The United States under the Biden administration is using the force of government to harass the late Phyllis Schlafly’s group in Alabama.
In recent months, the Eagle Forum of Alabama has helped write legislation in that state to protect children with gender confusion from receiving “treatment” that could permanently damage them.
In his End of Day Report (9/9/22), Gary Bauer writes, “After Alabama banned transgender surgeries on children, the Biden Administration sued the state in federal court to block the law. But they’re not just arguing against the constitutionality of the law. They are also going after a conservative public policy group that lobbied on behalf of the law.” Of course, that group is the Eagle Forum of Alabama.
The United States’ Department of Justice issued a subpoena in August demanding records from the Eagle Forum of Alabama, stating: “Several public statements suggest that Eagle Forum of Alabama staff may have had some involvement in drafting the legislation or its predecessor bills. As a result, the United States is issuing the enclosed subpoena for certain records in the Eagle Forum of Alabama’s possession from January 1, 2017 through the present.”
The official subpoena demands: “any draft legislation, proposed legislations, or model legislation.” This included all their communiques on the subject, e.g., “any social media postings.”
Eagle Forum of Alabama responded to this “unprecedented request”: “This should cause every single advocacy group or individual in America engaged in the legislative process to pause and consider the potential ramifications if any part of this subpoena is allowed to stand.” Becky Garritson, the executive director of the organization, explained more to me on a radio segment.
Kristen Ullman, president of Eagle Forum (nationally), comments on the wider issue here: “If the Department of Justice doesn’t like your viewpoint it may target you next.”
What is the government alleging was illegal? Certainly it’s not illegal for an organization to be involved with crafting legislation?
The Biden Administration’s action is particularly astounding because we do not yet fully grasp the long-term deleterious effects of the puberty blockers and body-part-removal surgeries to “cure” gender dysphoria.
In her eye-opening book, Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters (2020), Abigail Shrier chronicles the incredible harm being foisted on so many children in our society today, especially girls, because of this current fad of transgender mania.
Shrier, a writer for The Wall Street Journal, notes, “In 2016, natal females accounted for 46 percent of all sex reassignment surgeries in the United States. A year later it was 70 percent.”
She adds, “Some small proportion of the population will always be transgender. But perhaps the current craze will not always lure troubled young girls with no history of gender dysphoria, enlisting them in a lifetime of hormone dependency and disfiguring surgeries….No adolescent should pay this high a price for having been, briefly, a follower.”
The left is imposing on this country a form of mental insanity. Both God and science teach us that we are either male or female. God said He has created us male or female in His image. Science teaches us that we have trillions of cells in the human body, and virtually every one of them provides a marker that you are either male or female.
No one denies gender dysphoria, where some children feel confused. “Am I a girl trapped in a boy’s body?” they wonder. But experts say that about 95% of these children with gender dysphoria will grow out of this by around puberty—if the process is not interrupted along the way.
Tragically, there are many people in high places that are interrupting this process all too often.
And then when children go through with some form of transition, very often deep depression follows, as documented at www.sexchangeregret.com, a ministry to help the hurting.
Dr. Ryan T. Anderson, author of When Harry Became Sally, writes: “The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people—extending over 30 years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered—documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to 15 years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to 20 times that of comparable peers.”
The founders gave us the First Amendment to enshrine in the Constitution the right to freely practice religion and by extension, the right of conscience. We also have free speech rights and the right to petition our government in case of grievances. That would include lobbying for legislation for the good of society.
But the Biden administration is steam rolling over conscience rights, despite the Constitution.
Phyllis Schlafly herself once told me in a 2004 television interview: “The Constitution is not out of date. It’s just as good today as when it was written.” Would that it was being followed today by the Biden administration.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-09-23 18:51:142022-09-23 18:51:14DOJ Tramples on the Constitution
Fox News host Tucker Carlson blasted doctors and universities involved in performing sex changes on children Wednesday evening.
“Never has American medicine been more transparently a racket than it is right now. With the most basic ethical guidelines gone, completely ignored, we should not be surprised to learn that some hospitals have decided to monetize the mental anguish of children,” Carlson said in reference to recent news stories on hospitals providing sex change treatments to children. “Consider the University of California at San Francisco hospital. Supposedly it’s one of the best in the world, UCSF, despite its august reputation, is not even trying to behave responsibly when it comes to children who have been convinced by TikTok they should change their sex.”
Carlson claimed that this meant that groups like the Human Rights Campaign and other activists supported such procedures, while hospitals viewed the procedures as moneymakers, playing a video from one administrator at Vanderbilt University shared by Daily Wire columnist Matt Walsh that reportedly outlined how one procedure brought in $40,000.
Walsh posted a thread on Twitter featuring videos of officials at Vanderbilt University Tuesday. Walsh later tweeted that Vanderbilt took the page down after his initial thread on the social media site.
WATCH:
Republican Gov. Bill Lee and Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee called for an investigation into the practices at Vanderbilt in response to the reports. The university denied wrongdoing in a statement, according to Fox News.
“The truth is people who are horrified for this are not the bad actors. Vanderbilt is a bad actor. They just admitted on camera to castrating children as young as 13 years old,” Carlson said.
“Five years from now, we’re going to look back at this, like a lot of things we’ve done recently, like destroying public art and statues, and the Covid vaccine, so many of the things we done without thinking about it in an environment where no one is allowed to protest and we’re going to look back at shame and horror,” Carlson said.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-09-23 18:51:122022-09-23 18:51:12‘Shame And Horror’: Tucker Carlson Doesn’t Mince Words Blasting Doctors Who Perform Sex Changes On Kids
Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) vowed on Tuesday, after being asked about legal efforts to end the “Stop W.O.K.E Act” in Florida, that his state will not allow schools to “twist history” to back the false narrative of the left.
Asked about woke teachers who are worried the measure will “lead to a whitewashing of teaching of slavery and other issues,” DeSantis told them to read Florida statues, as they are “required to teach slavery, the post reconstruction and segregation, [and] Civil Rights,” he said. “Those are core parts of American history that should be taught” — but “taught accurately.”
“For example, the 1619 Project is a CRT [Critical Race Theory] version of history. It’s supported by the New York Times. They want to teach our kids that the American revolution was fought to protect slavery, and that’s false,” DeSantis said. “We know why the American Revolution was fought.”
“They wrote pamphlets. We saw them dump tea into the Boston Harbor. We saw meet in Philadelphia and we have the records of why they revolted against king George III. And so it was the American Revolution that caused people to question slavery,” DeSantis said, emphasizing that Americans collectively agreed that we are “endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights and that we are all created equal.”
“You can’t teach history that’s being used to pursue an ideological agenda. You can’t teach that the foundations of our country were somehow evil. Our founders pledged their lives, fortunes, sacred honor, and they put a marker in the sand,” he said, explaining that it did not live up to all the ideals right away, but “every major movement in our country’s history has gone right back to those core principles.”
DeSantis added that Florida, under his leadership, will not allow this radical movement to de-legitimize founders such as George Washington.
Founded by the late Derrick Bell, critical race theory is an academic discipline which maintains that society is divided along racial lines into (white) oppressors and (black) victims, similar to the way Marxism frames the oppressor/victim dichotomy along class lines. Critical race theory contends that America is permanently racist to its core, and that consequently the nation’s legal structures are, by definition, racist and invalid. As Emory University professor Dorothy Brown puts it, critical race theory “seeks to highlight the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective but designed to support white supremacy and the subordination of people of color.” A logical derivative of this premise, according to critical race theory, is that the members of “oppressed” racial groups are entitled—in fact obligated—to determine for themselves which laws and traditions have merit and are worth observing…
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-09-22 15:52:482022-09-22 15:52:48Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on CRT: ‘We Will Not Allow Schools to Twist History’
The Flemish bishops of Belgium published a document this week on pastoral care for homosexual persons. The most notable aspect of the document is its inclusion of a text for blessing same-sex couples. The bishops plan to present the text to Pope Francis when they travel to Rome for their ad limina visit later this year.
One of the more exasperating particulars in this case is that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a response to questions about the blessing of same-sex unions just last year. That document, published with the express approval of Pope Francis, makes clear that, “the Church does not have, and cannot have, the power to bless unions of persons of the same sex.”
If one were to read the CDF’s document and the Flemish bishops’ side by side, not knowing which was published first, it would be very easy to assume that the former was a direct response and rebuttal of the latter. That the Flemish bishops felt they could contradict the CDF and Pope Francis so openly, and with impunity, is as telling as it is troubling.
It’s not just that the Flemish bishops ignored the CDF’s clear directive; it’s as though they went out of their way to explicitly contradict it. The Belgian bishops are borrowing a page out of the playbook of their German confreres: Craft a proposal that upends or twists Church teaching (usually taking sides with the spirit of the age against the Church on matters dealing with sex), wrap it up with cherry-picked quotations from Pope Francis, and then, over Rome’s objections, present it as a fait accompli.
For his part, the Holy Father has made it clear, repeatedly, that he has reservations about the direction being taken by the German Synodal Way. He may do the same with the Flemish bishops. But it is also clear that the more progressive bishops conferences in Europe feel no qualms about blowing through every yellow caution light Rome flashes their way.
The Flemish bishops, for their part, have gone out of their way to insist that the blessing of homosexual unions must not be mistaken for the sacrament of marriage. Fair enough. But this emphasis, if anything, only underscores how far off its moorings the Belgian pastoral approach has drifted in its attempt to condone and bless such unions.
It is as if the Flemish bishops are saying, “No, see, this is okay because we’re only blessing couples who engage in sexual activity outside of the sacrament of marriage.”
(A spokesman for the Flemish bishops, somewhat comically, tried to suggest that the text for a blessing included in the bishops’ document wasn’t really a “blessing,” but no one is buying that line. As Fr. James Martin pointed out to the Washington Post, the text is clearly “asking God to be with same-sex partners not only in the home they share, but in what the prayer calls their ‘commitment.’”)
Of course, the Church’s fundamental objection to homosexual unions is not that they “look like marriage” (that objection is secondary); it is precisely that such unions are premised on sexual acts outside of marriage. And sexual acts outside of marriage are objectively wrong. For everyone.
And that, it seems, is the sticking point. The only way to make any sense of the Belgian bishops’ position is to hold – as they suggest that they do – that sexual unions outside of marriage (homosexual or otherwise), while not marriages, constitute some other neutral or even positive good.
Here the Flemish bishops run head-on into the position laid out so well by the CDF last spring:
[I]n order to conform with the nature of sacramentals, when a blessing is invoked on particular human relationships, in addition to the right intention of those who participate, it is necessary that what is blessed be objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace, according to the designs of God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord. Therefore, only those realities which are in themselves ordered to serve those ends are congruent with the essence of the blessing imparted by the Church.
For this reason, it is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex. The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan.
As I said, it is difficult to comprehend the position of the Flemish bishops except as an attempt to circumvent the Church’s teaching, based in Divine Revelation, that sexual acts belong only within marriage. As always, a failure in truth leads by a short path to failure in genuine charity. As the CDF wrote last year:
[T]he Church recalls that God Himself never ceases to bless each of His pilgrim children in this world, because for Him “we are more important to God than all of the sins that we can commit.” But he does not and cannot bless sin: he blesses sinful man, so that he may recognize that he is part of his plan of love and allow himself to be changed by him. He in fact “takes us as we are, but never leaves us as we are.”
Accompanying people with same-sex attraction – each one a son or daughter of God – requires a confidence in the gift of God’s revealed plan for human sexuality. Wavering on the meaning of that gift, indulging confusion about the beauty and significance of that gift, helps no one.
To do so is to risk transforming a great blessing into a curse.
AUTHOR
Stephen P. White is executive director of The Catholic Project at The Catholic University of America and a fellow in Catholic Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
False Shepherds Leading the Sheep Astray
Fr. Gerald E. Murray
The Flemish-speaking bishops of Belgium have issued a so-called blessing service for the union of homosexual couples. This imposture is obviously in complete contradiction to the Catholic Faith – an unholy parody of the blessing given within a Catholic marriage ceremony. It represents a manifest loss of faith on the part of these shepherds, who swore to uphold the Catholic Faith at the time of their episcopal consecration and have now publicly rejected that Faith by embracing what is offensive to God.
He created man and woman with complementary sexual faculties and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. He also forbade them to misuse their sexual faculties by engaging in sodomy.
When a priest blesses a man and a woman who pledge their vows in marriage, he is calling upon God to favor them with His grace and strength to fulfill those vows. God’s favor does not, and cannot, rest upon two men or two women who pledge to violate His law by promising to sodomize each other.
