The popular fashion magazine Glamour UK is featuring a pregnant woman who identifies as male as a front cover model for its June 2023 edition.
“I’m a pregnant trans man and I do exist. No matter what anyone says, I am literally living proof,” the model, Logan Brown, said in an interview with the magazine.
The cover quickly drew backlash.
“Glamour magazine wants you to believe a man is pregnant….THIS IS A BIOLOGICAL WOMAN THAT IS PREGNANT!!! Men can’t get pregnant ONLY women can!!” radio host Graham Allen wrote on Twitter.
“To be fair, she’s no less attractive than other recent Glamour cover models. Apparently BLM requires that beauty be CANCELED,” political commentator Ann Coulter wrote.
Kaeley Triller, co-founder of the pro-life group Hands Across The Aisle, ridiculed the magazine for denigrating womanhood.
“When ‘trans men’ make the news, it’s usually because they’re doing something womanly, like having babies,” Triller wrote. “A woman chopped her hair off and got pregnant, and this is cover story material.”
Introducing Logan Brown, GLAMOUR's June Pride cover star ❤️
“I'm a pregnant trans man and I do exist. No matter what anyone says, I'm living proof.”
“Shame on you @GlamourMagUK for mocking women and everything they have to go through during pregnancy!” wrote Oli London, an internet personality who frequently criticizes transgenderism.
Brown became pregnant by her “non-binary” drag queen male partner Bailey Mills, according to Glamour.
“I met Bailey nearly two years ago. We’ve not even been together that long, to be honest,” she said. “That’s why it’s a big shocker that we’re even having a baby together.”
Brown says that when she found out she was pregnant, “all my manlihood that I’ve worked hard for, for so long, just completely felt like it was erased.”
“I had to get to the point of being confident with who I am and being a pregnant man,” Brown added. “I’ve started educating people on it.”
It is impossible to deny how far left all of America’s institutions have shifted in the past few years. Corporate board rooms, the media, sports teams and even the military all chant the same dogma and insist that you comply.
How did that happen? As Ernest Hemingway wrote on how one goes bankrupt, “gradually, then suddenly.” Indeed, our leading institutions face a moral bankruptcy unprecedented in American history.
This could not have happened without the left’s successful “long march through the institutions.” This term, made famous by radical academics in the 1960s, refers to the strategy used by “New Left” students of that era. They aimed to achieve long-term social and and political change by infiltrating and subverting key institutions, particularly the elite universities they often attended.
These radicals were the progenitors of the critical theories that plague our offices and our children’s schools today. They knew these ideas could never be sold democratically to the American public, so they instead sought to disrupt disciplines — sociology, anthropology, philosophy, and cultural studies — that were more amenable to their critical perspectives.
Through their research, teaching, and activism, they eventually came to dominate entire departments or even university leadership. This power was then used to launder their ideology to a new generation of students who would unquestioningly carry it with them into the “real world.”
A new Harvard survey on faculty political leanings reveals that the left’s long march was more successful than they likely ever dreamed. A whopping 75% of Harvard faculty identifies as “liberal” or “very liberal,” while only 2.5% identifies as conservative. A minuscule 0.4 percent identifies as “very conservative.”
Nationally, less than a third of American identify as “liberal” but Harvard and other schools show over 75% professors identify as liberal. That does not happen randomly. It takes a consistent culture of intolerance for opposing viewpoints… https://t.co/6bwWivEFKG
As law professor Jonathon Turley points out, these figures massively overrepresent liberals compared to society overall. Roughly equal portions of Americans identify as conservative or moderate, while only 26% identify as liberal. More Harvard faculty identify as “very liberal” (32%) than Americans overall identify as “liberal.”
The figure is representative across large swathes of American academia. In 1969, one in four college professors was at least moderately conservative. Now, liberals outweigh conservatives on campus by roughly 12 to one.
Yet Harvard’s stark disparity stands out more than the rest because it is the best that American education has to offer — or at least it used to be.
Nevertheless, its name is still intrinsically associated with excellence and prestige that few other universities are accorded. If you are a Harvard graduate, you are likely to impact the highest levels of American power in whichever field you choose to pursue.
That is precisely the point. By capturing the Harvard banner, radical activists then got to decide what constituted excellence and prestige. Their radical ideologies gained the legitimacy associated with the Harvard name and serve as an example for lesser universities to follow. Molded by these new definitions, Harvard graduates carry them out to the world where they shape the halls of power in business, government, and media.
Harvard boasts the most alumni who later became CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. With 41 alumni CEOs, Harvard dwarfs the nearest runner up, the University of Pennsylvania, by almost double.
Harvard also has the largest number of Nobel Prize winners at 161. It boasts the largest number of Supreme Court justices in history, with four Harvard graduates currently on the bench.
Harvard also has the largest number of U.S. military Medal of Honor recipients (18) for any non-military school. This included 8 generals throughout history.
Given this legacy, Harvard will continue to recruit America’s brightest and most ambitious young minds. Many of them are likely pre-existing liberals, but many of them will not be. Blinded by the allure of the Harvard name, they will make themselves vulnerable to the ubiquitous leftism of their professors.
Even those who see what’s happening will likely go along to get along. If they do not bend the knee, all their hard work will be for naught, and their aspirations will crumble beneath them.
Conservatives must accept that the purpose of academia — to foster intellectual curiosity and challenge rigid ways of thinking — no longer exists as we all once imagined. The long march, which occurred gradually over decades, hit suddenly in the Trump era. There is no sign the radicals will allow dissent within Harvard or any other university any time soon.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2023-06-03 12:31:202023-06-04 07:22:54The Source Of The Marxist Takeover Of American Institutions Is So Obvious It Hurts
Despite the influx of more presidential candidates, President Donald Trump has still maintained a solid lead over the other Republican primary contenders seeking the White House in 2024.
New polling data from Morning Consult has shown the 45th president leading his closest rival, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, by 34 points in the weeks following the launch of the governor’s campaign.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2023-06-03 07:34:342023-06-06 12:51:42TRUMP UP 34: No Bump For DeSantis Following Governor’s Presidential Race Announcement
Join Matt Walsh on his often comical, yet deeply disturbing journey, as he fearlessly questions the logic behind a gender ideology movement that has taken aim at women and children.
Watch “What is a Woman?” now streaming exclusively.
