This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A new study of lactating women who took the COVID vaccine finds "trace mRNA amounts were detected" up to 45 hours after vaccination in the breast milk of 10 the women – contradicting the government's and vaccine enthusiasts' official narrative that mRNA was safe for breastfeeding moms and their infants because it did not travel throughout the body.
"Our findings suggest that the COVID-19 vaccine mRNA administered to lactating mothers can spread systematically to breast milk in the first two days after maternal vaccination," states the study, "Biodistribution of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in human breast milk," published in the October 2023 edition of the British medical journal Lancet.
A 2022 JAMA study was the first to discover traces of mRNA in women's breast milk.
The paper's authors remain pro-vax, stating "COVID-19 mRNA vaccines play a vital role in the fight against SARS-CoV-2 infection," and that "we believe breastfeeding post-vaccination is safe, especially 48 hours after vaccination."
But now they add this cautionary caveat: "Although we believe breastfeeding after mRNA vaccination is safe, a dialogue between a breastfeeding mother and her healthcare provider should address the benefit/risk considerations of breastfeeding in the first two days after maternal mRNA vaccination. The significance of this research extends beyond the scope of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. The findings provide valuable insights into the transport and presence of vaccine mRNA in breast milk, which can be relevant for assessing the safety and efficacy of future mRNA-based therapies administered to lactating women."
COVID dissident journalists, who have questioned government and media narratives surrounding the COVID jab and denounced ongoing elites' efforts to bar critical viewpoints as "misinformation," were quick to respond to the new study.
"The US government said it was safe for pregnant women to get the COVID-19 vaccine because the injected mRNA stayed in the arm and did not travel through the body. But now a new Lancet study, which found mRNA in breast milk, shows the government lied," posted Michael Shellenberger on X Wednesday.
Shellenberger posted the opening segments of an article (currently behind a paywall) by Alex Gutentag on the Lancet study in his PUBLIC Substack, under the headline: "Covid Vaccine mRNA In Breast Milk Shows CDC Lied About Safety." The subhead reads: "US government lacked scientific evidence before recommending mRNA vaccines to pregnant and breastfeeding women; Facebook censored those sharing accurate information."
In her piece, Gutentag writes: "It is safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women to get vaccinated against Covid-19, according to the Centers for Disease Control. In fact, according to the CDC, vaccination during pregnancy benefits the baby, and 'reports have shown that breastfeeding people who have received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have antibodies in their breastmilk, which could help protect their babies.'"
"The CDC wasn’t alone," she continues. "The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology repeatedly urged pregnant and breastfeeding women to get vaccinated. There was no reason to worry, experts said, because injected mRNA stays in the arm and does not travel around the body."
Gutentag quotes the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine "assur[ing] mothers" in a December 2020 statement: "It is unlikely that the vaccine lipid would enter the bloodstream and reach breast tissue ... If it does, it is even less likely that either the intact nanoparticle or mRNA transfer into milk."
"But now a pivotal new study, published in the Lancet yesterday, reveals that this was always a lie," she writes.
The National Human Genome Research Institute defines mRNA as follows: "Messenger RNA (abbreviated mRNA) is a type of single-stranded RNA involved in protein synthesis. mRNA is made from a DNA template during the process of transcription. The role of mRNA is to carry protein information from the DNA in a cell’s nucleus to the cell’s cytoplasm (watery interior), where the protein-making machinery reads the mRNA sequence and translates each three-base codon into its corresponding amino acid in a growing protein chain."
CDC page still recommends vaccine for women breastfeeding
In a still-active CDC informational page titled, "COVID-19 Vaccines While Pregnant or Breastfeeding," the federal agency states the following:
It states: "COVID-19 vaccines cannot cause COVID-19 in anyone, including pregnant people and their babies. None of the COVID-19 vaccines contain live virus. Vaccines are effective at preventing COVID-19 in people who are breastfeeding. Recent reports have shown that breastfeeding people who have received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have antibodies in their breastmilk, which could help protect their babies. More data are needed to determine what level of protection these antibodies might provide to the baby."
