Pro-Choice Is a Misnomer thumbnail

Pro-Choice Is a Misnomer

By Jerry Newcombe

Around this time of year, we remember the infamous Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade of January 22, 1973, which condemned some 65 million preborn people in America to death in abortions. Although Roe was overturned, abortion is very much a pressing issue today.

And it has been and continues to promoted in the name of “choice.” Pro-choice is a misnomer. Those who are pro-choice are in reality pro-abortion.

Although the proponents call themselves “pro-choice,” many studies indicate that the majority of women who have an abortion felt compelled to seek the procedure.

I spoke with Eric Scheidler of the Illinois-based Pro-Life Action League in a recent radio segment on this very topic.

He told me, “When someone tells me now that they’re ‘pro-choice,’ I say, ‘I’m glad to hear that because everyone should have the right to choose to become a parent.’ Then we get into the question of women having a right to motherhood taken away from them by those who are pushing abortion on them.” That includes, says Scheidler, the parents, the boyfriends, the employers, the politicians, and the abortion industry.

OB-GYN Ingrid Skop, M.D., wrote recently: “It is usually assumed that most women in the U.S. freely choose abortion and consider it to have been the best decision for them, all things considered. However, an expanding body of literature calls this assumption into question.”

Skop continues, “A recent peer-reviewed study conducted by [Charlotte Lozier Institute] scholars found that only one-third of abortions are ‘wanted.’ Nearly one in four described their abortion as ‘unwanted’ or ‘coerced.’ An additional 43% described the abortion as ‘accepted’ but ‘inconsistent with their values and preferences.’”

And she adds, “A majority, around 60%, said their preference would have been to give birth had they received more emotional support or had greater financial security….In another 2023 peer-reviewed survey, 61% of women reported “high levels” of pressure to abort.”

So much for choice. As Dr. D. James Kennedy once declared, “The only ‘choice’ the abortionists ever give anybody is ‘Tuesday or Friday? When do you want to have the abortion?’”

Meanwhile, there are crisis pregnancy centers out there doing the Lord’s work as they provide loving options for those seeking abortions. They provide real choice.

Yet these crisis pregnancy centers are often targeted by pro-abortion extremists. For example, on June 7, 2022, in Amherst, New York, the Compass Care crisis pregnancy center was firebombed, causing half-a-million dollars in damages.

I’ve interviewed Jim Harden, the president of Compass Care, about the destruction of his center and on other issues related to abortion. For this piece on how pro-choice is a misnomer, I asked him if he cared to give me a comment.

Harden said, “It is telling that a recent study revealed that nearly 70% of women are coerced to abort their babies….When a woman faces an unplanned pregnancy, she considers abortion because she feels trapped… like she has no choice. Mercenary abortionists masquerade as medical professionals to profiteer from this tragic reality” [emphasis his].

However, Senator Elizabeth Warren has the audacity to claim that these crisis pregnancy centers are “harmful” to women.

Harden continues, “Yet pro-life pregnancy centers help a woman with everything but abortion…for free. Pro-life pregnancy centers are the abortion industry’s only competition, delivering up to 2 million women nearly $358 million worth of free medical care and support every year. And while pro-abortion politicians get re-elected on the coat tails of abortion propaganda, it is the pro-life pregnancy centers that are empowering women with true informed consent and support.”

Thankfully, through the Lord, there is healing and forgiveness available for those who have had an abortion, by choice or otherwise. I saw a news item where a former female rock singer said she is very sorry for her three abortions, which she regrets deeply, but very grateful to God for His forgiveness.

Speaking of regrets, OB-GYN Vivina Napier, M.D. said recently: “In my years in practice, I have never met a woman who has expressed regret over giving birth to her baby, but I have met plenty who shared their regret for having abortions.”

Katie Daniels of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America says, “There is an abortion industry that makes billions of dollars killing children and hurting their moms, and that is who we’re up against. So we need to speak clearly and honestly about that reality while also contrasting our compassion for moms and babies.”

Our nation’s founders declared independence from Great Britain and dependence upon God. They said that our Creator has endowed us with certain inalienable rights, and that first among these is the right to life.

Real choice is as American as apple pie. But “pro-choice” only chooses one option—and a grisly one at that. America can do better than this.

©2024. Jerry Newcombe, D.Min. All rights reserved.

Social Media Goes Ballistic As Biden Speech Devolves Into Word Soup And Supporters Clap ‘Like Brainless Seals’ thumbnail

Social Media Goes Ballistic As Biden Speech Devolves Into Word Soup And Supporters Clap ‘Like Brainless Seals’

By The Daily Caller

Social media went ballistic after President Joe Biden gave a speech that devolved into a word salad bad enough to rival his vice president and yet his supporters clapped enthusiastically.

Biden, speaking alongside Vice President Kamala Harris at a rally in Virginia on Tuesday, tried to emphasize the issue of abortion heading into the 2024 race.

“We’ll teach Donald Trump a valuable lesson, don’t mess with the women of America unless you want to get the benefit,” Biden said, slurring the entire time and forcing people who are transcribing it to listen several times.

Yet for some reason, the crowd went BALLISTIC. Enthusiasm not seen since for Biden since, well, never.

But social media sleuths took Biden to task for his speech.

Greg Price, who does communications for the State Freedom Caucus Network and is also a former Caller employee, tweeted, “I love how nothing he said made any sense here yet the people still clapped and cheered like brainless seals.”

I love how nothing he said made any sense here yet the people still clapped and cheered like brainless seals.

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) January 23, 2024

Outkick’s Tomi Lahren challenged viewers to “caption this.”

Other users joked that “idiots just blindly cheer while Grandpa has a stroke on stage.”

Another user said, “Bosses in news companies are going to torture their least favorite employees by assigning them Biden subtitles duty.”

But perhaps the question shouldn’t be “what the hell did our president just say?”

Maybe we should start with something a little easier.

Mr. President, what is a woman?



News and commentary writer. Follow Brianna on Twitter.

RELATED ARTICLE: McDonald’s, Missiles & Marches: Biden’s Thursday Devolves Into All-Time Gaffe Reel


Liberating Canada: The Calgary Speech

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) January 25, 2024

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

Mann vs Steyn … and us. An exceptionally important trial just started thumbnail

Mann vs Steyn … and us. An exceptionally important trial just started

By John Droz, Jr.

Here is a super-brief outline of this VERY BIG deal – that will not be seen on mainstream media…

Dr. Michael E. Mann is a well-known climate activist. e.g., he was the person who invented the hockey-stick climate graph — which intentionally conveys alarmism.

Mark Steyn is a conservative, outspoken public speaker, writer, TV personality, etc. who has a keen interest in public policies, from COVID to climate.

About 12 years ago, Mark (per hereadded some comments to an internet post written by someone else. His observations drew a parallel between Jerry Sandusky (the disgraced Penn State football coach), and Mann (also a Penn State employee). Both Mann and Sandusky were investigated by Penn State’s administration in what Steyn characterized as a cover-up. Steyn also described Mann’s famous hockey stick temperature chart as fraudulent.

My understanding is that Mann subsequently told Steyn to retract his comments. However, Steyn refused, saying that what he wrote was accurate. Mann then said that he would sue Steyn if he didn’t retract, and Steyn said be my guest. This began the saga.

There are at least four fascinating aspects of this lawsuit:

  1. Mann’s contention is that this case is primarily about Science.
  2. Steyn’s position is that this is a trial primarily about Free Speech.
  3. Steyn is acting as his own lawyer (i.e. pro se), which is highly unusual.
  4. The case took 12 years to be heard, which seems to violate due process.

I could easily expand on any of those four issues, but for the sake of simplicity, I’ll focus on just the Science element.

Mann’s contention about Science is interesting, and (for multiple reasons) seems to be a very weak argument. E.g., it’s fascinating to note that, despite this being a high-profile case about a topic of paramount interest (climate change), it appears that not a single Science organization formally stepped forward to side with Mann! (See here.)

Also very interesting is that (earlier) the Judge denied Mann’s request for certain experts (some of his climate alarmist buds) to testify on his behalf. What is extremely fascinating is the Judge’s reason:

“Applying Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Daubert standard for scientific evidence, Judge Irving concluded that most of the proffered expert testimony was inadmissible because the experts failed to identify the methodology they used in reaching their conclusions about the contested statements… The methodologies of the expert must be grounded in the Scientific Method, such that another person with similar expertise could replicate them (Daubert 509 US at 591).”

That the Judge is looking for evidence that the Scientific Method is used in the alarmist’s climate arguments is extraordinarily significant, for at least two reasons: 1) alarmists contend that the Scientific Method is not applicable for assessing the validity of climate change claims, as climate is “too complicated,” and 2) as I have explained in earlier commentaries (e.g., here), progressives have specifically attacked the Scientific Method, so that it is no longer taught in almost any K-12 US schools (thanks to the acceptance of the progressive NGSS by some 49 states).

My unsolicited advice is for Steyn to take on Mann about Science. Starting with the definition of Science (“Science is a process”), to what is the main process (the Scientific Method). It’s a major asset that it already appears that the Judge is aware of, and is favorably disposed to, the Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method can be traced back some 4000 years (e.g., here) — and was heavily relied on by essentially every notable scientist in our history (Newton, Curie, Einstein, etc.). That progressives are trying to now throw it in the trash should indeed be vigorously challenged — and this seems like a superior venue.

Steyn should also make it clear that what Mann calls science is really political science. I can not overstate the significance of this distinction. We are inundated with activist scientists who arbitrarily discard the standards of real Science (the process), and substitute their own. Their rationale for this abrogation is the end justifies the means. This is relevant in this trial, as that appears to be exactly what Mann did with the hockey stick graph. (See this excellent detailed discussion about Mann’s graph.)

Mann and Greta Thunberg are birds of a feather. The most relevant difference is that Mann has significantly more academic credentials. He should know better as to what Science is, what the Scientific Method is, what Critical Thinking is, etc. What that translates to is that considering Mann’s dissipations, the sin is greater for him.

If Steyn plays his cards right, he has a superior opportunity to expose Mann’s turpitudes. Ideally, that in turn, could bring about a penitential response by Mann, to begin to make amends for the horrific influence his actions have had on the world, and on genuine Science.

The takeaway here is that Steyn is an odds-on favorite to win this case, based on the merits of either (or both) Science and Free Speech, plus the fact that the judge seems inclined to be serious about this, rather than play politics. Considering that Steyn is an eloquent presenter (see his strong opening statement), this should be savored…

Important — I do not personally know Mark Steyn. If any readers do, please have him contact me as I have some suggestions to help him win this case. I will not post them here for obvious reasons.

Some other sample references of interest:

Watch the Mann-Steyn Trial Live

Mann v. Steyn Finally Gets Under Way

The link between ‘defending Michael Mann is defending climate science’ seems to have been broken

Archive: Judge Strikes All of Michael Mann’s Expert Witnesses from Libel Suit

Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere

Day One in Court

Climate Trial of the Century

Go Get ‘Em, Mark!

Mann v. Steyn Goes to Trial After 12 Years

Mann v Ball: How Mann is Losing (an earlier interesting Mann lawsuit)

©2024. John Droz, Jr.. All rights reserved.

GOP Leader Urges Party: ‘Stop Using the A-word and Start Talking about Life’ thumbnail

GOP Leader Urges Party: ‘Stop Using the A-word and Start Talking about Life’

By Family Research Council

The closer we get to November, the more high-profile Republicans are admitting it: Silence isn’t selling on abortion. From RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel to the head of the House’s GOP fundraising arm, the cry to get off the sidelines on life is echoing off the walls of campaign headquarters. Lt. Governor Mark Robinson (R-N.C.) is the latest to join the chorus of conservatives, telling candidates to “stop being cowards and stand up for what you believe.” But know this first: the problem is as much about how the GOP is messaging as whether they do.