It’s the movie they really don’t want you to see: #WhatIsAWoman?
Many images from the laptop show Hunter in various states of undress and surrounded by drug paraphernalia. Now close your eyes and imagine if this was Donald Trump’s son.
Nearly 10,000 photos taken between 2008 and 2019 will be hosted at BidenLaptopMedia.com after a former Trump White House aide apparently spent months scanning the digital archive, redacting some images and publishing the rest.
“The number one thing we’re about … is truth and transparency,” Garrett Ziegler, who founded the nonprofit Marco Polo, told Fox News.
Among the redacted pictures are those that display private information, such as Social Security, banking, and credit card numbers.
Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is obviously correct, and he could have and should have gone even farther. Not only is the investigation of Trump “poisoned” by the FBI’s “documented political bias,” but it wouldn’t even be happening at all if it weren’t for that bias.
The whole thing is a partisan show trial right out of a totalitarian regime, an attempt to destroy Trump with bogus legal proceedings so that he cannot take office again in January 2025.
If there were any actual justice in Washington, these investigations would be shut down, and new investigations begun of how the Democrats have politicized the Justice Department and the FBI.
A top Republican is pressing Attorney General Merrick Garland on the FBI’s role in special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into former President Donald Trump in the wake of special counsel John Durham’s report.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, pressed Garland in a letter on Friday about Durham’s findings related to the faulty origin of the Trump-Russia investigation and the “failings” of the FBI. The GOP chairman placed Smith’s investigation related to the Mar-a-Lago classified documents incident and the Capitol riot in the context of Durham’s report, arguing that “due to the FBI’s documented political bias, the Justice Department must ensure any ongoing investigations are not poisoned by this same politicization.”
“The Special Counsel’s report serves as a stark reminder of the need for more accountability and reforms within the FBI,” Jordan said of Durham. “Accordingly, as Congress conducts oversight to inform these legislative reforms, we write to ensure the Justice Department acts to preserve the integrity and impartiality of ongoing investigations from the FBI’s politicized bureaucracy.”
Durham is slated to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on June 21. The special counsel will also speak behind closed doors with the House Intelligence Committee, led by Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), the day prior…..
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2023-06-03 06:56:402023-06-03 06:57:43Jordan: DOJ’s investigation of Trump may be ‘poisoned’ by ‘the FBI’s documented political bias’
Republicans, snatching defeat from the arms of victory.
Are you confused about why our government can not come up with clear policies? Why no one takes responsibility for their actions? Why there is a lack of COMMON SENSE? Lack of clarity? Why all the bills are designed to make the middle class poorer.
Policies that fail to make sense but are expensive? Why Americans are ignored? Why America is ignored? Why Americans are made to feel guilty about hard work ethics? Why reading and math skills are lacking? Why is American Patriotism demonized?
This indoctrination in our schools, about 3 generations worth, instills total reliance on the government with individuals incapable of making decisions. They can only make choices of the “choices” provided by their government.
Is the new parental choice bill in Florida merely a device to monitor and control those taking the scholarship money? Our money. Common Core Standards (CCS) accomplished their goal. The Globalist, elite, evil thieves need a constant flow of bodies for trained workers. Global citizen to become the workforce. The purpose of education is: To confuse, so the child will only be capable of pressing an APP for answers. Ignorant people require less of their government. The government becomes the “NANNY STATE”, taking care of…and CONTROLLING… the ignorant populace!
How did this happen? “Why are our elected officials allowing the Destruction of America?”
The answer is simple: “THIS IS WHAT IS LEARNED IN SCHOOL.”
As Abe Lincoln said, “Whatever is learned in school today – is in government tomorrow.”
So what do our students learn? America is not special. Eliminate borders. Bye, bye, America. Americans are Evil. Evil Americans caused all of the world ills and must pay for those ills. Families are evil; It is Ok to kill, do drugs, be perverted, government public school instills American guilt complex. Therefore, America must be destroyed and replaced with a New World Order – with a One-World Government, controlled by the Communist, Totalitarian United Nations.
Paid by the American people.
There are no truths, only values made up as needed by your government. A Sacred cow is created that can become the victim who will find other victims. A non-profit NGO is formed. Donations are collected. Once the cash” donations” begin to dwindle, a new sacred cow is born. Tug that heart. Whatever group is the flavor of the month gets the attention for fundraising. You have been taught you are only as good as the group you belonged to. You are only one individual, your voice doesn’t count. You, alone, cannot make a difference. You must become the group, your new family. Everything you do is now for the good of the group. for the sake of the group…for FAIRNESS, for SOCIAL JUSTICE. We must save American democracy!
We are watching the destruction of America. We can fight back. Start off by complimenting the 71 (R) Representatives and the 31 (R) Senators who voted against giving the democrats a blank check to implements O’Biden’s green programs. The only thing that we gained from that irresponsible debt limit bill is McCarthy and the other RINOS showed us who they are. They MUST GO. They chose their donors over you. We must fight back. Go to your AG if crimes we committed in your state sue them. Sue the Department of Education for destroying our children and pushing gender change and mutilation as normal. Know your enemy. They are afraid of us getting together acting as one is their biggest fear. More boycotts. Money is all they understand. They are sick evil people and want to own and control everything you own. We were winning. They lie.
It is time for us to stop “doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. We all knew eventually Kevin and Ronna would screw us. Kevin gave the debt ceiling away with nothing in return. He gave the Marxists a blank check for 2 years. Ronna is refusing to help Grassroots organize recruiting campaigns. Stop giving the RNC money.
Our boycotts work. Bud, Target, Sales down. Retail stores sales down. Sadly we have more to add Chick-fil-A for they have gone woke. Also add Northface, Kohls and Petsmart to your list. If you want our patriots shopping list to see for yourself where these corporations give there money to ask us! 561-301-1601. Vote with our Fingers in November and with your wallet all year long. FYI: Northface, who protests against oil sells polyester clothes. We are suffering from affirmative action.