The CDC page states that the agency's "COVID-19 vaccine recommendations have been updated as of September 12. The content on this page is no longer current and will be updated to align with the new recommendations."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
One of the products of the COVID-19 pandemic that came out of China and circled the globe, killing millions, was a new and heightened awareness of vaccines and other shots that government medicos want everyone to take.
But what remains still in dispute is just exactly what good, or bad, they did. How helpful, or injurious, were they?
Now the U.S. government is approving the rollout of a whole new list of COVID shots, even though the strain now circulating is far more mild than those of years gone by.
It is important for some in the elite levels of government to continue to have the public in fear because it is a way to exercise vast control over the American population: No shot? No airline ticket. Or no meeting in public. Or no access to schools. Or this is the only process for you to vote. And worse.
But now a major influencer in the medical world, Peter McCullough, and the World Council for Health, are recommending a go-slow approach not just to COVID shots, but others that have become so common.
McCullough, of course, was one of the medical experts who was censored repeatedly during the earlier battles with COVID because of the medical conclusions he drew about the pandemic.
For example, Meta stifled his comments, and those from "America's Frontline Doctors," because they offered preventative treatments for COVID, especially focusing on Americans who distrusted the rush-job shots that actually now have been documented as causing significant injury to many.
It was Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg who admitted "a bunch of" COVID information that Facebook censored as "misinformation" was actually true, and the collusion of its so-called "fact-checkers" with government authorities who proved to be wrong on the coronavirus undermined public trust.
McCullough now has issued a statement, on behalf of the WCH, that cites it as the "first international body of physicians, scientists, and health professionals to issue a cautionary statement on the ever-expanding routine childhood vaccine schedule."
He explained, "This is in response to growing concerns over the safety of many vaccines given early in life during the same administration."
The council's own statement said, "The number of vaccines given to babies and children has increased dramatically without the necessary due diligence by regulatory authorities. Parents are urged to adopt a common-sense, 'Safer to Wait' approach."
McCullough noted, "Growing international concerns about vaccine regulatory processes and vaccine safety have emerged following the widespread regulatory failure of COVID-19 vaccines. The COVID-19 crisis has demonstrated that regulatory bodies, once public protectors, have been deeply corrupted by vaccine industry interests."
He continued, "In the context of emerging revelations of regulatory body incompetence and corruption, e.g. The Perseus Report, the WCH Health and Science Committee notes that Several research studies now indicate that vaccinated children have far worse health outcomes with higher rates of many chronic diseases than non-vaccinated children."
Other council conclusions include, "The integrity of scientific research and the regulatory process of childhood vaccines, including the new nasal 'flu' vaccine, now being administered en masse in schools is in question."
And, "Pharmaceutical corporations have a long-standing history of misrepresenting products that cause injuries and deaths. Pfizer, for instance, has paid the largest criminal settlement in history for drug fraud. The childhood vaccination schedule provides these unscrupulous corporations with unregulated access to the bodies of our children."
Then there's the "unprecedented" surge in autism, asthma, allergies, inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, obesity, depression, and more" and the causes of those catastrophes "have not been established."
Worse yet, "Much of what we have been told about the success of early vaccines, including smallpox and polio vaccines is emerging as untrue. Clean water, modern plumbing, hygiene, refrigeration, and improved nutrition are real factors that have correlated with the dramatic reduction in many infectious diseases over the past century."
Nor have the necessary evaluations been completed to determine whether vaccinations forced on children alone, or together with others, are linked to poor health outcomes compared with children who remain unvaccinated.
Worsening the threat, the findings noted, national regulators have been turning a blind eye to the evidence linking childhood vaccinations with autism, and evidence linking the shots to asthma, allergies, and more.
Specifically regarding COVID-19, the conclusions warned, "Evidence from independent experts and official international databases show that the COVID-19 vaccines are not effective and are not safe, raising serious questions around the authorization of the COVID-19 vaccines for babies and children."
While the separate World Health Organization, which has lobbied frantically for COVID shots, is enthusiastically recommending more and more shots, it, and the pharmaceutical complex producing the shots, "have financial and ideological interests" involved.
