risk assessment that must be done as part of the facility design process. These risk assessments need to then be made part of the public decision process.

Offshore wind should not fly blindly into the teeth of the storm. Too much is at risk.

Author

David Wojick

David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy. For origins see http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see http://www.cfact.org/author/david-wojick-ph-d/ Available for confidential research and consulting.

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

WATCH: Arizona Gubernatorial Candidate Kari Lake Destroys CNN Reporter Right to Her Face

Brilliant. Kari Lake will be a fine governor for the state of Arizona. Trump, DeSantis, MTG, Lake and others are the future of the GOP. The useless GOP establishment will be phased out of the Republican Party in the years ahead.

Kari Lake Totally Destroys CNN Reporter Right to Her Face

By Town Hall, June 27, 2022

Hello, 911, I’d like to report a murder.

That’s really the only way you could describe this epic smackdown of a CNN reporter by Kari Lake, a Republican gubernatorial candidate for Arizona. She’s Trump endorsed. She’s the frontrunner. And she can deliver haymakers like the former president. Lake is lethal in this exchange with Kyung Lah.

Lah introduces herself to Lake, who asks where’s her mask that every liberal reporter has been wearing religiously for the past 18 months or so. Lake has spoken with Lah before when the latter was all masked up. Lah added that she wasn’t wearing at that moment because they were outside.

To learn more about Kari Lake please click here.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Michael Stenger, Senate security chief on Jan. 6, DIES one day before hearing

Biden Regime Cancels Federal Student Loans, Adding BILLIONS More To The National Debt, Increasing Inflation

Insurrection: Pro-Death Demonstrators Unleash Weekend Of Arson, Vandalism, And Insurrection After Rove v. Wade Ruling

HORROR: Texas-Mexico border chaos, At least 46 migrants found dead in San Antonio inside 18-wheeler, reports say

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

One More Blockbuster Supreme Court Decision: West Virginia v. EPA Could Still Be Coming

And it is potentially bigger than Roe v. Wade.

The court could begin to rein in the vast powers of the alphabet agencies in D.C. that run our lives and return it to legislators whom we elect to create.

One more blockbuster Supreme Court decision could still be coming even after Friday’s abortion ruling

Supreme Court’s abortion ruling rocked nation last week but West Virginia v. EPA could also be huge

By Liz Peek | Fox News

Believe it or not, overturning Roe v. Wade may not be the Supreme Court’s most dramatic decision this year. Instead, its ruling on West Virginia v. the Environmental Protection Agency could prove far more consequential. It could literally upend how our government works.

For the better.

West Virginia vs. EPA asks whether important policies that impact the lives of all Americans should be made by unelected D.C. bureaucrats or by Congress. This SCOTUS could well decide that ruling by executive agency fiat is no longer acceptable.

The case involves the Clean Power Plan, which was adopted under President Barack Obama to fight climate change; the program was estimated to cost as much as $33 billion per year and would have completely reordered our nation’s power grid. The state of West Virginia, joined by two coal companies and others, sued the EPA, arguing the plan was an abuse of power.

By deciding in favor of West Virginia, the court could begin to rein in the vast powers of the alphabet agencies in D.C. that run our lives and return it to legislators whom we elect to create…legislation. Just as the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that abortion laws are more appropriately left up to the people’s elected representatives, it may decide in West Virginia vs. EPA that Congress, and not federal agencies, should write our laws.

A decision that puts Congress in charge would stall environmental rules intended to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy. Legislators, back in the driver’s seat, would have to debate and go public with the consequences – and costs — of regulations that are now adopted with little buy-in from the public.

To further their climate agenda, Democrats have been able to hide the full-in price tag of abandoning oil and gas as our main energy sources by creating tax subsidies for renewables. If consumers had to pay the real cost of wind and solar power, they might not be so enthusiastic about what President Joe Biden calls the great “transition.”

But the case goes beyond environmental regulations.

