This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A can of soda weighs in at an arm-breaking 12 ounces. A large slice of pizza, maybe inflicting only a sprain, weighs around 8 ounces.
Nash Keen, when he was born 19 weeks premature, weighed in right between those, at 10 ounces.
And now he's a smiling, bouncing, engaging baby boy of one year old.
The Christian Institute in the United Kingdom marked the birthday for Keen, born to an Iowa family at 21 weeks, one day earlier than the previous Guinness World Record holder.
"He spent the first six months in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) at Stead Family Children's Hospital in Iowa, but is now home,," the institute reported.
"His mum Mollie thought they would lose him," the report said.
"I had to take it one day at a time. I focused on the small victories and leaned hard on my support system," she explained.
"Being in the NICU as long as he was, you'd think that he would be, you know, more fragile and stuff. And he's not. He's a very determined, curious little boy, and he's just all smiles all the time," she continued.
He was able to leave the hospital in January.
His dad, Randall, said, "He's surviving and he's thriving, and he's doing really good. So we're very proud of him." Nash is reported to be growing into a "strong, happy baby who is hitting developmental milestones."
Pro-life publication Life News noted, "This is little Nash Keen. He was born at just 21 weeks gestation and weighing a mere 10 ounces. No clump of cells. No ball of tissue. And Nash just earned the Guinness World Record as the most premature baby to survive!"
At Guinness World Records, the organization noted the child was known in the family as "Nash potato."
The family's hometown, Ankeny, made a big deal of his birthday: Gifts included 70 outfits, educational toys and a mountain of diapers.
His mom noted they need those.
At birth, he was 9.5 inches long and weighed less than a grapefruit.
Neonatologist Amy Stanford said, "Around the one-month mark, we all began to breathe a little easier. While we knew Nash still had a long journey ahead, that was the point when we started to feel more confident that he had a real chance of going home. It was a subtle but powerful shift – from day-to-day survival to long-term hope."
In a statement online, the hospital noted the parents, just a year earlier had lost a little girl, McKinley Keen.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A pro-abortion judge who owes her position to Barack Obama, a radical advocate for abortion, has ruled American taxpayers must give hundreds of millions of dollars each year to abortion-industry giant Planned Parenthood.
The ruling, from Indira Talwani, for now halts a portion of a law that was adopted by Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump.
An appeal, of course, is in the works.
But meanwhile, officials with Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America pointed out how Talwani made her decision based on lies, even citing those lies in her court opinion.
"An activist judge just issued a ruling full of falsehoods about abortion giant Planned Parenthood in a desperate effort to keep forcing taxpayers to prop up Big Abortion," explained Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA Pro-Life America.
"Every day this order stands, Planned Parenthood continues to rake in millions of our tax dollars, fueling thousands of unborn lives ended daily and putting women at unacceptable risk of serious harm and even death. Women have better and more comprehensive alternatives with community health centers outnumbering Planned Parenthood facilities 15 to 1. We look forward to the Trump administration swiftly stopping this lawfare and restoring the historic victory secured through the One Big Beautiful Bill."
The SBA organization noted where Talwani strayed far from the truth:
A report at the Washington Examiner said Talwani "permanently" blocked the bill cutting off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood.
The ruling replaces a preliminary injunction she had insisted on imposing earlier.
Talwani claimed in court documents that defunding Planned Parenthood "will result in the closure of clinics that inevitably will have 'adverse health consequences where care is disrupted or unavailable.'"
She alleged there could be an "increase" in unintended pregnancies if Planned Parenthood is not paid hundreds of millions of dollars annually by taxpayers.
She complained absent that tax money, there would be a decrease in access to contraceptives and that would produce a "corresponding increase in the number of unintended pregnancies" and therefore that "will likely result in an increased number of abortions."
Federal law already prohibits using taxes for abortions, but pro-life organizations long have pointed out that money that subsidizes other operations by Planned Parenthood also subsidizes its abortion procedures.