Those drug companies even are urging permission to be able to force Americans to accept shots.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A New York City government arts program launched in 2021 by former Democrat Mayor Bill de Blasio gave a $5,000 grant to a homosexual filmmaker for a salacious short film, “Trade Center.” The film [see full transcript HERE] fondly reminisces about secret gay men’s orgy spaces in the World Trade Center, e.g., public restrooms and staircases before the twin towers were destroyed by Islamic terrorists on Sept. 11, 2001.
As first reported by this reporter and Americans For Truth last November, the eight-minute “documentary” by homosexual filmmaker and pornography site writer Adam Baran gives an oral history “sex tour” of the pre-9/11 WTC complex – its subjects fondly remembering gay “cruising” sites at the twin towers where men would meet furtively to engage in deviant sex acts with other men.
“Trade Center” creator Baran writes: “Our five subjects describe their memories of meaningful public sex encounters in each [orgy] location.” The film’s narrator even speculates that men who were “cruising” for anonymous sex in the buildings perished when the towers were hit by airplanes hijacked by Islamic terrorists.
The contents and crude sexual slang of “Trade Center” are too graphic to report in a family newspaper. See the original story and film transcript for more details.
The taxpayer-funded “Trade Center” was released on the pro-LGBT video-hosting site Vimeo on Sept. 7, 2021, coinciding with the 20th anniversary of the al-Qaida terror attack targeting the Twin Towers that took nearly 3,000 innocent lives in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania.
“Cruising” for homosexual, impersonal “public sex” in restrooms, parks, etc., predates the modern, post-Stonewall-riots, political gay rights era. It is less common nowadays with the rise of digital phone apps like the GPS-assisted Grindr that efficiently cater to homosexual men seeking instant, anonymous, sodomitic hook-ups with other men nearby.
This libidinous, hyper-promiscuous side of male homosexual sub-culture is rarely covered by the dominant, “mainstream” media, which focuses primarily on the cultural visibility ("pride") and political "rights" aspects of the LGBT movement. Historically, high-risk, anonymous sex has been downplayed by gay activists and the media seeking to mainstream out-and-proud homosexuality.
Nevertheless, gay male promiscuity is linked to rampant STDs and health maladies among “men who have sex with men,” or MSM, the official CDC classification. For example, the recent monkeypox viral outbreak, which overwhelmingly affected gay and bisexual men, is specifically linked to men who had “multiple sex partners” with other men, often at orgiastic gay sex parties accompanying LGBT pride festivals.
The pro-pornography Baran reportedly views “Trade Center” as an important historical work covering a segment of “gay” life. What he calls “meaningful public sex” is part of the Sexual Left’s “sex-positive” agenda, which eschews any moral limits to sexual behavior.
The film’s raunchy subject matter did not stop it from receiving plaudits from “woke” and LGBT film groups as well as video streaming company Vimeo, which bans Christian ministry and church videos that oppose homosexuality. Another short film by Baran features a 14-year-old boy who is spurred on by a gay porn star in his quest to secure homosexual pornographic magazines.
Baran, ex-editor of the raunchy, online homosexual magazine BUTT, describes “Trade Center” on the movie site IMDB as follows: “The voices of five gay men who cruised for sex at the World Trade Center in the 1980s and 1990s haunt the sanitized, commerce-driven landscape that is the newly rebuilt Freedom Tower campus. Shot over the course of one day in late February 2020, Trade Center takes viewers on a tour of the former financial hub, which was destroyed during the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001. 19 years later, we traverse a bustling new ecosystem while our five subjects describe their memories of meaningful public sex encounters in each location.”
By timing his release of “Trade Center” around a 9/11 anniversary, the "sex-positive" leftist Baran was effectively arguing that illicit, anonymous, and deviant sexual encounters that occurred on WTC grounds somehow deserve memorializing alongside traditional 9/11 tributes, like this one posted on X Monday by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani:
As can be seen from the film's transcript, “Trade Center’s” narrator criticizes the post-9/11 environment in New York City in which then-Mayor Giuliani cracked down on the city’s sleazy sex businesses, such as strip clubs and gay bars with orgy-enabling “dark rooms,” to reduce crime and improve the living quality of the city’s residents.