“I’m tired of talking about abortion,” the candidate for governor told reporters. The “a-word,” as he calls it, is what sent the party in a tailspin to begin with. “I’ve changed what I’m saying,” he told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. “Democrats, the leftists, they want everyone to say the word ‘abortion.’ They want our children to say it in schools. They want us to say it in our churches. They want politicians to say it on the floor of the House and on the floor of the Senate. They want me to say it. As the lieutenant governor, I’m bound and determined to stand up for what I believe in. And what I believe in [is] life — and it’s time for us to start using that word. This is an issue of life, about protecting life, and then about doing what we can to elect officials to make sure that once those lives come into the world, that they have life and have it more abundantly.”

His intentional shift raised the antenna of local media, who’ve started reporting that Robinson is trying to duck the issue now. Baloney, he replies. “They think that I’ve changed my position,” he said. “I have not changed my position.” Instead, he’s doing what he believes every pro-lifer should do: he’s changed the terms. “The subject is not abortion,” the lieutenant governor insisted, “the subject is life.” And that’s where conservatives need to debate.

Perkins nodded emphatically. The FRC president has also called for a shift in language, drawing America’s attention back to the unborn baby, not the procedure. Of course, that’s become more difficult, the “Washington Watch” host pointed out, since Republicans let Democrats define the terms when “so many were just silent.” Now, he shook his head, they’ve “started stuttering.” “We need to go out and tell people what we’re for. We are for protecting the unborn and preserving a culture of life in this country.”

Bringing the conversation back to life also extends an arm to women, Robinson wanted people to know. “… [W]hen I speak, I want to be that person who’s there, who’s understanding. I want to be the person who’s … not up on a platform telling the young woman why she can’t have an abortion. I want to be that person who’s coming down, putting my arm around that young woman who may find [herself] in crisis, and telling them why she doesn’t have to have an abortion… [and that] our folks as elected officials [are] going to fight hard to make sure that you can bring that child into the world — and not only bring that child into the world, but have a great life for that child, yourself, and your family.”

It’s exactly the kind of message he and his wife needed to hear when they were struggling with an unexpected pregnancy before they were married. “My wife and I chose the route of abortion years ago,” he admitted, “and I cannot tell you the immense pain, the solid pain that we went through for so many years over this issue. It was just this unspoken thing that hurt both of us very deeply. And we have always regretted it, almost to the point where we just couldn’t even speak to one another about it because it was so painful.” But the difficulty of reliving that choice hasn’t stopped Robinson from sharing what they’ve been through. “We want to tell those stories to young people.” In fact, “It’s because of this experience and our spiritual journey that we are so adamantly pro-life,” he’s said.

Since that conscious decision to open up about it, the Robinsons have been amazed to see “how God used that to reach so many people who felt the exact same way, to encourage them to keep going and to know the mistakes that they made are shared by so many of us.”

And the beauty of that, Perkins added, is that when you do share it, “Yes, there’s pain, there’s guilt — it still bothers you — but there’s forgiveness. And that’s the good news of Jesus Christ in the gospel message, is that we don’t have to carry that burden. We don’t want others to do it, but we don’t have to carry that burden any longer.”

That’s exactly right, the lieutenant governor agreed. “That’s one of the best things about giving your life to Jesus Christ, you know when Jesus forgives. It’s a forgiveness that you can feel down deep in your soul. … But I would definitely warn anyone, any young person out there, do not take this issue lightly. Do not take this issue lightly. It haunts, it hurts, and it causes deep emotional distress.”

But the abortion crisis didn’t start overnight, he pointed out, and Republicans can’t end it overnight. “Educating our young people is going to be crucial,” Robinson urged. “You want to empower a young person? Empower that young person to know the greatest thing that they can do for their future is hold control of their body and make sure that they’re not falling into those traps that popular culture is pushing so many of them into. That’s real empowerment. That’s real progress.”

That’s not a message North Carolina is hearing form its current governor, Perkins half-joked. Roy Cooper (D) has embraced the radical agenda of the Left on everything from abortion to transgenderism. And yet, his challenger says, “People love [my] message. They love it.” So what advice would he give conservatives who are running from the issue?

“The number one thing I would tell them to do is to stop listening to the bad reports of CNN, CBS, and ABC and all those news agencies that are using this issue to try to browbeat Christian, Bible-believing conservatives. That’s number one. The second thing that I would say is, quite frankly, stop being a coward and stand up for what you say you believe in. It’s time for the people of this nation to realize who we are.” Look, he said, “America’s survival is at stake” in this election. “We need to make our stands strong — and it starts with us standing up for what’s right.” Without apology.


Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: WHO Chief: Nations Must ‘Counteract Conservative Opposition’ to Abortion, Promote Transgenderism

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

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.

No Charges Filed Against Illegal Chinese Bio-Lab in California As New 100% Deadly Lab-Created Diseases Emerge thumbnail

No Charges Filed Against Illegal Chinese Bio-Lab in California As New 100% Deadly Lab-Created Diseases Emerge

By The Geller Report

We need answers as to what exactly was happening at the secret illegal Chinese bio lab found in California.

The lab was oozing with pathogens, housed “transgenic” mice, and even had a freezer labeled “Ebola.”

Yet the CDC did little more than shrug for months.

Robbie Starbucks:

An illegal lab was found in California with Malaria, Dengue Fever, Hepatitis, HIV and Ebola. It was run by a Chinese man named Jia Bei Zhu who came here illegally. He has said he wants to “defeat the American aggressor”.

Fox News says “A recent bipartisan congressional report determined Zhu received significant financial payments from China”

Yet no charges have been filed. Here’s where it gets even weirder…

There were so many chemicals and dangerous biological agents on site that hazmat contractors hired by the Feds have loaded up over 800 containers to remove all of it from the warehouse in Reedley, California.

So they’re investigating this right? Well… The FBI has known about this for over a year but they actually handed control of the case BACK to the local officials in Reedley and Fresno County. No, I’m not joking. Possible international terrorism is apparently a job for the local police so the FBI can focus on old ladies who may have gone to the Capitol on January 6th.

Not only that but Fox News broke details that key parts of the Dept of Homeland Security NEVER got involved in the case.

That’s bad right? Oh I’m not done yet.

What about the CDC? Last year, CDC microbiologists spent time in the lab and produced a report detailing everything in the warehouse but they failed to actually test the vials, including unlabeled vials.

From a Fox News story:

“Despite the probability that the unlabeled or coded vials contained additional unknown and dangerous pathogens, CDC officials refused to take any further investigative steps,” the report stated. It also claimed CDC officials failed to take “meaningful action” when presented with evidence that Ebola, classified at the highest level of concern, may have been present.”

Again, no one has been charged. Why?

• The severe national security risks posed by spies among 🇨🇳 students will cause long-term damage beyond academia.
• For example, Jesse Jia-Bei Zhu, the arrested actual controller of the illegal Chinese bio-lab in Reedley, California, has been to the University of British…

— Dr. Li-Meng YAN (@DrLiMengYAN1) January 17, 2024


Pamela Geller


Illegal, Secret Chinese Bio-Agent Lab In Calif Raided by FBI, CDC, INFECTIOUS BACTERIAL, VIRAL AGENTS Found MALARIA, RUBELLA, HIV, Chlamydia, E. Coli, Streptococcus Pneumonia, Hepatitis B and C, Herpes

Gavin Newsom’s Office Funded Illegal, Secret Chinese Biolab Found With Infectious Material, Viral Agents


Probe of Illegal Chinese Lab in California complete

— The Epoch Times (@EpochTimes) November 17, 2023

Why this happening? Should this really be taking place in China where they very likely had COVID-19 escape from a lab?

Does this scare anyone else?

— Ed Krassenstein (@EdKrassen) January 16, 2024


Remember that illegal Chinese biolab discovered in CA? The one conducting “risky” COVID research on “genetically altered” mice? What’re the odds it was working on this?👇

TODAY: “Chinese lab crafts mutant COVID-19 strain with 100% kill streak in HUMANIZED MICE”

— John Hasson (@SonofHas) January 17, 2024

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

Fauci Admits to Multiple COVID-19 Missteps during Closed-Door Hearing thumbnail

Fauci Admits to Multiple COVID-19 Missteps during Closed-Door Hearing

By Jon Miltimore

Editors’ Note: It is amazing to us that Dr. Anthony Fauci, the chief proponent of the “Great Covid Panic”, can give closed-session testimony, reveal his errors in judgement,  and so little consequence follows from those admissions. Here is a man who funded the research that set this plague loose on the planet, working hand in glove with the Chinese Communist Party. Once released, the response to the plague he created, trampled personal freedom, killed millions of people, disrupted our elections, divided our people, and even divided families over vaccine policy. In addition, it tanked the world economy, disrupted key supply chains, blew up the national debt, and propelled global inflation. Beyond that, he destroyed trust in medicine and public health officials. It is hard to think of a man more central to perhaps the most destructive chain of events, outside of military aggression.  Yet, he is still an eagerly sought guest on cable television, where he is treated with reverence. Early on, and even up through today, we can think of only one national leader who stood up to him, challenged his policies, and challenged the medical establishment that so meekly fell in line behind him. Great credit must be given to Senator Rand Paul (M.D.) of Kentucky, the most notable hero in this sordid mess. This brings up an important question: When and how are the perpetrators of the Great Covid Panic going to be held accountable?

Fauci’s recent congressional testimony held a surprising number of admissions.

Dr. Anthony Fauci sat down last week with the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. During a 14-hour session, the former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases was grilled by lawmakers on various subjects, including the origins of COVID-19, coerced vaccination, mask mandates, and the lost learning of students due to school closures.

Though the interview took place behind closed doors, parts of Fauci’s testimony were reported by media and lawmakers, offering various revelations — including the fact that Fauci said he was “not convinced” schoolchildren actually experienced learning loss during the pandemic.

An abundance of evidence contradicts Fauci’s belief, including research cited by Harvard Magazine showing “a significant decline” over the past three years in reading, math, and history, part of what the New York Times editorial board recently described as “the most damaging disruption in the history of American education.”

But put learning loss and Fauci’s denials aside for now. His admissions are damning enough.

Take “social distancing,” the idea that people had to be six feet apart from one another to be in public, a ritual virtually all of us participated in at one time or another to grab a bite to eat at our local restaurant. Fauci admitted to lawmakers that the policy was basically a charade, something that “sort of just appeared” and lacked scientific basis.

Or take the unintended consequences of the coercive vaccine policies Fauci advocated and governments initiated at the federal, state, and local levels. Fauci, who privately told officials that “it’s been proven that when you make it difficult for people in their lives, they lose their ideological bulls*** and they get vaccinated,” conceded that the coercive vaccine policies he advocated likely increased vaccine hesitancy. (The evidence suggests he is probably right.)

And then, there was the hypothesis that COVID-19 emerged from a lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where the government of the United States was funding risky gain-of-function research. Fauci initially laughed off the possibility that COVID-19 could have emerged from the lab, calling it “molecularly impossible.” (The U.S. government also collaborated with social media companies to censor users who speculated that COVID-19 could have emerged from the institute.)

Fauci now concedes that the lab leak hypothesis was not a conspiracy theory, according to congressional lawmakers.

In summary, Fauci admitted he pushed COVID-19 protocols that lacked scientific rigor, advocated coercive vaccine policies to disrupt people’s lives that likely fueled vaccine hesitancy, and unjustly smeared millions of people as conspiracy theorists for hypothesizing on a COVID-19 origin story that the FBI now admits is likely true.