Sodomy is a mortal sin that violates the natural order created by God through a grave misuse of the sexual faculty – a plain violation of the natural law, condemned in the Sacred Scriptures as a sin of grave moral turpitude.
The embrace of sodomy by these bishops is disgraceful. The prayer they suggest for the conclusion of the “blessing” ceremony runs: “God. . . .You know their hearts and the path they will take together from now on. Make their commitment to each other strong and faithful.”
God has already told us that He condemns the path that these two have embarked upon. Mortal sin is a path to Hell. A commitment to engage in mortal sin is a deadly pact that spiritually harms each person involved. Asking God to make this deadly pact “strong and faithful” is a diabolical perversion of the duty of the Church’s ministers to lead the sheep away from sin with the help of God’s grace.
Do these bishops think that God wants people to ask His help in violating His law?
What the bishops have done is stupefying. They’re false shepherds, leading their sheep astray into grave sin. They are confirming people in behavior that destroys souls.
The suggested “vows” include this incredible prayer: “We thank you that we could find each other. We want to be there for each other in all circumstances of life. We confidently express here that we want to work on each other’s happiness, day by day.”
No thanks should be offered to God for finding an accomplice in mortal sin. God condemns mortal sin. He wants us to avoid both it and the near occasion of sin, which means we should shun unholy friendships that may lead to sin. Leading someone to commit sodomy will never produce happiness, but rather plunges the soul into the darkness and disorientation of separation from God.
The bishops attempt to justify their departure from the Faith by making the specious claim that homosexuals who “choose to live as a couple” have entered into a relationship that “can be a source of peace and shared happiness for those involved.”
Do the bishops really believe that violating God’s law brings peace and happiness? If they do, then they need to recognize their spiritual blindness and repent. They cannot pledge that they are faithful to Christ and his Gospel, and at the same time reject the Divine Law on sexual morality. If they will not repent, they should resign.
But we all know that they will not do that. They view themselves not as willful subversives working to overthrow Christian morality, but rather as bold prophets of a new, reworked Christianity in which sodomy is no longer sinful, but is rather part of God’s plan for Creation.
They describe homosexual unions as “life situations that do not fully live up to the objective ideal of marriage.” But sodomite unions are not “life situations” that happen outside of one’s control. They are a freely chosen way of life that in no way resembles marriage, but rather is a complete counterfeit. Marriage is not an “objective ideal,” in the sense of something one can strive for but which, in fact, only a few attain. Marriage is God’s plan for man and woman.
For these wayward shepherds, homosexual unions can be “the generous response one can give to God. . .the self-giving that God asks for amid the complexity of concrete restraints, even when the full objective ideal is not achieved.” This is nonsense, plain and simple. There is no “generous response to God” in violating God’s law and seeking to justify that violation by claiming that it is something that God allows and looks upon favorably.
The Flemish hierarchy has decided to launch a full-scale attack on the Catholic Faith under the guise of creating “a climate of respect, recognition and integration.” Their infidelity is in fact a clear example of disrespect to God and his law, and a refusal to recognize that law as being normative. Rather than promote the integration into Christ of those who are troubled with homosexual temptations, the wayward shepherds confirm them in a gravely sinful lifestyle by telling them that God approves of what they are doing.
Pope Francis is duty-bound to protect the flock from wolves, especially those who teach error with the authority given them by the Church when they were named bishops. The Catholic faithful need to hear from him that preaching error and immorality will not be tolerated.
The Catholics of Belgium need to be protected from their own bishops who are attempting to destroy Catholicism and replace it with a monstrosity of their own creation, a vicious system that promotes sin and thus separates man from God.
“Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists.” — Michael Crichton
In a speech he delivered to the Commonwealth Club of California, author, screenwriter, and director Michael Crichton lamented the removal of science from environmentalism. The speech given in September 2003 remains highly relevant as climate change and the impact of humans on their environment continues to be a highly politicized subject.
Crichton felt that environmentalism had become a religion and is now predominated by fundamentalists—individuals who are not open to reason or opposing ideas.
Best known for his works of fiction, including State of Fear, which tells the story of eco-terrorists creating seemingly “natural” disasters to mimic climate change.
Below is the full transcript of Crichton’s remarks.
I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer.
The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda.
Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.
We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we’re told exist are in fact real problems or non-problems.
Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.
As an example of this challenge, I want to talk today about environmentalism.
And in order not to be misunderstood, I want it perfectly clear that I believe it is incumbent on us to conduct our lives in a way that takes into account all the consequences of our actions, including the consequences to other people, and the consequences to the environment.
I believe it is important to act in ways that are sympathetic to the environment, and I believe this will always be a need, carrying into the future. I believe the world has genuine problems and I believe it can and should be improved. But I also think that deciding what constitutes responsible action is immensely difficult, and the consequences of our actions are often difficult to know in advance.
I think our past record of environmental action is discouraging, to put it mildly, because even our best-intended efforts often go awry. But I think we do not recognize our past failures and face them squarely. And I think I know why.
I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can’t be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion.
Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people—the best people, the most enlightened people—do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form.
You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism.
Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists.
Why do I say it’s a religion?
Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all.
We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability.
Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.
Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday—these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don’t want to talk anybody out of them, as I don’t want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don’t want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can’t talk anybody out of them.
These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.
And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism.
For more of Crichton’s thoughts on environmentalism as a new religion see his comments in this C-SPAN clip.
Increasingly it seems facts aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief.
It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.
Am I exaggerating to make a point?
I am afraid not.
Because we know a lot more about the world than we did forty or fifty years ago. And what we know now is not so supportive of certain core environmental myths, yet the myths do not die.
Let’s examine some of those beliefs.
There is no Eden. There never was.
What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in America a century ago. When plagues swept across the planet, killing millions in a stroke. Was it when millions starved to death? Is that when it was Eden?
And what about indigenous peoples, living in a state of harmony with the Eden-like environment? Well, they never did. On this continent, the newly arrived people who crossed the land bridge almost immediately set about wiping out hundreds of species of large animals, and they did this several thousand years before the white man showed up, to accelerate the process.
And what was the condition of life? Loving, peaceful, harmonious? Hardly: the early peoples of the New World lived in a state of constant warfare. Generations of hatred, tribal hatreds, constant battles. The warlike tribes of this continent are famous: the Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Mohawk, Aztecs, Toltec, Incas. Some of them practiced infanticide, and human sacrifice. And those tribes that were not fiercely warlike were exterminated, or learned to build their villages high in the cliffs to attain some measure of safety.
How about the human condition in the rest of the world? The Maori of New Zealand committed massacres regularly. The dyaks of Borneo were headhunters. The Polynesians, living in an environment as close to paradise as one can imagine, fought constantly, and created a society so hideously restrictive that you could lose your life if you stepped in the footprint of a chief. It was the Polynesians who gave us the very concept of taboo, as well as the word itself. The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true. That anyone still believes it, 200 years after Rousseau, shows the tenacity of religious myths, their ability to hang on in the face of centuries of factual contradiction.
There was even an academic movement, during the latter 20th century, that claimed that cannibalism was a white man’s invention to demonize the indigenous peoples—only academics could fight such a battle. It was some thirty years before professors finally agreed that yes, cannibalism does indeed occur among human beings.
Meanwhile, all during this time New Guinea highlanders in the 20th century continued to eat the brains of their enemies until they were finally made to understand that they risked kuru, a fatal neurological disease, when they did so.
More recently still the gentle Tasaday of the Philippines turned out to be a publicity stunt, a nonexistent tribe. And African pygmies have one of the highest murder rates on the planet.
In short, the romantic view of the natural world as a blissful Eden is only held by people who have no actual experience of nature.
People who live in nature are not romantic about it at all. They may hold spiritual beliefs about the world around them, they may have a sense of the unity of nature or the aliveness of all things, but they still kill the animals and uproot the plants in order to eat, to live. If they don’t, they will die.
And if you, even now, put yourself in nature even for a matter of days, you will quickly be disabused of all your romantic fantasies.
Take a trek through the jungles of Borneo, and in short order you will have festering sores on your skin, you’ll have bugs all over your body, biting in your hair, crawling up your nose and into your ears, you’ll have infections and sickness and if you’re not with somebody who knows what they’re doing, you’ll quickly starve to death. But chances are that even in the jungles of Borneo you won’t experience nature so directly, because you will have covered your entire body with DEET and you will be doing everything you can to keep those bugs off you.
The truth is, almost nobody wants to experience real nature. What people want is to spend a week or two in a cabin in the woods, with screens on the windows.
They want a simplified life for a while, without all their stuff, or a nice river rafting trip for a few days, with somebody else doing the cooking.
Nobody wants to go back to nature in any real way, and nobody does.
It’s all talk-and as the years go on, and the world population grows increasingly urban, it’s uninformed talk. Farmers know what they’re talking about. City people don’t. It’s all fantasy.
One way to measure the prevalence of fantasy is to note the number of people who die because they haven’t the least knowledge of how nature really is. They stand beside wild animals, like buffalo, for a picture and get trampled to death; they climb a mountain in dicey weather without proper gear, and freeze to death. They drown in the surf on holiday because they can’t conceive the real power of what we blithely call “the force of nature.” They have seen the ocean. But they haven’t been in it.
The television generation expects nature to act the way they want it to be. They think all life experiences can be Tivo-ed.
The notion that the natural world obeys its own rules and doesn’t give a damn about your expectations comes as a massive shock.
Well-to-do, educated people in an urban environment experience the ability to fashion their daily lives as they wish. They buy clothes that suit their taste, and decorate their apartments as they wish. Within limits, they can contrive a daily urban world that pleases them.
But the natural world is not so malleable. On the contrary, it will demand that you adapt to it-and if you don’t, you die. It is a harsh, powerful, and unforgiving world, that most urban westerners have never experienced.
Many years ago I was trekking in the Karakorum mountains of northern Pakistan, when my group came to a river that we had to cross. It was a glacial river, freezing cold, and it was running very fast, but it wasn’t deep—maybe three feet at most.
My guide set out ropes for people to hold as they crossed the river, and everybody proceeded, one at a time, with extreme care.
I asked the guide what was the big deal about crossing a three-foot river.
He said, “Well, supposing you fell and suffered a compound fracture. We were now four days trek from the last big town, where there was a radio. Even if the guide went back double time to get help, it’d still be at least three days before he could return with a helicopter. If a helicopter were available at all. And in three days, I’d probably be dead from my injuries. So that was why everybody was crossing carefully. Because out in nature a little slip could be deadly.”
But let’s return to religion.
If Eden is a fantasy that never existed, and mankind wasn’t ever noble and kind and loving, if we didn’t fall from grace, then what about the rest of the religious tenets?
What about salvation, sustainability, and judgment day?
What about the coming environmental doom from fossil fuels and global warming, if we all don’t get down on our knees and conserve every day?
Well, it’s interesting.
You may have noticed that something has been left off the doomsday list, lately. Although the preachers of environmentalism have been yelling about population for fifty years, over the last decade world population seems to be taking an unexpected turn. Fertility rates are falling almost everywhere. As a result, over the course of my lifetime the thoughtful predictions for total world population have gone from a high of 20 billion, to 15 billion, to 11 billion (which was the UN estimate around 1990) to now 9 billion, and soon, perhaps less.
There are some who think that world population will peak in 2050 and then start to decline. There are some who predict we will have fewer people in 2100 than we do today. Is this a reason to rejoice, to say halleluiah? Certainly not.
Without a pause, we now hear about the coming crisis of world economy from a shrinking population. We hear about the impending crisis of an aging population. Nobody anywhere will say that the core fears expressed for most of my life have turned out not to be true. As we have moved into the future, these doomsday visions vanished, like a mirage in the desert. They were never there—though they still appear, in the future, as mirages do.
Okay, so, the preachers made a mistake. They got one prediction wrong; they’re human. So what?
Unfortunately, it’s not just one prediction. It’s a whole slew of them.
We are running out of oil.
We are running out of all natural resources, Paul Ehrlich, 60 million Americans will die of starvation in the 1980s, forty thousand species become extinct every year, half of all species on the planet will be extinct by 2000. And on and on and on.
With so many past failures, you might think that environmental predictions would become more cautious.
But not if it’s a religion.
Remember, the nut on the sidewalk carrying the placard that predicts the end of the world doesn’t quit when the world doesn’t end on the day he expects. He just changes his placard, sets a new doomsday date, and goes back to walking the streets.
One of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts.
So I can tell you some facts.