Baran's deviance-glorifying films get a mainstream promotion
Baran is a living example of how left-wing filmmakers, no matter how far they reside outside the cultural mainstream, have no problem gaining the biggest platforms for their work. The raunchy and edgy subject matter, even aberrant sexual topics involving minors, is no hindrance in today's “woke” entertainment industry that champions all things LGBT.
For example, Baran produced a Netflix documentary, “Circus of Books” (2020), which sympathetically and non-judgmentally tells the story of a “religious” Jewish couple who owned a homosexual bookstore near Los Angeles. The now-shuttered bookstore also produced hardcore gay porn films for sale. In the film, the couple’s son comes out as gay, causing his mother angst but eventually leading her to become an LGBT advocate. No connection is made between the son’s newly declared sexual identity and his parents’ homosexual pornography business.
Another Baran short film, “Jackpot” (2012) [see trailer on YouTube], features a secretly homosexual 14-year-old boy who risks getting beat up by classmates to grab a stash of gay pornographic magazines thrown away in a local dumpster across town. In the film, teenager “Jack Hoffman” is urged on by the gay porn star of his masturbatory fantasies, “Ricky Swayze,” who comes to life as if off the cover of one of the magazines Jack is trying to possess. The boy ultimately succeeds in his quest and ends up lying on his bed in his room with a bruised eye gazing at the magazine with Swayze on the cover.
Baran told Huffington Post that “Jackpot” was, in part, “about how our erotic materials help gay men understand who they are – even if sometimes it leads them to form the wrong impressions about what sex is actually going to be like.”
The same Vimeo that provided a platform for “Trade Center” has a well-documented history of deplatforming Christian groups and those opposing the LGBT activist agenda, as Christian columnist Michael Brown described in 2017 after Vimeo took down all the videos of a Christian ministry, Pure Passion, that featured the testimonies of men and women who have overcome sinful LGBT lifestyles through a relationship with Jesus Christ.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A hearing is scheduled before the Wisconsin Supreme Court next week in a fight against a claim by state bureaucrats that a Catholic ministry to serve the needs of the poor, elderly, and disabled is not part of its faith mission.
Eric Rassbach, senior counsel at Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, is scheduled to present oral arguments on Monday in the case Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industrial Review Commission.
That state agency has claimed that the actions of the Catholic Charities Bureau are not religious, not part of the church's beliefs.
Becket explained that meant, "Catholic Charities Bureau was barred from leaving the state’s unemployment compensation program and joining the Wisconsin Catholic Church’s more efficient unemployment program."
Becket explained, "Most Catholic dioceses have a social ministry arm that serves those in need. Catholic Charities Bureau carries out this important work for the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, by helping the disabled, the elderly, and those living in poverty—regardless of their faith. This duty to serve everyone in need comes directly from Catholic Church teaching and advances the Church’s religious mission by carrying out the corporal works of mercy."
Under state law, religious non-profits generally are exempt from the state's demand they pay into the bureaucrats' unemployment program.
But a lower court claimed that Catholic Charities Bureau failed to qualify because it does not limit its help to Catholics, and actually serves those in need.
"In fact, the court thought that Catholic Charities Bureau could only qualify if it preached the faith to and tried to convert those it served—even though the Catholic church teaches that care for the poor should never be conditioned on acceptance of the church’s teachings," Becket explained.
An earlier report at Real Clear Wire noted the church ministry has helped people of all faiths for over a century.
Milwaukee Archbishop Jerome Listecki pointed out that since the time of Jesus Christ, the church has had “a mandate from Scripture to serve the poor.”
Nonetheless, state bureaucrats have said the ministry actually is "a secular organization."
The case itself is expected to determine if a state has the authority to determine what is a religious activity and what is not, and then impose that belief on churches.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court, in 1995, already rejected that ideology.
Becket's Daniel Vitagliano earlier commented, "Saying Catholic Charities Bureau is not religious is like saying the Milwaukee Bucks is not a basketball team. It’s as absurd as it sounds."
Real Clear Wire reported, "Since 1986, the Catholic Church in Wisconsin has provided its own unemployment insurance, the Church Unemployment Pay Program (CUPP), for lay employees of its institutions, such as schools and parishes."