Get with your legislators to get us out of the WHO (UN communist World Health Organization). Remind them of the Supremacy clause. The Federal government has no standing. NO treaty or whatever they want to call it is supreme over the Constitution. If we allow this to happen, we will never have a fair election and we ill lose all our rights. We will always be under the UN with some emergency like: climate emergency, pandemics, race/hatred emergency. And to make it better the WHO determines what is an emergency. when to call it. The their protocol which is usually wrong must be followed.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Karen Schoenhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngKaren Schoen2023-06-03 06:07:212023-06-03 06:07:21Everything is Connected; Nothing is Random; Everything is Planned; All Plans are Based on Lies
April 19, 2023, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. formally announced his 2024 Democratic presidential campaign. Early polls show he’s got nearly 20% of the Democratic vote
Democratic Party officials are doing everything they can to avoid public debates, and their media allies are not giving Kennedy the opportunity to share his views either
May 17, 2023, Krystal Ball, cohost of the online show “Breaking Point,” interviewed Kennedy. According to Ball, Kennedy’s “vaccine skepticism” and “antivaccine advocacy” is a “red line” that disqualifies him from holding the highest office
She repeatedly interrupted Kennedy with Big Pharma talking points — putting her own ignorance on public display — and didn’t allow him to answer her questions. Kennedy asked her to show him where he got things wrong many times, and she deflected with broad generalities
Several journalists and political commentators, including Jimmy Dore, Viva Frei, Kim Iversen and Glenn Greenwald have critiqued Ball’s attempted smear. In the end, the only one who looked bad was Ball herself
April 19, 2023, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. formally announced his 2024 Democratic presidential campaign.1 Early polls show he’s got nearly 20% of the Democratic vote. Unfortunately, Democrat Party officials are doing everything they can to avoid public debates, and their media allies seem hellbent on not giving Kennedy the opportunity to share his views either.
May 17, 2023, Krystal Ball, cohost of the online show “Breaking Point,” interviewed Kennedy,2,3 or perhaps more accurately, debated him herself. Ball told Kennedy she disagrees with his views on vaccines, and claimed Democratic voters by and large share her opposition. According to Ball, Kennedy’s “vaccine skepticism” and “antivaccine advocacy” is a “red line” that disqualifies him from holding the highest office.
Antiscientific Shilling for Big Pharma
In the video playlist above, comedian Jimmy Dore of “The Jimmy Dore Show” dissects Ball’s hatchet job of an interview, pointing out Ball’s “poor journalism, rudeness and irresponsible, antiscientific shilling for corporate interests.”
She repeatedly interrupted Kennedy with Big Pharma talking points — putting her own ignorance on public display — and didn’t allow him to answer her questions. Kennedy asked her to show him where he got things wrong many times, and she deflected with broad generalities.
When Kennedy pointed out that countries with the lowest COVID jab rates had far lower COVID cases and mortality, Ball insisted that there were “many other factors” that played into that, such as the high rate of obesity in America, and the fact that we don’t spend as much time outside in the sun as people in Africa.
Never mind the fact that obesity and sun exposure recommendations were never part of the COVID response. Not only did U.S. health authorities not offer any guidance on reducing obesity, but they closed parks and beaches and told everyone to spend as little time outdoors as possible.
The only solution they provided was the “vaccine.” If it worked, we ought to have far better outcomes than countries like Africa that didn’t follow our COVID response guidelines, like staying indoors and getting jabbed multiple times. But we didn’t.
Basically, Ball is admitting — seemingly without realizing it — that factors such as obesity and sun exposure were more important than the jab, because places with lower obesity rates and greater sun exposure fared better even with low jab rates.
Shocker: Ball ‘Hasn’t Seen’ Key Data
Perhaps most shocking of all, when Kennedy points out that we now have data4,5,6 showing that the effectiveness of the COVID shots rapidly wanes and becomes negative after six or seven months, so that you’re then MORE likely to get COVID, she says she “hasn’t seen that!”
How could she possibly have missed it? That by itself tells you she doesn’t know anything beyond what the Big Pharma PR departments have told her.
One consolation here is that the original “Breaking Points” video7 on YouTube only has 288,768 views as of this writing, whereas Dore’s critique of her smear job, posted the following day, has over 524,000 YouTube views.8 “Breaking Points” also lost about 4,000 subscribers in the days following this seriously botched interview.
Interestingly, many of “Breaking Points”’ own subscribers were also sorely critical of her performance. In fact, one day after the video aired, 79% of viewers had given it a thumbs-down. So, perhaps her pro-vaccine, pro-pharma stance isn’t as popular as she thinks.
Conflict of Interest at Play?
Dore also points out that Ball has an interesting conflict of interest that makes this attempted smear job look all the worse. It turns out she’s very close to another Democratic candidate running for president, Marianne Williamson. In fact, Williamson officiated Ball’s wedding.
Did Ball focus on the vaccine issue rather than allowing Kennedy to present a broader view of his platform in the hopes that voters will be attracted to Williamson instead? Would Ball challenge — and dismiss — Williamson in the same way, even though Williamson has very similar concerns about Big Pharma and vaccines as Kennedy does?
What’s more, as noted by Kim Iversen in the video below, Ball supported lockdowns during the pandemic and never informed her viewers that she was making money from long-distance education.
To her credit, Ball did list two vaccine studies in defense of her position below her interview with Kennedy, as well as one study provided by Kennedy’s team, saying people could read them and make up their own mind. Well, Kim Iversen, a former host of “Rising” who now has her own online show, did just that.
In the video above, Iversen reviews the evidence presented by both parties. The first piece of evidence Ball would like you to review is a mathematical modeling study9 of the global impact of the first year of COVID-19 vaccination. According to this mathematical model, the mass injection campaign prevented 14.4 million deaths across 185 countries between December 2020 and December 2021.
Three of the funding sources for this paper were directly from Bill Gates through his foundations, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI and the World Health Organization for whom he is also the primary funder. On top of that, Gates also has significant influence over the National Institutes of Health,10 which is another funder of this paper.
The second paper Ball thought was crucial was a Stanford paper11 published in June 2022 that found getting the COVID jab after having the infection provided additional protection. Here, one of the researchers has received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Regeneron and Serimmune, and five are employees of an institution that manufactures the COVID-19 vaccine.
Kennedy provided a Cleveland Clinic paper12,13 published April 19, 2023, which found that vaccine effectiveness varied from a low of 4% to a high of 29% depending on the dominant variant in circulation, and that the risk of contracting COVID increased with time since the last shot and rose with the number of doses received. The funding for this research? None. Hence no conflicts of interest. The Cleveland Clinic simply compiled and analyzed its own employee data.