I know you haven’t read any of what I am about to tell you in the newspaper, because newspapers literally don’t report them.
I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn’t carcinogenic and banned it anyway. I can tell you that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of tens of millions of poor people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the third world. Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn’t give a damn.
I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it.
I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit.
I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%.
I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing.
I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.
I can, with a lot of time, give you the factual basis for these views, and I can cite the appropriate journal articles not in whacko magazines, but in the most prestigious science journals, such as Science and Nature. But such references probably won’t impact more than a handful of you, because the beliefs of a religion are not dependent on facts, but rather are matters of faith—unshakeable belief.
Most of us have had some experience interacting with religious fundamentalists, and we understand that one of the problems with fundamentalists is that they have no perspective on themselves. They never recognize that their way of thinking is just one of many other possible ways of thinking, which may be equally useful or good. On the contrary, they believe their way is the right way, everyone else is wrong; they are in the business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things the right way. They want to help you be saved. They are totally rigid and totally uninterested in opposing points of view.
In our modern complex world, fundamentalism is dangerous because of its rigidity and its imperviousness to other ideas.
I want to argue that it is now time for us to make a major shift in our thinking about the environment, similar to the shift that occurred around the first Earth Day in 1970, when this awareness was first heightened.
But this time around, we need to get environmentalism out of the sphere of religion. We need to stop the mythic fantasies, and we need to stop the doomsday predictions. We need to start doing hard science instead.
There are two reasons why I think we all need to get rid of the religion of environmentalism.
First, we need an environmental movement, and such a movement is not very effective if it is conducted as a religion. We know from history that religions tend to kill people, and environmentalism has already killed somewhere between 10 to 30 million people since the 1970s. It’s not a good record.
Environmentalism needs to be absolutely based in objective and verifiable science, it needs to be rational, and it needs to be flexible. And it needs to be apolitical.
To mix environmental concerns with the frantic fantasies that people have about one political party or another is to miss the cold truth—that there is very little difference between the parties, except a difference in pandering rhetoric.
The effort to promote effective legislation for the environment is not helped by thinking that the Democrats will save us and the Republicans won’t. Political history is more complicated than that.
Never forget which president started the EPA. Richard Nixon. And never forget which president sold federal oil leases, allowing oil drilling in Santa Barbara. Lyndon Johnson.
So get politics out of your thinking about the environment.
The second reason to abandon environmental religion is more pressing.
Religions think they know it all, but the unhappy truth of the environment is that we are dealing with incredibly complex, evolving systems, and we usually are not certain how best to proceed. Those who are certain are demonstrating their personality type, or their belief system, not the state of their knowledge.
Our record in the past, for example managing national parks, is humiliating. Our fifty-year effort at forest-fire suppression is a well-intentioned disaster from which our forests will never recover.
We need to be humble, deeply humble, in the face of what we are trying to accomplish.
We need to be trying various methods of accomplishing things.
We need to be open-minded about assessing results of our efforts, and we need to be flexible about balancing needs. Religions are good at none of these things.
How will we manage to get environmentalism out of the clutches of religion, and back to a scientific discipline?
There’s a simple answer. We must institute far more stringent requirements for what constitutes knowledge in the environmental realm.
I am thoroughly sick of politicized so-called facts that simply aren’t true. It isn’t that these “facts” are exaggerations of an underlying truth. Nor is it that certain organizations are spinning their case to present it in the strongest way. Not at all—what more and more groups are doing is putting out is lies, pure and simple. Falsehoods that they know to be false.
This trend began with the DDT campaign, and it persists to this day.
At this moment, the EPA is hopelessly politicized.
In the wake of Carol Browner, it is probably better to shut it down and start over.
What we need is a new organization much closer to the FDA.
We need an organization that will be ruthless about acquiring verifiable results, that will fund identical research projects to more than one group, and that will make everybody in this field get honest fast.
Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don’t know any better.
That’s not a good future for the human race. That’s our past. So it’s time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-09-21 14:51:282022-09-21 14:51:28Remember What Renowned Author of ‘Jurassic Park’ Michael Crichton Really Thought About Climate Change?
Technology leaders from Bill Gates to Elon Musk and others have warned us in recent years that one of the biggest threats to humanity is uncontrolled domination by artificial intelligence (AI). In 2017, Musk said at a conference, “I have exposure to the most cutting edge AI, and I think people should be really concerned about it.”
And in 2019, Bill Gates stated that while we will see mainly advantages from AI initially, “. . . a few decades after that, though, the intelligence is strong enough to be a concern.” And the transhumanist camp, led by such zealots as Ray Kurzweil, seems to think that the future takeover of the universe by AI is not only inevitable, but a good thing, because it will leave our old-fashioned mortal meat computers (otherwise known as brains) in the junkpile where they belong.
Marks is a practicing electrical engineer who has made fundamental contributions in the areas of signal processing and computational intelligence. After spending most of his career at the University of Washington, he moved to Baylor University in 2003, where he now directs the Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence. His book was published by the Discovery Institute, which is an organization that has historically promoted the concept of intelligent design.
That is neither here nor there, at least to judge by the book’s contents. Those looking for a philosophically nuanced and extended argument in favor of the uniqueness of the human mind as compared to present or future computational realizations of what might be called intelligence, had best look elsewhere. In Marks’s view, the question of whether AI will ever match or supersede the general-intelligence abilities of the human mind has a simple answer: it won’t.
He bases his claim on the fact that all computers do nothing more than execute algorithms. Simply put, algorithms are step-by-step instructions that tell a machine what to do. Any activity that can be expressed as an algorithm can in principle be performed by a computer. Just as important, any activity or function that cannot be put into the form of an algorithm cannot be done by a computer, whether it’s a pile of vacuum tubes, a bunch of transistors on chips, quantum “qubits,” or any conceivable future form of computing machine.
Some examples Marks gives of things that can’t be done algorithmically are feeling pain, writing a poem that you and other people truly understand, and inventing a new technology. These are things that human beings do, but according to Marks, AI will never do.
What about the software we have right now behind conveniences such as Alexa, which gives the fairly strong impression of being intelligent? Alexa certainly seems to “know” a lot more facts than any particular human being does.
Marks dismisses this claim to intelligence by saying that extensive memory and recall doesn’t make something intelligent any more than a well-organized library is intelligent. Sure, there are lots of facts that Alexa has access to. But it’s what you do with the facts that counts, and AI doesn’t understand anything. It just imitates what it’s been told to imitate without knowing what it’s doing.
The heart of Marks’s book is really the first chapter entitled “The Non-Computable Human.” Once he gets clear the difference between algorithmic tasks and non-algorithmic tasks, it’s just a matter of sorting. Yes, computers can do this better than humans, but computers will never do that.
There are lots of other interesting things in the book: a short history of AI, an extensive critique of the different kinds of AI hype and how not to be fooled by them, and numerous war stories from Marks’s work in fields as different as medical care and the stabilization of power grids. But these other matters are mostly a lot of icing on a rather small cake, because Marks is not inclined to delve into the deeper philosophical waters of what intelligence is and whether we understand it quite as well as Marks thinks we do.
As a Christian, Marks is well aware of the dangers posed to both Christians and non-Christians by a thing called idolatry. Worshipping idols—things made by one’s own hands and substituted for the true God—was what got the Hebrews into trouble time and again in the Old Testament, and it continues to be a problem today. The problem with an idol is not so much what the idol itself can do—carved wooden images tend not to do much of anything on their own—but what it does to the idol-worshipper. And here is where Marks could have done more of a service in showing how human beings can turn AI into an idol, and effectively worship it.
While an idol-worshipping pagan might burn incense to a wooden image and figure he’d done everything needed to ensure a good crop, a bureaucracy of the future might take a task formerly done at considerable trouble and expense by humans—deciding on how long a prison sentence should be, for example—and turn it over to an AI program. Actually, that example is not futuristic at all. Numerous court systems have resorted to AI algorithms (there’s that word again) to predict the risk of recidivism for different individuals, and basing the length of their sentences and parole status on the result.
Needless to say, this particular application has come in for criticism, and not only by the defendants and their lawyers. Many AI systems are famously opaque, meaning even their designers can’t give a good reason for why the results are the way they are. So I’d say in at least that regard, we have already gone pretty far down the road toward turning AI into an idol.
No, Marks is right in the sense that machines are, after all, only machines. But if we make any machine our god, we are simply asking for trouble. And that’s the real risk we face in the future from AI: making it our god, putting it in charge, and abandoning our regard for the real God.
Karl D. Stephan received the B. S. in Engineering from the California Institute of Technology in 1976. Following a year of graduate study at Cornell, he received the Master of Engineering degree in 1977… More by Karl D. Stephan
EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-09-19 21:52:462022-09-19 21:52:46Will Artificial Intelligence Make Humanity Irrelevant?
Many of the world’s leading journals are condemning the US Supreme Court’s decision to scrap Roe v. Wade.
On June 24 the US Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade and declared that there was no right to abortion in the American Constitution. Ever since, the world’s leading scientific and medical journals have been campaigning not just against the ruling, but against the Supreme Court itself.
How have scientists and doctors suddenly become experts on ethics, law, politics, and philosophy? These are fields in which the scientific method is irrelevant. A doctor may declare that the Supreme Court’s decision is immoral. How can such a statement be proved with an experiment? How could such an experiment be replicated?
The core issue in the debate over abortion was not settled by Dobbs: it is whether the foetus in the womb of the mother is a human being or not. No scientist can settle the question one way or another.
This obvious rejoinder to the rivers of anti-Dobbs and pro-abortion sentiment flowing through these learned journals, however, is simply being ignored – that the foetus is a human being and that abortion destroys a human life. As an article in MercatorNet pointed out last week, 1,000,000,000 (one billion) human lives are aborted every 20 years or so (according to a study in The Lancet). A doctor who does not think that this is a burning ethical issue should have his registration revoked.
The latest contribution to the flood of pro-abortion propaganda comes in The New England Journal of Medicine, which may be most influential medical journal in the world. In an opinion article yesterday, Matthew K. Wynia, of the University of Colorado, argued that doctors should engage in a campaign of civil disobedience as a protest against Dobbs.
Incredibly, Dr Wynia enlists the civil rights icon, Dr Martin Luther King Jr, and the Christian philosopher and theologian, St Augustine, to support his argument. “An unjust law is no law at all,” said Augustine. True enough, but what special insight qualifies doctors to determine whether an abortion ban is unjust?
Indeed, history suggests doctors have often been on the wrong side on ethical matters – as Dr Wynia acknowledges:
“Historically, physicians have rarely been radical, and most have conformed with bad laws and policies, even horrific ones — such as those authorizing forced-sterilization programs in the United States and Nazi Germany, the use of psychiatric hospitals as political prisons in the Soviet Union, and police brutality under apartheid in South Africa. Too often, organized medicine has failed to fulfill its duty to protect patients when doing so required acting against state authority.”
Why is the opposition of the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, American College of Physicians and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists – all of whom Dr Wynia cites – any different? If doctors have normally supported the status quo, shouldn’t we expect them to support the status quo on abortion – especially when they profit from it?
At the moment, science is experiencing a crisis of credibility. Peer review is under attack almost as much as Dobbs; so many experiments are never corroborated that talk of a “reproducibility crisis” is common in science journals. And most astonishing of all is the claim by an eminent scholar, John P. Ioannides, that “There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false.” Most! His dramatic assertion has yet to be refuted.
This is not to say that Science, with a capital S, is false. Research papers which have been were submitted to rigorous peer review and have been replicated are science. How often does that happen with “reproductive health services”? Not as often as the public thinks. And it is certainly not the case with self-interested complaints about the constitutional reasoning of Dobbs and the morality of abortion.
The arguments put forward by the best medical journals are very similar to those marshalled by every interest group which has been defeated in court – my cause is a positive good; my cause is a social good; my cause is supported by the Establishment; and Armageddon looms if my cause is ignored.
They were precisely the arguments used by the South – and Southern doctors – to justify slavery in the 19th century.
In 1836 a representative from South Carolina, James Henry Hammond, rose in Congress to defend slavery. He said:
“Slavery is said to be an evil… But it is no evil. On the contrary, I believe it to be the greatest of all the great blessings which a kind Providence has bestowed upon our glorious region… As a class, I say it boldly; there is not a happier, more contented race upon the face of the earth… Lightly tasked, well clothed, well fed—far better than the free laborers of any country in the world … their lives and persons protected by the law, all their sufferings alleviated by the kindest and most interested care…. Sir, I do firmly believe that domestic slavery regulated as ours is produces the highest toned, the purest, best organization of society that has ever existed on the face of the earth.”
