July 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Mexico’s Supreme Court shocked pro-abortion and feminist activists and handed to pro-life forces what many consider a decisive victory, ruling against a lower court injunction that sought to decriminalize abortion in the Mexican state of Veracruz.
Abortion activists had hoped to use the injunction as a template to expand abortion across the country. Currently, abortion is legal in only two of Mexico’s 32 states.
“This ruling could allow us to petition for injunctions or other measures in the rest of the states which have restrictive regulations on abortion,” Rebeca Ramos, a lawyer and director of GIRE, a pro-abortion organization in Mexico City, toldThe Guardian in advance of the court’s decision.
Those plans have been derailed, and pro-life advocates around the world are hailing the 4-1 high court decision as a major victory.
This could have been Mexico’s Roe v. Wade
“Big win for ProLife in Mexico,” declared Alfonso Aguilar, president of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles and former chief of the U.S. Office of Citizenship.
“Supreme Court of Justice strikes down law that sought to legalize abortion,” said Aguilar. “Mexicans believe in life like DonaldTrump, while Joe Biden wants abortion on demand! Latinos stand for life! That’s why we have more & more Latinos For Trump!”
Success of the pro-life movement in South America and Latin America
“Praise God!” exclaimed Obianuju Ekeocha, founder and president of Culture of Life Africa, an initiative dedicated to the promotion and defense of the African values of the sanctity of life, beauty of marriage, blessings of motherhood, and the dignity of family life.
“In Mexico, the awaited Supreme Court decision has been revealed and the Mexico Supreme Court has rejected the bid to decriminalise abortion,” she continued. “It is so encouraging to see developing countries defending the right to life of their unborn.”
In Mexico, the awaited Supreme Court decision has been revealed and the Mexico Supreme Court has rejected the bid to decriminalise abortion. It is so encouraging to see developing countries defending the right to life of their unborn. https://t.co/T6sQMxENOF
“This is just incredible news,” tweeted Jonathon Van Maren, author of the Bridgehead blog and host of the Van Maren Show podcast at LifeSiteNews. He echoed Uju’s sentiments about the strength of the pro-life movement south of the border. “The story of the success of the pro-life movement in South America Latin America is one of the great untold stories of the last decade.”
This is just incredible news. The story of the success of the pro-life movement in South America and Latin America is one of the great untold stories of the last decade.https://t.co/8AvFr3CvUV
“As I’ve noted often over the past several years, one of the little-known stories of the past decade is the astronomical growth of the pro-life movement in South America and Latin America, where millions have taken to the streets and defeated abortion legislation in Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, and now, Mexico,” continued Van Maren at his blog. “To see these extraordinary demonstrations and to watch millions of people rise up in defence of pre-born children is incredibly encouraging, and this Supreme Court ruling — which wasn’t even close — will keep tens of thousands of pre-born children safe in the womb.”
“Some days, the good guys win. This was one of those days,” he added.
A lesson for the U.S. Supreme Court from Mexico
“The bravery and honesty of the Mexican Supreme Court contrast sharply with the actions of the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and cases since that have ignored the democratic process in favor of an unfettered ‘right’ to abortion,” proclaimed a tweet issued by Americans United for Life (AUL).
"The bravery and honesty of the Mexican Supreme Court contrast sharply with the actions of the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and cases since that have ignored the democratic process in favor of an unfettered “right” to abortion." -@cateicihttps://t.co/iXociDSytO
“Americans United for Life congratulates the Supreme Court of Mexico for protecting the right to life by refusing to legalize the violent and life-ending act of abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy,” said AUL president & CEO Catherine Glenn Foster in a statement.
“What separates this moment in time from similar moments in U.S. history is that the Justices in Mexico understood that their mandate was not to make new laws and overturn the will of the people, but instead to interpret the law as it was written and commonly understood,” continued Foster.
“The U.S. is still only 1 of 7 nations, of 198 across the globe, that legalizes abortion for any reason after fetal viability,” noted Foster. “We can learn so much from our brothers and sisters to the South. Today I celebrate with all of the mothers, fathers, and children in Mexico who will be spared from the horrors of abortion.”
Life won, but anti-life groups will try again
Marcial Padilla, executive director of ConParticipación, a Mexican pro-life group, recounted to LifeSiteNews the history of the case which led to the Supreme Court’s decision.
“In 2017, legislation which sought to make aborton legal through the first 12 weeks of pregnancy was introduced in Veracruz,” explained Padilla, noting that abortion is a federal crime in Mexico. “When the bill failed to pass, a small group of anti-lifers ‘sued’ the Veracruz Congress using a legal procedure known as ‘amparo,’ which is akin to not accepting defeat and trying to force the governing body to vote the way they wanted.”