A ruling in favor of West Virginia would reverse a decades-long trend in which Congress has handed off to federal agencies decisions our legislators refuse or are unable to make. The usurping of authority by D.C. bureaucracies began with the New Deal in the 1930s, when an ambitious President Franklin D. Roosevelt led the way by creating the TVA, the WPA and a total of 69 other offices and executive branch agencies to do his bidding. The process occasioned Democrat Al Smith to complain that he was “submerged in a bowl of alphabet soup.”

Restricting the power of the alphabet soup authorities might require that our representatives and senators actually do their jobs, allowing less time for posturing and passing pointless dead-on-arrival bills. They might have to show up more than half the days in the year, for instance, which is the current norm.

It could, for sure, derail the ambitions of Joe Biden, who won no significant majority in Congress and appears incapable of “working across the aisle,” though as Candidate Biden, he argued that ability was one of his strongest credentials.

In addition to broad environmental rules that might come under new scrutiny, subsequent suits might challenge labor laws written by the NLRB, consumer protection edicts from the CFPB, and regulations put in place by the FDA, the CDC and the entire host of agencies that have immense – many would say excess – power over our lives.

But initially, the ruling would deep-six the Biden administration’s ambition to kill off the coal industry, which is why West Virginia, our nation’s second biggest coal-mining state after Wyoming, brought the suit, along with Westmoreland Mining Holdings, North American Coal Corporation and others.

Like Obama, Biden wants to effectively shut down our fossil fuel industries that provide cheap, plentiful and reliable energy and that are the envy of the world. His “Build Back Better” plan incorporated $550 billion in programs aimed at curtailing emissions, including significant portions of Bernie Sanders’ Green New Deal.

Obama’s approach was to reinterpret the 1970 Clean Air Act to allow a nationwide cap-and-trade regimen, requiring power plants to offset emissions by investing in other low-carbon facilities. Congress did not alter the Clean Air Act language to permit the Clean Power Plan; the Obama White House simply grabbed it as a way to further their climate ambitions.

The courts decided the CPP constituted executive overreach and put the plan on hold. Subsequently, the Trump White House rescinded the program.

This back-and-forth highlights an obvious problem with government by alphabet soup. Successive administrations can easily change the rules by which such agencies operate. Policymaking ; therefore, is erratic and inconsistent. Especially in the power arena, where new facilities can take years to build and the impact on the general population can be profound, this is a costly and inefficient way to govern.

Political parties rise and fall, to be sure, and can also change the nation’s direction. But matters of consequence should be argued in the public forum and not buried under the almost 100,000 pages of new rules and regulations published during Obama’s last year in office, for instance.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once wrote in a decision, “We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance.” That limiting guidance appears to have support from the conservative justices on the court today.

If the court launches a widespread curtailment of governing by executive agency, as it should, we will see more protests and renewed cries to “Pack the Court,” including from members of Congress. After all, they’ll have to get to work.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Reducing CO2 Hurts the Planet and Humanity: Time to Reconsider Massachusetts v. EPA

With West Virgina v. EPA, Supreme Court can restore state authority on energy

EPA Spends million from Biden’s Covid bill on climate change programs

EPA spent $7M in American Rescue Plan funds to replace diesel school buses with electric buses

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

‘Safe Haven’ Drag Queen Who Counsels Children Charged With 25 counts of Child Pornography

Drag Hour for kids takes on monstrous meaning.

Drag queen who also works as youth counselor charged with 25 counts of child pornography

By: The Blaze, June 27, 2022

A Pennsylvania drag queen who counseled children at a “safe haven” for LGBTQ+ youth has been charged with 25 counts of child pornography, according to reports.

A criminal docket issued last week shows Brice Patric Ryschon Williams was charged with 25 counts of child pornography and one count of criminal use of a communication facility. The sexually explicit content found in Williams’ possession includes at least 49 photos and 25 videos of naked, prepubescent boys. The images showed “genitalia and boys performing sex acts,” in some cases “with an adult man.”

In addition to performing as a drag queen by the name of Anastasia Diamond, Williams is an HIV medical case manager at a local health center and last year joined GLO Harrisburg, a center that offers a “safe haven” for LGBTQ+ youth of color in central Pennsylvania. Williams was awarded the LGBT Center of Central PA Rising Star Award in 2020.