‘Breaking Point’ Is Establishment Media
While “Breaking Points” is advertised as anti-establishment news, Ball’s interview with Kennedy is but one of the latest examples of why that’s not true. As noted in the Viva Frei video above (Canadian lawyer David Freiheit posts YouTube interviews under the pseudonym Viva Frei), every time “the rubber hits the road,” every time the stakes are high, “Breaking Points” stands with the corporate establishment and parrots the official narrative.
So, the “anti-establishment” façade is just that. A façade. And in her interview with Kennedy, that became really apparent. Not everyone will agree with Viva Frei on this point though.
Independent investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald (see video below), while disagreeing with Ball’s handling of the interview, stresses that he respects her journalism. Yet Greenwald also makes the case that Ball’s “red line” argument is one that is only employed by establishment figures against those who are anti-establishment.
So, he basically makes a similar point as Viva Frei. He just gives Ball the benefit of the doubt and assumes she’s been unwittingly and sort of unconsciously influenced by establishment propaganda, as opposed to being part of it.
What Views Count as Disqualifying?
In his May 18, 2023, System Update episode (above), Greenwald commented:
“I’ve long been interested in, and I’ve often written about, the idea that once a politician adopts a view that is so disagreeable that it renders them completely off limits from consideration for support, they almost get put into this camp of being crazy or a conspiracy theorist, or people just too unhinged to even consider supporting, no matter how much agreement one might have with them.
I first observed this dynamic in the 2012 election … Why was Ron Paul’s pro-life position a ‘red line’ but Obama’s support for the drug war or his view that he had the right to assassinate American citizens using drones — all with no due process … the embodiment of extremism and radicalism — why was that not a ‘red line’? How was that determined? …
Given that the same argument has arisen in the context of RFK Jr’s challenge to Biden, to argue that RFK is off limits but Joe Biden, chief advocate of the war in Iraq, chief architect of the U.S. prison state, an ardent supporter of the drug war, that he, Joe Biden … has not crossed any red lines, I think is really worth exploring.
How are certain politicians declared disqualified, and whose interests are served by this framework, and specifically, who gets called crazy in our political discourse and why? [C]alling them crazy or declaring them too strange, too unhinged and too bizarre is … only wielded by the establishment against critics of the establishment.
In other words, establishment figures have all the space in the world to endorse the most deranged, the most unhinged, the craziest policies but as long as you’re in alignment with establishment orthodoxy, you will never be declared crazy, no matter how crazy those ideas are.
This is a tactic reserved only for those who question prevailing establishment orthodoxy … It’s a very potent and pervasive form of propaganda that requires our constant vigilance.
If we let our guard down at all, we’re all susceptible to being influenced by that … I think analyzing how this tactic is wielded, and how it manifested here, is of the utmost importance.”
Laymen Should Leave the Debating to Experts
Like Dore, Greenwald goes on to review several clips from Ball’s interview with Kennedy, followed by his own take on the exchanges. Here are select parts of Greenwald’s commentary in which I think he makes some valuable points:
“First of all, you can see that Krystal is explicitly acknowledging that she doesn’t have the same level of information and knowledge, she hasn’t devoted anywhere near the amount of time to this question as RFK, Jr. and for that reason, she’s explicitly saying, ‘I don’t want to actually engage with you on the merits.’
She keeps trying to switch the question to a political or punditry question of, well, look, right or wrong, there are a lot of Democratic voters out there who share my views, who think you’re wrong on vaccines. How do you intend to persuade them?
But he wants, rightly so, after having been accused of being wrong … to hear what the basis is for her view that he’s wrong, He wants to engage the substantive debate — that’s part of why he’s running.
And he goes on to say, after listening to her try and make the case, that she’s parroting establishment outlets, that she’s parroting what the health establishment and what health policy officials have just repeated over and over, to the point that I think even well-intentioned people like Krystal start absorbing it to be true. And this is what I think is such an important point.
In order to have a public platform where you opine strongly on vital issues, like whether the benefits of vaccines have been oversold, whether their harms and risks have been minimized and concealed, I really think you have an obligation to have that opinion be steeped in some very in-depth knowledge …
And so, if you’re going to come and tell Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to his face that he’s not only wrong when it comes to vaccine skepticism, but is so wrong that it’s crossed over this red line, then I think you have the obligation to be prepared to engage on the merits and to construct an argument …
He spent years working on this. Remember, RFK, Jr. was for 20 years or so a very widely regarded environmental activist working on issues of harmful waste by corporations and toxic dumping. He’s a very serious person. He is not some extremist or marginalized figure who just emerged out of the blue and started … talking about vaccines.
This is a very deeply developed view, which does not mean I agree with it. I don’t have the knowledge to agree with it or not. But what I know is this: health officials in the United States and in the West were proven to be not just wrong, but dishonest, repeatedly, throughout the COVID [pandemic] …
We also know that all kinds of claims about the Pfizer vaccine and other vaccines were false to the point of being just deceitful. There are famous clips of people they send to propagandize the public, Rachel Maddow and others, even Dr. Fauci himself, saying that the vaccine prevents transmission … something that turned out to be a complete lie …
So, whether I’m persuaded or not by what RFK, Jr. has to say about vaccines … I know for sure we benefit from having these questions debated. That’s the reason the DNC wants to pretend RFK, Jr. doesn’t exist.
They’re petrified of him for reminding Americans not only of how much we were deceived on almost every aspect of the COVID pandemic, including the vaccines, but how much damage it has done from all the policies that we enacted based on these false claims …
So, at the very least, I think that if you have a public platform, you have a responsibility to encourage and … foster debate on these most critical questions, especially when it comes from highly informed people who are challenging and dissenting from establishment orthodoxy, especially on debates where they have been proven over and over to lie and to be proven wrong.
So, Krystal Ball has every right to insist that she disagrees with RFK’s skepticism on vaccines, but … it’s a big jump to say I’m going to use the privilege and the responsibility I have with my public platform to opine on issues that I really haven’t done the work necessary to have a reliable opinion on.
I think the only default position there — if you’re going to comment on those issues without the sufficient knowledge — is to encourage skepticism. To say, I want to hear these debates. We need more transparency and [the] right to have these questions raised, rather than telling somebody that they’re not only wrong but so wrong that they’ve crossed a ‘red line.’