The Catholic Charities Bureau, however, has been required to subsidize the state's own program.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A far-left organization that works to oppose the presence of Christianity in America, often filing lawsuits over religious emblems visible to the public or even prayer, now is going after a program in Ohio that lets students take excused absences for private religious instruction.
That, according to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, can "negatively impact schools" and their educational goals. It sent a letter to hundreds of public schools in the state.
The Washington Times said the issue is a LifeWise Academy program that helps churches assemble lessons for "release time," a procedure that has been used in schools across America for years.
The time allows schoolchildren to hear lessons in their faith during school hours. The classes are done off-campus and available to students who volunteer.
FFRF charged that while Ohio law says districts "may" offer the excused absences, they’re not required to do so.
LifeWise issued a statement that thanked FFRF for publicizing its offerings.
"Our greatest obstacle is not enough people know about the amazing opportunity LifeWise offers students so we appreciate the FFRF investing their resources to help spread the word," the group said.
LifeWise explained the FFRF "did a wonderful job pointing out released time religious instruction as an entirely legal option for schools and families."
The provision for such lessons was approved by the Supreme Court in a 1952 case, but that decision calls for them to be off-campus and privately funded. Parents also must consent.
The report said FFRF charged that schools failed to provide "substantive lessons" for students who do not take part in the program.
It also claimed that Christian students are "encouraged" to proselytize" other students who do not take part in the program, and that leads to "bullying."
A spokeswoman for the leftist group said its goal is to be certain "that the constitutional rights of students to be also free from religious indoctrination in their public schools, is also still being abided by in our public schools."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Officials in an Iowa city have repealed their ban on counseling for minors that deals with unwanted same-sex attractions and other issues after being warned it violated the First Amendment.
The dispute over such counseling has been a hot-button topic for the past few years, with leftists in governments and activist organizations insisting that such counseling should be banned to "protect" kids.
The point of the dispute is that if children express dislike for those feelings, and are counseled to a traditional sexual lifestyle, it destroys the argument from the LGBT ideology that people are "born that way" and cannot change.
Some court fights have ended up affirming the First Amendment violations; others have struck those bans down. The Supreme Court has yet to take up the issue.
The newest dispute developed in Waterloo, Iowa, which now has repealed a local ordinance that prevented counselors from providing minor clients with help to reduce or eliminate unwanted same-sex attractions, behaviors, or gender confusion.
The ordinance had been approved only a few weeks earlier, and it was to ban "verbal counseling meant to 'change behaviors or gender expressions' in gender-confused children. However, the city council recently voted 4-3 to repeal that ordinance before facing potentially costly litigation as similar bans in other cities have been ruled unconstitutional."
Liberty Counsel, a legal team that has worked on the issue multiple times, said it sent a letter to the city council showing that local governments in Iowa do not have the authority to regulate licensed counseling because the Iowa legislature has given that power solely to Iowa’s Board of Behavior Science.
"In addition, the letter explained that Waterloo’s ban on counseling therapy (erroneously called 'conversion therapy') was 'offensive to the First Amendment' because it banned counseling 'based on the viewpoint of that counseling,'" Liberty Counsel explained.
"The ordinance also left professional counselors guessing as to how far the city would go in punishing violators since the municipal code prescribed variable fines and jail time for ordinance violations."
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals recently struck down two similar ordinances in Florida, where local officials attempted to prohibit licensed counselors from providing voluntary counseling therapy to minors seeking help with unwanted gender confusion. The ruling was that the restrictions were unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
Liberty Counsel explained, "Under the laws that were struck down, a counselor could encourage a client to take life-altering hormone drugs or even undergo invasive surgery to remove healthy body parts but could not help a client who sought to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions, behavior, or confusion."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Joe Biden already has been caught with classified material illegally stored in a garage at his luxury home and in several other locations.
He's also being caught up in the rapidly expanding investigation into his family's influence-peddling operations, with reports that Congress is investigating what decisions he may have influenced because of payments to his family. The FBI has confirmed there was a report from a trusted confidential source about a $5 million bribe for him.
And now there's a report that he's been taking free vacations at the homes of wealthy interests – and failing to report them on his annual financial disclosures.
A report at Just the News says Travel Noire, a travel magazine, recently declared "Biden Has Been on Vacation for 40% of His Presidency."