These admissions are damning, and hopefully, they mark the beginning of a much larger mea culpa from Fauci and his longtime superior, Dr. Francis Collins, the previous director of the National Institutes of Health.

In a little-noticed interview last summer, Collins also admitted “mistakes,” explaining that in public health, officials often take a very narrow view of the trade-offs of health policies.

“You attach infinite value to stopping the disease and saving a life,” Collins said. “You attach zero value to whether this actually totally disrupts people’s lives, ruins the economy, and has many kids kept out of school in a way that they never might quite recover from.”

Collins is not wrong. This is one of the most basic lessons in economics: There are no solutions to complex problems, just trade-offs. That’s why sensible economists raised objections to the “if it saves just one life” mantra early in the pandemic.

“Rational people understand this isn’t how the world works. Regardless of whether we acknowledge them, trade-offs exist,” political scientist James Harrigan and economist Antony Davies wrote in April 2020. “And acknowledging trade-offs is an important part of constructing sound policy.”

Harrigan and Davies were hardly alone. Many economists and public health officials recognized this truth in 2020. But instead of listening or opening a dialogue to craft sensible solutions, Collins and Fauci plotted a “take down” of them. This is not how science operates. Nor is it how public policy should be conducted.

This brings me back to Fauci’s recent congressional testimony.

The fact that Fauci is finally beginning to fess up about the role his policies played in one of the worst disasters in modern history is welcome news. But a two-day closed hearing is not sufficient for something of this magnitude or the allegations facing Fauci, which include an alleged attempt to influence the CIA’s report on the origins of COVID-19.

Fortunately, a public hearing is expected to take place in the coming weeks or months. Let’s hope lawmakers, Democrats and Republicans alike, are prepared to ask important questions.


This article was published by FEE, Foundation for Economic Education, and is reproduced with permission.


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

China Bioengineers Deadlier Coronavirus thumbnail

China Bioengineers Deadlier Coronavirus

By Family Research Council

Researchers associated with the Chinese military have bioengineered a COVID-related coronavirus (GX_P2V) that “can cause 100% mortality” in lab mice modified with human DNA, according to a “preprint” — a not-yet-reviewed paper — posted online on January 4. The development “is sure to remind many of the Wuhan lab incident,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins warned on “Washington Watch,” as the Chinese research team underscored the “spillover risk of GX_P2V into humans.”

After modifying a coronavirus found in a Malaysian pangolin, researchers were surprised that “all the mice that were infected with the live virus succumbed to the infection within 7-8 days post-inoculation, rendering a mortality rate of 100%.”

The laboratory test was designed and conducted by “researchers from the Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Soft Matter Science and Engineering and the Research Center for Clinical Medicine of the Fifth Medical Center of PLA (the People’s Liberation Army) General Hospital,” according to The New American.

The researchers “detected significant amounts of viral RNA in the brain, lung, turbinate [nose], eye, and trachea [throat],” with a “severe brain infection during the later stages of infection” being the most likely cause of death, in their opinion. By Day Seven, “the mice displayed symptoms such as piloerection, hunched posture, and sluggish movements, and their eyes turned white.”

“It is possible,” they admitted, that the modified coronavirus strain “has undergone a ‘virulence-enhancing mutation.’”

“This paper demonstrates that gain-of-function research on SARS-related viruses continues,” declared Dr. Robert Malone, chief medical and regulatory officer for The Unity Project, who emphasized “the risks of such research” and “the need for robust and verifiable restrictions.”

Rutgers University chemist Richard Ebright observed that “The preprint does not specify the biosafety level and biosafety precautions used for the research.” The absence of this information concerned him that “part or all of this research, like the research in Wuhan in 2016-2019 that likely caused the Covid-19 pandemic, recklessly was performed without the minimal biosafety containment and practices essential for research with a potential pandemic pathogens [sic].”

Malone called the research “alarming” and “deeply troubling” during an appearance on “Washington Watch,” lamenting that Chinese researchers “seem to have learned nothing” after the COVID-19 pandemic likelyoriginated from a lab leak. “This is quite alarming,” Perkins agreed, “given the fact that we know what happened last time.”

“Why would we be doing these types of research, especially given what happened with COVID-19?” Perkins asked.

Researchers rationalize their gain-of-function research with “contrived logic,” Malone responded. “‘Dual function research’ is what it’s technically called because it can be used for weapon purposes or for research and discovery purposes,” he said. Scientists believe that, if they “meddle about with these viruses and demonstrate ways that they can become more lethal, then they can anticipate that happening in nature,” he described.

However, Malone added, “clearly, what we’ve learned over the last four years is that that’s not sufficient to justify the risk to the global population.”

“I would think that, at some place, ethics would come into this,” Perkins responded. “Maybe there might be a remote chance that we … get ahead of [the next pandemic].” But he suggested that possibility seems insignificant “when you weigh the risk with … the fact that people will die if it leaks, like many suspect it did last time.”

Malone responded that, for some researchers, the ethic is a lack of any. “I can’t get into the minds of the people that are doing this,” he said. “But there is an ethic that if things can be done, they should be done. It is rampant in this research environment, in this research culture, that these scientists often believe that they’re the best and the brightest, and they’re entitled to do this.” Perhaps we can call it, “the Fauci Affect.”

Of course, not every virologist is so irresponsible. “It’s a terrible study, scientifically totally pointless,” asserted University College London infectious disease expert Professor Francois Balloux. “I can see nothing of vague interest that could be learned from force-infecting a weird breed of humanized mice with a random virus. Conversely, I could see how such stuff might go wrong.”

It’s relevant to note here that the communist Chinese research team’s study was not entirely devoid of an ethical framework. Their paper even included this “Ethics Statement:”

“All animals involved in this study were housed and cared for in an AAALAC (Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care) accredited facilities. The procedure for animal experiments (IACUC-2019-0027) was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the Fifth Medical Center, General Hospital of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, and complied with IACUC standards.”

They weren’t very concerned about the possibility that their genetically mutated virus will escape the lab and kill millions of human beings. But they were very eager to inform their audience that their mutated lab mice were imprisoned humanely — before they infected them with a disease that caused the subjects to die slow and painful deaths. How comforting to the conscience.

“There needs to be a global ban on this type of research and development activity. It’s clearly not safe, and those that are performing it clearly have few, if any, ethical boundaries,” said Malone. Retired Stanford professor of medicine Dr. Gennadi Glinsky concurred. “This madness must be stopped before [it is] too late.”

One problem is, “we’re talking about the CCP [Chinese Communist Party]. So, their ideas of what is justified are not aligned, let’s say, with classical Western thought,” Malone said wryly. University of Michigan molecular biologist Dr. Christina Parks described the Chinese study as “classic gain-of-function, whether they tell you it is or not.”

As one more exhibit in a fistful of reasons not to trust the Chinse Communist Party, congressional investigators recently learned that Beijing had largely mapped out COVID-19’s genetic sequence two weeks before sharing it with the rest of the world. Dr. Lili Ren of the CCP-affiliated Institute of Pathogen Biology submitted the virus sequence to a U.S.-run genetic database on December 28, 2019; China did not share the virus sequence with the WHO until January 11, 2020. However, the NIH deleted it from the database after Ren failed to respond to questions about technical details. Reading between the lines, we can guess the reason why a scientist in China would suddenly become quiet about information inconvenient to the state.

However, another problem is, our own government is too often complicit in China’s unethical research. For the Chinese Communist Party, who seem to have little to no regard for human life, to engage in such monstrous research is one thing. “But we, as Americans, by and through our government, should be nowhere in the neighborhood,” insisted Perkins. If “we’re funding [gain-of-function research], … we bear responsibility as a nation.” We can’t change the evil nature of the CCP; we can change our participation with it.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) were deeply involved, through an American research consortium called EcoHealth Alliance, in funding research projects at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), including gain-of-function research with coronaviruses similar to Sars-Cov-2, the viral strain which sparked the COVID-19 pandemic. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), NIH’s parent agency, debarred the WIV in 2023 due to its poor safety practices, but NIH still contract with EcoHealth Alliance, which is currently pursuing research related to Ebola-like viruses and noroviruses.

For Dr. Malone, the only explanation for this behavior was moral, not scientific. “We’re in a post-truth environment,” he said. “We seem to also be in a post-ethical environment for a large segment of our government. It’s driven by other considerations — you know, ‘realpolitik,’ — Henry Kissinger’s world rather than the logic of the United States as the ‘shining city on the hill’ and the ethical beacon for the world.”

For Perkins, Malone’s analysis explained more problems than just some foolish funding on virus research. Rather, it penetrated to the heart of the blight infecting politics across the board. “We live in a post-truth culture,” Perkins reiterated. “I mean, how else can you come up with the failure to recognize what science and biology tells us [about gender]? … [Y]ou talk about ‘deniers.’ These folks are deniers. They’re deniers of truth.” The same theme carries through the intellectual dishonesty recently exposed at the highest levels of academia and the media.

Paul warned his mentee Timothy of a coming time “when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths” (2 Timothy 4:4). He could have been describing our own time and place.

“We have to stand firm for truth,” said Perkins, “lest our children be carried away in this ungodly culture, this godless culture that is being advanced.”

Meanwhile, global elites have gathered this week in Davos, Switzerland, where World Health Organization (WHO) Secretary-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus led a panel on “Preparing for Disease X.” But, instead of suggesting foolish scientists abandon their useless and risky research, WHO is pushing for a global pandemic treaty that would vastly expand their power at the expense of national sovereignty, free speech, and the right to life.

“It’s almost as if the WHO’s working in concert with the CCP,” suggested Perkins. “They’ve got a hand grenade with their finger on the pin saying, ‘Approve this treaty,’ because this [potential deadly virus] is out there.”


Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED VIDEO: Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green Holds Hearing on Injuries Caused by Covid-19 Vaccines

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

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.

VIDEO: Tucker Carlson on the Transgender Line of Attack on Civilization and Reality thumbnail

VIDEO: Tucker Carlson on the Transgender Line of Attack on Civilization and Reality

By Vlad Tepes Blog

This is on someone named, Yen Vy’s YouTube channel so there is no way to know when this was actually broadcast. Rather, there is a way to know but I don’t know when it was broadcast.

Below is our favorite video explaining the nature of the Trans lie.

An explanation of how the trans-issue is a Marxist dialectic attack

Yeah, it’s the usual suspects. If a bunch of us were to sit around a table at a restaurant with a few drinks and a meal and take our time, several hours, and the only topic of discussion was, ‘what would be the most outrageous lie we could foist on the public’, it would have to be that a man who claimed he was a woman, was in fact a real woman.

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column with videos posted by Eeyore is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Unrestricted Immigration Is a Real Problem thumbnail

Unrestricted Immigration Is a Real Problem

By Steven Camarota

Pretending it’s not happening will only make the consequences worse

The Biden administration’s continuing effort to conceal or lie about the historic rates of immigration into the country is fast becoming a crisis in its own right—a socially-toxic version of The Emperor’s New Clothes. “It’s not unusual,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre casually remarked in late December, a month that saw the highest number of recorded migrant encounters in U.S. history. The Department of Homeland Security finally disclosed last Friday that more than 2.3 million migrants have been released into the country during the administration’s time in office.

From Biden’s inauguration in January 2021 to October 2023, the foreign-born population increased by an average of 137,000 per month—double the monthly average under Barack Obama and triple the rate under Donald Trump before COVID. If current rates continue, there could end up being some 12 million encounters by the end of Biden’s first term—equal to the entire populations of New York City and Los Angeles combined.