Today, we can only read such words with horror. They are evidence of the moral blindness which strikes men who defend their own interests with every weapon they can lay their hands on. Two hundred years ago, the issue was defending slavery; today, it is defending abortion.
AUTHOR
Michael Cook is the editor of MercatorNet. He lives in Sydney, Australia. More by Michael Cook
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-09-19 21:52:452022-09-19 21:52:45Scientists and Doctors are Talking Through Their Hats on Abortion
Economics may offer a clue as to why not one state is mandating vaccination to attend school in the 2022-2023 school year, even though many government officials support coercive vaccination policies.
September has arrived and many children are back in public schools (though fewer than previous years).
At a recent event, one parent joked to me we’re now officially in “vaccine season.” The comment made me laugh, but there’s at least a kernel of truth to it. It’s not unusual for states to require that children receive an array of vaccinations—from polio, diphtheria, and chickenpox to measles, mumps, and meningitis—to be enrolled in a public school system.
One vaccine that parents will not find on any state’s required list in 2022 are the Covid-19 shots, which have been a source of great debate in the US and other countries.
“[Only] two states—California and Louisiana—have added COVID-19 vaccines to the list of immunizations mandated for schoolchildren,” Michael Ollove pointed out in January. “Both requirements would be enforced next school year, and then only if the vaccines receive full authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.”
Things have changed since then.
In May, Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards announced the Louisiana Department of Health would not require children attending the state’s daycares or K-12 schools to provide proof of vaccination. California, which in October 2021 became the first state to announce Covid vaccine requirements for school, announced in April that it would not require vaccination, noting the vaccines had not at that time been approved by the FDA for all school-age children. (They are now.)
The fact that not a single US state is requiring students to be vaccinated against Covid to attend K-12 school is probably a bit surprising to readers. (It was to this author.)
I’d like to think that policymakers and politicians finally woke up to the fact that vaccine mandates are immoral, inhumane, and a clear violation of bodily integrity. But that seems unlikely considering that many vaccine mandates remain in place, particularly at the federal and municipal levels.
It’s also possible that lawmakers have realized vaccinated individuals can still get sick and spread the virus, and therefore concluded vaccinations are a matter of personal health, not public health. Yet once again this theory is undermined by the presence of other vaccine mandates that remain in place. Some may contend that we’ve simply beaten the virus and mandates are no longer necessary, but official statistics show Covid deaths and cases remain stubbornly high.
So what’s the answer?
What’s most likely is that political considerations are at play. Yet this thesis too, at first blush, appears to be undermined by the reality that polls show Americans support Covid vaccine mandates in schools.
Some basic economics, however, can help us see that the politics are more complicated than that.
‘Politics Without Romance’
Public Choice Theory is a field of economics pioneered by the Nobel Prize-winning economist James M. Buchanan and economist Gordon Tullock. It rests on a simple assumption: politicians and bureaucrats make decisions primarily based on self-interest and incentives just like everyone else, not out of an altruistic goal of serving “the public good.” (This is why public choice economists have dubbed it “politics without romance.”)
I’ve previously pointed out that politicians were incentivized during the pandemic to embrace Covid restrictions even if they didn’t work because of the political climate in 2020. The absence of government regulations was viewed as actual violence by some public health experts, and those who didn’t embrace strict interventions were accused of genocide.
Moreover, the costs of these regulations tended to be dispersed, delayed, and hidden from view. Depression, drug overdoses, lost learning, and speech impediments were among the consequences of NPIs (Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions) imposed by governments. But the results of these policies were relatively “unseen” (to use a term from the 19th century economist Frederic Bastiat), at least compared to Covid deaths, which public health officials, the media, and even ordinary citizens tracked obsessively.
The costs of NPIs were quite serious, but they were quite low politically for the reasons stated above. The political costs of keeping a state open were much higher. No politician wants to explain why Mrs. Jackson, the 60-year-old math teacher, died from Covid while schools in your state remained open. (It would be just as tragic if Mrs. Jackson had died at home when schools were closed, but at least no politician would be blamed for her death in this case.)
In other words, the incentive structure early in the pandemic encouraged interventions, even if those interventions were ineffective and ultimately ended up doing more harm than good.
A Different Incentive?
The incentive structure for vaccines is very different, particularly for young people.
Children can and do die from Covid, of course, but their risk is extremely low compared to other age groups. Even more important, perhaps, is that the costs of mandatory vaccination are not delayed, dispersed, or hidden from view. They are immediate, concentrated, and highly visible.
The sad reality is that vaccine injuries, though rare, do occur, as the CDC notes. And when they occur, they are the opposite of “unseen,” which means the political repercussions have the potential to be swift—and severe.
After all, when a young person dies after taking a vaccine designed to protect him, it’s a tragedy. When a young person dies of myocarditis after taking a vaccine he was forced to take to attend school, it’s a tragic event and a political disaster with a wide radius, even if some studies show the risk of myocarditis is greater after Covid infection than after Covid vaccination.
The Imperative of Choice
All of this analysis is dark and a bit troubling, of course. Now you see why they call public choice theory “politics without romance.”
Whether mandatory vaccination would have done more harm than good is a question we’ll never know, though it’s a debate that will likely continue for years to come. But because vaccines have the power to both save lives and claim lives, the decision to accept or refuse them can only morally be made by one person: the individual (or parents, if the decision concerns a child).
So at least state leaders are getting it right this time, even if they are doing so for the wrong reasons.
Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-09-19 20:51:442022-09-19 20:51:44Not a Single U.S. State Is Requiring Kids to Get Vaccinated to Attend Public School. Why?
Today I free my inner crank and tell you to get off my lawn. I’m an attorney by training and had to pass three bar exams to be licensed to practice in three jurisdictions. It wasn’t easy, but my clients were assured I knew my stuff. That would no longer be the case if a proposal to do away with the bar exam carries the day. The Delaware Supreme Court diversity committee recommended that prospective lawyers be licensed to practice by gathering personal recommendations and working in clerkships instead of taking the bar exam. The committee said the exam is a “barrier” to blacks and Hispanics. But in a congressional hearing, Senator Ted Cruz pointed out the obvious racism in this approach, the notion that blacks and Hispanics are too stupid to pass the test. “Do you believe that there’s something about Hispanics and African-Americans that prevents them from taking the bar exam and doing well on it?” Cruz, who is Hispanic, asked a judicial nominee who is black. Both took and passed bar exams. Cruz went on to argue cases at the Supreme Court, reaching a pinnacle of the profession.
If lower standards for lawyers don’t bother you, how about your doctor? Minorities in some circumstances can now gain admission to the University of Pennsylvania’s med school without taking the MCAT admissions test. All they have to do is complete college-level science courses. One doctor noted that doctors are called upon to make life and death decisions. “The stakes are too high to start lowering standards or taking shortcuts with basic fundamental scientific knowledge necessary for developing critical thinking skills to diagnose and properly treat diseases,” the doctor says.
Lower standards are not just a growing problem at professional schools. A college instructor at the University of Cincinnati says rules against plagiarism and cheating on tests unfairly affect minority students more than whites. “[T]he idea of academic integrity is racialized through and through,” he says. Minority students are more often accused of cheating, so his solution is to relax the rules and not be too “punitive” when cheating is found. So let me get this straight: minority students will never measure up no matter what, they need crutches to succeed and, on top of that, they need the intercession of a priestly class of professorial fixers if they’re going to make it through life. How is that not racist? How is that not ‘learned helplessness’? How does that not create resentment among anyone who worked hard to meet all the requirements without cheating?
Also in colleges, faculty hiring and tenure decisions in some places now depend in part on adherence to diversity, equity, and inclusion orthodoxy. This reduces the importance of academic merit and achievement in deciding who gets hired and who gets to stay. Tuition keeps going up while academic standards keep going down. At some point, people will figure out it’s no longer worth the money.
Academic standards are declining before college. I know a philosophy professor who says many students showing up in his classes now are not ready or able to learn. They haven’t done the work necessary to understand advanced material. To see how this might have come about, consider a place like Baltimore where a big report on grade-fixing last summer found thousands of grades were changed from ‘fail’ to ‘pass’. It’s a whole lot easier to pass kids through than it is to meet their learning challenges.
The future of all this is not good – elementary school students who never learn to read, professors whose heads are full of diversity theory instead of real knowledge, less competent professionals, and an adult population half of which is functionally illiterate. It leads to a society where it is perfectly acceptable to urinate and defecate on the street – ugh! Encouraging others to achieve less is the wrong way to go, no matter how good the reasons might sound. The best thing you can do for people is insist they meet high standards. If you don’t want to meet high standards, get off my lawn.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-09-19 20:51:422022-09-19 20:51:42What’s the Matter with Kids These Days?
Alcohol can damage the body in various ways, not only in one’s physical health and fitness but also in how the body’s organs function. However, alcohol use takes place in many ways, and each comes with its risks for the health of our organs. Here’s a look at binge drinking, what it is, and how it causes damage to our organs.
What Is Binge Drinking?
In order to understand how and why binge drinking damages the organs, we first need to understand what it is. Binge drinking is a pattern of frequent alcohol use that raises blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) levels in a short time. Binge drinking occurs when someone reaches a BAC of at least 0.08% within two hours of drinking alcohol. This BAC matches what most states consider intoxication, although intoxication can occur below 0.08%, such as in Utah.
However, this does not mean binge drinking is the practice of getting drunk within two hours. While a BAC of 0.08% will most likely involve around five alcoholic drinks for males and four alcoholic drinks for females, a wide range of factors can affect how intoxicated someone is by the time their BAC is 0.08%. These include boy weight, age, and metabolism, just to name a few.
It’s important to note that people who binge drink may not develop alcohol use disorder (AUD). The context of binge drinking is surprisingly widespread, with the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism citing data that about 24% of people age 12 and older in the United States participate in binge drinking on a monthly basis. The context of binge drinking typically takes place at parties, a night out with friends, and of course, a celebration of someone’s 21st birthday.
However, binge drinking is especially dangerous because those who do it do not always have AUD. The special occasion of parties or outings means we treat binge drinking as something we can indulge in from time to time. But this perspective means we aren’t paying attention to (or we aren’t aware of) the damage binge drinking can cause.
Expected and Unexpected Damage
Binge drinking is one of the most common factors that contribute to alcohol overdose, meaning that our bodies have an excess amount of alcohol in our bloodstream, and we cannot process all of it. Once alcohol cripples our central nervous system, we start to experience an inability to control things like heart rate, body temperature, breathing, and response to choking. It is vital not to downplay someone who has passed out after binge drinking as hitting their limit. They might be unconscious because their body can’t stay awake, but the excess alcohol is still spreading throughout the body. Far from being safe, people who pass out from binge drinking are at a much higher risk of dying because of not getting enough oxygen, either from their reduced heart and lung function or from choking on vomit while unconscious.
We probably expect these examples of organ damage because they can occur to anyone who experiences an alcohol overdose or uses alcohol long term. But it’s important to remember that binge drinking is not exempt from these dangers. However, there are other unexpected damages that can occur when binge drinking. Alcohol affects the body’s tissues, and excessive alcohol use can lead to chronic diseases, including acute pancreatitis, and an increased risk of cancer, such as colorectal, breast, and esophageal. In adolescents, binge drinking can greatly damage brain development, leading to deficits in attention, memory, and cognitive functions.
Heart disease is another unsuspecting side effect of binge drinking. The reason is that drinking too much alcohol raises blood pressure. This puts a strain on the heart and creates an environment for an increased risk of developing dangerous heart conditions, such as atrial fibrillation, blood clots, stroke, and heart failure.
Is Binge Drinking Damage Reversible?
Once we learn how harmful binging on alcohol is, the big question we should ask is whether the damage caused to our organs is reversible. In this case, time is of the essence. The first thing to do to maintain our organs’ health is to avoid binge drinking altogether. The risks associated with binge drinking are simply not worth the fleeting reward of the moment. However, if we find we cannot avoid binge drinking on our own, it is a high likelihood that we have developed an addiction to alcohol. If this is the case, then avoiding binge drinking will also involve completing a professional detox treatment plan with medical professionals committed to helping you each step of the way.
“Lie and deny are the Biden, Harris and Democrat Party’s mantras leading into the 2022 midterms and beyond.” — Dr. Rich Swier
We have decided to do an exposé on the Democrat’s plan to destroy our peace, prosperity and health, and healthcare, for everyone in the United States of America.