Phillip Bump of The Washington Post explained, "Biden stayed at the homes of donors. His Virgin Islands trip was to a home owned by billionaire Democratic donors Bill and Connie Neville. Twice, he’s stayed at a Martha’s Vineyard compound owned by billionaire David Rubenstein."
He said those freebies make up "only 24 of the 250-plus days Biden has been away from the White House" already.
Reports confirm Biden has taken three beach vacations at the homes belonging to various owners in the recent reporting period and did not pay for two, and probably not the third.
Just the News explained Walter Shaub, an ethics expert who worked in the Barack Obama administration, and Richard Painter, the top ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush White House, both concluded those free stays should be disclosed if the homeowner isn't there with the president.
That could be considered a visit to friends, or "personal hospitality," but not when the homeowner is gone and simply turns over a luxury property for Biden's use, reported the New York Post.
Painter, in fact, warned, "The homeowner has to be a personal friend of the president or first lady and be present during the stay — otherwise that goes on the form. There’s no excuse not to have it on the form. You can’t have the president just going around using people’s houses for free without disclosure. That’s no better than a Supreme Court justice staying on a yacht for free without disclosure."
His comment referenced the claims by leftists that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas accepted trips from friends.
"The left-leaning ProPublica has published almost a dozen stories about Thomas' trips and relationships with the wealthy. A search of ProPublica's archives found no stories about Biden's stays at billionaire homes," Just the News said.
Painter said such gifts to the president must be reported, by law, and "if it’s intentionally left off, then you get into the [criminal] false statements law … and that could be a felony."
He continued, "If you have multiple disclosure lapses, particularly involving the same donor or friend, that’s where you get into a situation where Clarence Thomas has been criticized. Once you might say it is a really careless mistake. You start to get into the second and third times and you start to wonder, ‘What the heck is going on here?'"
Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., chief of the House Oversight Committee, is leading the investigation into Biden's alleged financial improprieties, and said, "President Biden has stayed at donors’ lavish vacation homes and he’s not being honest with the American people."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The leftists at the World Economic Forum arrogantly stated in a 2016 video that by 2030, "You'll own nothing, and you'll be happy."
Now it seems that a list of American cities is actively pursuing that ideology, with their memberships in the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, which is calling for vast new restrictions on residents, including consumption of zero beef, zero dairy, zero private vehicles, and only three new clothing items per person per year.
A report by Evita Duffy-Alfonso at The Federalist explains the new ideology.
"All of these policy proposals appear even more unreasonable and illogical when we actually evaluate the data. According to the International Disaster Database, deaths related to extreme heat, floods, storms, and droughts have plummeted as C02 emissions have risen. The fossil fuel economy has provided billions of people with heating, air conditioning, weather warning systems, mass irrigation, and durable buildings.
"Ultimately, the climate coalition’s goals are inherently anti-human. People generally need meat and the protein it provides to flourish. Banning meat and dairy, restricting calories, genetically altering the human body, and impoverishing the masses will hurt the planet and people. More likely than not, it will do more than hurt people — it will kill many of them."
The report identified the American cities that are part of the "C40" organization as Austin, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and Seattle.
The report explained the group's "dystopian goals" in a report called "The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World."
The bureaucracy is funded "largely funded by Democrat billionaire Michael Bloomberg" and actually includes nearly 100 cities worldwide.
The report claims the group "does not advocate" for the adoption of the schemes, but they are included to give "a set of reference points…"
The Federalist explained, however, that likely was included "in the case of pushback," because the report also specifically states its "target."
"The target of eliminating meat, dairy, and private vehicles by 2030 is 'based on a future vision of resource-efficient production and extensive changes in consumer choices,' the report notes."
And, The Federalist noted, just how far "climate dystopianism" has gone.
WEF-linked "bioethicist" Dr. Matthew Liao even has suggested that humans be genetically modified to be allergic to meat, to be smaller, and to consume fewer resources.
A report at Redstate.com explained it was a move "that is just downright daffy, not to mention leaning hard into totalitarianism."