“In a surprise move, a federal judge ruled in favor of the anti-lifers, asserting that the Congress should have voted against the right to life for the unborn,” said Padilla.
“The total prohibition on interrupting a pregnancy –– through criminal classification –– is a barrier, which creates discrimination against women in relation to the right to health,” wrote Judge Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá in his brief.
The Veracruz Congress then appealed the decision to Mexico’s Supreme Court.
Padilla’s reaction to the Court’s ruling was more tempered than those of pro-life champions outside Mexico.
“So the protection of life won because of a technicality, not because the judges actually considered the inherent dignity of human life,” lamented Padilla.
“It is good news, of course, but instead of calling it a full win for the right to life, it would be more precise to say that ‘life did not lose thanks to the gross legal inconsistencies of the anti-lifer activists and judges,’” said Padilla.
“What comes next?” he asked. “Anti-life groups will try again through another legal strategy to make a Roe v. Wade case in the Mexican Supreme Court.”
“They already have several appeals pending. Yesterday’s case was only one of them,” warned Padilla, and so the pro-life movement must be strategic and think in the long term. He continued:
Pro life groups will need to keep applying strong pressure to judges, governors and federal government officials, especially to President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador so that the right to life will stay fully protected.
We need to learn from the US: It took almost 50 years to have a conservative Supreme Court. We need to start now to assure that every single person in a position to define law or justice is clearly pro-life.
July 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – When the U.S. Supreme Court voted to strike down a Louisiana abortion regulation last month, Justice Brett Kavanaugh urged his colleagues to write the opinion in such a way as to allow the law to be revived in a new trial, according to a new report on private memos among the nation’s most powerful judges.
Last month, the court voted 5-4 to strike down a Louisiana law requiring abortionists to make arrangements for admitting women to nearby hospitals in cases of emergencies. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal majority, reversing his own past decision to uphold a similar Texas law on the claim that the pro-abortion Texas ruling was now a binding precedent.
Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s second appointee to the Supreme Court, joined Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch in dissent, arguing for himself that “additional fact-finding” was needed to “properly evaluate” whether abortionists could have obtained admitting privileges under the law.
On Wednesday, CNN’s Joan Biskupic reported that Kavanaugh argued in private memos to his fellow justices that between the court voting 5-4 against the law and Justice Stephen Breyer completing his majority opinion, Kavanaugh lobbied his fellow justices to send the case back to a lower court for additional fact-finding.
“Kavanaugh's new suggestion would keep the law blocked in the short term while the case moved back through the legal system,” Biskupic wrote. “In memos to colleagues, Kavanaugh questioned whether the trial judge had sufficient evidence to declare that the requirement would force abortion clinics to close.”
“There were no takers among the justices for Kavanaugh's suggested solution,” she continued. “The liberals were locked in, and the three other conservatives were ready to dissent with no equivocation.” Kavanaugh went on to express his preferred outcome in his aforementioned dissenting opinion.
CNN’s revelation does little to clarify, in either direction, what Kavanaugh would ultimately do when asked to rule directly on Roe v. Wade’s merits. He went out of his way to push for a path through which the admitting privilege law could survive, but also declined to join the court’s conservatives in simply upholding the law, preferring instead to write an opinion that accepted the underlying logic of the Texas precedent.
In an April opinion on an unrelated case, Kavanaugh elaborated on his thought process for when longstanding precedents (such as Roe) should be left alone or overturned, arguing that it wasn’t enough for a past case to be wrongly decided. Rather, he argued, justices should make that decision based on criteria such as whether a precedent is “not just wrong, but grievously or egregiously wrong”; whether it “caused significant negative jurisprudential or real-world consequences” for both the legal system and the citizenry; and whether overturning it would “unduly upset” people’s reliance on it.
Such ongoing questions as to whether conservatives can trust Republican-appointed justices to deliver the rulings for which they support Republican presidents recently led Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, to announce that he will only vote for future Supreme Court picks who have opposed Roe on the record before their confirmation hearings. So far, no other Republican senator has echoed his pledge.
SPOKANE, Washington, July 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A Washington state Planned Parenthood sued a Christian community for holding monthly pro-life worship services outside one of its abortion centers.
“You have a billion-dollar industry suing local church pastors that aren't wealthy at all, for singing and peaceably assembly,” Pastor Ken Peters, who is responsible for the worship services, told Fox News.
The Church at Planned Parenthood (TCAPP), as it is officially called, “has been holding massive protests since the fall of 2018 on the narrow public right of way directly adjacent to the Planned Parenthood building,” the lawsuit stated. “Directly on the other side of the wall from where the massive crowd gathers to sing, chant, whistle, and yell and scream are all of the facility’s patient exam rooms.”