The abortion industry leader reported grabbing about $800 million in federal tax money during fiscal 2023-2024.
It sued over the democratically created legislation.
Talwani's ideological ruling already has drawn criticism from the Department of Justice, where chief of staff Chad Mizell called her "lawless."
Lila Rose, president of the anti-abortion organization Live Action, said in a statement that the ruling from Talwani, appointed by Obama in 2014, "is a blatant act of judicial overreach."
"Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill with clear language and intent to stop the forced taxpayer funding of abortion," Rose said. "This unelected judge has decided that her personal pro-abortion agenda matters more than the law."
The Constitution actually doesn't mention abortion, as was pointed out when the faulty Roe Supreme Court decision was overturned several years ago. That left the regulation to the states, under their laws. Federal cash handouts, of course, are under the Constitution left to Congress.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Department of Justice has created a new strike force to assess the Obamagate evidence that has been declassified by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
A report from the Washington Examiner confirms the panel was created this week to assess the evidence that was used to create the "Russiagate" scandal in which Democrats falsely accused Donald Trump, first as candidate and then as president, of colluding with Russia during the 2016 election.
The task force is to decide what legal steps might be coming.
Several of those involved in the scandalous behavior and schemes that attempted to undermine a duly elected president already have been referred for investigation and possible prosecution.
"The Department of Justice is proud to work with my friend Director Gabbard and we are grateful for her partnership in delivering accountability for the American people," Attorney General Pam Bondi said. "We will investigate these troubling disclosures fully and leave no stone unturned to deliver justice."
The DOJ said it is taking seriously the "alleged weaponization of the intelligence community."
Gabbard's office only days ago released government evidence suggesting "former President Barack Obama undermined President Donald Trump's 2016 election victory," the report said. "Obama's White House claimed at the time that Russia meddled with the election results, despite the intelligence community's prior assessments indicating no foreign interference in the months leading up to the election."
It was just a few weeks after Trump's stunning 2016 election victory over twice-failed Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton that Democrats in Obama's administration reversed course. That was when former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's office ordered "the creation of a new assessment that details the 'tools Moscow used and actions it took to influence the 2016 election,'" the report said.
Then members of Obama's entourage "leaked false statements to the press alleging Russia attempted to interfere in the election's outcome," the report said.
Obama has continued to claim that his administration's interpretation of alleged Russian interference was accurate and unbiased, despite the facts that those opinions were based on possibly misinterpreted statements from sources known to be unreliable.
Gabbard already has referred Obama and others involved in the anti-Trump agenda to the DOJ for investigation and possible criminal charges.
"There is irrefutable evidence that details how President Barack Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew that was false," she confirmed.
"The evidence that we have found and that we have released directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment. There are multiple pieces of evidence and intelligence that confirm that fact."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Now even a leftist court has sounded off on the wild claim by Democrats, other progressives, and Joe Biden that the Equal Rights Amendment now is "law of the land."
The ERA was proposed back in the 1970s, some five decades ago. It was approved by Congress and states were given seven years to endorse it. The deadline even, under a questionable scheme, was "extended" by three years.
It failed.
Then, not just years, but decades after the deadline has passed, Democrats in several states schemed to vote on the idea, with Virginia's "approval" coming just recently.
So claimed the Democrats that the damaging ERA, which could be applied to do things like erase abortion restrictions nationwide and require the draft for women, was the law.
Joe Biden quickly jumped out onto that limb.
However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals now has ruled such claims "meritless."
The panel didn't even bother to explain its reasoning, stating simply, "We reject as meritless Valame's contention that the Equal Rights Amendment was ratified as the Twenty-Eight Amendment to the Constitution."
It was Vikram Valame who raised the demand that the court create the 28th Amendment judicially in a fight over the legality of the Military Selective Service Act.
A commentary a Twitchy took aim at the wild claim that the ERA was "law."