The report continued, "Just to belabor the obvious, these people are elitists of the worst sort. There is an apocryphal quote attributed to the Duke of Wellington, who supposedly opposed the development of passenger railroads. The Duke supposedly claimed that these railroads would 'promote unrest by allowing the lower classes to travel too freely about.' That is, as you can see, precisely the mindset we see in play here."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., has been on the radical edge on many issues, from her expressed anti-Semitism to her shady multiple marriage scenario that triggered accusations she had married her own brother.
She's opined that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas should be removed because of what his wife said, has supported defunding police, reportedly hid her finances, has equated the U.S. and Israel with terrorists, and condemned President Trump's "Klan rallies," which didn't exist.
Now Fox News is reporting a real stunner, Omar has come to the defense of a woman who stated her Christian beliefs and was attacked for those statements.
The situation developed when former Ohio GOP employee Lizzie Marbach went on social media with a basic tenet of Christianity: "There's no hope for any of us outside of having faith in Jesus Christ alone."
Ohio Rep. Max Miller, a Republican, took issue, claiming that statement, a foundational belief for Christians for millennia, was "bigoted."
He said, "This is one of the most bigoted tweets I have ever seen. Delete it, Lizzie."
He complained to her, "Religious freedom in the United States applies to every religion. You have gone too far."
It was Omar, a Democrat, who stepped in.
She schooled Miller, "No! Stating the core beliefs or principles of your faith isn’t bigoted as Lizzie did, it's religious freedom and no one should be scolded for that."
She continued, Fox reported, "It’s also wrong to speak about religious freedom while simultaneously harassing people who freely express their beliefs." And she explained, "That’s her actual belief, you can disagree, but it’s not bigoted for her to say what her beliefs are. That’s all."
Miller eventually apologized.
"I posted something earlier that conveyed a message I did not intend. I will not try to hide my mistake or run from it. I sincerely apologize to Lizzie and to everyone who read my post."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The fight over whether schools should tell parents when their own teachers and counselors convince students they are transgender is getting serious in one California district.
There, already, an arrest has been made of a woman who allegedly threatened violence against the board president.
And the state has launched an investigation – into the school.
It's happening in Chino Valley, where the president of the school board recently was threatened after the board adopted a policy to notify parents if their child identifies as transgender.
The woman arrested, Berkeley resident Rebecca Morgan, 52, was cuffed on suspicion of threatening a public official.
The Chino Police Department learned of the first threat against the board in July "the day after the school board passed the policy in a lengthy and contentious meeting that saw state schools Superintendent Tony Thurmond leave the session after being told to sit down when his time at the podium was up."
Multiple "threatening messages, emails, and social media posts" erupted, and the police investigation continues.
School board President Sonja Shaw said the threats have identified not only her but her children and her pets.
Then California Attorney General Rob Bonta said he'd grill the district over his perception of civil rights violations.
He claimed that the policy "threatens the safety and well-being of LGBTQ+ students."
But a report from the Washington Stand confirms Shaw, and the district, are not backing down.
"If LGBTQ activists thought their threats — legal or illegal — would make Christian school board president Sonja Shaw back down, they guessed wrong," the report said.
Bonta publicly attacked the policy protecting parental rights, charging there are "potential legal violations" in the process to inform parents of what teachers and counselors have been talking to their children about.
Bonta's ideology includes insisting that refusing to call a child by a newly adopted name or gender is "violence."
Shaw says the brouhaha only makes her more resolved.
"This is a ploy to try to scare all the other boards across California from adopting the policy," said Shaw in a prepared statement. "We have united all over California, and people from all over the nation are linking up to protect our kids and ensure parental rights."
She said, "I won’t back down and will stand in the gap to protect our kids from big government bullies."
Shaw, according to lawyers, is on firm ground.
"Bonta cites a general right to privacy under the state constitution but fails to cite any case applying this right to gender identity, much less in the context of a child’s right to keeping information private from their parents," explained Laura Powell, who has testified before the state legislature.
Lance Christensen, of the California Policy Center, warned, "Parents, do we have your attention yet? The state is coming for your kids. Using case law that he knows to be incorrectly applied, the AG is going after a duly elected school district that implemented a policy completely consistent with current state law."
Shaw confirmed, "I still stand with my decisions."