The lawsuit failed to mention that the worship services begin at 6 p.m., which is when the abortion center closes.
“TCAPP leaders intentionally increase the noise by encouraging the crowd to raise their voices, to sing louder and to scream and shout louder and longer,” Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and Northern Idaho claimed in the lawsuit. “The noise level routinely exceeds the limits set forth in the city noise ordinance.”
“If TCAPP protests were just about worship and not about disrupting the operations of the clinic, TCAPP could relocate to the opposite side of the street in front of the Salvation Army building,” the lawsuit suggested. In that location, “there is more room for a large gathering and all involved would be safer,” claimed the company that profits from aborting human beings.
Peters, the founder of TCAPP, told Crosscut that he specifically chose the narrow part of the street to hold worship services once a month. “We want to get as close to Planned Parenthood as we can, because the closer we are, the bigger the statement that it makes,” he said. “It makes a statement that we disagree with what they’re doing.”
Commenting on the noise level, Peters said, “We’re doing everything we possibly can to comply with the sound ordinance and still be able to do what we feel is our First Amendment right.” At the same time, “(w)e know they’re there with their little sound meters and yeah, it’s just a stupid game.”
“We’ve been running for two years,” Peters said. “We’ve never been cited. We don’t cause destruction. We don’t loot. We don’t riot. We literally go to Planned Parenthood and we hold church once a month. We do this after hours. We are not causing any harm.”
Peters explained that his congregation is “bringing attention to the fact that they are killing life for money. That’s what they don’t like. That’s what they’re suing us for. We are shining a light for the Lord and on their sin and that’s what (sic) they hate us.”
The Church at Planned Parenthood emphasizes on its website that it “is NOT a protest. It’s a worship service at the gates of Hell. The Church at Planned Parenthood is a gathering of Christians for the worship of God and the corporate prayer for repentance for this nation, repentance for the apathetic church, and repentance of our blood guiltiness in this abortion holocaust.”
Planned Parenthood commits more than 345,000 abortions annually, according to its most recent report. Additionally, the organization handed out more than 593,000 emergency contraception kits, commonly known as the morning-after pill, which can also cause abortions in some cases.
EDINBURGH, Scotland, July 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) ― The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Scotland fears that the country’s proposed new “hate crime” legislation could criminalize the possession of a Bible or the Catholic catechism.
The provisions of the “stirring up hatred” offense are twofold yet imprecise. First, the behavior or communication must be threatening, abusive or, in the case of race, insulting. Second, either the actor must “intend” to stir up “hatred” against a protected group, or there is a “likelihood” that his or her behavior or communication will stir up “hatred” against a protected group. The bishops objected that the definition of “hatred” is so unclear it is open to “a wide interpretation.”
“The proposed threshold for an offence under the stirring-up provisions might be considered disproportionately low,” the bishops wrote.
They then provided a surprising hypothetical example: a group accusing a transgenderist of stirring up hatred against them for their biological realism.
“For example, A might disagree with B’s belief that a biological male cannot become a woman. A might even go so far as to say that B is ‘talking nonsense,’ and that he is ‘transphobic’ and say so either in person or on a social media platform such as Twitter. The term abusive means offensive or mistreating, and should B feel offended, the first case is met,” the bishops wrote.
“In terms of the second test, a group of people accompanying B deem the comments to be an intention to stir up hatred against them as a group, and thus the second test is met.”
They then stated that A’s behavior should not be criminalized and that criminal behavior should not be determined solely on “the subjective.”
“The test must be stronger and allow the law to be consistent and not forever stretched in multiple ways to meet the capricious sensibilities and mores of the current culture and public opinion,” they wrote.
The bishops more clearly defended the rights of Catholics and other Christians to publicly profess their beliefs in Scotland when they addressed the proposed new offense of possessing “inflammatory material.”
“We are also concerned that Section 5 of the Bill creates an offence of possessing inflammatory material which, if taken with the low threshold contained therein, could render material such as the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other texts such as Bishops’ Conference of Scotland submissions to government consultations as being inflammatory under the new provision,” they wrote.
This time, the bishops offered as their example their own submission to the government on its proposed reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. In their submission, they had explained that the Catholic Church teaches that sex and gender are not “fluid and changeable” and that “male and female are complementary and ordered towards the creation of new life.”
“Such pronouncements, which are widely held, might be perceived by others as an abuse of their own, personal worldview and likely to stir up hatred,” they warned.
The right of Catholics to profess their beliefs about human anthropology was stressed later in the document, saying that the above opinions would need a “freedom of expression provision” in the proposed law for their protection from prosecution.