Many have called what their doing by different names: woke, cultural war, anti-American, semi-fascist, Communist, socialist, red-green-rainbow alliance and traitorous.
The fundamental agenda of Democrats is to lie and then deny.
Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels said,
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”
The Democrat Party and their leaders, i.e. Biden and Harris, are telling big lies and repeating them over and over again.
Biden, Harris and the White House have been lying and denying on issues like:
Kamala Harris repeatedly stating that there is no border crisis.
Biden, Kamala Harris, Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortes, Al Gore and the Department of Energy believing that mankind can control the weather and climate by changing they’re behaviors, i.e. going green, buying all electric cars, stop all fossil fuels, stop eating meat, etc.
Biden’s policies that male and female are inter-changeable and one can choose their personal pronouns and gender at will.
Biden and his Department of Education believing that it is the governments duty to teach underaged children, K-3, about sex and any parent who speaks out against this is designated as a domestic terrorists by Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland.
Being queer (LGBTQ+) is a healthy behavior and life choice that must be encouraged, promoted, funded and even mandated.
Taking Covid vaccines is the only right thing to do. Not to get vaxxed is a form of fascism.
Let’s look at these and other issues that the Democrats from the school house to the White House are promoting.
PEACE
Since taking office we have seen the world respect for America disappear. Today, under Biden, we have morphed from a peaceful world under President Trump, e.g. the Abraham Accords, into a global war with our sworn enemies: Russia, Iran, China and North Korea.
It all began with the Biden administration’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.
The withdrawal from Afghanistan showed the incompetence and weaknesses in Biden and his administration including Biden’s Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark A. Milley.
In 2017 President Donald J. Trump warned that any hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan would be disastrous. Watch:
Trump made the following key points that upon taking office Biden ignored:
First, our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made, especially the sacrifices of lives.
Second, the consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable. 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in our history, was planned and directed from Afghanistan because that country was ruled by a government that gave comfort and shelter to terrorists.
We must address the reality of the world as it exists right now — the threats we face, and the confronting of all of the problems of today, and extremely predictable consequences of a hasty withdrawal.
Next came Biden’s rush to war with Russia. Here are just a few of the key columns we published about Biden, his administration and the consequences of U.S. involvement in the Russia-Ukraine War:
We now understand that Biden’s priority and our peace is being forfeited in order to support the Ukrainians, Ukraine’s military and the war rather than taking care of American citizens and our military families.
The Ukraine War is bringing hell upon every American citizen!
PROSPERITY
Again, Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph Gobbles said,
“What you get, you don’t want, and what you want, you don’t get.”
This short sentence explains what Americans are facing. What we want is being taken away and what we’re getting is clearly something none of us ever wanted.
Lie and deny is rampant in the Biden White House down to Democrats in Congress when it comes to the American economy.
Some examples of Biden lying and denying on the U.S. economy include:
Saying there is no inflation. Biden in a statement released Thursday, July 28th, 2022 said, “Coming off of last year’s historic economic growth — and regaining all the private sector jobs lost during the pandemic crisis — it’s no surprise that the economy is slowing down as the Federal Reserve acts to bring down inflation.” In 2021 there was no historic economic growth. The Federal Reserve just warned that the economy will get worse, not better.
America’s gross domestic product fell by 0.9% on an annualized basis from April through June 2022 according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. It is commonly understood that to be in a recession there must be two consecutive quarters of the country’s gross domestic product shrinking. The Business Cycle Dating Committee officially defines when the U.S. economy is in a recession, and they define a recession as involving “a significant decline in economic activity that is spread across the economy and lasts more than a few months.” In other words America is in a recession.
There was a time because of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) of 1996 when every American’s health record was kept secret. The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention website reads,
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is a federal law that required the creation of national standards to protect sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient’s consent or knowledge.
Medical information confidentiality was the one thing that doctors and patients could depend upon. HIPPA was designed specifically to insure “nothing” would be shared without the “patient’s consent.”
That consent has now been compromised.
Today there is a new weapon that is being used to destroy doctor patient confidentiality—Electronic Health Records (EHRs).
QUESTION: Why are EHRs a threat to Doctor—Patient Confidentiality?
ANSWER: EHRs are a ball and chain to physicians and patients alike.
The Destruction of Doctor Patient Confidentiality
There are three issues that are key to understand why doctor patient confidentiality is a myth.
Doctors who use EHR are monitored.
Patients don’t know who is looking at their medical records.
Neither a patient nor his or her doctors have any say on protecting confidential medical information.
As Mobius.MD’sRemy Franklin states, “This quickly evolving [EHR] industry is still finding solutions to key challenges like interoperability and security, but the inevitable era of EHRs has arrived.”
Here is one glaring example of what happens today with EHRs. In his Newsletter Steve Kirsch wrote an article titled Why doctors aren’t speaking out. Steve wrote about how we are headed for a perfect storm with escalating health needs and a shortage of doctors because of how we treat them. One doctor wrote to Steve and stated,
Dear Steve,
You ask why doctors are silent. The electronic medical records (EMRs) are a ball and chain to physicians. We are tracked through them. When I wrote a prescription for Ivermectin for a patient, with informed consent (she was vaccinated), I received 5 letters threatening my medical license, my hospital privileges, and my insurance contracts. I would not have received 5 letters if I killed someone in negligence or malpractice. If I have my license pulled, I will no longer be able to help my patients.
I speak to patients on a one-on-one basis, butspeaking out would destroy my family. I have children.
Today, EMRs are being used to attack doctors who don’t comply with political practices of keeping patients from getting the treatments, in this case the use of Ivermectin, to prevent the flu.
Never have we seen doctors, nurses, hospitals so afraid to speak out against government medical mandates.
We went to a pulmonologist recently and all of the office and professional staff and patients were required to wear a mask even though there is study after study reporting that masks don’t work to prevent the spread of the Covid flu. When I asked why, as experts in lung issues, they still required wearing masks they were silent.
Why, because, like the doctor above, they are afraid of standing against the “statist medical-government complex.”
In another troubling sign the Biden administration views distrusting American citizens as dangerous and subversive, the public learned this week the FBI has been reading private Facebook posts, and labeling the writer a domestic terrorist threat, if you questioned the 2020 presidential election. Those comments then earned the Facebook user his or her own investigation by their own disapproving government.
In an exclusive story published this week, The New York Post quotes Department of Justice whistleblowers who describe a 19-month operation in which a Facebook employee secretly sent online messages to the FBI if the author complained about their government – specifically if they questioned if Joe Biden legally defeated Donald Trump. [Emphasis added]
The fundamental issue is whomever controls our peace, prosperity and health, and healthcare controls the individual.
The U.S. Constitution was created to give power over our lives, liberties and happiness to we the people and limit the role of the federal government. The founding fathers established a Constitutional Republican form of governance. Not a democracy.
Biden’s “lying & denying” agenda is designed to grow the powers of the federal government to the point that today our individual ability to control our peace, prosperity and health, and healthcare is quickly approaching zero.
In the dystopian novel 1984 O’Brien, the grand inquisitor of the totalitarian regime in Orwell’s novel, says, “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”
Today we have a new Grand Inquisitor of the Democrat’s totalitarian regime—Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.
But he is just a figurehead. It’s the dystopian bureaucracy that is our true enemy.
The dystopian bureaucracy began establishing it’s totalitarian regime on January 6th, 2021 by arresting peaceful protestors in Washington D.C., which ultimately lead to the armed raid and ransacking of the personal residence of a former president of these United States named Mar-a-Lago.
We are fast approaching that time when the federal government’s boot will be stomping on each and everyone of our faces—for ever.
Don’t believe this? Then just look at how the FBI is arresting Biden and the Democrats political opponents en masse. If you believe in making and keeping America great you are an enemy of the state and are sent to their federal gulags for reprogramming.
Lie and Deny we are believe that War is Peace—Freedom is Slavery—Ignorance is Strength.
It is only be a matter of time before they come for us.
The killing of our offspring is far worse than genocide.
The word “genocide” is rooted in the Shoah. A Polish Jew named Raphael Lemkin (1900-1959) first used it in 1944 as a way to describe the systematic murder of European Jewry by the National Socialists.
Lemkin’s concept of the slaughter of a people — although greatly informed by the Armenian Genocide during the First World War — later underpinned the prosecution of Nazi wartime officials at Nuremberg in the early postwar period. The Shoah, indeed genocide in general, is a crime so heinous and big that it a new term was required to name it.
Even today, although we know that “genocide” means the attempt to erase an ethnic, racial, religious, or other group from the face of the earth, we struggle to understand the viciousness of those who carried out the Shoah, the most hateful genocide. By the same measure, we struggle to understand those who, since then, have continued to seek the extermination of their fellow human beings.
In this, we share an affinity with Raphael Lemkin. What is often forgotten about Lemkin is that he spent his life after World War II trying to come to grips with the scope of the crime he had uncovered.
Perennial scourge
The 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was an important part of Lemkin’s legacy, to be sure. But Lemkin seemed to understand that the political machinery of the world was lagging far behind the ingenuity which humans were deploying in terrorising one another. There is just too much industrial-scale murder in the world for any political institution to contain. (This is especially true since governments themselves are almost always the authors of genocides.)
And “genocide” can be applied retroactively, too. Today one often hears the term used to describe the campaigns carried out against native peoples in North and South America, or even the putting to the sword of Carthaginians by Roman invaders in 146 BC. Lemkin didn’t include either of these under the category of genocide, or any of the other examples from history of one people’s massacring another, but he did understand that wherever there are weak and vulnerable people, there will always be those who will try to prey upon them.
It was with Raphael Lemkin and his extraordinarily brave and prescient work in mind that I listened recently to a speech given by Shoah survivor Vera Sharav. Speaking on the seventy-fifth anniversary of the enacting of the Nuremberg Code (against forced human experimentation of any kind), Sharav issued this clarion warning:
The real viral disease that infected Nazi Germany is Eugenics. Eugenics is the elitist ideology at the root of all genocides. [… Eugenicists] legitimize discrimination, apartheid, sterilization, euthanasia, and genocide. The Nazis called it “ethnic cleansing” — for the protection of the gene pool.
Medicine was perverted from its healing mission & was weaponized. First, it was to control reproduction through forced sterilization; then it was to eliminate those deemed to be “sub-human” — Untermenschen.
The first victims of medical murder were 1,000 German disabled infants and toddlers. This murderous operation was expanded to an estimated 10,000 children up to age 17. The next victims were the mentally ill; they were followed by the elderly in nursing homes. All of these human beings were condemned as “worthless eaters”.
[… D]esignated hospitals became killing stations where various extermination methods were tested — including Zy[k]lon B — the gas that was used in the death camps.
Sharav was speaking about the current covid- and vaccine-related conscience crisis in the world, but I think much of what she said can be understood to apply to a very different kind of dehumanisation campaign: abortion. At the same time, Sharav’s powerful words highlighted for me an unease that I have increasingly been feeling over the extension of the word “genocide” to describe abortion, the biggest and most sustained slaughter in all the dark annals of human history.
Abortion, bigger than genocide, aimed at the human race itself
According to the Guttmacher Institute, roughly 121 million unintended pregnancies occurred worldwide each year between 2015 and 2019. Of these unintended pregnancies, 61 percent ended in abortion. This translates to 73 million abortions per year, and implies that in 13 years, there are 1 billion abortions. Another article from The Lancet in 2016, which is much more statistical, suggests that there are 1 billion abortions every 20 years, globally.
That means, in the 50 years since countries began legalising abortion, at least 2 billion preborn children (and, yes, sometimes just-born infants) have been dismembered by abortionists.
Some call this mass killing a genocide, but I am not so sure. What makes this different from the Shoah and other genocides is not a question of numbers. The dignity of human beings cannot be tallied up in numerals and tables. What makes the slaughter of the children different is the intent behind it.
Genocide is the deliberate targeting of a group because of some characteristic — real or imagined — which that group embodies and which the genocidal party would destroy. Jew, Armenian, kulak, Tutsi, intellectual, bourgeois, landlord — these and countless other attributes have been used as markers for those whom the genocidal seek to eliminate.
Abortion is not quite like this. True, in India, China, and many other places where male children are preferred over females, daughters are killed off in the womb at much higher rates than sons. “Gendercide” is the name often used to describe this targeted culling of a certain group of people. And in many countries around the world, Down Syndrome babies, and babies with other congenital conditions, have virtually disappeared. They have almost all been killed in utero, another example showing the deep eugenicist influence in the abortion trade.