"There is a cadre of leftists who insist that a proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)—that would make governmental discrimination based on sex illegal—has somehow become part of the Constitution as the alleged Twenty-Eighth Amendment."
It was, in fact, dead for decades after states refused to endorse it before two deadlines passed.
"Then in the last few years a movement came about to give it a late ratification, with Virginia providing it the alleged thirty-eighth ratification. We say 'alleged thirty-eighth ratification' because besides the timing issue, many states that ratified it have purported to rescind that ratification. You cannot claim that thirty-eight states have ratified it without claiming that once a state provides its consent, it cannot withdraw that consent before the proposed amendment reaches the appropriate threshold.
"But what all of that tells you is that the Biden Administration had been fighting this case since June of 2023 and the government's lawyers never said, 'you know what? Valame is right! The ERA is part of the Constitution!' Even after Biden made his declaration that the ERA is part of the Constitution, his administration's lawyers were still fighting it through the end of his term.," the commentary said.
It explained, "Still, it is fair to say that the Ninth Circuit is easily the most liberal in America, so for this claim to fail, even against two Clinton appointees, is just about the gold standard for failing. It's a bit like playing a baseball game where the other side spots your team thirty points and your team still manages to lose. It is a pretty humiliating defeat for this claim."
WND previously reported, when Biden was making his claim to create the amendment that it was among his "flurry of strange and odd behaviors … during the closing days of his term in the White House."
The ERA would have said, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
The history of the ideology is long and convoluted but in every scheme it has failed. And under the Constitution, a president lacks the power to reverse court precedent, congressional action and legal determinations, all of which would be necessary.
The report noted that the U.S. Senate, on a 51-47 vote that failed to reach the required 60 votes, blocked the Equal Rights Amendment from being ratified into law in 2023,
WND reported when far-left Sen Kirsten Gillibrand demanded that the corpse of the amendment be dug out of its grave and added to the Constitution.
For the ratification of amendments to the Constitution, at least 38 states must adopt the proposal.
During the time allowed for the ERA to be ratified, 35 states did adopt it. But that was not enough, even after Congress extended the allowed time.
It failed to meet its ratification requirements by the first deadline in 1972, and again in 1982.
The Archivist of the United States has ruled, "The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) cannot be certified as part of the Constitution due to established legal, judicial, and procedural decisions.
"In 2020 and again in 2022, the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice affirmed that the ratification deadline established by Congress for the ERA is valid and enforceable. The OLC concluded that extending or removing the deadline requires new action by Congress or the courts. Court decisions at both the District and Circuit levels have affirmed that the ratification deadlines established by Congress for the ERA are valid. Therefore, the Archivist of the United States cannot legally publish the Equal Rights Amendment. As the leaders of the National Archives, we will abide by these legal precedents and support the constitutional framework in which we operate."
Lower courts also have determined the amendment may not be revived after a deadline for its ratification has expired.
One court advised, "Should Congress wish to propose the amendment anew, it may do so through the same procedures required to propose an amendment in the first instance, consistent with Article V of the Constitution."
The concept first was proposed in the U.S. House in 1923, but it didn't gain congressional action until the 1970s. But that legislation included a ratification deadline, which was extended once.
Three states, South Dakota, Louisiana and Alabama, in fact, sued to keep the ERA corpse in its grave.
Further, if ratifications after a deadline were to be accepted, there still would be the issue that Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky and South Dakota, after first adopting it, later reversed their decisions and withdrew their adoptions.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'BILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR WERE WASTED. REPUBLICANS HAVE TRIED DOING THIS FOR 40 YEARS, AND FAILED….BUT NO MORE. THIS IS BIG!!!'
The U.S. House has passed President Donald Trump's $9 billion rescissions bill, sending it to his desk, and he immediately praised the action
"HOUSE APPROVES NINE BILLION DOLLAR CUTS PACKAGE, INCLUDING ATROCIOUS NPR AND PUBLIC BROADCASTING, WHERE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR WERE WASTED. REPUBLICANS HAVE TRIED DOING THIS FOR 40 YEARS, AND FAILED….BUT NO MORE. THIS IS BIG!!!" he posted on Truth Social.