The bishops observed that “prominent public figures” have been accused of “hate” and “transphobia” for arguing that a man cannot become a woman and vice versa. They also cited people accused of “hate” simply for using pronouns corresponding to someone’s biological sex. They deplored the rise of “cancel culture” and hinted that some groups were being unfairly allowed to silence others.
“No single section of society has domination over acceptable and unacceptable speech or expression,” they wrote.
“Whilst the legislature and judiciary must create and interpret laws to maintain public order it must do so carefully, weighing in fundamental freedoms and allowing for reasonably held views, the expression of which is not intended to cause harm.”
The bishops warned that choosing censorship over the encouragement of respectful debate and tolerance would risk turning Scotland into “an intolerant, illiberal society.”
Anthony Horan of the Scottish Catholic Parliamentary Office told LifeSiteNews that the Scottish bishops picked the hypothetical example of biological realists prosecuting a transgenderist to underscore their desire for fairness.
“Whilst we could have used any one of a number of situations to highlight the low threshold for criminal liability in the proposed new offence, this example is a measure of the bishops’ desire for consistency under the law,” he said.
“The bishops feel that the criminalising of someone who calls another person a ‘transphobe’ is just as wrong as criminalising someone who directs an inappropriate but otherwise relatively harmless remark at someone with same-sex attraction or who is pro-abortion.”
One of the ironies of hate crime legislation being a worry to Scottish Catholics is that Catholics have been victims of prejudice and sectarian hate in Scotland since the 16th century. Although relationships between actual faith communities in Scotland are now good, individual attacks on Catholics and Catholic churches still occur.
“The Bishops’ Conference has long engaged on the issue of anti-Catholic hate and will continue to do so, though the problem there is not so much in the legislation or lack thereof, as in both the deep reformation culture pervading Scottish society and the aggressive element of the emerging secular culture,” Anthony Horan told LifeSiteNews.
“We have, on many occasions, pointed out the disproportionate number of anti-Catholic hate crimes under religiously aggravated offences.”
Horan said that recently the government has been more willing to shift from references to “sectarianism” and to talk specifically about “anti-Catholicism.” This marked change, he said, came about as a result of intense pressure from the Bishops’ Conference after a spate of anti-Catholic incidents.
“However, much work needs to be done and we will continue to do what we can to pressure the government and work with stakeholders to address this problem.”
Leaders of other communities in Scotland have come forward to warn of the dangers the proposed “hate crime” legislation poses to civil liberties in Scotland. The Presbyterian Free Church of Scotland has expressed its concerns that the proposed new offenses will be detrimental for free speech in Scottish society. Its leaders also fear for the criminalization of the Bible.
“In particular we are concerned that there is a lack of clarity about what is meant by stirring up hatred and both offences are incredibly subjective in terms of deciding when material is actually abusive or inflammatory,” they wrote.
“Given people have been reported to the police for potential hate crimes for displaying verses from the Bible, could the secular courts decide that the Bible itself is inflammatory material which should be confiscated and destroyed?”
The Scottish Police Federation released a statement saying that the bill could lead to its members, i.e. the police, having to “determine free speech.” They too believe that the wording around the offense of “stirring up hatred” is too vague.
“We are firmly of the view (that) this proposed legislation would see officers policing speech and would devastate the legitimacy of the police in the eyes of the public,” said Calum Steele, the General Secretary of the Scottish Police Federation.
“That can never be an acceptable outcome - and we should never forget that the police in Scotland police only with the consent of the people.”
J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter novels, is the most prominent resident of Scotland to be accused of hate and so-called transphobia. Rowling has sparked transgender activists’ ire by asserting women’s sex-based rights to privacy in prisons, domestic abuse shelters, and wherever else women are physically vulnerable. Rowling has also spoken up recently in defense of children against transgenderist medical experiments.
In addition to the maternal deaths, the email says that multiple women have been hospitalized with serious health complications after taking the pills and that police are investigating three incidents related to abortion pills sent via the post, including a baby suspected of being murdered after being born alive.
“[W]e are aware there have been two maternal deaths linked to this issue,” the email reads.
“One case where a woman was found at home the morning after starting the process and the second where a woman presented with sepsis and died very quickly in the A&E dept. Neither of these women were known to our maternity or gynae service as far as we are aware.”
The email goes on to say that other incidents include “women attending ED with significant pain and bleeding related to the process through to ruptured ectopics, major resuscitation for major haemorrhage and the delivery of infants who are up to 30 weeks gestation.”
“There was also a near miss where a woman had received the pills by post and then wished for a scan so attended a trust and was found to be 32 weeks,” the email continues.