The attempt to convince Americans not to worry about or even discuss the most consequential public policy issue facing our country cannot be healthy for American society or American democracy. Census Bureau data from October show that the total number of foreign-born immigrants (legal and illegal) in the U.S. has now reached nearly 50 million, amounting to 15% of the total current U.S. population. Both the total number of immigrants and their percentage of the U.S. population are also new records in U.S. history.

The enormous scale of immigration over the past three years has implications for nearly every aspect of American society—from public coffers, to labor markets, to the balance of political power, to culture. The rate of increase has been so fast that it appears to have already made the new Census Bureau population projections, published just two months ago, obsolete. The bureau projected on Nov. 9 that the foreign-born share of the U.S. population would not hit 15% until 2033. And yet here we are.

By comparison, the 15% foreign-born mark reached in October 2023 is higher than the prior record of 14.8% set in 1890, during what is often called the Great Wave of immigration. World War I and restrictive legislation in the early 1920s caused immigration to fall significantly. The law was reformed in 1965 to allow in more immigrants, but even in 1970 the foreign-born still comprised less than 5% of the total population—less than one-third of current levels.

The foreign-born number and share are higher now than at any time in American history

The long-term growth in the foreign-born population primarily reflects legal immigration. In the 1970s, new green card holders (permanent residents) averaged roughly 400,000 per year, but immigration tends to build on itself. By the 1980s the U.S. was welcoming 600,000 new permanent residents per year. Recipients of the 1986 amnesty for illegal immigrants began to sponsor their relatives after a few years, stimulating more legal immigration. Legislation in 1990 increased legal immigration even further, and since the mid-1990s we have handed out about 1 million green cards per year.

Many illegal immigrants come to join their legal friends and family already here, and many native-born Americans are born to parents who immigrated illegally. It is therefore common for legal and illegal immigrants to live in the same household. As a result, many of the top source countries for legal immigration are also the top ones for illegal immigration.

The decision by certain universities not only to refrain from suspending foreign students who endorse or espouse the activities of foreign terrorist organizations like Hamas, but to also actively scrub the internet in order to protect the identities of these students—who in many cases are violating the conditions of their visas—should be viewed in part against this reality: Namely, it is paving the way for some foreign nationals, who by law are inadmissible, to remain indefinitely in the U.S., as part of a wave of immigration being encouraged from above, by federal authorities who have simply decided to no longer enforce existing laws, and in doing so to change the character of American society in ways that the administration seems unwilling to even begin to explain or discuss.

While legal immigrants make up most of the growth in the foreign-born population since 1965, the recent surge under Biden appears to be driven primarily not by legal but by illegal immigration. Since Biden took office, there have been 1.6 million “got-aways” at the border—individuals seen entering illegally but not stopped. That is three or four times the pre-COVID annual rate.

The sheer number of people stopped at the border or at ports of entry has been enormous. From January 2021 to October 2023 there have been nearly 8 million “encounters” of aliens not authorized to enter the country at U.S. borders and ports of entry, though in some cases it is the same person being stopped more than once. Encounters include individuals who are stopped at ports of entry, including at border entry points and interior U.S. airports, and those apprehended after crossing the border illegally, some of whom request asylum. Many of those encountered are subsequently let go within the United States…..


Continue reading this article at Tablet Magazine.


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

GOP Experts Warn Candidates to Stop Treating Abortion ‘Like a Hot Stove’ They Won’t Touch thumbnail

GOP Experts Warn Candidates to Stop Treating Abortion ‘Like a Hot Stove’ They Won’t Touch

By Family Research Council

Nobody likes a wimp — and on the issue of abortion, the Republican Party has plenty of them. After the Dobbs ruling put the issue back in legislators’ hands, a shocking number of GOP candidates spent the 2022 and 2023 elections cowering in the collective corner, hoping voters would take their silence as confirmation that they had a reasonable position on life (despite the Democrats’ 24/7 ads to the contrary). Now, staring down a high-stakes November where this issue has the potential to upend all of the GOP’s momentum, more voices are urging the party to get off the sidelines and fight.

National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) was the latest to demand more guts from candidates. “You need to tell voters your position [on abortion],” argued the head of the House’s Republican fundraising arm. The idea that conservatives can continue letting the Democrats mischaracterize their positions is a losing recipe for 2024, he insisted. It’s time to stop being scared and start getting aggressive, Hudson urged.

“[Our candidates] need to articulate their position to the voters,” he pointed out, “because [right now] the voters think the Republican position is like, ‘We’ll throw you in jail if you get an abortion.’” And unfortunately, that lie has become the perceived reality in the face of very little GOP pushback. “We could have done a better job handling [abortion] last cycle,” Hudson lamented, “where the Democrats spent hundreds of millions of dollars on that topic, and we pretty much just treated it like a hot stove and didn’t touch it.”

And this year, Joe Biden’s party is betting even more money on the topic — an unsurprising move for leaders with nothing to run on but three years of catastrophe. Already, one of the Left’s super-PACs has pledged an eye-popping $200 million on television, social media, radio, and mail advertisements focused on the GOP’s supposedly “radical” position on life.

“Another Donald Trump presidency would mean disaster for Americans who value their rights,” the founder of America Bridge 21st Century said. “We know exactly how to beat Donald Trump. We’ve done it before, and our paid media strategy is a big part of how we’re going to do it again.”

What Democrats are careful not to say — and what Republicans should begin to — is their actual position on abortion. That, strategists say, is where conservatives have a powerful edge. “Republicans don’t have a policy problem,” Hudson insisted. “We have a branding problem,” Hudson said. “We need to point out that the Democrat position is abortion for any reason, up until the moment of birth, paid for by taxpayers. That’s extreme.”

Family Research Council Vice President Brent Keilen agreed that the GOP’s silence created “a huge messaging disadvantage.” “Attempting to avoid this conversation — a conversation that was and is on many voters’ minds — allowed the opposition to completely set the terms of the debate,” he told The Washington Stand. “Candidates should make sure to do two things: first, let the voters know where you stand; second, draw a contrast with what the radical abortion lobby is actively pushing for.”

Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel has been beating that drum since Dobbs. “We shouldn’t be silent,” she insisted late last year. “Listen, we’re proud to be a party that stands for the unborn. And I think coming out of Roe, after 50 years of … people not having to navigate this issue, it’s really important that we define ourselves before the Democrats do. Let’s talk about pregnancy [care] centers. Let’s talk about getting rid of cumbersome regulation to adoption. But let’s also put the Democrats on the defense because they stand for late-term abortion. They stand for gender-selection abortion.”

“I will work alongside every single candidate,” McDaniel vowed, “but Democrats have nothing to run on except for abortion, and they spent $350 million on it in 2022. They are going to use the same playbook in 2024, and our candidates need to get up to speed and be able to go on TV and articulate where we stand — because when we do, we win.”

If they need motivation, check out the polling data. “The first step in addressing the public perceptions of Republicans’ stance on abortion restrictions is to get a handle on the basics,” urged Amanda Iovino, polling director for Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin’s 2021 campaign. “Americans generally favor some limits on abortion. As an October 2022 WPA Intelligence poll found, by a two-to-one margin, voters see no restrictions on abortion as ‘more extreme’ than limiting it with exceptions for rape, incest, and the mother’s life.”

In a country as divided as ours, that’s as close to a statistical slam-dunk as you can get. Another August 2022 survey from the same group discovered that “62 percent of likely voters support limiting abortion to 15 weeks or earlier, similar to the European standard.” This is the line of public consensus that Republicans like Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have been urging the GOP to draw — with surprising pushback from fellow pro-lifers.

“If we can’t muster the courage, post-Dobbs, to tell the country that we’re against late-term abortion, then we’ve lost our way,” he’s argued. That doesn’t mean, Graham has said, that states can’t be more restrictive. If Arkansas or Louisiana want to outlaw abortion entirely, they can. But there also needs to be a clear, nationwide boundary, Graham argued, so that children in extreme places like California, Illinois, or Maryland have a fighting chance. So “at 15 weeks, we draw the line as a nation. [That’s a] minimum federal standard.”

It’s also a strong public preference, Iovino pointed out. But for Republicans to seize on this support, they have to also realize the mountain of misconceptions they’ll have to climb — the tragic result of months of Republican silence on the issue. “The same poll found that 44 percent of Americans mistakenly thought the Supreme Court has outlawed abortion nationwide, and half of those voters think Republicans also want to ban contraceptives. This misinformation makes it easier for Democrats to foster distrust towards Republicans.”

Americans witnessed that first-hand in Virginia and Ohio, where radical abortion won on the ballots by popular vote — stunning states that had made positive pro-life strides. “Heading into the 2024 cycle, the Republican Party must craft clear, effective messaging to counter misinformation and rebuild trust,” Iovino warned. “… The lessons for the GOP from Virginia and Ohio are clear: prioritize policies that support women and directly confront trust issues and misinformation.”

One of the first things a candidate learns, FRC Action Director Matt Carpenter pointed out to TWS, “is to not allow your opponent to define you on an issue.” “Issues don’t just go away because a campaign refuses to engage,” he warned. “In fact, if Republicans don’t engage, a vacuum emerges, one that pro-abortion forces are happy to fill. They want the issue to be about removing someone’s rights when in reality what we’re really talking about is protecting unborn lives. Chairman Hudson’s advice is solid — candidates need to tell the voters where they stand.”

The stakes are too high not to.


Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

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.

Here’s Why the Florida Surgeon General Wants to Halt COVID Shots thumbnail

Here’s Why the Florida Surgeon General Wants to Halt COVID Shots

By MERCOLA Take Control of Your Health

  • With shockingly little data, questionable benefits and a high likelihood of adverse events, the continuing campaign for COVID-19 shots raises many red flags
  • The documentary “The Unseen Crisis,” detailed by investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson, scratches the surface of the many lives ruined by COVID-19 shots
  • For every 1 million shots, an estimated 1,010 to 1,510 serious adverse reactions, such as death, life-threatening conditions, hospitalization or significant disability may occur — but only about 75 hospitalizations would be prevented among those aged 18 to 49
  • Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo has called for an end to the use of COVID-19 mRNA shots, citing concerns about DNA fragments in the products
  • The FDA provided no evidence that appropriate DNA integration assessments have been conducted on mRNA COVID-19 shots; in a statement, Ladapo says, “DNA integration poses a unique and elevated risk to human health and to the integrity of the human genome”

As the number of people injured by COVID-19 shots rises, U.S. health officials continue to advise Americans to get more doses. Neither the U.K. nor Australia recommend repeated COVID-19 jabs for those who are under 65 and low risk.1 But in the U.S., official guidance suggests virtually everyone should get multiple COVID-19 shots, beginning at just 6 months of age.2

With shockingly little data, questionable benefits and a high likelihood of adverse events, the continuing campaign for COVID-19 shots raises many red flags. “The only clear winners are Moderna and Pfizer … they have convinced the CDC and the FDA that perpetual COVID vaccination is necessary without robust data,” writes Dr. William Ward in Sensible Medicine.3

The documentary “The Unseen Crisis,” detailed by investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson in the video above, scratches the surface of the many lives ruined by COVID-19 shots — and the ongoing efforts to keep their stories quiet. Meanwhile, Americans are expected to keep rolling up their sleeves, no questions asked.