But the above examples, while heart-breaking, remain the exception. In general, abortion is not performed because the child in the womb is female, or disabled, or of a certain ethnic group, or a member of a certain religious or social category. In general, babies are aborted because they are human beings, and young human beings are burdens which adult human beings do not wish to bear. The rationale behind abortion is humanity itself.
I do not know if even Raphael Lemkin saw this deeply into the genocidal abyss. I do not know if even Vera Sharav, Shoah survivor and tireless human rights campaigner, can frame in words the darkness which has erased perhaps two billion of our brothers and sisters from the human race, and done so for no reason but that they are human.
In struggling to fix a name to this unthinkable reality, I have begun to think of it as “sapiens eradication,” the attempt — soul by soul, mother by child — to do away with Homo sapiens in our entirety. This is not genocide. This is not killing this group, or that. This is the termination of our whole human family. The world waits for a new Raphael Lemkin to tell us what this horror is. Perhaps in naming it we will finally, as we do now with genocide, and in the name of all humanity, be able to mount a campaign against it.
AUTHOR
Jason Morgan is associate professor at Reitaku University in Kashiwa, Japan. More by Jason Morgan
‘Climate Change’, originally called ‘Global Warming’, seems to be the ‘topic du jour’ in today’s news. Every day, some portion of the MSM news carries one or more segments dedicated to the continuation of the fear-mongering connected to “Climate Change”.
Some part of these segments offer ‘science pundits’, whom I would hardly consider to be experts (consider Greta Thunberg) in climate and weather patterns, who offer what they call ‘scientific proof’ of the causes and dangers of climate change and freely provide glimpses into the future they say will result from ‘Climate Change’.
God’s Creation Provided a Perfect Environment
When God was working on the earth’s renovation, He clearly stated thus: “And God said, Let there be a *firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven” (Genesis 1:6-8 KJV).
The word ‘firmament’ is the Hebrew word Raqiya, pronounced raw-kee’-ah, (Strong’s 7549) and it means ‘an expanse’, or as we would call it, heaven, or ‘the heavens’. Notice that the *firmament, or the ‘expanse’, was placed by God “in the midst of the waters”. *How did God create a ‘firmament’ “in the midst” of the waters that covered the entire earth? Just as He did with all the other things He created, He ‘spoke it into existence’, indicating that there was no ’firmament/expanse (breathable air)” before He spoke. In His wisdom, and His love for the man that He would create in a few days, He made sure there was air to breathe ahead of time.
The waters mentioned in Genesis 1:2 and 1:6 were in total darkness and covered the earth when God began His recreation, but when He spoke, the waters ‘separated’ into the waters ‘above the firmament’ (the expanse) and those ‘under the firmament’ (the expanse). This expanse is the place we see as we look upward above the earth from the horizon all the way to the lights (stars and moon) we see above and it includes the air we breathe on the surface of the earth.
The waters ‘under the firmament’, God further separated into the seas (Genesis 1:9-10 KJV) causing the dry land to appear.
I have heard it explained that the waters above the firmament formed a complete ‘spherical shield’ at some distance above the earth, and the shield, besides protecting all life from the dangerous rays of the sun, also dispersed the light from the sun and the moon so perfectly proportionate over the entire earth that there was little to no deviation in temperature anywhere on the planet. This thought makes perfect sense due to the spherical shape of the earth and the harmful rays of the radiation from the sun would have been rendered harmless due to the filtering action of the waters above the firmament and the air would have been heated equally all over the planet. Such a light dispersion would likely have made the entire planet a perfect environment for all living creatures.
The ‘firmaments’ described in the Book of Genesis gives us a little insight into the perfect environment given to the human race.
Climate Change on a Cursed Earth
If real, we should assume that this perfect environment lasted until the flood of Noah, detailed in Genesis 6 and 7 KJV. We are told that God “saw “that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually”. As a result of the sinful condition of mankind, God decided to destroy all mankind and animals from the earth. So in effect the sins of man were the cause of the flood that totally destroyed the perfect environment that man had inherited.
“But Noah Found Grace in the Eyes of the Lord”
God, in His great mercy, having found in Noah, a man who was perfect in his ’generations’ instructed him (Genesis 6:13-22 KJV) to build an ark to God’s perfect dimensions and equip it to last through the coming flood.
After this God again spoke: “And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth. For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him”.
Climate Change After the Flood
After Noah and his family were entered into the ark we are told that “the fountains of the great deep” were ‘broken up’” and the “windows of heaven” were opened allowing the waters that God had separated under and above the firmament to drop onto the earth thereby destroying all life on earth except those who were sealed into the ark.
We are not told anywhere in the Bible that those waters were returned to their previous place and that begs a question: If the waters “above the firmament” which were placed there to provide a perfect environment for all earthly creatures did not return to their original place, could this not have had a serious impact on the climate of the whole earth?
No one alive today knows just how perfect and beautiful the earth was when God finished His (Re)creation, detailed in Genesis 1-2. For those who are believers in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the Saviour of the world, the knowledge we now have of what once was a perfect environment, knowledge gleaned from from reading, studying and understanding God’s word, is as close as we will get to experiencing it in this cursed world on a cursed earth.
He clearly had all things totally under His control and had not sin entered, all things would still be under control; Climate Change, other than the normal temperature changes we see in the seasons now would not exist.
The Current State of Climate Change
Mankind has existed in a state of rebelliousness since sin first entered; being cast out of the Garden of Eden was due to the rebellious nature that caused Eve, then Adam, to listen to a snake, a mouthpiece for Satan, known nowadays as a “politician”, rather than to the words of God. When they ‘knew good and evil” after eating the forbidden fruit, that rebellious nature overcame any control that God had over them and they had to depart from His perfect place to live on their own, from the place of perfection to a much more hostile environment. It became ever more hostile when the authority over that environment was handed over to Satan. Had it not been for God’s extraordinary mercy and grace, mankind would not have survived to this day.
Man had been given enough of God’s nature to want to improve his lot and change the curse into a blessing, all on his own, and he has been trying to make that work ever since, mostly without much success.
Reading through the Book of Genesis, again, I was struck by the chronological order of God’s recreation. The various stars, moon and sun, all the animals, all the vegetation, all the fish and creeping things were made in the first five days and, on the last day of His work, God created man, afterward, placing him in the midst of His perfect environment.
Knowing as I do that God’s timing is always perfect, and His manner of, and reason for, doing things is also perfect, it occurred to me that He finished all His creation BEFORE He made man. Personally, I believe He did this knowing that, had he created the man first, the man would have insisted on “helping God” with the rest of His creation, and that would have been an utter disaster. God didn’t need man’s help to accomplish any of His creation and He doesn’t need it now. What God truly desires is for man to acknowledge what God has done and give HIM all the glory for it, refusing to take any for himself.
But man being the consummate rebel, who insists that he can do what God has done, wants to be equal with the Creator, seemingly believing that he can do it better, even to the point of denying God’s very existence. Until he realizes that, any effort on the part of any man to “take over God’s authority and improve on God’s work” is futile, and only makes everything worse, climate change will not get better.
Frank Sinatra, the late singer/actor, recorded a hit song in 1968 titled “My Way”. Paul Anka, another star singer/songwriter of that time, who was a huge fan of Sinatra, wrote the lyrics to the song as a kind of tribute to Sinatra who was known to have lived his life doing it “his way”. In essence, the song is more of a tribute to man’s pride and defiance against any control over his life. Most of the musical critics who have studied both Sinatra and that song, consider it to be a “self-determination anthem”. Man’s refusal to follow the explicit instructions of His creator, and determine his own pathway was possibly the worst decision ever made and all men are still paying the price for it.
Climate Change and the Globalists Agenda of “World Control”
Then U.S. Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, *addressing graduates at Southwest Texas State University in May 1962, stated that the US Congress was considering the possibility of launching “weather satellites” that could potentially determine the world’s cloud layers and eventually, the weather. He stated, “And he who controls the weather, controls the world”. https://archive.org/details/he-who-controls-the-weather-will-control-the-world-lyndon-b-johnson
The idea of having the ability to determine the weather in any given area, thus producing drought, flood or any of a variety of adverse weather conditions seemed rather far-fetched, in the 1960s but NOW, through geo-engineering, we are seeing that very phenomenon on a daily basis. All one needs to do is gaze at the sky on any given day to see the proof of these weather control chem trails and then watch the daily news of torrential rains that produce 100, or 500 year floods, or witness scorching heat in many areas that dry up the ground and all rivers, streams and lakes, torching millions of acres of forests, creating the inevitability of landslides and mudslides in mountainous areas and and making the production of crops in farming areas nearly impossible.
Johnson who became POTUS after the 1963 assassination of President John F Kenney President Lyndon B. Johnson would go on to authorize ‘weather warfare’ over Vietnam.
Operation Popeye first came to public light in March 1971, when reporter and newspaper columnist, Jack Anderson, published a story based on a secret 1967 memo from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to President Johnson. The memo read:
“Laos operations – Continue as at present plus Pop Eye to reduce the trafficability [sic] along infiltration routes & Authorization requested to implement operational phase of weather modification process previously successfully tested and evaluated in some area”. (US Senate, Subcommittee on Oceans and International Environment; 26 July 1972; p. 5).
The far-fetched idea of ‘weather control’ actually became reality during the Vietnam war in 1967 on a top secret basis with ‘Operation Popeye’ using the rather antiquated process of dropping silver iodide and lead iodide into cloud formations over Laos to increase the rain potential from them. The excessive rain made it difficult for the enemy forces to move men and equipment from one location to another, making it “weather warfare”. VP Johnson announced the intention of using weather control in 1962 and approved its use as POTUS several years later.
‘Weather Control’ Which Equals Climate Change Today
Fast forward to the present and witness the utter devastation seen from weather modification/geoengineering producing some of the strangest weather ever seen on earth, especially over the west coast of the US and the midwestern states of the US where massive amounts of food products are normally grown, feeding millions of Americans as well as millions of others around the world.
The proof of the success of geoengineering and weather modification/control must have the world’s elite globalists leaping with joy as they now see the possibility of world domination coming to fruition.
There is always the danger of being deceived into believing lies when the truth is right in front of us. The globalists have been working their deception agenda for many decades and have been successful in bringing into their fold many who are in positions of power in various governments, corporations academia and the entertainment arenas. For the most part, there people see themselves as ‘influencers’ over the minds and thoughts of ordinary people, many of who have been deceived and are fully convinced that the weather patterns we now see are the result of man’s current actions, and the production of carbon dioxide, and who will willingly follow all the mandates of these evil globalists.
We ae living in the days spoken of by Paul the Apostle who said, “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived”. While multitudes now believe the world should ‘transition to ‘clean/green energy’, reducing our demand on fossil fuels, they are becoming willing and useful idiots for Satan’s depopulation plans.
But the truth is that the weather patterns we see, and yes, they Are indeed unusual and strange, so was the flood of Noah, causes entirely by man’s sin and denial of God’s authority that reduced the population of the world to eight human beings.
Man’s own actions, having nothing to do with carbon dioxide production and pollution, but rather being caused by his own sinful nature and denial of God has now created the environment we are forced to live with, at least until the Lord returns to establish a righteous kingdom over the earth.
Unless a miracle occurs that would stop all geoengineering and further attempts at weather control, millions of people worldwide will die from starvation, floods and storms. Since those who espouse the use of any means necessary to further their satanic grab for world power and their ultimate goal total control over the world’s population have already stated that the world is overpopulated and that seven plus billions of ‘useless eaters’ must be eliminated, it might be wise to take them and their agenda at face value.
If the Church cannot get its act together and reach out to God, praying for that miracle, the only option left is to prepare as much as possible for the coming devastation and chaos that will surely result from man’s insane desire to do things “his way”.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-09-16 01:52:192022-09-16 01:52:19Climate Change and the Globalist Agenda
Recently we did a column about a discussion on the September 9th, 2022 edition of “Real Time” with Bill Maher and his guests Scott Galloway and Matt Welch. The topic was “Why are men in crisis?”
We wrote,
What Bill, and his guests are discussing, in our opinion, are symptoms of and not the fundamental cause of why men are in a crisis.
They talk about getting a college degree, online dating, men living in basements, male unemployment and male violence but they are missing the big picture.
QUESTION: What is the cause of the male crisis?
ANSWER: The war on masculinity!
Today men are ridiculed for being men. Men parade in gay pride events dressed as women, go to public schools dressed as transgenders and read books to little boys, and little girls, about having sex will other transgenders or bisexual men. Today men who compete as women in sports are idolized by the media, while real men are silenced for fear of being labeled “homophobic.”