Under the new regulations the time limit for taking the abortion pills is 10 weeks. Under the 1967 Abortion Act, abortions are permitted in England under exceptions to earlier laws that make it a criminal offense. The Abortion Act allows abortions up to 24 weeks, providing it is carried out by a registered doctor, that two doctors agree that the mother’s physical or mental health is at risk, or that the child will be seriously disabled. Abortions may also be done up to birth if the child is disabled or in certain other circumstances.
“There are 3 police investigations...linked to these incidents and one of those is currently a murder investigation as there is a concern that the baby was live born,” the email continues.
The email is detailing concerns raised by the Care Quality Commission (CQC), with regional Chief Medical Officers and the serious incidents reported coming from just two NHS regions. The CQC is a public body which regulates all health and social care services in England.
The email says the CQC had shared their view that compared with the number of women using the pills by post “circa 16,000 since March,” that the 13 incidents “is very small in number,” though they recognized that the “poor outcomes for women is tragic.”
The author of the email, whose name has not been disclosed, says there is concern that the incidents would make it more difficult for women to obtain abortion pills.
“Given the perceived small number of incidents there is concern that there is a risk of changing the process and that having a greater impact on women and girls[’] choices,” the email says.
When the regulations were announced in March, a government spokesperson from the Department of Health and Social Care said that the change was being made on a temporary basis only and is time-limited for two years, or until the coronavirus crisis is over. It was the third time the abortion law had changed in the space of a week; the government had first announced the change and then reversed the decision within 24 hours.
At the beginning of July, an attempt by the U.K. abortion lobby to pass legislation to permanently allow women to commit abortions at home by means of abortion pills was delayed after the government promised to hold a public consultation on the question. When announcing the government's plan to hold a public consultation, Minister for Women Victoria Atkins MP said that the current measures would be kept in place until the consultation has concluded and a decision has been made.
While Duffy, the former Global Director of Clinics Development at Marie Stopes International is not opposed to abortion, he recently led an undercover investigation which showed U.K. abortionists sending out abortion pills via mail without completing basic checks about the people ordering them.
The presiding judge at yesterday’s judicial review, Lady Justice King, refused to consider the leaked email as evidence and said that she would give reason for the refusal later.
Andrea Williams, chief executive of Christian Concern, said in a press release that the leaked email is “a sickening admission that those running abortion services in England have elevated ideology over women’s safety.”
“The email appears to suggest that pregnant women who have used the telemedicine service during UK lockdown have died or experienced serious life-changing complications,” Williams said.
“This further confirms the inherent danger of DIY abortions and shows how ideologues who show little concern for women – and no concern for babies – have captured NHS England as well as the providers and professional bodies.”
ROME, Italy, July 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A group of cybersecurity experts has found out that Chinese hackers, likely on behalf of the communist Chinese government, have spied on the Vatican for months. The breach in security was discovered ahead of negotiations to extend the controversial secret deal between the Vatican and China on the nomination of bishops.
“From early May 2020, [t]he Vatican and the Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong were among several Catholic Church-related organizations that were targeted by RedDelta, a Chinese-state sponsored threat activity group,” reported Recorded Future, a U.S.-based cybersecurity company.
Recorded Future was founded in 2009, aiming to predict future events by looking at data found online. The company “monitors tens of thousands of websites, blogs and Twitter accounts in real time in order to find patterns, events and relationships that may predict the future,” explained Juan Gonzalez for Democracy Now! in 2010.
According to the 21-page report on China and the Vatican released on Tuesday, “This series of suspected network intrusions also targeted the Hong Kong Study Mission to China and the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions (PIME), Italy. These organizations have not been publicly reported as targets of Chinese threat activity groups prior to this campaign.”
“These network intrusions occured [sic] ahead of the anticipated September 2020 renewal of the landmark 2018 China-Vatican provisional agreement, a deal which reportedly resulted in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) gaining more control and oversight over the country’s historically persecuted ‘underground’ Catholic community,” Recorded Future stated.
“In addition to the Holy See itself, another likely target of the campaign includes the current head of the Hong Kong Study Mission to China [Javier Herrera Corona], whose predecessor [Ante Jozić] was considered to have played a vital role in the 2018 agreement.”
The cybersecurity experts also speculated on what China could have gained by hacking the Vatican and various other Catholic institutions.
“The suspected intrusion into the Vatican would offer RedDelta insight into the negotiating position of the Holy See ahead of the deal’s September 2020 renewal,” according to Recorded Future. “The targeting of the Hong Kong Study Mission and its Catholic Diocese could also provide a valuable intelligence source for both monitoring the diocese’s relations with the Vatican and its position on Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement amidst widespread protests and the recent sweeping Hong Kong national security law.”