The plan pulls back money, about $8 billion, from previously approved handouts to foreign interests, and another $1 billion or so from Public Broadcasting System and National Public Radio, which he has condemned often as tax-funded mouthpieces for leftist agendas.
The $8 billion had been for foreign disaster relief, health projects and agriculture, while the $1 billion was to be used for 1,500 NPR and PBS stations.
Commentaries said the plan "reverses years of wasteful globalist spending that has funneled billions overseas while neglecting American families at home."
The final vote was 216-213 on the plan that earlier was adopted by the House, then sent to the Senate where there were minor revisions before it was adopted there.
The bill now heads to the president's desk for his signature.
The Daily Caller News Foundation described the move as "a significant victory for Trump who was the first commander-in-chief to have a clawback funding request approved by Congress in more than 25 years."
The vote delivers on the president's promise to close down the United States Agency for International Development and defund NPR and PBS, which Republicans have long accused of being biased against conservative viewpoints.
USAID now essentially is closed, with a handful of selected responsibilities being assigned to the State Department. Its employees largely are gone from the government.
The $1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which partially finances NPR and PBS, was for the next two years.
"I'm not sure how NPR helps the public safety of our country, but I do know that NPR unfortunately has become, really just a propaganda voice for the left," White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said Thursday.
The plan becomes the first of what is expected to become a stream of legislative moves to codify cuts identified by Trump's Department of Government Efficiency.
The Daily Caller News Foundation reported, "There is still roughly $164 billion in federal spending pinpointed by Trump's cost-cutting department as wasteful that Congress has yet to claw back."
Speaker Mike Johnson noted taxpayers now no longer are being forced to pay for "politically biased media" and "outrageous" expenses overseas.
Russ Vought, White House Office of Management and Budget director, earlier said the administration will be sending Congress more plans to claw back more funds.
Democrats have been united in their opposition to cutting even 0.1% of the federal governments $7 trillion spending.
Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., documented the bias found at NPR as only he can:
Just a day before the Senate adopted the recissions package on a 51-48 vote following a 13-hour vote-a-rama.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Amid reports that a firing for Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell was imminent, President Donald Trump on Wednesday said ousting Powell was "highly unlikely," despite calling him a "knucklehead."
"I don't rule out anything, but it's highly unlikely, unless he has to leave for fraud. I mean it's possible there's fraud involved."
The New York Times reported Wednesday that Trump had drafted a letter to fire Powell, and asked Republicans if he should send it and indicated that he likely would.
"He's a knucklehead," Trump told reporters Wednesday in the Oval Office. "We like to say it like it is."
"He's always been too late, hence his nickname 'Too Late.' He should have cut interest rates a long time ago. Europe has cut 'em 10 times in a short period of time. We cut 'em none."
"I think he does a terrible job. He's costing us a lot of money, and we fight through it. It's almost, the country's become so successful it doesn't have a big impact. But it does hurt people wanting to get a mortgage, people want to buy a house. He's a terrible Fed chair."
In an interview with the "Just the News, No Noise" television show to be aired Thursday night on Real America's Voice, Trump said of Powell: "I'd love if he wants to resign. … That would be up to him."
"They say it would disrupt the market if I did (fire him). But you know, there are many people who say he should be removed because of the fraud of what he's doing at the Fed, with regard to the $2.5 billion he's spending, $2.5 billion to, I guess it's a renovation. I don't know. I'm very good at that stuff. I should go look at it."
The president was commenting on reports that Powell's renovation of his headquarters in the nation's capital has skyrocketed $700 million over budget to $2.5 billion.
"It's like one of the most expensive buildings in the world," Trump told the program.