Men are now fired from schools, universities, companies and even discharged from our military for not using a collogues’ “preferred pronoun.”
As Stossel pointed out protesters tried to shout Dr. Peterson down, but they failed. Now millions buy his books about finding meaning in the ideal of male responsibility.
We fully agree with Dr. Jordan Peterson, males must be taught responsibility and, from boys to men, they must be held accountable for their individual actions.
No more fixing blame, let’s fix the problem—male responsibility.
The Bottom Line
Since the 1960s feminists movement there has been a war against all males. A war against masculinity. A war of the role of manliness in sports, in society, in culture and in woke universities, colleges, public schools, corporations, in films, books, on social media and the legacy media.
The intent is emasculate our men to further the myths of diversity, equity and inclusion.
Our men are being sacrificed on the alters of diversity, equity and inclusion to further the goal that only government can determine who is a man and who is a woman.
The war on masculinity is part of the agenda of the LGBTQ+ community from K-16 and beyond. From sissy men playing in girls sports to men sodomized culturally, emotionally and physically at a very very young age.
It is time for all men to embrace Humility, Admiration, Forgiveness, Zeal, Generosity, Asceticism, and Chastity.
It is time for men to stand up against the forces of evil and regain their masculinity.
If not Western Civilization as we know it will be fundamentally transformed into a living hell on earth.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-09-15 12:51:582022-09-15 12:51:58VIDEO: Why Boys, Young Men and Men Need and Crave to be held Responsible
“I’m ending the short-term thinking on energy once and for all. I’m acting now so people and businesses are supported with a new Energy Price Guarantee. I will tackle the root cause of the issue by boosting domestic energy supply to ensure we’re not in this position ever again.” —UK Prime Minister Liz Truss
In Episode 300 of District of Conservation, Gabriella discusses a development from the United Kingdom and the nation’s decision to repeal its 2019 fracking ban amid soaring energy costs. Tune in to learn how this will impact European – and U.S. – energy policies.
Gabriella Hoffman is a Media Strategist and Award-Winning Outdoor Writer. She hosts the “District of Conservation” podcast and CFACT’s original YouTube series “Conservation Nation.” Learn more about her work at www.gabriellahoffman.com.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-09-14 23:51:372022-09-14 23:51:37UK Abandons Net-Zero Energy Policies for Energy Security
Dr. Sidhbh Gallagher is promoting cross-sex surgeries she performs on the youth-dominated social media platform TikTok, a Daily Caller News Foundation review found.
She addresses questions about “gender-affirming” surgeries including mastectomies and genital surgeries and criticizes efforts to restrict youth sex change procedures.
“Probably about 20% of my patients opt to go nip-free. Now the reason some folks do this is this is what’s going to be most affirming for them,” she said in one video. “Some folks describe dysphoria associated with the nips themselves, and most people just want that clean look of the nip-free chest.”
Dr. Sidhbh Gallagher, a Miami-based plastic surgeon, advertises the “gender-affirming” surgeries she performs on adolescents on the youth-dominated social media app TikTok, a Daily Caller News Foundation review found.
Gallagher’s TikTok profile contains hundreds of videos about transgender-related surgeries she performs, some of which include photos or videos of her young patients showing off mastectomy scars. Her videos are part of the pro-medicalization, transgender-affirming trend encouraging young people on social media to pursue biomedical interventions.
Gallagher’s website doesn’t list age restrictions on its gender affirmation page and instead states that “it may well be much more detrimental to the patient to wait until the age of 18 for surgery,” although she says “feminizing bottom surgery” candidates should generally be over 18 in one video.
Many of her videos answer questions from potential surgery patients, including how to initiate the process, how to prepare for surgery, whether to keep or remove their nipples following a mastectomy and how fake testicles are made during genital surgery. The videos mostly focus on double mastectomies, which she jokingly calls “the teet yeet,” and most of the patients she shares photos of on Facebook appear to be teenagers; she captioned a photograph of a middle-aged patient, a rarity among her posts, “proving age is just a number.”
In one clip, Gallagher explains that following double-incision top surgery with a free nipple graft, the most common “top surgery” in the U.S., the nipples are completely removed then grafted back on, and sensation only returns for 80% of patients within a year after the procedure. In another, she discusses how patients determine whether to keep their nipples of have them removed completely.
“Probably about 20% of my patients opt to go nip-free. Now the reason some folks do this is this is what’s going to be most affirming for them,” she said. “Some folks describe dysphoria associated with the nips themselves, and most people just want that clean look of the nip-free chest. One tip patients have taught me is to look at a lot of results and just find what resonates with you and what you would find most affirming.”
In addition to mastectomies, her videos address genital surgeries. In one TikTok she explains that female patients who want phalloplasty (the surgical construction of an artificial penis), it’s possible to keep the vagina intact for certain operations, but the “stand to pee” surgery requires the removal of the vagina and uterus; hip-hop music plays in the background of the video.
Gallagher also uses her platform online to address her critics, whom she refers to as “transphobes” and “TERFS” (trans-exclusionary radical feminists) and to complain about efforts to impose age restrictions on gender-related surgeries, which she calls “gatekeeping.” Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has moved to restrict sex change procedures for minors within Florida, in contrast to the Biden administration’s promotion of medical transitions for minors.
The videos Gallagher shares are part of a broader online trend of encouraging adolescents, many of them female, to adopt transgender identities and pursue biomedical interventions to present as the opposite sex, including surgeries. TikTok, for example, is flooded with videos of youths showing off mastectomy scars, fundraising for transgender-related procedures and hormonal medications and promoting the idea that common adolescent woes are actually just signs of being trans and would be alleviated by transitioning.
Gallagher did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s requests for comment.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-09-13 10:52:312022-09-13 10:52:31Miami Surgeon Using TikTok To Promote Sex Change Procedures To Teens
John M. Grondelski:Pro-lifers should find ways of simplifying the message. Hold up an aspirin in a school board meeting, and ask why that, truly for healthcare, requires in schools parental knowledge and consent, but an abortion does not.
In the wake of Dobbs, pro-abortionists will leave no stone unturned to use – as they did before Roe – the most extreme cases, (like the 10-year-old Ohio girl who went to Indiana for an abortion) to tar the latest Supreme Court decision as “extremist,” while attempting to codify truly extremist abortion policy into law.
Today, as was true before Roe (1973), the vast majority of abortions – conservatively, at least 96 percent – are performed for social, economic, and other non-medical reasons.
Back then, that motivation was called “convenience,” a term clearly politically incorrect in contemporary discourse. Calling abortion “reproductive health care” now is how abortion advocates seek to disguise the reality: by redefining “health” in ever more elastic and innovative ways.
We need to be clear about pro-abortion extremism. While pro-abortionists will cite hard cases, their goal is not to debate them but to exclude any consideration of motivation from the abortion decision, a move necessary to shield the 96 percent-plus of abortions chosen that have nothing to do with rape, incest, or medical necessity.
Like the “no-fault divorce” movement, pro-abortionists aim to exclude any consideration of cause or reason for the “choice.” These are moral positions disguised under seemingly neutral legal terminology. What they really mean is that no marriage should ever be immune from dissolution, no pregnancy from termination.
This is wholly in keeping with a morally relativistic viewpoint that refuses to examine causes, but wants only to deal with consequences. Pre-teens should not be stopped from having sex; they should be issued condoms. If they get pregnant, they obviously should have abortions.
And if parents get in the way, well, America’s public schools should assimilate these “children” to the mores of “liberal democracy,” not their parents’ “outdated” views. After all, “children have rights!”
A full-on, frontal assault on this widespread propaganda is likely to be ineffective, largely because our culture has traded reasoned discourse for gripping soundbites, an exchange that benefits politicians even as it impoverishes political discourse.
So, I suggest an “incremental” approach, not because the rights of the unborn only deserve partial protection, but because the cultural corruption that has metastasized in the half-century-long culture of death following Roe will require baby steps to walk back. But as with every major turn in the moral life, everything starts with small steps.
Parents currently filling in school forms must sign multiple waivers to allow medication to be given to a child by a school during school hours.
Yet among Roe’s bastard jurisprudential offspring was Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, which launched a long line of federal and state court decisions limiting a parent’s right to consent or even to know if an underage daughter seeks an abortion – via a “judicial bypass” provision, because a judge, unlike father, always knows best.
Those seeking to “codify Roe” admit their proposals continue this curtailing of parental rights. And their “codifications” of Roe don’t just allow children to get everyday drugs like aspirin at school. They effectively exclude parents from a minor daughter’s abortion (though the parents, not a federal judge or a Congressperson, will have to care for the girl if something goes wrong).
Even in the states that have “codified” abortion – places like New Jersey or New York – local right-to-life groups should consider reopening those debates using parental rights as a wedge.
The same might be tried in places like Alaska where state supreme courts have belatedly discovered “abortion rights” in state constitutions. Or a place like Virginia, where there seem to be possibilities for moving beyond the old status quo and into the new moment post-Dobbs.
Parental rights can help advance the debate. You might not want to ban abortion after week X, but you certainly would see the value of parental involvement.
If change can’t be achieved in a given state legislature, parents should press boards of education to adopt pro-life policies regarding teen pregnancy. Find ways to emphasize the simplicity of the message. Hold up an aspirin or an asthma inhaler, and ask why those items, truly for healthcare, require parental knowledge and consent, but abortion does not.
If you succeed but the state claims the right to preempt such local policies, it’s an opportunity to re-litigate parental rights in the courts, which again shines a public light on the usurpation of parental rights.
The growing parental-rights counterrevolution against efforts to use schools to advance liberal race and gender ideologies against the consent and without the knowledge of parents offers a winning political dynamic that pro-lifers should latch on to.
And remember: all this is no more than the advancing of two key principles of Catholic social thought: that the most vulnerable, including the unborn, deserve protection of their fundamental rights from conception; and that parents, not the state, are the primary teachers and guides of their children.
John Grondelski (Ph.D., Fordham) is a former associate dean of the School of Theology, Seton Hall University, South Orange, New Jersey. All views herein are exclusively his.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-09-13 09:52:212022-09-13 09:52:21Recovering the Right to Parent
A team of nine experts from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and other top universities has published paradigm-shifting research about the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines and why mandating vaccines for college students is unethical.
This 50-page study, which was published on The Social Science Research Network at the end of August, analyzed CDC and industry-sponsored data on vaccine adverse events, and concluded that mandates for COVID-19 boosters for young people may cause 18 to 98 actual serious adverse events for each COVID-19 infection-related hospitalization theoretically prevented.
The paper is co-authored by Dr. Stefan Baral, an epidemiology professor at Johns Hopkins University; surgeon Martin Adel Makary, M.D., a professor at Johns Hopkins known for his books exposing medical malfeasance, including “Unaccountable: What Hospitals Won’t Tell You and How Transparency Can Revolutionize Heath Care”; and Dr. Vinayak Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist, who is a professor in the UCSF Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, as well as the author of over 350 academic and peer-reviewed articles.
But among this team of high-profile international experts who authored this paper, perhaps the most notable is Salmaan Keshavjee, M.D., Ph.D., current Director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Global Health Delivery, and professor of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Keshavjee has also worked extensively with Partners In Health, a Boston-based non-profit co-founded by the late Dr. Paul Farmer, on treating drug-resistant tuberculosis, according to his online biography.
Risking Disenrollment
As the study pointed out, students at universities in America, Canada, and Mexico are being told they must have a third dose of the vaccines against COVID-19 or be disenrolled. Unvaccinated high school students who are just starting college are also being told the COVID-19 vaccines are “mandatory” for attendance.
These mandates are widespread. There are currently 15 states which continue to honor philosophical (personal belief) exemptions, and 44 states and Washington, D.C. allow religious exemptions to vaccines. But even in these states, private universities are telling parents they will not accept state-recognized vaccine exemptions.
Based on personal interviews with some half a dozen families, The Epoch Times has learned that administrators at some colleges and universities are informing students that they have their own university-employed medical teams to scrutinize the medical exemptions submitted by students and signed by private doctors. These doctors, families are being told, will decide whether the health reasons given are medically valid.
5 Ethical Arguments Against Mandated Boosters
Though rarely reported on in the mainstream media, COVID-19 vaccine boosters have been generating a lot of controversy.
While some countries are quietly compensating people for devastating vaccine injuries, and other countries are limiting COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, the United States is now recommending children 12 and older get Pfizer-BioNTech’s Omicron-specific booster, and young adults over the age of 18 get Moderna’s updated shot.