Recorded Future’s detailed and very technical report came away with the judgment that targeting Catholic institutions “is likely indicative of CCP objectives in consolidating control over the ‘underground’ Catholic church, ‘sinicizing religions’ in China, and diminishing the perceived influence of the Vatican within China’s Catholic community.”
Additionally, although not able to say this with absolute certainty, Recorded Future believes that the group of hackers “likely operates on behalf of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government.”
The Chinese government is using the internet not only for hacking attacks on Catholic institutions. It is also known to use digital technology – partly made by American companies – to target and repress religious groups more than ever before, as explained by foreign policy expert Chris Meserole during a hearing of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom last Wednesday.
While religious persecution has always been a part of communist China, new technologies have made “that repression far more effective,” said Meserole, who works with the Brookings Institution and teaches at Georgetown University.
He explained that formerly, the government was generally only able to “to repress public forms of religious organizations, practices, identities, and beliefs, particularly in urban areas.” Religion practiced privately at home, on the other hand, was relatively safe.
“Digital technologies have changed that,” argued Meserole. “As processors, sensors, and cameras have proliferated, the extent of religious life that the CCP can surveil has expanded dramatically.”
“Video and audio surveillance of public mosques, churches, and temples has exploded,” he pointed out. “Rather than simply shut down a religious school or house of worship, authorities can monitor all activity and individuals within those facilities and sanction undesired behavior or individuals with greater specificity.”
In fact, Meserole said, the government recently shut down a church in Beijing for refusing to install video surveillance equipment in the building.
Digital technologies also help the government to target underground religious organizations and networks, he continued. “From video feeds to GPS tracking, authorities have greater ability to detect religious groups that meet and operate covertly.”
“In Xinjiang, for instance, smartphone location data, vehicle location data, checkpoint logs, facial recognition technology, and video feeds from buses, streets, and drones, can be used to identify when individuals in the same religious network meet together covertly, potentially even in real-time.”
A report by the U.S. government released in January 2020 found that the “intensity” of religious persecution, which has not been seen “since the Cultural Revolution,” was linked to the Vatican signing a secret deal with the Chinese communist government to give the government more power over the Church in the country.
Cardinal Joseph Zen, the former bishop of Hong Kong, is the most outspoken critic of the Vatican’s China deal. Already in early 2018, he said, “It’s obvious. They are delivering the whole administration of the Church into the hands of the so-called ‘Patriotic Association,’ which is just a puppet in the hands of the government. And so it’s a complete surrender. It’s incredible.”
WASHINGTON D.C., July 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) told Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos that his company needs to cut ties with the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center, which labels a number of Christian, pro-life, and pro-family organizations “hate groups.”
Gaetz questioned Bezos, who is the richest man in the world, yesterday during the antitrust hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives over the role of the SPLC in approving organizations for AmazonSmile.
Through its AmazonSmile program, Amazon donates 0.5 percent of customer purchases to nonprofit organizations selected from an approved list that excludes conservative and Christian organizations incorrectly identified by the SLPC as “hate groups.” The program has reportedly donated more than $100 million, making it one of the largest sources of consumer earmarked charitable support in the United States, according to the shareholder proposal (#12, pages 41-43).
The SPLC is a far-left group infamous for its efforts to drive conservative and pro-family organizations out of mainstream society by lumping them in with extremist racist groups like the Aryan Nation and the Ku Klux Klan. Despite its popular media framing as an authority on “extremism,” SPLC has found itself on the losing end of at least one defamation suit for its work, and has been called by insiders a “highly profitable scam” that uses “civil-rights work mainly as a marketing tool for bilking gullible Northern liberals.”
The SPLC is also linked to domestic terrorism. In August 2012, pro-LGBT activist Floyd Lee Corkins II entered the lobby of the Family Research Council (FRC), armed with an SPLC list of “hate groups” and planning to, per his own confession, “kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces, and kill the guard.” Corkins was packing a loaded, semi-automatic pistol and 100 rounds of ammunition.
Corkins was the first person ever convicted for domestic terrorism under Washington, D.C. law. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison.
“Mr. Bezos, I am deeply moved by your personal story. I am not here accusing you as someone who would traffic in hate, but it seems you have empowered people who do, and I am particularly talking about the Southern Poverty Law Center,” Gaetz began.
“The Southern Poverty Law Center, which you allow to dictate who can receive donations on your AmazonSmile platform, have said the Catholic Family News, Catholic Family Ministries, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, the Jewish Defense League, even Dr. Ben Carson, are extremists and should be treated differently,” the Florida congressman continued.
“Dr. Carson is on the cabinet, is one of the most renowned minds in America. I’m just wondering why you would place your confidence in a group that seems to be so out of step and seems to take mainstream Christian doctrine and label it as hate?” he asked.