"He's putting all sorts of parks on the top of the building, and this that. And I guarantee the contractors are making a fortune. No, this is not a guy. This is a guy always recommended. He was recommended to me by (former Treasury Secretary) Mnuchin, and he never worked out good."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is renewing his call for the Department of Justice to investigation Anthony Fauci, who was Joe Biden's key COVID adviser during the China virus pandemic, and has been accused of orchestrating funding for the Wuhan lab from which the deadly threat likely emerged, as well as promoting COVID shots that have proven injurious to many while suppressing other existing treatments.
The Washington Examiner reported Paul sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi asking for the DOJ's review "for possible criminal prosecution regarding Fauci's congressional testimony in May 2021 about gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology."
Fauci used to be the chief of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the White House Coronavirus Task Force when the pandemic erupted, later being a medical adviser to Biden.
"In July 2023, I referred Dr. Anthony Fauci to the Department of Justice for lying under oath to Congress. His own emails directly contradicted his sworn testimony," Paul explained in a statement. "The New York Times reports Fauci was quietly pardoned by an autopen, operated by Biden's staff. If the President didn't authorize this pardon personally, then the Department has a duty to investigate and prosecute as it would any ordinary citizen. Fauci has been sainted by the extremist Left, but it doesn't erase his lying before Congress."
Fauci was, in fact, granted a preemptive pardon by the Biden White House, but there are open disputes as to whether those were personally authorized by him, or whether his staff and advisers simply used the autopen technology to imprint Biden's signature on pardons they prepared.
"I write to renew my previous requests for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to open an investigation into former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Anthony Fauci's testimony before the United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on May 11, 2021," Paul wrote.
"This most recent request stems from new allegations that call into question the validity of Dr. Fauci's purported pardon."
Paul explained, "New information has revealed that these pardons were executed via autopen, with no documented confirmation that the President personally reviewed or approved each individual grant of clemency. According to reports, White House staff authorized the use of the autopen to issue the clemency documents. This raises serious constitutional and legal concerns about the legitimacy of Dr. Fauci's pardon."
It was a report at Real Clear Wire that noted the original complaints about Fauci were that he lied to Congress about the lab, its funding and on other issues.
That report also suggested that despite the "pardon" from the White House, he still could face legal jeopardy.
Former Senate investigator Jason Foster, who now runs the whistleblower nonprofit Empower Oversight, says Congress can, in fact, demand answers, even about whether he lied before.
"They can ask him if he lied before, replough old ground," Foster said. "And if he lies about any prior lie, he can be prosecuted for that or held in contempt."
Andrew Noymer, associate professor of population health and disease prevention at the University of California, Irvine, said such hearings are necessary for scientific and historical reasons. "I'm hopeful that he will now come clean about everything he knows about the origins of the virus. For the sake of public trust in science – explaining what killed 20 million people – that a complete account is much more important than speculation about what criminal penalties he may have avoided."
Another expert, on the Trump transition team, said, "These pardons will not stop Department of Justice investigations. We expected this and look at it as a predicate to get truth from people who can no longer use the Fifth Amendment. Now we can bring every one of them in front of a grand jury."
Fauci, during the pandemic, at one point arrogantly insisted he is "science."
He was known for flip-flopping his positions on COVID during the pandemic.
The report noted, "Fauci's habit of bending the truth, as some see it, was notably on display at a July 2021 Senate hearing when Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican, bore into the funding Fauci approved for gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. While Fauci attempted to downplay his financial involvement with the Chinese government lab, reports were already percolating. In April 2020, Newsweek reported that Fauci had approved a grant for risky 'gain of function' virus research at the Wuhan lab. The Washington Post editorial board in March 2021 then called for an independent investigation into EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit funded by the Fauci-run National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases. With this grant, EcoHealth subcontracted research to the Chinese, the Post noted, to do experiments involving 'modifying viral genomes to give them new properties, including the ability to infect lung cells of laboratory mice that had been genetically modified to respond as human respiratory cells would.'"