Which is completely in alignment with what the DNC is trying to do — to say that both Marianne Williamson and RFK, Jr. don’t even deserve to be heard, they don’t even deserve to be considered primary opponents to Joe Biden.
If you ask a DNC official, they’ll say it’s already done. Biden has no primary challenger; he’s our nominee, without a single vote being cast, without any debate being held, precisely because their strategy is to encourage people to believe that RFK, Jr. is … so wrong that no matter how much else you might like him on other issues … he shouldn’t be someone that you’re willing to get near; he crossed a red line.
This is the establishment tactic that I think Krystal Ball, in this case … [has] propagated … [H]ours of work on a question this complex is nowhere near enough to opine that emphatically, and to tell someone they’re off limits, that they’ve crossed a red line. So … I think it’s … illustrative of how this propaganda tactic functions, often implicitly.”
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 Health2023-06-03 05:49:092023-06-04 07:19:19VIDEO: How the Media Hopes to Silence RFK Jr.
Two Jewish conservative activists are pushing back against claims that criticizing left-wing billionaire financier George Soros is antisemitic by launching a new organization, Jews Against Soros, to oppose his efforts.
The Left frequently hurls accusations of antisemitism as a shield against criticism of Soros, so Newsweek writer Josh Hammer and Will Scharf, a candidate for state attorney general in Missouri, launched JewsAgainstSoros.com.
Soros’s role in funding anti-Israel activism is such that the Israeli government declared last year that criticism of him was not antisemitic. “George Soros,” the Israeli foreign ministry said in a statement, “…continuously undermines Israel’s democratically elected governments by funding organizations that defame the Jewish state and seek to deny it the right to defend itself.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently blamed Soros-funded groups for opposing Israel’s efforts to deport illegal aliens.
Hammer and Scharf note in a press statement announcing their organization: ”Attacking Soros for his influence on American politics, to say nothing of his nefarious agenda in Israel itself, isn’t antisemitic. It is simply a fact that Soros funds a huge portion of the radical left in this country. And he must be stopped.”
On July 13, 2020, OSF, in support of the Black Lives Matter movement and its allies, pledged to donate $220 million into initiatives designed to help “build power in Black communities, promote bold new anti-racist policies in U.S. cities, and help first-time activists stay engaged.” The pledge earmarked $150 million in five-year grants for black-led “racial justice” organizations, and $70 million for a range of initiatives such as helping city governments reform policing and criminal justice by implementing a new approach to public safety that includes “moving beyond the culture of criminalization and incarceration.” “This is the time for urgent and bold action to address racial injustice in America,” said OSF deputy chair Alex Soros, George Soros’s son. “These investments will empower proven leaders in the Black community to reimagine policing, end mass incarceration, and eliminate the barriers to opportunity that have been the source of inequity for too long.” Tom Perriello, executive director of Open Society-U.S., said: “The success of this movement, the largest in U.S. history, will be measured over years, not weeks, and we cannot say that Black lives matter and not make a multi-year commitment to a strategy set by and centering Black leaders and organizations who changed America’s sense of what is possible.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Discover The Networkshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDiscover The Networks2023-06-02 12:53:262023-06-02 12:55:46Jewish Conservatives Launch ‘Jews Against Soros’ to Counter Antisemitism Accusations
Like all animal species, the evolution and future of Homo sapiens (Latin for wise man) rests on two primal drives: First, to find sufficient food. Secondly, to find another Homo sapiens* with whom to procreate and thus ensure the survival of the species.
Males are Homo sapiens with both the X and the Y chromosomes. Females are Homo sapiens with two X chromosomes. Historically, males have been good at providing food and defending against predators, be they other species or other Homo sapiens. Many females are good at providing food but, due to generally smaller size, are less capable at defense. Females are the only Homo sapiens who can produce children, which is their unique contribution to the continued existence of Homo sapiens.
Nota bene: I labor to explain these facts because they must be lost on the CEOs of a handful of American corporations who want to advertise and sell products that run counter to the immutable forces of human evolution. Using store displays designed to encourage male children to become females and encouraging female children to become males is a business model doomed to fail. A fact illustrated by the steep drop in the stock value of the corporations that embark along the incomprehensible path of opposing Homo sapiens evolution.
But, in addition to the folly of opposing biological facts, there is the folly of flying in the face of long-held cultural norms. For example, most males want to prove themselves to be a “real” man who can provide food and procreation to “real” women. While “real men” want many things; rest assured, being seen as a “sissy” is not one of them. At the beach, the sissy gets sand in his face as the bully steals his only hot dog. Consequently, “real women” who want both food and children spurn the sissy. Ergo: No “real” man wants to be seen drinking a sissy beer.
We should not assume the CEOs who promote the “tranny-sphere” slept through Biology 101 and Psychology 101. Some could be the victims of the shakedown game perfected by race-baiters such as Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton, meaning: “Contribute! Conform! Or face a long series of costly lawsuits.” Alternatively, maybe they are committed to their own vision of how the world should work. Either way, they have fallen into the trap of setting up the classic cultural confrontation between “them” vs. “us.”
One suspects the usually harried Mothers of America would like to do their back-to-school shopping without having to navigate around racks of tranny-sphere specialty items hitherto found in specialty shops selling tattoos, nose rings, porn videos, and satanic costumes.
And so, here we are on the cusp a presidential election year in which the concerns of the vast majority “us” will be pitted vs. the concerns of the statistically minuscule “them.” As the classicist scholar Victor Davis Hanson puts it: “The Left is waging a full-fledged cultural revolution against traditional America.” With good reason, election results have become suspect. Therefore, the path this revolution will take is very much in doubt.
*Singular or plural, the spelling is always: Homo sapiens.
On Tuesday, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey (R) signed legislation prohibiting biological males who identify as transgender from competing in women’s college sports. The bill’s ratification marks the latest in a swath of legislation nationwide aimed at protecting fair play in women’s sports.
The Alabama law is the second measure enacted in the state in the last two years designed to protect female sports. In 2021, the Yellowhammer State put into practice legislation stating that girls’ sports in grades K-12 are limited to biological females.