Don’t miss out on content from Dave Rubin free of big tech censorship. Listen to The Rubin Report now.

“I feel as though this is so important because I know there are little kids like me who are queer who are black who are still not able to look up to anyone. So that’s the reason why I got into this line of work. I wanted to make … a big impact for folks in my community,” Williams told a local Pennsylvania news outlet last year.

A video clip posted on Instagram also appears to show Williams performing for children in 2017.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLE: When a Conservative is Asked ‘What is a Woman?’

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

Major City To Pay For Travel Costs When Its Employees Seek Out-Of-State Abortions

“The Never Trump faction is so committed to hating Trump it can’t think clearly about the end of Roe and give credit where credit is due.” — The Federalist


Cincinnati will reimburse government employees who travel to other states for abortions, the city’s Democratic mayor Aftab Pureval announced Monday.

The policy compensates workers seeking out-of-state abortions and other “eligible medical care” they cannot obtain within an 150 mile radius, WLWT 5 reported. On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 to overturn the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, which returns power to the states to make decisions on whether the practice will be legal.

“Our Supreme Court, Congress and state legislature have failed us. Local officials must do whatever we can to protect the women of our communities. It is not my job to make it easier for the state legislature and governor to drag women back to the 50’s and strip their rights, it’s my job to make that harder,” said Pureval. “And with today’s announcements, we are fighting back.”

Cincinnati lawmakers unveiled legislation Monday that would roll back an ordinance authorized in 2001 blocking elective abortions being allowed in the government’s healthcare plan, WCPO 9 reported. The repeal will be voted on Wednesday by the city council.

However, Ohio Republican Attorney General Dave Yost filed paperwork to ban abortion at six weeks and it was granted within an hour of the Supreme Court’s decision, Axios reported. The law does not permit exceptions in the case of incest or rape.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision does not outlaw abortion, but returns it to the elected political branches of government,” Yost said Friday. “It never belonged in the courts.”

Blue and red states have continued to react to the decision made that overturned Roe v. Wade. Dozens of prosecutors from across the country signed a letter Friday saying they will not press charges against against those who receive or issue an abortion, Politico reported.

“As elected prosecutors, we have a responsibility to ensure that these limited resources are focused on efforts to prevent and address serious crimes, rather than enforcing abortion bans that divide our community, create untenable choices for patients and healthcare providers, and erode trust in the justice system,” the letter stated. “Enforcing abortion bans would mean taking time, effort, and resources away from the prosecution of the most serious crimes — conduct that truly impacts public safety.”

Pureval’s policy comes after the retail company Kroger, which has 2,750 stores statewide and is one of Ohio’s largest employers, said it would hand up to $4,000 to staff if they travel out-of-state for an abortion. It is unclear how Pureval’s legislation legally bodes with Yost’s abortion ban.

Neither the attorney general nor the mayor immediately responded to TheDCNF’s request for comment.

AUTHOR

GABE KAMINSKY

Investigative reporter.

RELATED VIDEO: GRAPHIC: Protesters Chant “All Hail Satan”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Elizabeth Warren Suggests Putting Abortion Clinics In National Parks

MSNBC Contributor Slams Democrats As ‘Too Weak’ To Handle SCOTUS Fallout

Liberal Outlet Demands MSNBC Host Lose His Job For Questioning Dem Leadership

‘Completely Wrong’: Fox News Contributor Shuts Down CNN Commentator’s Claim That The GOP Won’t Survive SCOTUS Ruling

‘Simply Ignore’: Military Expert Sounds Alarm On Pentagon’s Abortion Stance

‘Dismantling The Federal Government’: Hillary Clinton Stokes Liberals’ Worst Fears About SCOTUS

Biden’s HHS Debates Setting Up Abortion Clinics On Federal Property

EXCLUSIVE: House Republicans Demand Attorney General Merrick Garland, DOJ Take Action Over Vandalized Pro-Life Pregnancy…

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.