“Sir, it’s a good question,” Bezos responded.
“We use the Southern Poverty Law Center data to say which charities are extremist organizations. We also use the U.S. Foreign Asset office to do the same thing,” the Amazon CEO explained.
“But why? Since they’re calling Catholics and these Jewish groups hateful groups, why would you trust them?” Gaetz demanded.
“Sir, I’m going to acknowledge this is an imperfect system,” Bezos replied, adding that he would “love suggestions on better or additional sources.”
“My suggestion would be a divorce from the SPLC,” Gaetz said before relinquishing the floor.
.@RepMattGaetz challenges Jeff Bezos for using the Souther Poverty Law Center to dictate who can receive donations on Amazon Smile:
"Why you would place your confidence in a group that is so out of step and seems to take mainstream Christian doctrine and label it as hate?" pic.twitter.com/FedLAuHO4s
In May, Amazon’s Board of Directors urged investors to reject a proposal calling for an end to its “viewpoint discrimination” against conservative and Christian organizations through its reliance on the SPLC as the “gatekeeper” to the AmazonSmile charitable program.
During yesterday’s hearing Gaetz also accused Google of election interference through the blacklisting of conservative news websites from its online search results, after Google CEO Sundar Pichai admitted that the creation of lists of blocked sites “can involve a manual portion.”
SAN FRANCISCO, California, July 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Lawyers for pro-life investigators David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt are heading to the appeal court after a San Francisco judge dropped only one criminal charge against Daleiden and two against Merritt in an online “motion to dismiss” hearing Tuesday.
The Center for Medical Progress (CMP) undercover journalists are still charged with eight felony counts of breaking California’s anti-eavesdropping law in connection with their groundbreaking sting operation that exposed Planned Parenthood harvesting and trafficking in aborted baby body parts.
Daleiden and Merritt could face up to 10 years in prison if convicted.
Defense lawyers asked San Francisco Superior Court Judge Suzanne Ramos Bolanos to drop all 10 charges against Daleiden and Merritt in a motion filed under the California Penal Code 995 provision that allows a new judge to review the findings of a preliminary hearing.
Following a September preliminary hearing, Judge Christopher Hite ruled in December that Daleiden and Merritt must stand trial on nine of an original 15 felony counts, including eight counts of illegal taping and one of conspiring to do so.
California Democrat Attorney General Xavier Becerra then added the charge of manufacturing, transporting, or furnishing “a deceptive identification document.”
Bolanos dropped one charge against Daleiden and Merritt as “duplicative,” and ruled there was insufficient evidence to charge Merritt with illegal use of a false ID.
However, Daleiden still faces the false ID charge, and his lawyers from the Thomas More Society will be back in court in early August to argue a motion to “defer” it.
Both Thomas More Society and Liberty Counsel, which is defending Merritt, will now appeal the ruling, and both legal teams point to the political nature of the prosecution against their clients, which was initiated by Becerra’s predecessor, now-Senator Kamala Harris.
“The political careers of both Becerra and Harris have been supported and financed by Planned Parenthood,” noted a Thomas More Society press release.
“The attorney general’s political prosecution of Sandra Merritt is coming off the rails as two more of his bogus charges are now dismissed,” said Liberty Counsel lawyer Horatio Mihet in a press release.
“We will continue to vigorously defend Sandra at every stage and will not rest until this runaway train is fully derailed.”
Daleiden and Merritt secretly recorded gatherings of abortionists and representatives of organ harvesting companies, such as Stem Express and Advanced Bioscience Resources, notably during the 2014 and 2015 National Abortion Federation trade shows.
The CMP undercover videos released in July 2015 showing Planned Parenthood executives callously discussing how to dismember babies to procure intact organs and haggling over fees of aborted baby parts shocked the country. They led to congressional hearings and an ongoing Department of Justice criminal investigation into Planned Parenthood.
Affirmative defense and ‘reasonable belief’ that CMP would find evidence of infanticide
Defense lawyers are arguing that California law, which requires that both parties consent to the recording of conversations, does not consider conversations that can reasonably be expected to be overheard as confidential.
They are also using a Section 633.5 “affirmative defense,” which permits people to covertly tape confidential information if they believe they are gathering evidence of violent crimes against the person.
Thomas More Society president Thomas Brejcha described Bolanos’ handling of the lengthy hearing as a “brush off” of Daleiden’s affirmative defenses.
“David had a reasonable belief that he could find evidence of a felony crime of violence against human beings, namely, infanticide, that is, the killing of babies born alive with beating hearts,” stated Brejcha in a press release.