Against a backdrop of confusing and often changing public health recommendations and booster fatigue, the authors of this new paper argue that university booster mandates are unethical. They give five specific reasons for this bold claim:
1) Lack of policymaking transparency. The scientists pointed out that no formal and scientifically rigorous risk-benefit analysis of whether boosters are helpful in preventing severe infections and hospitalizations exists for young adults.
2) Expected harm. A look at the currently available data shows that mandates will result in what the authors call a “net expected harm” to young people. This expected harm will exceed the potential benefit from the boosters.
3) Lack of efficacy. The vaccines have not effectively prevented transmission of COVID-19. Given how poorly they work—the authors call this “modest and transient effectiveness”—the expected harms caused by the boosters likely outweigh any benefits to public health.
4) No recourse for vaccine-injured young adults. Forcing vaccination as a prerequisite to attend college is especially problematic because young people injured by these vaccines will likely not be able to receive compensation for these injuries.
5) Harm to society. Mandates, the authors insisted, ostracize unvaccinated young adults, excluding them from education and university employment opportunities. Coerced vaccination entails “major infringements to free choice of occupation and freedom of association,” the scientists wrote, especially when “mandates are not supported by compelling public health justification.”
The consequences of non-compliance include being unenrolled, losing internet privileges, losing access to the gym and other athletic facilities, and being kicked out of campus housing, among other things. These punitive approaches, according to the authors, have resulted in unnecessary psychosocial stress, reputation damage, loss of income, and fear of being deported, to name just a few.
22,000 to 30,000 Previously Unaffected Young Adults Must be Vaccinated to Prevent Just 1 Hospitalization
The lack of effectiveness of the vaccines is a major concern to these researchers. Based on their analysis of the public data provided to the CDC, they estimated that between 22,000 and 30,000 previously uninfected young adults would need to be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent just a single hospitalization.
However, this estimate does not take into account the protection conferred by a previous infection. So, the authors insisted, “this should be considered a conservative and optimistic assessment of benefit.”
In other words, the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 are essentially useless.
Mandated Booster Shots Cause More Harm Than Good
But the documented lack of efficacy is only part of the problem. The researchers further found that per every one COVID-19 hospitalization prevented in young adults who had not previously been infected with COVID-19, the data show that 18 to 98 “serious adverse events” will be caused by the vaccinations themselves.
These events include up to three times as many booster-associated myocarditis in young men than hospitalizations prevented, and as many as 3,234 cases of other side effects so serious that they interfere with normal daily activities.
At a regional hospital in South Carolina, the desk clerk sported a button that read: “I’m Vaccinated Against COVID-19” with a big black check mark on it.
“What about the boosters?” a hospital visitor asked. “It’s starting to seem like we need too many shots.”
“It does seem like a lot,” the clerk agreed. “It’s hard to know what to do.” But she did have some advice for the visitor: “Just keep reading and educating yourself, so you can make an informed decision.”
This new paper is essential reading for anyone trying to decide if they need more vaccines. The authors concluded their study with a call to action. Policymakers must stop mandates for young adults immediately, be sure that those who have already been injured by these vaccines are compensated for the suffering caused by mandates, and openly conduct and share the results of risk-benefit analyses of the vaccines for various age groups.
These measures are necessary, the authors argued, to “begin what will be a long process of rebuilding trust in public health.”
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-09-13 09:52:192022-09-13 09:52:19Experts from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Other Top Universities: ‘Unethical’ Vaccine 98 Times Worse Than Covid
1000 Australian schools have just introduced to their canteens snacks containing bugs. Kids are now munching on chips laced with “eco-friendly” cricket protein made by Circle Harvest. Only a few years ago we would think this was an April fools prank… pic.twitter.com/Afxfjwv38n
Kid’s manipulated with bug-eating PSYOP: ”Chips are great aren’t they, and these chips are even better, because I think they are better for you, did you know that? Yeah, that way you know, mum and dad might let you have more chips. Good stuff” the interviewer said.
Marc Morano commented: “The Great Reset is happening here and now. This is not circa 1991, when we we were talking about a shadowy secretive vision of a New World Order. This is 2022 now and we are seeing a ‘new normal’ being imposed upon the world.
5) The ability to eat meat is being banned to compel us to eat ‘lab-grown’ fake meat and eat insects.
Artificially caused food shortages will create demand for insect eating. And our betters are using our children as hand-picked little ministers of propaganda to promote insect eating and ‘pester’ adults to comply with the agenda.
Snacks containing bugs have been introduced to 1000 school canteens across the nation by a Western Sydney company that says its products can help save the planet from global warming.
The Daily Telegraph interviewed school children eating these cricket chips, and when they asked the children if they knew it was made from insects, they didn’t know. This is how they do it. They cannot get adults to eat this stuff, so instead they just offer it to kids as tasty snacks and they go ahead and eat it without even knowing what it is.
”Chips are great aren’t they, and these chips are even better, because I think they are better for you, did you know that? Yeah, that way you know, mum and dad might let you have more chips. Good stuff” the interviewer said.
But this isn’t only in Australia.
Children at four primary schools aged 5 to 11 in Wales were offered insects to eat as part of a project to see how children’s appetites are for ”alternative protein” like crickets and mealworms (in case you don’t know, mealworms is bird feed).
Those who tell you to worry about climate change fly private jets.
Those who told you to stay home during lockdown went partying.
Those who tell you to worry about rising sea levels build ocean front mansions.
Those telling you to eat bugs are themselves dining on finest meat.
But not only that, by feeding children insects, they hope that they can persuade parents to follow as well…
”Many children have the power of pester, so in some cases can be great agents of dietary change within the family” said Verity Jones from the University of the West of England in Bristol and is involved in the study.
So there you have it. They want to use children, brainwash them into thinking eating bugs as a good thing, and then get them to convince their parents to eat the bugs as well.
[ … ]
The thing is, it is not only happening in one country. As we saw, they are doing this in Australia, and on the other side of the world in Britain. This is a coordinated effort to push for eating bugs.
Imagine telling someone 10 years ago that they would be feeding your children insects at school. You would be called a crazy conspiracy theorist. Now they are doing it.
And guess what. It would not surprise me if they start slipping insects in junk food and most people won’t even realize. Just cover the taste up with some artificial flavor and you are good to go!
It is so good for the environment they say, with mealworms (bird feed) only producing 1% of greenhouse gases compared with cows. What a deal, just eat bird food to stop climate change! …
One city in the Netherlands is even talking about a proposal to ban advertisement of meat.
The plan is simple, they want you to eat the bugs, while the rich will continue to dine on the finest meat. They want you to give up all your comforts to stop climate change, but they themselves will fly in private jets.
And it all starts with brainwashing the children into eating bugs.
Why are they trying so hard to get us to eat bird food?
Edward Ring: “If left unchecked, this fascistic climate change movement will destroy freedom and prosperity while it destroys the planet it purportedly wants to save. Ideological and Economic Fascism Combined – This is not a frivolous accusation because, in this case, the shoe fits. There are two types of fascism. One is based on ideology and manipulates popular emotions, and the other is based on economics and appeals to elitist greed. The climate crisis movement has found a way to combine both.”
Morano: “The vision of transforming the world into unelected bureaucrats taking even more control of everyday life, has now all the ingredients to push it along. The last 2 years have seen endless emergency declarations, wars, massive government spending, debt, runaway inflation, supply chain issues, food shortages, no privacy from big-brother style government snooping of your movements, skyrocketing energy prices, chipping away at car and homeownership, climate lockdowns, oppressive censorship and crushing of dissent, limits on freedom of travel, and physical autonomy.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-09-12 21:51:412022-09-12 21:51:41Great Food Reset: School Kids Munch on Insects as Cricket Snacks Introduced to 1000 Schools
Over 400 doctors, scientists and professionals from more than 34 countries this morning declared an international medical crisis due to “diseases and death associated with the ‘COVID-19 vaccines’”.
Launched at a press conference on Saturday, September 10th, the declaration states: “We are currently witnessing an excess in mortality in those countries where the majority of the population has received the so-called ‘COVID-19 vaccines’. To date, this excess mortality has neither been sufficiently investigated nor studied by national and international health institutions.”
Doctors around the world came together to sign a Declaration of an International Medical Crisis due to the diseases and death co-related to the COVID-19 “vaccines.”
At a press conference on Saturday, September 10th, the declaration states:
“We are currently witnessing an excess in mortality in those countries where the majority of the population has received the so-called ‘COVID-19 vaccines.’ To date, this excess mortality has neither been sufficiently investigated nor studied by national and international health institutions. The large number of sudden deaths in previously healthy young people who were inoculated with these ‘vaccines’ is particularly worrying, as is the high incidence of miscarriages and perinatal deaths which have not been investigated. A large number of adverse side effects, including hospitalisations, permanent disabilities and deaths related to the so-called ‘COVID-19 vaccines,’ have been reported officially. The registered number has no precedent in world vaccination history.”
The declaration, which originates among concerned medics and professionals in India, makes eight urgent demands, including an immediate stop to the vaccinations and investigation of all deaths in previously healthy people.
Read the full text below, and if you are a doctor, scientist or other professional, do consider signing.
We, the medical doctors and scientists from all over the world, declare that there is an international medical crisis due to the diseases and deaths co-related to the administration of products known as ‘COVID-19 vaccines’.
We are currently witnessing an excess in mortality in those countries where the majority of the population has received the so-called ‘COVID-19 vaccines’. To date, this excess mortality has neither been sufficiently investigated nor studied by national and international health institutions.
The large number of sudden deaths in previously healthy young people who were inoculated with these ‘vaccines’, is particularly worrying, as is the high incidence of miscarriages and perinatal deaths which have not been investigated.
A large number of adverse side effects, including hospitalisations, permanent disabilities and deaths related to the so-called ‘COVID-19 vaccines’, have been reported officially.
The registered number has no precedent in world vaccination history.
Examining the reports on CDC’s VAERS, Britain’s Yellow Card System, the Australian Adverse Event Monitoring System, Europe’s EudraVigilance System and the WHO’s VigiAccess Database, to date there have been more than 11 million reports of adverse effects and more than 70,000 deaths co-related to the inoculation of the products known as ‘Covid vaccines’.
We know that these numbers just about represent between 1% and 10% of all real events. Therefore, we consider that we are facing a serious international medical crisis, which must be accepted and treated as critical by all states, health institutions and medical personnel worldwide.
Therefore, the following measures must be undertaken on an urgent basis:
A worldwide ‘stop’ to the national inoculation campaigns with the products known as ‘COVID-19 vaccines’.
Investigation of all sudden deaths of people who were healthy previous to the inoculation.
Implementation of early detection programmes of cardiovascular events which could lead to sudden deaths with analysis such as D-dimer and Troponin, in all those that were inoculated with the products known as ‘COVID-19 vaccines’, as well as the early detection of serious tumours.
Implementation of research and treatment programmes for victims of adverse effects after receiving the so-called ‘COVID-19 vaccine’.
Undertaking analyses of the composition of vials of Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca, Janssen, Sinovac, Sputnik V and any other product known as ‘COVID-19 vaccines’,
by independent research groups with no affiliation to pharmaceutical companies, nor any conflict of interest.
Studies to be conducted on the interactions between the different components of the so-called ‘COVID-19 vaccines’ and their molecular, cellular and biological effects.
Implementation of psychological help and compensation programmes for any person that has developed a disease or disability as a consequence of the so-called ‘COVID-19 vaccines’.
Implementation and promotion of psychological help and compensation programmes for the family members of any person who died as a result of having been inoculated with the product known as ‘COVID-19 vaccines’.
Consequently we declare that we find ourselves in an unprecedented international medical crisis in the history of medicine, due to the large number of diseases and deaths associated with the ‘vaccines against COVID-19’. Therefore, we demand that the regulatory agencies that oversee drug safety as well as the health institutions in all countries, together with the international institutions such as the WHO, PHO, EMA, FDA, UK-MHRA and NIH respond to this declaration and act in accordance with the eight measures demanded in this manifesto. This Declaration is a joint initiative of several professionals who have been fighting for this cause. We call on all doctors, scientists and professionals to endorse this statement in order to put pressure on the entities involved and promote a more transparent health policy.
Iatrogenocide: Murder by doctor, as in the administration of COVID-19 shots despite scientific evidence of serious harm and lack of effectiveness.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-09-12 09:51:152022-09-12 09:51:15400 Doctors and Professionals Declare International MEDICAL CRISIS Due to Covid Vaccine Injuries and Deaths