According to Fox News, Alabama is one of 20 states nationwide that have put in place guidelines prohibiting biological males from competing in women’s sports in recent years. The wave of legislation comes as an increasing number of biological males are being allowed to compete in women’s sporting events, resulting in at least 30 women’s titles being claimed by biological men over the last 20 years, with the vast majority of those male wins occurring in the last four years alone.
“Look, if you are a biological male, you are not going to be competing in women’s and girls’ sports in Alabama,” Ivey said in a statement. “It’s about fairness, plain and simple.”
Alabama State Rep. Susan DuBose (R), the bill’s sponsor, was equally frank about the need for the legislation. “Forcing women to compete against biological men would reverse decades of progress that women have made for equal opportunity in athletics,” she said last month. DuBose went on to add that “no amount of hormone therapy can undo all those advantages” of being born male.
Still, some media outlets are claiming that the argument that biological male athletes have physical advantages over female athletes has “little basis in science,” as declared by the San Francisco Chronicle on Tuesday. But a 2020 study on transgender-identifying biologically male athletes found that even after two years of taking hormones to suppress their testosterone, they still retained a 12% advantage over female athletes in running tests. In a separate Canadian study that found similar results, the authors stated, “Testosterone suppression does not remove the athletic advantage acquired under high testosterone conditions at puberty, while the male musculoskeletal advantage is retained.”
A growing chorus of prominent women athletes and sportscasters have added their voices in support of fair play in women’s sports. In response to biological male transgender-identifying swimmer Lia Thomas’s claim that it’s “transphobic” to limit women’s sports to biological women, Grand Slam tennis champion Martina Navratilova was blunt: “NEWSFLASH Lia — it’s not fair. We shouldn’t have to explain it to you over and over. Also — stop explaining feminism to feminists.”
After ESPN commentator Samantha Ponder recently admitted that she has had “so many [people message] me, stop me in the street to say thank you [and] tell me stories [about] girls who are afraid to speak up for fear of lost employment/being called hateful,” USA Today’s Nancy Armour claimed Ponder was promoting “bigotry.” But ESPN colleague Sage Steele came to Ponder’s defense, tweeting, “Pathetic attack on a WOMAN who is simply fighting for WOMEN in sports … Stay strong @samponder ..this is a lonely fight, but it’s worth it.”
It appears that the fight is becoming less lonely, as another ESPN commentator, who has since left the network, acknowledged that “as a woman … [it] was huge slap in the face” that ESPN celebrated Lia Thomas during Women’s History Month. Meanwhile, Riley Gaines, a former championship swimmer for the University of Kentucky, has become the face of the growing movement to protect women’s sports.
Mary Szoch, director of the Center for Human Dignity at Family Research Council and a former NCAA Division I athlete, expressed support for Alabama’s bill protecting women’s collegiate sports.
“I am so grateful for the new Alabama law recognizing that it is unfair and unsafe for men to play women’s sports at the collegiate level,” she told The Washington Stand. “Sports are meant to teach life lessons, but when we allow men to play women’s sports, the only life lesson we’re teaching is that women will always come in second. I look forward to the day when all 50 states follow Alabama’s lead.”
The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2023-06-02 12:21:532023-06-02 12:31:01Alabama Bans Biological Men from Competing in Women’s College Sports
For those who didn’t know about the Target controversy already, they likely know now.
Forgiato Blow, nicknamed “Trump’s Nephew,” released a song about boycotting Target last week, and it is rapidly climbing the charts. Blow’s music video has at least 705,000 views on YouTube, and the song has been growing in popularity ever since its reveal. “Boycott Target” was ranked #1 for top songs according to iTunes Top 10 Music Charts U.S.A. and has been a headliner in the news this week.
“Boycott Target” was released as a response to Target’s inclusion of LGBTQ products and partnership with a Satanist designer earlier in May. There was a firestorm of backlash from conservatives. Many were upset at the inclusion of over-sexualized ideas in children’s books and children’s clothing. The idea of boycotting Target went viral on social media, and many well-known conservatives have championed the revolt.
Forgiato Blow is an American rapper who has written many songs to demonstrate his love for Donald Trump, America, and conservative ideals. He saw the Target controversy as an opportunity for a hit single, and he took it. Some of his song lyrics include, “Target is targeting your kids” and “We need a clean up on every aisle, inside this store Satan resides.” The music video is filmed inside of the department store, while Blow and other featured artists wave the controversial items at the camera, clearly articulating their views on the products.
While the uproar has been ongoing in the limelight for a few weeks now, this hit song has likely brought attention to a wider, younger audience. A recent Forbes study shows that 94% of Gen Z survey respondents say that music is important to their lives. In that same study, 40% say that music plays a role in shaping their social circle.
“Now that sites have ‘trending’ features, it’s an easy way for the same ideas to be planted in all our heads at the same time,” Zach Sprouse, Regent University student and Family Research Council intern says. “In a way, it’s a good idea to reach Gen Z through trending songs and posts, because most young people are way more likely to listen to the #1 song of the day rather than turn on the news.”
So, is it beneficial for politics to merge with modern arts to impress different ideas? Studies show that this is already happening. “We ought to just embrace it and use trending features to spread our objectives,” Sprouse concludes. Music and the arts are highly influential in modeling our perception of the world. Artists like Forgiato Blow understand the ripple effect of their music and will most likely continue pushing agendas in their work in the future.
The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2023-06-02 12:01:382023-06-04 07:16:40‘Boycott Target’ Rap Hits Number 1 on iTunes
The head of a facility that carries out so-called “gender-affirming care” has published a study confirming that transgender surgeries do not improve mental health and make people feel lonelier than those who avoided surgical intervention altogether.
“In our study, the level of life satisfaction in transgender people was not increased in transgender people who had undergone gender-affirming surgery as compared to those who were unoperated,” says a study published Tuesday in BMC Public Health, a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
“[O]ur data indicate that transgender and gender diverse people, who have undergone gender reassignment surgery feel lonelier” than transgender-identified people who have not elected to have surgery, finds a separate study by the same four researchers, originally published online May 11 in the journal Healthcare (Basel).
The researchers also reveal that people who identify as members of the opposite sex experienced greater isolation if they played sports. “[H]igher loneliness levels were significantly associated with … already having a gender reassignment surgery [and] more than 4 [hours] a week of sports activities,” as “compared to no sports activity.”