Benefits and Risks of COVID-19 Shots Don’t Measure Up

After pushing multiple doses of COVID-19 shots on the American public for years, in September 2023 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced the rollout of the updated 2023-24 COVID-19 shot. “CDC recommends everyone 6 months and older get an updated COVID-19 vaccine … Vaccination remains the best protection against COVID-19-related hospitalization and death.”4

While the updated shot boosts antibody levels against new COVID variants, there’s no proof that this translates to a reduction in severe illness and death. Further, the CDC’s estimated benefits from the updated shots were paltry at best. According to Ward, for every 1 million COVID-19 shots given in the following age groups, the following benefits were estimated:5

  • 6 months to 4 years — Avoid 103 hospitalizations
  • 5 to 11 years — Avoid 16 hospitalizations
  • 12 to 17 years — Avoid 19 to 95 hospitalizations, five to 19 ICU admissions and “perhaps one death”
  • 18 to 49 years — Avoid 75 hospitalizations

Meanwhile, randomized controlled trials estimate the risks of COVID-19 shots are much higher.6 For every 1 million shots, an estimated 1,010 to 1,510 serious adverse reactions, such as death, life-threatening conditions, hospitalization or significant disability, may occur.7 When compared to the flu shot, data from the European Medicines Agency Eurovigilance Database shows that COVID-19 shots cause more:8,9

Allergic reactions Arrhythmia
General cardiovascular events Coagulation
Hemorrhages Gastrointestinal, ocular and sexual organs reactions

A real-world case-control study from Israel10 also revealed that the Pfizer COVID-19 jab is associated with a threefold increased risk of myocarditis,11 leading to the condition at a rate of 1 to 5 events per 100,000 persons.12

As Ward points out, the CDC often states the risk of myocarditis is greater after COVID-19 infection than COVID-19 shots, but a JAMA Cardiology study refutes this. It found a higher rate of myocarditis in young men after a COVID-19 shot compared to COVID-19 infection.13,14 But by ignoring the real risks while continuing to push ongoing shots, health officials are quickly losing the public’s trust. Ward notes:15

“A large randomized trial to simultaneously evaluate the ongoing harms and benefits of boosters should be enacted. This was not required by the FDA for the newest vaccine. Instead, the FDA only required Pfizer to study the new vaccine on 10 mice. Moderna only studied theirs on 50 humans. One person (2%) had a serious adverse reaction.

… As the only country pushing boosters to healthy 6-month-old infants, we better produce the best data in the world. Instead, we get antibody titers from 10 mice. The CDC and FDA are whittling away at public trust by forgoing their duty to protect and inform. Meanwhile, their recent actions are aligned with the financial interests of Pfizer and Moderna. Consent to perpetual COVID boosters is not informed, it is manufactured.”

Past COVID Boosters Quickly Stopped Boosting

The updated COVID-19 shot targets the XBB.1.5 Omicron subvariant, which was the dominant strain in the U.S. for much of 2023. However, this strain “has since been overtaken as the virus continues to evolve,”16 raising questions about whether the “updated” shots are already out of date, which could render them ineffective, as we’ve seen many times in the past with flu shots and COVID-19 shots.

Even the CDC states, “When flu vaccines are not well matched to some viruses spreading in the community, vaccination may provide little or no protection against illness caused by those viruses.”17 SARS-CoV-2 is known to mutate rapidly, even faster than other human viruses like influenza.

Remember the last round of “updated” COVID-19 shots — the bivalent booster? They’re no longer available. “The 2022–2023 bivalent vaccines were designed to protect against the original virus that caused COVID-19 and the Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5. These vaccines were replaced with the 2023-2024 updated vaccines that more closely target the XBB lineage of the Omicron variant,” according to the Illinois Department of Public Health.

At the time, there were questions about the bivalent boosters’ effectiveness. While Pfizer cited strong antibody responses from its retooled boosters, the booster shot studies did not reveal whether the shots prevented COVID-19 cases or how long they were effective.18 Even vaccination proponent Dr. Paul Offit, director of the vaccine education center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, was underwhelmed.

As a member of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), Offit sat in on the June 28, 2022, presentation, when Pfizer and Moderna presented data on their bivalent shots:19

“The results were underwhelming. Bivalent boosters resulted in levels of neutralizing antibodies against BA.1 that were only 1.5 to 1.75 times as high as those achieved with monovalent boosters. Previous experience with the companies’ vaccines suggested that this difference was unlikely to be clinically significant.”

Soon, data rolled in showing the bivalent boosters did not offer better protection than the former COVID-19 booster shots,20 which were already failing.21 Steve Kirsch, executive director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, pointed out that the data is crystal clear that boosters aren’t working and are dangerous.

“Paul Offit is no dummy; he’s not getting any more boosters,” he says. “Neither should you.”22 Yet, here we are a year later, being sold another promise that another round of “updated” COVID-19 shots is necessary.

Florida Surgeon General Calls for Halt on COVID Shots

Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo has called for an end to the use of COVID-19 mRNA shots, citing concerns about DNA fragments in the products.23 In a December 6, 2023, letter sent to the U.S. FDA and CDC, Ladapo outlined findings showing the presence of lipid nanoparticle complexes and simian virus 40 (SV40) promoter/enhancer DNA.

“Lipid nanoparticles are an efficient vehicle for delivery of the mRNA in the COVID-19 vaccines into human cells and may therefore be an equally efficient vehicle for delivering contaminant DNA into human cells. The presence of SV40 promoter/enhancer DNA may also pose a unique and heightened risk of DNA integration into human cells,” according to a news release from the Florida Department of Health (DOH).24

In a 2023 preprint study, microbiologist Kevin McKernan — a former researcher and team leader for the MIT Human Genome project25 — and colleagues assessed the nucleic acid composition of four expired vials of the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA shots. “DNA contamination that exceeds the European Medicines Agency (EMA) 330ng/mg requirement and the FDAs 10ng/dose requirements” was found.26

So, in addition to the spike protein and mRNA in COVID-19 shots, McKernan’s team discovered SV40 promoters that, for decades, have been suspected of causing cancer in humans, including mesotheliomas, lymphomas and cancers of the brain and bone.27 Fact checkers have called out the preprint study for using expired vials, but as McKernan tweeted:28

“Factchokers keyboards will melt as they regurgitate the same fake taking [talking] points. 1) vials were old Wrong- newer studies used good vials. RNA integrity was measured and fine. Expired vials were used on people. Expiration doesn’t spontaneously generate DNA.”

Further, the FDA published guidance on DNA in vaccines in 2007, which outlines important points that must be considered. According to the Florida DOH, the FDA’s 2007 guidance states:29

  • “DNA integration could theoretically impact a human’s oncogenes — the genes which can transform a healthy cell into a cancerous cell.
  • DNA integration may result in chromosomal instability.
  • The Guidance for Industry discusses biodistribution of DNA vaccines and how such integration could affect unintended parts of the body including blood, heart, brain, liver, kidney, bone marrow, ovaries/testes, lung, draining lymph nodes, spleen, the site of administration and subcutis at injection site.”

FDA Didn’t Perform DNA Integration Assessments

The FDA responded to Ladapo’s letter on December 14, 2023, but provided no evidence that appropriate DNA integration assessments had been conducted on mRNA COVID-19 shots. In a statement, Ladapo calls for a halt in their use as a result:30

“The FDA’s response does not provide data or evidence that the DNA integration assessments they recommended themselves have been performed. Instead, they pointed to genotoxicity studies — which are inadequate assessments for DNA integration risk. In addition, they obfuscated the difference between the SV40 promoter/enhancer and SV40 proteins, two elements that are distinct.

DNA integration poses a unique and elevated risk to human health and to the integrity of the human genome, including the risk that DNA integrated into sperm or egg gametes could be passed onto offspring of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine recipients. If the risks of DNA integration have not been assessed for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, these vaccines are not appropriate for use in human beings.”

Ladapo, a graduate of Harvard Medical School, previously issued an alert about a “substantial increase” in reports of adverse events from COVID-19 mRNA shots in Florida. He also recommended against COVID-19 shots for healthy children in 2022 and, in 2023, suggested that those under age 65 should not get COVID-19 booster shots.31 Board-certified internist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough states:32

“The Florida State Surgeon General’s announcement today is a milestone as more government officials join a chorus calling for recall of COVID-19 vaccines including myself (US Senate, multiple State Senates, EU Parliament, UK Parliament), 17,000 physicians representing the Global COVID-19 Summit, Australian scientists, the World Council for Health, and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.”

In the meantime, considering their questionable effectiveness and significant health risks, it would be wise for most to “just say no” to further boosters. Should you develop symptoms of COVID-19 infection, remember there are safe and effective early treatment protocols, including I-MASK+33 and I-MATH+,34 which are available for download on the COVID Critical Care website in multiple languages.

 Sources and References

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

Congressman: Border Chaos ‘Is Ripping Apart America Right Now’ thumbnail

Congressman: Border Chaos ‘Is Ripping Apart America Right Now’

By Family Research Council

One of the many obstacles to solving the southern border crisis is the lack of cooperation from the Democrats, according to Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kan.). In December, Marshall, who serves on four Senate committees, discussed on “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” how the president’s party had been focused on Ukraine funding rather than the border, putting progress at a complete standstill. However, as the threat to the southern border continues to swell, more Democrats are changing their stance on the issue.

Sam Joshi, the Democrat mayor of Edison, New Jersey, said migrants are “not welcome” in his town. Although he received backlash, the mayor stood his ground. “They’re illegal, and they belong on the other side of the border. We don’t want them in Edison, period,” he said. And recent polls indicate this opinion is growing — among unlikely groups.

A January 5 poll conducted by YouGov and CBS News revealed 60% of white people, 50% of black people, and 47% of Hispanics oppose settling illegal immigrants locally. And although the Democrats surveyed largely support local housing for the undocumented migrants, 62% of independents oppose it.

Separate data collected by Rasmussen Reports showed 65% of “likely U.S. voters” consider the immigration crisis as an “invasion” with an additional 43% who strongly view that statement as “very accurate.” Only 31% disagree, and another 15% felt that statement was completely inaccurate.

On Monday’s episode of “Washington Watch,” Representative Mark Alford (R-Mo.) shared about his experience when he joined Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and several others on a trip to the southern border last week. “We saw firsthand the chaos,” he said. “Chaos that this administration [and] Secretary [Alejandro] Mayorkas … will not classify as a crisis.”

Instead, Alford noted, they call it “a challenge.” “This has been languishing for years,” he said, insisting that it’s not accurate to say it is simply a challenge. “Look,” he added, “this isn’t selling used cars. … [It’s] a crisis that [Mayorkas] and President Biden created.” And “with a wink and a nod … almost nine million illegal aliens” have been admitted into the nation.

Notably, most Americans welcome immigrants who enter the country legally. “Legal immigrants are part of the fabric of America,” Alford said. “But this process, this crisis, this chaos, is ripping apart America right now.” And in addition to the madness caused from having nowhere to place them or ways to treat their needs, America’s national security is under severe jeopardy, Alford observed. But he stressed that most Democrats won’t “admit” that “because they want these illegals to eventually become voters” for the Democratic Party who let them in.

Another shocking consequence of the border crisis is the correlation it has to the rise of human trafficking in America, Alford pointed out. During his visit to the border, Alford learned that “$32 million a week is going back to the cartels who are ferrying these people over.” Broken down, these trips can cost “anywhere from $5,000 to $8,000 per trip” per individual, he emphasized. Last week on “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins,” Speaker Johnson noted the money going back to the cartels from the border crisis would total about “$1.6 billion annually.”

Alford continued, “[The migrants] don’t have that money. So, they go to work in the human sex trade” in the U.S. to “pay off their debt to these cartels. One hundred thousand children are unaccounted for in America in this process. That’s despicable.”

On top of the border crisis, “[T]here’s a lot of work yet to be done in getting … [the] spending bill addressed, all the appropriations bills across the finish line, and avoiding a potential shutdown,” guest host and former Congressman Jody Hice chimed in. But Alford mentioned the most recent text for a spending bill had no mention of border security. And as far as he and his conservative colleagues are concerned, no matter how dressed up the spending bill appears, border security is non-negotiable. Or, as he stated, “[Y]ou can put lipstick on a pig, but I’m not kissing this pig.”