EcoHealth Alliance later was barred from getting any federal funds.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
During a two-hour Cabinet meeting broadcast live Tuesday, President Trump once again talked about his plan to establish a program for illegal-alien farm and hospitality workers to remain in the U.S., despite his ongoing efforts at mass deportation, while many supporters of the president express dismay about this apparent loophole in his otherwise robust immigration ideology.
Trump was asked about critics saying the new plan amounts to amnesty for lawbreakers.
"There's no amnesty," said Trump during the meeting. "What we're doing is we're getting rid of criminals, but we are doing a work program."
Then Agriculture Secretary Brook Robbins explained, "This morning [at a briefing] we talked about protecting the farmers and the farmland, but obviously this president's vision of no amnesty, mass deportation continues – but in a strategic way, and then ensuring that our farmers have the labor that they need."
"[Labor] Secretary Chavez-DeRemer has been a leader on this," Rollins continued. "Obviously, this comes out of the Labor Department, but moving toward automation, ensuring that our farmers have that workforce, and moving toward an American workforce. So all of the above."
Several days ago, Trump first broached the subject of allowing some illegal aliens to stay to work in certain industries, saying he favors legislation to solidify the details.
Then on July 3 in Iowa, during a "Salute to America" event, the president said: "Farmers, look, they know better. They work with them for years. You had cases where, not year, but just even over the years where people have worked for a farm, on a farm for 14, 15 years, and they get thrown out pretty viciously, and we can't do it. We gotta work with the farmers, and people that have hotels and leisure properties, too."
In the speech, Trump acknowledge that some on the right would not appreciate the move, saying, ""Serious radical-right people, who I also happen to like a lot, they may not be quite as happy. But they'll understand."
Trump said on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures" with Maria Bartiromo: "What we're going to do is, we're going to do something for farmers where we can let the farmer sort of be in charge. The farmer knows he's not going to hire a murderer."
Backlash from his supporters has come from several sources.
According to Blaze Media, Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis remarked, "No amnesty. No debate. No compromise."
"There is no other issue the conservative base feels more passionately about than immigration," responded Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA. "In just a few decades, everyday Americans have watched their country transform into a nation of strangers. We must deliver mass deportations, not amnesty."
"Any sort of mass amnesty plan would result in a devastating midterm defeat for Republicans in Congress," commentator Todd Starnes said.
Responses on X included:
"If you are letting them stay, it's called amnesty."
"It's not amnesty, they're just not going to deport them. What a sick joke."
"This amnesty bill will be a complete BETRAYAL to the MAGA base, especially now that ICE has the budget to commence these promised mass deportations."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Many experts assessed ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, common drugs already documented for their effectiveness against certain ailments, as both a defense against getting infected with COVID-19, the China virus that circled the globe and killed millions, as well as a possibly beneficial treatment.
Not Big Pharma, which was taking in billions of dollars for the various mRNA shots which now have been documented to trigger a multitude of problems, including heart ailments in young men. Part of the problem was the availability of the likely COVID-fighters, as they required prescriptions, and physicians were under intense pressure to reach out for the shots that included a corporate profit for drug manufacturers.
But that could be changing. Dr. Simone Gold and America's Frontline Doctors have filed citizens petitions with the Food and Drug Administration asking that they be available to consumers over the counter.
They were joined by doctors Dana Granberg-Nill, Bryan Atkinson, Pierre Kory, Brian Tyson, Peterson Pierre, Robin Armstrong, Geoff Mitchell, and Lynn Fynn as co-petitioners, according to a report from the Gateway Pundit.
The report said, "Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been FDA-approved for decades and is available OTC in many parts of the world, such as in Africa and South America, for the prevention and treatment of malaria. In the United States and other Western Nations, HCQ is a widely prescribed medication primarily used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. According to the government's own database, FAERS (FDA Adverse Event Reporting System), HCQ is one of the safest drugs on the planet."