The German experts collected the data informing both studies from those seeking transgender surgery at a Hamburg surgical center. The respondents were “104 transgender people who had joined self-help groups to get and share information about the gender-affirming surgeries performed at the Division [Department] of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf.” The facility carries out such common transgender procedures as “labiaplasty” and “breast augmentation,” as well as “other surgical services.”
One of the authors of both studies, Dr. Marco Blessmann, has chaired that university’s plastic surgery department since its creation in 2014.
Both studies also list co-author Katharina Grupp’s affiliation as a member of Blessmann’s plastic surgery department (although the university website refers to her as a member of another surgical department; Blessmann’s department states that it collaborates with other departments).
The most recent study finds that people who identify as transgender have lower overall life satisfaction than the general population — and young people suffering from gender dysphoria have worse mental health than older people. Blessmann, et. al., found 31% of transgender-identifying people felt “dissatisfied” or “extremely dissatisfied” with life, while 17% said they were “satisfied” and just one percent felt “extremely satisfied.” People who identify as transgender were 1,290% more likely to describe themselves as “extremely” dissatisfied” than “extremely satisfied” with their lives.
Additionally, “higher levels of life satisfaction were associated with higher age. Previously, authors described that transgender youth was associated with disproportionally high rates of depression, anxiety, suicidality, and non-suicidal self-injury.”
“Such factors are known to be associated with lower life satisfaction,” the authors write.
The latest study, released two days before the beginning of LGBTQ “Pride Month,” is sure to provoke conversation as states debate SAFE Acts to protect minors from the transgender industry and internet searches for such terms as “am I gay” and “am I trans” have increased 1,300% in 19 years, even in the most conservative states.
The latest conclusions come as no surprise to experts. “This finding is sadly consistent with other studies,” Mary Beth Waddell, director of Federal Affairs for Family and Religious Liberty at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand. “One study showed that the suicide completion rate for those that had undergone surgery was 19 times higher than the general population.”
A study taken in transgender-friendly Sweden concluded, “Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population.”
Despite those studies, members of the transgender surgery industry often insist children will commit suicide unless parents agree to submit their children to life-altering surgeries. “A common tactic was for doctors to tell the parent of a [girl], ‘You can either have a living son or a dead daughter,’” explained Jamie Reed, a far-Left LGBT activist and whistleblower who worked for four years at The Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital.
Scientists have long known mental illness and gender dysphoria are correlated. “Clinical evidence suggests that schizophrenia occurs in patients with GID [gender identity disorder] at rates higher than in the general population and that patients with GID may have schizophrenia-like personality traits,” said a 2014 study. “Toxoplasma infection, reduced levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), early childhood adversity, and links with autism spectrum disorders, may account for some of this overlap.” A 2020 study found people who suffer from gender dysphoria are up to 636% more likely to have autism, as well.
“The only way individuals dealing with gender dysphoria will come to live happy, healthy, and authentic lives is by addressing the source of their dysphoria and pursuing healing,” Waddell told TWS. “Many of the individuals who identify as transgender do so because of trauma, abuse, adverse childhood experiences (which may or may not be traumatic), and other such reasons. Until these root issues are properly dealt with, these individuals will not be completely satisfied.”
Transgender-identified adolescents were more than twice as likely as to report childhood sexual abuse, 161% more likely to endure physical abuse, and 184% more likely to experience psychological abuse than their peers, according to researchers from the University of Pittsburgh. “Transgender adolescents (TGAs) exhibit disproportionate levels of mental health problems compared with cisgender adolescents (CGAs),” reported their 2021 study, published in the journal Pediatrics. “[R]esearchers should examine how more frequent experiences of abuse during childhood could contribute to disproportionate mental health problems observed within this population.”
The evidence shows the best thing parents can do for children questioning their biological identity is to prevent them from having permanently disfiguring surgeries or potentially sterilizing hormone injections. “Even the American Psychiatric Association, which supports gender identity ideology, acknowledges that a high percentage of children will desist from feelings of dysphoria if allowed to go through puberty naturally. This is why we need to pass legislation like the Protecting Children from Experimentation Act of 2023 and the End Taxpayer Funding of Gender Experimentation Act of 2023,” Waddell told TWS.
“Allowing children to go through the natural transitions of youth without interference allows them to come into their own and make wiser decisions about their future.”
The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2023-06-02 11:39:132023-06-02 11:42:42Transgender Surgery Leaves People Lonelier, Depressed: Study by Transgender Surgery Dept. Chair
ESG, or “environmental, social, governance” investing has become a pernicious threat to our free market.
Large financial institutions such as banks and fund managers are using the gigantic sums of other people’s money they control to push ideological agendas that have nothing to do with investing. Substituting a woke agenda for sound business practice constitutes fundamental breach of the fiduciary duty between investors and those they entrust to manage their funds.
This is institutional leftism at its worst.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall writes at the WSJ that, “America’s self-proclaimed ‘socially responsible’ financial institutions, which should be competing in the free market, are instead joining forces with one another and their global counterparts to decide which companies—and, in some cases, which industries—should be permitted to continue their market participation unimpeded… America’s self-proclaimed ‘socially responsible’ financial institutions, which should be competing in the free market, are instead joining forces with one another and their global counterparts to decide which companies—and, in some cases, which industries—should be permitted to continue their market participation unimpeded.”
The ability of banks and investment houses to cut off businesses from the capital they need to operate is an abuse of power.
CFACT is tacking the ESG threat head on. One tactic CFACT pursies is playing an active role in company shareholder meetings.
“Numerous states like Texas, South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana are pushing back against ESG criteria and taking action to divest from BlackRock. Why doesn’t BlackRock change course and repudiate the divisive nature of ESG criteria, admit it erred in ever getting involved with it, and move on?’”
This question, lumped together with similar ones at the meeting, forced Fink to dodge and filibuster. It’s clear he’s not used to being put on the spot by a conservative voices.
A few weeks before that I also got a chance to ask Bank of America CEO Bryan Moynihan this question: “The large number of shareholder proposals regarding climate change clearly indicates that Bank of America’s strategy of trying to appease the activists is not working. Why doesn’t Bank of America simply focus on maximizing value for shareholders and just ignore these people?”
Again, the CEO’s answer was evasive, but it was also defensive. This is a good thing. This kind of aggressive questioning and awareness raising is having an impact.