Alford concluded that his only priority right now is border security. “That is my number one concern, number two concern, and number three concern right now,” he said. “Whatever it takes to secure the border.”


Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.


Texas Authorities Seize City’s Property Along The Border

Study Shows Some Good and Bad News Out of an Increasingly Divided United States

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

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.

What More Proof Do You Want That Abortion Is Satanic? thumbnail

What More Proof Do You Want That Abortion Is Satanic?

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

I’m not in the habit of reading Cosmopolitan and I can’t honestly say that I regret my negligence. However, many women do; it is one of the biggest magazines in the United States, with an estimated readership of more than 32 million, both in print and on the web. It knows what interests young career women – sex, health, gossip and fashion, mostly.

But the November-December issue promoted another interest – Satanism. It featured a “Cosmo special report” titled “The Satanic Abortion Clinic That’s Pissed Off Pretty Much Everyone…and Might Beat the Bans Anyway.”

The focus of the article is one of America’s weirdest enterprises: “Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic”. Based in New Mexico, which has very liberal abortion laws, the telehealth clinic offers 24/7 advice about abortion and supplies abortion pills until the eleventh week of pregnancy.

It’s not just your average abortion clinic – it’s run by The Satanic Temple, an organisation for Satan worshippers, and it has ambitious plans for providing “free religious reproductive healthcare” across the US. The Satanic Temple claims that it is a religion and that providing abortion is an important element in its rituals. In fact, American tax authorities have recognised The Satanic Temple as a religious group with nonprofit tax-exempt status.

And now The Satanic Temple is trying to persuade courts in Idaho and Indiana to follow New Mexico’s lead. An expert on religious freedom legislation told Cosmo:

It’s a layered plan, crafted with backup arguments to the backup arguments … “The logic flows, step-by-step. It all holds together.” If TST were to win an exception to state bans, it could become the biggest, and only, abortion medication provider in either Idaho or Indiana.

True, it’s a strange sort of religion, as The Satanic Temple denies that it believes in God, Satan or the supernatural. “To embrace the name Satan is to embrace rational inquiry removed from supernaturalism and archaic tradition-based superstitions,” it says. However, it argues that it is a religion in the sense that it has a coherent narrative with its own rituals and community.

Cosmo’s journalist, Arielle Domb, painted an enthusiastic picture of the project, although she noted that few people had attended the clinic and it is burning through its cash. The magazine illustrated the article with fiery-red images evoking the Devil.

Up to a certain point, it all sounded like a tasteless adolescent joke. But then I read The Satanic Temple’s abortion ritual. It was hellish, truly hellish. Here is the way that Domb describes it:

First, you find a quiet space. Bring a mirror if you can. Just before taking the medication, gaze at your reflection and focus on your personhood. Home in on your intent, your responsibility to you. Take a few deep, relaxing breaths.

When you’re ready, read the following tenet aloud: One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.

Take the medication and immediately afterward, recite, Beliefs should conform to one’s best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one’s beliefs.

Later, once your body expels the aborted tissue, return to your reflection. Focus again on your personhood, your power in making this decision.

Complete the ritual by reciting a personal affirmation: By my body, my blood; by my will, it is done.

This is not a joke; it is selling some poor woman’s soul to the Devil. Hell is a place where souls care nothing for one other; each is obsessed with the self. As C.S. Lewis said, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done’, and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done’.”

I don’t think that Cosmo and I will ever see eye-to-eye about religion. You could sum up its hedonistic theology in the terrifying maxim of the English poet William Blake: “Sooner murder an infant in its cradle than nurse unacted desires.” But on one thing we do agree: abortion is literally Satanic.



Michael Cook is the editor in chief of Mercator. He lives in Sydney, Australia.

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden Reelection Campaign Makes Abortion ‘Front and Center’

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

Prominent Psychologist Talks Nonstop About Gender-Transitioning 3-Year-Olds During Medical Training Course thumbnail

Prominent Psychologist Talks Nonstop About Gender-Transitioning 3-Year-Olds During Medical Training Course

By The Daily Caller

Psychologist Dr. Wallace Wong argued that three-year-olds know their gender better than their parents while defending transitioning young children, according to a video obtained exclusively by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

In November 2022, Wong was featured in a training video for the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), an international organization that trains medical and mental health professionals on how to treat transgender patients, including minors. Wong told the trainees that kids “are at your mercy” when it comes to convincing their parents to transition them, and claimed that three-year-olds “know their authentic self” better than their parents, according to a video the DCNF obtained through a public records request.

Parents are so nervous and don’t know what to do when [their] three-year-old kid presents this kind of problem,” Wong said in the video. “They may think that ‘my child is gonna have a vasectomy or phalloplasty,’ but that’s not true. We need to let them know that our goal is helping the kid move step by step, one step at a time, getting to what is their authentic self. Where that will be I don’t know, the parents don’t know. The kids will know when it is time.”

WPATH’s Global Education Institute (GEI) Online Foundations courses teach medical professionals how to treat transgender patients in line with its Standards of Care. In the standards section on adolescent treatment, WPATH argues that while current research supports “early medical intervention” for transgender youth, there is a lack of studies to show the effects long-term.

Wong is also listed as the co-lead for WPATH’s GEI Diversity, Inclusion and Community Engagement committee, which is designed to “find creative ways to include marginalized or under-utilized contributors to the curriculum development and/or course delivery in every topic area,” according to its website.


Wong said that he had “quite a few” three-year-old patients, and that the “first thing” many children say is not “‘Mommy, I love you,’ but ‘Mommy I am not a boy’ or ‘Mommy, I’m not a girl.’”

“[Parents] really have that wishful thinking that ‘this is not true and I cannot let that happen.’ So they have a lot of different irrational thinking to deny it, undermining it, so having equal time with the parents is important,” Wong later said in the presentation.

During the training, Wong explains that when medical professionals work with families, it is very important that they “always” reassure parents that it is good to talk about sex and transgender issues with their young children. He said that often parents express fear that by introducing their children to these concepts that young they will “really become transgender” but Wong argued that is not the case.

“I wish it was that easy but it’s not,” Wong said to a laughing audience.

Wong also discussed the role schools must play in helping kids transition during the end of his lecture, saying that they need to accept using preferred pronouns and have resources for transgender students. He dismissed the idea that using pronouns like “they” would be confusing for other children.

“They need to learn,” Wong concluded. “They just need to learn. I’m sure [people] are confused when they call me by my Chinese name, I’m sorry … you cannot pronounce it, learn it, just like you have to learn [to] use they.”

Wong previously said in 2019 that he had treated a patient younger than three years old with gender dysphoria, according to a transcript of an event hosted by Vancouver Public Library.

In 2021, a Canadian father was arrested after refusing to consent for his teenage daughter to transition, according to City Journal. Wong was the doctor who encouraged the child to begin socially transitioning with the school’s help, despite the father not being informed and later encouraged her to go on cross-sex hormones.

Wong and WPATH did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s requests for comment.





EXCLUSIVE: University With Gender Clinic Funds Study To See If Puberty Blockers Cause ‘Lasting’ Brain Changes For Kids

Ohio Lawmakers Set Date to Override DeWine’s Veto of Child Protections

California Extends Free Gender Transition Procedures to Illegal Immigrants


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

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

Abortion, Trump And Censorship Headline Supreme Court’s Docket In The New Year thumbnail

Abortion, Trump And Censorship Headline Supreme Court’s Docket In The New Year

By The Daily Caller

  • The Supreme Court will grapple with issues involving former President Donald Trump, the Biden administration’s communication with social media companies to censor speech online and the abortion pill in the lead up to the 2024 election. 
  • Abortion is back at the Supreme Court just two years after it issued a major ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, with two cases on the issue.
  • The justices will hear oral arguments on Trump’s eligibility for office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in February.

Issues involving the chemical abortion pill, former President Donald Trump and the Biden administration’s encouragement of censorship online top the Supreme Court’s docket in the New Year.

Though only one decision has been released so far this term, the justices have already heard arguments on gun restrictions for subjects of domestic violence restraining orders, government officials blocking constituents on social media and Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy settlement. Other pending cases will require the Supreme Court to grapple with multiple hot-button issues in the lead up to the 2024 election.


Just two years after overturning Roe v. Wade in June 2022, the justices agreed to hear another major abortion case challenging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of the chemical abortion pill mifepristone.

U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled in April that the FDA must reverse its approval of the pill. The Fifth Circuit later declined to fully remove the pill from the market, but upheld the portion of the decision rolling back FDA rules issued in 2016 and 2021 that had expanded access, allowing the pill to be sent via mail and used later in pregnancy.

However, due to an emergency order issued by the Supreme Court in April, both decisions are paused until the Supreme Court rules on the case.

The Supreme Court also agreed Friday to hear a second big case considering whether the federal law requires emergency room doctors to perform abortions in violation of Idaho’s law, which prohibits abortions unless the mother’s life is in danger. The Biden administration argues the that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which instructs doctors not to turn away patients in need of “emergency stabilizing care,” preempt’s Idaho’s ban and requires doctors to perform emergency abortions.

On Friday, the Court agreed to allow Idaho’s ban to remain in effect until it could hear the case in April.


The Supreme Court will weigh in on the Biden administration’s coordination with social media companies to suppress speech online in Murthy v. Missouri. District Court Judge Terry A. Doughty called the government’s censorship efforts “Orwellian” in his July 4 ruling finding the Biden administration likely violated the First Amendment, noting the Republican attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri “produced evidence of a massive effort by Defendants, from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content.”

The Supreme Court paused the ruling in October pending its consideration of the appeal. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, writing the decision could be construed in the meantime as “giving the Government a green light to use heavy handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news.”

Election officials in eight states filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to reject the appeals court’s ruling, expressing dismay that communications made with platforms during the 2020 and 2022 election season have “essentially ended” ahead of “a critical and hotly contested 2024 election season.”

The Supreme Court will also hear a case considering former superintendent of New York’s Department of Financial Services Maria Vullo pressuring banks and insurance companies not to do business with the National Rifle Association. Aaron Terr, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) director of Public Advocacy, told the Daily Caller News Foundation in November there are “clear parallels” between the cases.

“Each case involves government officials exceeding constitutional boundaries by coercing private companies to censor or dissociate from speakers expressing views those officials dislike,” he said.


As the 2024 election draws near, issues surrounding former President Donald Trump are creeping into the court’s docket.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Feb. 8 to consider Trump’s appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision finding him ineligible to appear on the state’s primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The justices decision will clarify whether other states can take similar actions to remove Trump from the ballot, as Democratic Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows did in a Dec. 28 ruling finding Trump ineligible to appear.

The justices also agreed to hear a case on the scope of an obstruction statute used to charge hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants, as well as Trump.

The statute, Section 1512(c)(2), threatens fines or up to 20 years in prison for anyone who “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding.” It is connected to two of the four charges in Jack Smith’s indictment of Trump for alleged election interference.

If the Supreme Court limits the scope, it could shake up Jan. 6 cases along with impacting the former president’s case.

Special counsel Jack Smith already asked the justices in December to consider Trump’s presidential immunity appeal before the lower court had a chance to weigh in, a request they ultimately denied. Still, the issue will likely be back before the justices soon, as the D.C. Circuit is slated to hear oral arguments on the issue Jan. 9 and issue a decision sometime after.

Other coming cases to watch

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Jan. 17 for a pair of cases that challenge “Chevron deference,” a legal doctrine that instructs courts to defer to executive agency interpretations of statutes when the language is ambiguous. Critics argue the doctrine enables federal agencies to adopt expansive interpretations of statutes that broaden their power while evading the checks and balances of the judicial branch.