And, "Ivermectin is a wide-ranging antiparasitic agent that has been used in humans for over three decades and won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015, reflecting the drug's enormous impact on human health."
The report said ivermectin also has "gained much attention for its potential use in cancer treatment.
The Gateway Pundit explained, "The COVID pandemic sparked a tremendous public health demand to repurpose well-known drugs like HCQ and ivermectin for new uses, specifically for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Tragically, patients who were prescribed these medications by their doctors were denied access by pharmacies that refused to fill these prescriptions due to pressure from government health agencies and their C-suite executives.
"To make matters worse, both drugs were attacked relentlessly in order to push experimental mRNA injections onto the public."
The report said with the goal of cutting through COVID propaganda and removing a barrier to patient access, the petitions were delivered to the FDA, originally during the pandemic. Now the petitions have been refiled.
Gold said, "The fight to make hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin over-the-counter continues. The mainstream narrative has collapsed under the weight of its own deception, and the truth can no longer be suppressed. It is way past time for our government to truly follow the science."
Mitchell said, "We suggest that one of the predominant reasons for the poor clinical outcomes and excess COVID deaths in the U.S. was the prohibition of early, oral, outpatient treatment with safe, effective, repurposed drugs like the Nobel-prize-winning IVM and also HCQ. The FDA led the charge against these treatment alternatives, enlisting pharmacists, corporate pharmacies, and physicians in their effort as well."
The medical industry had to suppress availability of the existing drugs because in order to release the new, potentially injurious mRNA shots, because under the emergency authorization process, it was required that there be "no viable existing alternatives."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Officials at a school district in New York have retreated in their campaign to tear down the posters put up by a Christian student club letting others know about meetings and events.
The confirmation comes from the American Center for Law and Justice, which sent a demand letter to officials at Carmel Central School District in New York when the fight erupted.
The letter was sent on behalf of Jenna, a "brave ninth-grade student," when school officials "tore down her Christian club's Bible verse posters and banned the use of 'Good News' from the Bible club's name," the legal team has reported.
The response to the letter now is a "major win," the team said.
"The district has now walked back its actions. In a written response, the school district has confirmed that Jenna's club can change the club's name to whatever it wants, the school has no objection to posters citing Bible verses or containing a cross, and Jenna has the same rights as any other student to share her faith on campus," the ACLJ reported.
The demand letter explained to the school how it was in "direct violation of the Equal Access Act and the First Amendment."
"Schools may not censor religious viewpoints while allowing secular student groups full freedom. In fact, federal law is clear that once a school opens a limited public forum for student expression – such as clubs – it must treat all clubs equally, regardless of their religious content. In fact, the ACLJ argued and won a similar case before the U.S. Supreme Court in Board of Education v. Mergens 35 years ago," the team explained.
The district, on getting the notification, "reversed course and has agreed to comply with the law."
School officials wrote, "The school district simply has no objection to Alpha Omega Club notices that cite to the Bible or contain a cross, or to [Jenna's] religious speech on school grounds."
The student was trying to relaunch a Christian student organization at Carmel High School, after being previously denied permission.
"She followed every procedure required. Her group was initially called the 'Good News Club' and sought to meet after school for faith-based discussion, encouragement, and learning. But when she posted campus-wide flyers listing encouraging Bible verses and inviting students to join, the school took them down and told her the club's name had to be changed. They said the posters had 'too many Bible verses.' Jenna was told to rename the group 'Alpha Omega Club' and to submit all religious content for administrative review."
The ACLJ said that the school also confirms that the club is officially recognized and has every right to post flyers and hold meetings like any other student organization."
WND reported when the dispute flared that the school had even banned an entire video series planned by the club, torn posters down a second time, demanded to review and approve – or not – promotions, based on "whether they were too religious."
"School officials took over and started running the club, insisting on what religious materials were and were not acceptable," the ACLJ reported. "This is viewpoint discrimination in its purest form – and it's unlawful."