Governors and legislators are taking a stand against ESG investing. Shareholders are pushing back hard.
A series of left-wing energy and environmental proposals before the shareholders in recent Exxon and JP Morgan meetings CFACT took part in were shot down in flames.
The free market is the most efficient way to allocate financial resources known to man.
Companies must be allowed to innovate and compete in the free marketplace unimpeded by left-wing virtue-signaling by banks and fund managers.
For nature and people too.
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 Tomorrow2023-06-01 13:29:362023-06-01 13:29:36Fighting ESG all the way to the CEOs
Marc Morano comment on banning short airline flights:
“You were warned! This is what a climate lockdown looks like. This is what the Great Reset looks like. The climate agenda demands you give up airline travel, car travel, cheap reliable energy, and plentiful food. Net Zero goals are now dictating vehicle shortages to force more people into mass transit.
They’re going after your freedom of movement; they’re going after private car ownership, they’re going after everything it means to be a free person and turning it over to the administrative state.”
By: Marc Morano – Climate Depot – June 1, 2023 7:33 AM
France has banned domestic short-haul flights where train alternatives exist, in a bid to cut carbon emissions.
The law came into force two years after lawmakers had voted to end routes where the same journey could be made by train in under two-and-a-half hours.
The ban all but rules out air travel between Paris and cities including Nantes, Lyon and Bordeaux, while connecting flights are unaffected.
Critics have described the latest measures as “symbolic bans”.
Laurent Donceel, interim head of industry group Airlines for Europe (A4E), told the AFP news agency that “banning these trips will only have minimal effects” on CO2 output.
He added that governments should instead support “real and significant solutions” to the issue.
Airlines around the world have been severely hit by the coronavirus pandemic, with website Flightradar24 reporting that the number of flights last year was down almost 42% from 2019.
The French government had faced calls to introduce even stricter rules.
France’s Citizens’ Convention on Climate, which was created by President Emmanuel Macron in 2019 and included 150 members of the public, had proposed scrapping plane journeys where train journeys of under four hours existed.
But this was reduced to two-and-a-half hours after objections from some regions, as well as the airline Air France-KLM.
French consumer group UFC-Que Choisir had earlier called on lawmakers to retain the four-hour limit.
“On average, the plane emits 77 times more CO2 per passenger than the train on these routes, even though the train is cheaper and the time lost is limited to 40 minutes,” it said.
It also called for “safeguards that [French national railway] SNCF will not seize the opportunity to artificially inflate its prices or degrade the quality of rail service”.
The idea for the ban originally came from a Citizens’ Assembly.
France’s ban on short-haul domestic flights comes into force 23 May.
Under a government decree, any journeys that are possible in less than two-and-a-half hours by train cannot be taken as a flight.
France is also cracking down on the use of private jets for short journeys in a bid to make transport greener and fairer for the population.
Transport minister Clément Beaune said the country could no longer tolerate the super rich using private planes while the public are making cutbacks to deal with the energy crisis and climate change.
Which flights are now banned in France?
The law will mostly rule out air trips between Paris Orly airport and regional hubs such as Nantes, Lyon and Bordeaux.
Critics have noted that the cutoff point is shy of the roughly three hours it takes to travel from Paris to the Mediterranean port city Marseille by high-speed rail.
As rail services improve, more routes could be added such as those between Paris Charles de Gaulle and Lyon and Rennes as well as journeys between Lyon and Marseille. They currently don’t meet the criteria for the ban because trains to airports in Paris and Lyon don’t allow passengers to arrive early in the morning or late in the evening.
Connecting flights are unaffected by the new law.
Train services must meet certain conditions to replace flights
The new law specifies that train services on the same route must be frequent, timely and well-connected enough to meet the needs of passengers who would otherwise travel by air – and able to absorb the increase in passenger numbers.
In October 2021, Greenpeace demanded an EU-wide ban on any flights where the rail journey would take under six hours.
So how do you persuade people to take trains and coaches over planes? Well, one way is through banning short-haul flights outright, especially when there are valid bus or train alternatives. And that’s a route that several European countries have already taken – but could more follow suit?
A couple of years ago, a poll found that 62 percent of Europeans would support a ban on short-haul flights. In other words, banning them might not just be a good, environmentally-friendly policy. It could also be pretty popular.
Bloomberg News: Airlines must have enough emissions allowances to cover every metric ton of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere on flights starting and ending in the European Economic Area, the UK and Switzerland. … That is effectively going to double their carbon costs over just three years. … Over the next three decades, aviation has to transform itself from a polluting industry — planes are responsible for 2.5% of global CO2 emissions — to a net-zero one. …
Meanwhile, China is still planning to expand its network of airports from 241 (at the end of 2020) to 450 by 2035.
Via Net Zero Watch: “Airlines face an expensive and challenging few decades ahead as climate compliance laws get stricter. … It’s the new reality for flying as airlines face a huge decarbonization challenge and tightening climate-compliance laws… Airlines must have enough emissions allowances to cover every metric ton of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere on flights starting and ending in the European Economic Area, the UK and Switzerland.”
“Are we going to have to give up flying to save the planet? Many climate campaigners have been saying so for years, but now Sustainable Aviation – a trade body which represents the UK aviation industry – seems to agree, at least in the case of less well-off passengers.”
The UK aviation industry seems to have nodded along with the idea that some passengers are going to be priced out of the air…Today, it has published a ‘road map’ showing how the industry intends to decarbonise, in order to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 – in line with the government’s self-imposed, legally-binding target. It proposes that 14 per cent of emissions cuts will come from ‘demand reduction’ – i.e. potential passengers being put off flying by a rise in the price of airline tickets…The UK aviation industry seems to have nodded along with the idea that some passengers are going to be priced out of the air in order for Britain to reach its net zero target.
WaPo: A report suggests a novel way of curbing climate pollution from air travel: A global tax on people who fly the most, with the proceeds going toward research and development into sustainable aviation fuels…The report from the nonprofit International Council on Clean Transportation recommends a frequent flier tax that starts on the second flight each person takes per year, at a rate of $9. It would then steadily increase, reaching $177 for the 20th flight in a single year. … Although the authors didn’t attempt to include private jet travel, due to a lack of data, Zheng said that including a similar tax for those using private jets could further shift the burden to the world’s wealthiest consumers.