In February, the Supreme Court will hear a case challenging a Trump-era federal ban on bump stocks, along with a pair of cases considering red state laws aimed at preventing viewpoint censorship on social media.



Dems Seek To ‘Affect The Outcome’ Of Key 2024 Cases Through Public Pressure On SCOTUS, Legal Experts Say

Here’s The Legal Question That Could Determine The 2024 Election

Judge Denies Trump’s Team From Referencing E. Jean Carroll’s Rape Claim For Future Defamation Trial

RELATED VIDEO: Epstein Files Clear President Trump of Involvement (Duh) | TIPPING POINT

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

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

CDC Champions Addressing Racism, ‘Injustices’ Over Jailing Criminals To Prevent Violence thumbnail

CDC Champions Addressing Racism, ‘Injustices’ Over Jailing Criminals To Prevent Violence

By The Daily Caller

The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) maintains that putting more criminals in jail does not prevent violent crime but that addressing the “root causes” of violence, like racism, will make communities safer, according to internal documents obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The CDC is set to release new guidance, titled the Community Violence Prevention Resource for Action, on how to address community violence in the coming weeks, according to documents obtained by the DCNF. In a section of a document detailing the CDC’s planned responses to potential questions from the public on its upcoming recommendations, the agency claims that “increasing punitive measures, including incarceration, does not reduce community violence” and that “we can work to prevent violence by addressing the underlying conditions that contribute to violence,” like racism.

The community violence recommendations are based on the “best available evidence,” according to the CDC, and will identify firearm violence as a “public health problem,” in line with the CDC’s past guidance on viewing gun violence and community violence broadly as public health concerns.

The new guidance will “[weave] health equity concepts throughout” and is intended to help “address structural inequities.” Youth impacted by violence are at a higher risk for “mental health challenges, such as substance use, obesity, high-risk sexual behavior, depression, traumatic stress, low educational attainment or suicide,” according to the CDC’s document.

However, the CDC’s internal communications strategy, obtained by the DCNF, sheds further light on how the CDC views criminal justice. The strategy indicates the CDC views crime as the product of underlying social factors like racism and economic inequality, and that it views incarceration as an ineffective means of reducing crime.

“Isn’t community violence caused by criminals who make poor decisions?” and “Shouldn’t we just lock these people up to keep communities safe?” are among the possible questions the CDC is “hoping against hope” it is not asked about their forthcoming guidance, according to the document.

“Racism, economic injustices, and other systemic inequities contribute to the current and persistent increased risk of violence experienced by some communities,” the CDC’s pre-written answer to those questions reads.

“Dominant public narratives” surrounding crime and race “often consider violence primarily a problem of personal responsibility,” the CDC continues. Focusing on personal responsibility as a way to reduce gun crime “invokes images of youth and young adults, and especially Black or African American youth and young adults, as aggressors, troublemakers, or worse,” the CDC says.

“Harmful narratives around race and violence” are “biased and inaccurate” and can “rob youth and young adults of their humanity by failing to value them as complete people and valued members of communities,” the CDC document states.

Instead of buying into these narratives, stakeholders should work toward addressing root causes of violence, according to the CDC. The CDC identifies things like “structural racism” and “historical injustices” as among these root causes.

“The resource and its supporting materials are still undergoing CDC review,” a CDC spokesperson told the DCNF.

“The resource will be a compilation of examples of the best available evidence to prevent community violence based on research showing effects on violence or the behaviors or conditions that affect risk for violence,” they continued. Among the evidence cited in the upcoming guidance will be “meta-analyses or systematic reviews and other rigorous evaluations.”

Though the CDC asserted that putting more criminals in jail would not reduce community violence, it did not provide evidence to support its claim when asked to do so by the DCNF.




RELATED ARTICLE: New CDC Director Teases Annual COVID Shots


Joe Biden is calling Trump a “dictator” while simultaneously supporting his chief political opponent getting kicked off the ballot

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) January 5, 2024

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

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

California to Provide Free Sex Changes for Illegals thumbnail

California to Provide Free Sex Changes for Illegals

By The Geller Report

G-d help us.

A state memo regarding Medi-Cal stipulated that “gender-affirming care” is a covered benefit only “when medically necessary.”

By: Jarryd Jaeger, The Post Millennial,  Jan 4, 2024:

It has been revealed that sex changes and hormone therapy will be included in the healthcare coverage offered to illegal immigrants in California. As of January 1, everyone, regardless of whether they entered the country via legal means, will qualify for Medi-Cal, the state‘s public health insurance program. This program had typically been reserved for low-income individuals, families with children, seniors, persons with disabilities, people in foster care, pregnant women, and low-income people with diseases such as tuberculosis, cancer, or HIV/AIDS.

Prior to the new rules, illegal immigrants were only able to access emergency and pregnancy-related care, however surgical and non-surgical procedures that “bring primary and secondary gender characteristics into conformity with the individual’s identified gender, including ancillary services, such as hair removal” are now covered as well.

According to the Daily Caller, a state memo regarding Medi-Cal stipulated that “gender-affirming care” is a covered benefit only “when medically necessary.”

“Requests for gender-affirming care,” it added, “should be from specialists experienced in providing culturally competent care to transgender and gender diverse individuals and should use nationally recognized guidelines.”

The decision to include illegal immigrants in Medi-Cal was made in May of last year. State Sen. Maria Elena Durazo called it a “historic investment” that “speaks to California’s commitment to health care as a human right.”

“In California, we believe everyone deserves access to quality, affordable health care coverage – regardless of income or immigration status,” Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office said in a statement to ABC News at the time. “Through this expansion, we’re making sure families and communities across California are healthier, stronger, and able to get the care they need when they need it.”

The children of illegal immigrants first became eligible to receive free healthcare in the state in 2015 thanks to former governor Jerry Brown. That was expanded to those 19 to 25 years old in 2019. Now, all undocumented residents under 50 will have access to the program.

Keep reading.

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

The TikTok Spiral thumbnail

The TikTok Spiral

By Faith Kuzma

Trauma dumping on the “for you page” sucks young girls into a pit of self-loathing.

The winning TikTok formula is videos produced by teens for their peers. In that sense, it is hugely kid-friendly. Yet in 2019, TikTok paid a settlement for violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. Then in 2021 TikTok users were notified by the app they were due compensation after an Illinois lawsuit charged TikTok of using a “complex system of artificial intelligence to recognize facial features in users’ videos.” How might that face data be used as part of what’s called the TikTok spiral? And how does this female-dominated platform affect girls?

Spiraling is an actual psychological term for becoming mentally dizzy. TikTok’s “for you page” (FYP) is overwhelming, piping a steady stream of the most viral videos to kids—a big departure from the social media norms of yesteryear, which mostly shared amateurish updates from kids’ subscribed channels. Girls who would normally say hi to friends and show off their pets now get adult content and other non-age appropriate material direct to their inbox. Feeding “smash-innocence” content to kids is part of the TikTok spiral.

From its inception as a lip sync app, TikTok is based on the inherent kid fun of mimicry. The fast-paced stream of exciting music and dance videos is contagious. Creative collaboration is further encouraged not just by hashtags but through such collaborative interactions as duets, which allow multiple users to record one another’s videos and create mashups. Some hit song is constantly being refashioned or repurposed; interpretative boundaries are endlessly exercised. No one sleeps on TikTok.

It’s a world saturated with an over-abundance of consciousness: self-consciousness, body-consciousness, identity-consciousness. Ideal for getting girls to spiral. Videos designed to provoke envy are common, showing off piercings, tattoos, clothes, a new hair style, making grimaces and grins in the digital mirror. Humor, novelty, and intimate sharing attract a mostly female viewership, and body image content related to gender can be especially compelling.

People have compared “likes” on social media to a continuous dopamine drip, but TikTok is more jacked up: it tightens the emotional screw. It can do this because as Teen Magazine observes: “Every second you hesitate or re-watch, the app tracks you.”

This screenshot shows a comment in response to a post with 314.9K likes by London trans influencer channel tatedalton. TikTok gathers data from the user’s digital face print to push videos from creators with similar demographic indicators, including gender identity. Additional cues TikTok uses are the video’s hashtags, which in this case include #trans #transmasc #nonbinary #dysphoria #lgbt #lgbtq.

In this screenshot, user “Cave” is a bit mystified as to why a video from a trans influencer reappears on each return to the app. But it’s no great mystery: re-watching a video, according to a Wall Street Journal investigation, helps determine which kind of videos will be sent to the person’s feed in the future. Digitally captured user data tells TikTok to keep pitching this video to Cave. TikTok zeros in on emotional response in order to push similar but more intense content: “every second you scroll or re-watch a video on the app counts. It takes less than 3 minutes or until the 15th video for the algorithm to understand what a person is feeling and what videos should be recommended next.”

The TikTok spiral, as described in a special Wall Street Journal series, is like digital cocaine. More than just a successful business model, it’s a mode of mental capture. Munmun De Choudhury, an associate professor at the School of Interactive Computing at Georgia Tech, notes that TikTok is scraping “trajectories of people’s behavior” and tying that to such things as mental health cues and affective cues—in other words, charting how people react to video content emotionally. Face print technology may collect data for the user’s FYP.

Summarizing a 2018 study of facial images online, Christopher Bergland writes: “Disgust is associated with one facial expression that is universally understood in every culture they examined. According to this study, humans use three different facial expressions to convey fear across cultures. The study also showed that we have four ways to convey surprise, five facial expressions for sadness, and five cross-cultural facial expressions that convey anger.”

TikTok provides the perfect milieu for body-image stressed girls to fixate on their perceived flaws and spiral into pathological habits. The Center for Countering Digital Hate set up two 13-year-old female accounts, one of which they pushed toward dieting videos. The researchers found TikTok responded by serving up mental health and body image content, “and the research indicated that the more vulnerable accounts—which included the references to body image in the username—were served three times more harmful content and 12 times more self-harm and suicide-related content.” Already prone to anxiety and depression, girls become disoriented. Spiraling perpetuates a cycle of negative thoughts.

Young girls typically have not yet developed defenses against spiraling. Ash Eskridge said that as a 13-year-old, she and her peers were “brainwashed” by the videos they saw: “I notice that the demographic [trans identification] most affects is teen girls around 12 to 14, as they’re the most vulnerable since they aren’t matured yet.” TikTok parasitizes the typical rhythms of girlhood friendship. David C. Geary, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, notes that social networking platforms exploit patterns of female friendship such as over-sharing: “The social dynamics of girls’ and women’s friendship groups, including a desire to fit in and avoid conflict, may make them more susceptible to social contagion.” We tend to sync ourselves with others without even realizing it, and this creates bonds of affiliation over time. The TikTok spiral involves addictive sharing, imitating gestures and movements, and lip-syncing lyrics from pop songs.

TikTok’s spiral exacerbates the roller coaster of upswings followed by depressive states. Dr. Julie Albright, an expert on social media and the brain, explains: “In psychological terms [it’s] called random reinforcement…sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. And that’s how these platforms are designed…they’re exactly like a slot machine. What that’s doing is rewiring their neuropathways in their brains.” This addictive spiral misdirects stress into an internal loathing that can be seen pretty clearly within the female demographic.

TikTok thus represents a bigger threat than other platforms, because it encourages reposting highly relatable videos and sharing deeply personal information with strangers—even the vocal affirmation within the #LGBTQ milieu does not alleviate the distress. Mental health professionals are increasingly speaking out about such effects. For instance, Yim Register, mental health and social media researcher, points out the particular danger to mental well-being posed by the over-sharing tendency on TikTok. Whereas in clinical settings, personal information and disclosure is safeguarded, “The platform spirit of TikTok seems to be about posting very loudly about very intimate and intense things. And people are encouraged to be vulnerable to fit that spirit.”

In a manner analogous to an anorexic’s self-disgust at seeing her own body in a photograph, a gender-questioning girl can begin to hyper-focus on her female body with intensifying animus. Embodiment itself becomes triggering. One popular sound effect features an older woman’s voice musing, “I miss the girl you were,” before a voice representing the user replies, “I gutted that b**ch from the inside out.” Ironically, many videos featuring this audio clip are are glow ups (videos tracking positive transformations), not limited to but very much including trans-influencer videos showing a transformation from female to “male.”

Even factoring in youth posturing, there is something extremely disturbing about “gutting” the sexed childhood self, and those curious about gender issues (i.e., every kid living) can get channeled into harmful spiraling that includes videos by trans influencers. TikTok’s pop music layering and lip-syncing, tailored to attach the most personal meanings to lyrics, seem designed to produce what one Canadian Millennial calls “trauma dumping.”

The TikTok hashtag “I gutted that b**ch from the inside out” includes 226.3 thousand videos. A casual review of the videos for this hashtag will convince you of the universality of female body image issues, but those created by trans influencers are unforgettable for conveying extreme self-hatred. A small sampling of “gutted” videos is enough to suggest typical female dissatisfaction with body image.

In one notable example, a Scottish trans influencer with a 38.5k-follower account called “psychedelicody” flashes a timeline photo as a young girl while lip-syncing the “gutted” sound effect. Cody’s style is cyber punk, but the mood is particularly dark, with Cody literally “giving the finger” to show absolute contempt of the younger self.

Within this viral TikTok trending video category, trans influencer videos show striking antipathy toward an earlier embodied self.

Trans suffering spirals outward, much like the TikTok tics identified as a new disorder spread by watching Tourette syndrome videos on the app. One person talks about self-disgust and gutting her girl-self, and others sympathize, internalizing the mindset that female embodiment was insufferable. The responses and comments to Cody’s videos readily demonstrate that viewers are perceiving life struggles through the eyes of the content creator. Mimetic engagement on TikTok gets kids to adopt others’ dysfunctions before they have fully learned the skills necessary for self-protective emotional gatekeeping. Lacking the experience and wisdom to foresee and foreclose compelling claims on their attention, kids are vulnerable. TikTok encourages them to take on the thoughts and perceptions of those expressing body hatred.

Concerns about invasion of privacy are at the heart of spiraling. Researchers warn that TikTok‘s new user agreement includes biometric data collection that can be used for active full-time surveillance. This goes beyond capturing audio for captioning and visual data for geolocation.

How might TikTok face data, in particular, be used to induce spiraling? Beyond uploaded videos, the app can utilize video capture, which the user agreement apparently classifies as adware used for “other non-personally-identifying operations.” U.S. Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission Brendan Carr has said: “TikTok collects everything from search and browsing histories to keystroke patterns and biometric identifiers, including faceprints…and voiceprints.” Using TikTok permits access to data including camera and microphone.

Internationally, people are beginning to ask why a Chinese-owned company with no separation from its government might invest the latest technologies in an app that is increasingly recognized as a precision instrument for burrowing into and splitting open the psyches of young users. Well might we wonder—and consider whether this is an influence we want in our homes.


This article was published by The American Mind and is reproduced with permission.

Image credit: Pixabay


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

House GOP Raises the Stakes: ‘Shut the Border Down or Shut the Government Down’ thumbnail

House GOP Raises the Stakes: ‘Shut the Border Down or Shut the Government Down’

By Family Research Council

While the rest of Congress is soaking up the last few days of holiday recess, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) decided to cut his vacation short, opting instead to take 60 House Republicans on a detour to the southern border before Congress resumes next week. If the goal was to remind them what they’re fighting for in the standoff on immigration with Joe Biden, it succeeded.

With December’s record-breaking migrant crossings as a backdrop, this “show of force,” as many are calling it, aims to put more pressure on the White House to negotiate on reforms in real faith. “Life along the border is turned upside down,” host Congressman Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) told reporters, “and that’s exactly what the speaker and my colleagues are going to see.”

The trip comes as a growing chorus of Democratic leaders plead with Biden to act. From big cities like Denver to small communities like 15,000-population Whitewater, Wisconsin, even liberal politicians say they’re at “a breaking point.” “…[T]here’s just not enough work or housing in the city to support this ongoing [flood],” Mile High City mayor Mike Johnston admitted from his sanctuary city. “… [W]e know we can’t keep growing at this pace,” he warned. “When I took the oath of office six months ago, we had about 400 migrants in shelter[s]. We have more than ten times that number right now. We’ve brought 35,000 through this year.”

Republicans, who know they have the upper hand tying border reforms to less-popular Ukraine aid, are dangling even more drastic measures before the president after seeing Eagle Pass — including a government shutdown. “No more money for this bureaucracy of his government until you’ve brought this border under control,” border state Representative Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) insisted. “Shut the border down or shut the government down.”

That extreme approach might get a warmer reception than Democrats think, given the latest polling. Incredibly, the new Associated Press-NORC numbers show that the emergency at the border has supplanted the economy and inflation in voters’ top concerns. Thirty-five percent now list immigration and the border wall as their biggest worry — up eight points from last month. Making matters worse for this president, only a handful of Americans — 32% — trust Biden to make “wise decisions about immigration policy.”

Speaker Johnson is hoping to change that, telling reporters on the ground in Texas that if the president wants a supplemental bill with aid for Ukraine and national security, “it better begin with defending America’s national security. We want to get the border closed and secured first.”

That commitment was on display Wednesday, Gonzales insisted, in the mere size of the GOP delegation. Convincing 60 members of Congress to go on a border trip “two days after New Year’s … is a small miracle,” he said. And as Johnson pointed out, it was a diverse bunch. “We have everybody from California to Maryland, from Michigan to Florida,” he explained at the group’s afternoon press conference. “We represent over half the U.S. states because every state in America is now a border state. We’ve seen that on vivid display today.”

Frankly, Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.) pointed out, this is rapidly becoming a bipartisan issue. From the airport, where he was boarding a plane to Eagle Pass Tuesday, the Alabama congressman told “Washington Watch” that the urgency “is across the party lines.” “This is not just a Republican thing or Democrat issue,” he insisted to Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. “… Democrats are hearing from their constituents, just as Republicans are. And obviously, we want a system where people can come freely into the United States of America, but we want it in a situation where people [come] legally. And that’s what we’re trying to do here. … [H]opefully, this will call some media attention to it, and we can try to put some pressure on the Democrats to come together and find some solution[s].”

This situation is “unsustainable,” Perkins agreed, pointing to the soft target America is becoming by not adequately vetting the people crossing the border. “I understand that people want to come here to the United States of America,” Aderholt said, “but we’re in a situation right now where we have to make sure that the people [who] are coming here are coming for the right reason. When they come here illegally … you don’t know why they’re coming. Some of them may be coming because of good reasons, and they’re just trying to provide for their family. But at the same time, there’s a lot of folks that also may be coming illegally that are trying to do harm to the United States. … And that’s what we’ve got to put a stop to. … It’s the people that would want to come for nefarious reasons that we want to keep out.”

Already, House Republicans are showing their sincerity, scheduling its first impeachment hearing on Biden’s embattled Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. The fireworks kick off January 10, when the debate over how to couple massive border reforms with overseas aid will be well underway. A fuller investigation may be on the horizon if the president continues to play coy about the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants disappearing into every corner of our country.

“I very much think that Speaker Johnson will move forward on this [impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas] if the Biden administration doesn’t act responsibly,” Aderholt cautioned. As he should, his colleague Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) argued. “For three years, the Biden admin has fed the American people lies.”


Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.


Alejandro Mayorkas Claims Biden Admin Has Removed ‘Record Number’ Of Illegal Immigrants — But There’s A Problem

SHOCKING! Biden Rushing more Illegal Aliens into the U.S. than American Babies Being Born!

‘This Stuff Is Gonna Haunt Biden’: Larry Kudlow Predicts ‘Crisis’ Will Wreck Support For Biden Among Key Voting Blocs


There are almost no deportations

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 4, 2024

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

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.

Stop Funding ‘Rights for Migrants’ Legal Scam thumbnail

Stop Funding ‘Rights for Migrants’ Legal Scam

By Betsy McCaughey

As a record number of migrants invade the U.S., wreaking pain on New York City and other communities, one group is winning big-time: the public advocacy lawyers. Their business is to constantly sue to win more so-called rights for migrants. Rights to shelter, rights to meals, rights to health care, and even the right to vote in local elections.

Who pays the bills on both sides of these lawsuits? You do. Taxpayer money largely funds these legal combatants, which include the Coalition for the Homeless, Legal Aid Society, and Vera Institute of Justice.

You’re paying to be legally coerced into providing more for migrants, even at the cost of cutting vital city services—kind of like hiring your own assassin. It’s absurd, but it’s about to get worse.

On Dec. 14, the New York City Council passed Resolution 556, calling on the state Legislature to guarantee, as a right, that all migrants have lawyers paid for by taxpayers when they go to immigration court. It would be a “first-in-the-nation” guarantee.

Resolution 556 would give migrants more rights than American citizens have. No one else is guaranteed a publicly funded lawyer in civil court matters such as housing court issues or divorce.

Yikes, the City Council’s proposal would make the Big Apple even more of a magnet for migrants than it already is.

Who’s behind this push? The Vera Institute of Justice, for one.

Vera claims we “need a federally funded universal legal defense service” for migrants. In short, a national army of left-wing lawyers paid by you. What better place to launch this lunatic idea than at the New York City Council?

The Vera Institute is not the only organization cashing in on migrants’ rights.

In October, Mayor Eric Adams went to court for temporary relief from the rigid rules and settlements that define what the city must provide the homeless, as tens of thousands of homeless migrants arrive. Immediately, the Legal Aid Society and the Coalition for the Homeless swooped in, claiming his plan would “gut” the long-standing rights of the homeless.

These lawsuits are largely funded by you, through grants and contracts from the city and state. Manhattan Judge Gerald Lebovits urged the parties to compromise and arranged for the lawyers on all sides, representing the city, the state, and the migrants, to meet in his chambers several times.

This scam is being repeated all over the nation. The Justice Action Center—also publicly funded—is suing the Biden administration on behalf of Haitian asylum-seekers whose rights it claims were violated by U.S. Border Patrol agents on horseback trying to stop them as they crossed the Rio Grande.

Lawyers for the migrants and lawyers for the Biden administration will cross swords. Never mind who wins. They’re all being paid by us.

It’s a free country. Anyone can sue. But why should we be paying for these legal boxing matches?

Disgraced former Gov. Andrew Cuomo recently wrote that the remedy for New York City’s mounting woes is to sue the federal government for more money. Wrong. That would send more wasted funds down the litigation rathole.

Cuomo also argues that the “right to shelter” should apply to all the counties, instead of just Gotham, and that state lawmakers should “fairly distribute” the migrant burden statewide. Spoken like a pol who is eyeing a city position and no longer cares about the rest of the state.

The notion that there is a “right to shelter” in the state Constitution was concocted by the Coalition for the Homeless in a lawsuit in 1981. It has tied the hands of city leaders ever since. It should be legally challenged. Extending that questionable right to migrants who just arrived here, and then imposing it statewide, would compound the wrong.

Tell lawmakers to stop funding the legal advocacy industry with our money. It’s time to break the stranglehold these publicly funded lawyers, under the guise of doing good, have on our city and nation.


This article was published by Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.