“These children – whom fetal tissue traffickers refer to as ‘intact fetuses’ – are the source from whom ‘fresh’ organs were harvested and ‘donated.’ These ‘donations’ were acquired at premium prices in dollar amounts bearing no ascertainable relationship to actual costs incurred in their ‘production.’”
Hite’s ruling made little mention of testimony presented during the hearing that backed up the affirmative defense, noted Brejcha.
This included Dr. Theresa Deisher’s testimony that fetal hearts used in research must be harvested from living babies, something she told Daleiden when he asked her about a 2012 Stanford study that used “human fetal hearts” supplied by Stem Express.
“An ABC 20/20 news program, hosted by ‘gold standard’ journalist Chris Wallace, was shown before the judge in open court. The contents quite clearly had an impact on Judge Hite,” said Brejcha.
“His terse dismissal of the defense in his final written ruling betrayed what struck us, as defense counsel, as his difficulty in dealing with this evidence. In the Section 995 hearing, Judge Bolanos likewise seemed anxious to avoid dealing with the evidence, simply inferring that Judge Hite must have not believed it.”
That was echoed by Thomas More Society lawyer Peter Breen.
“In a Section 995 hearing, a trial judge is asked to dismiss the criminal complaint - entirely or partially — because the judge at the preliminary hearing incorrectly allowed the case to move forward,” Breen said.
“That was the thrust of our argument before Judge Bolanos. She made an erroneous assumption that Judge Christopher Hite found the witnesses in the pre-trial hearing not credible, when in fact it seems clear that Judge Hite did find them credible.”
Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood successfully sued Daleiden, Merritt, along with Troy Newman of Operation Rescue, founding CMP board member Albin Rhomberg, and CMP investigative journalist Gerardo Adrian Lopez. In April, United States District Judge William H. Orrick ordered the pro-lifers to pay Planned Parenthood over $1.5 million.
In May, CMP and Daleiden filed a lawsuit against Planned Parenthood, Kamala Harris, and Becerra in Los Angeles federal court for conspiracy to violate their First and Fourteenth Amendment civil rights.
July 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Over 10,000 children are now dying each month due to the economic disruption that COVID-19 restrictions have imposed in Latin America, Southern Asia, and sub-Saharan African communities.
In those regions, families are faced with a stark future without enough food, according to a study published in The Lancet.
“The unprecedented global social and economic crisis triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic poses grave risks to the nutritional status and survival of young children in low-income and middle-income countries,” according to the medical journal. “Of particular concern is an expected increase in child malnutrition, including wasting, due to steep declines in household incomes, changes in the availability and affordability of nutritious foods, and interruptions to health, nutrition, and social protection services.”
“It’s been seven months since the first COVID-19 cases were reported and it is increasingly clear that the repercussions of the pandemic are causing more harm to children than the disease itself,” said UNICEF Executive Director Henrietta Fore in a press release.
“Household poverty and food insecurity rates have increased. Essential nutrition services and supply chains have been disrupted. Food prices have soared. As a result, the quality of children’s diets has gone down and malnutrition rates will go up,” added Fore.
“The parents of the children are without work,” explained Annelise Mirabal, who works with malnourished children in Maracaibo, Venezuela, in an AP report. “How are they going to feed their kids?”
In Burkina Faso one in five young children is chronically malnourished, and with food prices soaring, 12 million of the country’s 20 million residents don’t get enough to eat.
The AP report offers heartbreaking accounts of the devastating impact of coronavirus-related starvation:
Hunger is already stalking Haboue Solange Boue, an infant who has lost half her former body weight of 5.5 pounds (2.5 kilograms) in the last month. With the markets closed because of coronavirus restrictions, her family sold fewer vegetables. Her mother is too malnourished to nurse her.
“My child,” Danssanin Lanizou whispers, choking back tears as she unwraps a blanket to reveal her baby's protruding ribs. The infant whimpers soundlessly.
Lanizou's husband, Yakouaran Boue, used to sell onions to buy seeds and fertilizer, but then the markets closed. Even now, a 50-kilogram bag of onions sells for a dollar less, which means less seed to plant for next year.
“I'm worried that this year we won't have enough food to feed her,” he said, staring down at his daughter over his wife's shoulder. “I'm afraid she's going to die.”
“I don't have the basics I need to survive,” said Zakaria Yehia Abdullah, a farmer in West Darfur. Hunger is showing “in my children's faces.”
Famines of Biblical proportions
Shortly after the start of the coronavirus lockdowns around the globe earlier this year, the head of the United Nations food agency warned that a “hunger pandemic” would bring “the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II,” according to NBC.
“I must warn you that if we don't prepare and act now — to secure access, avoid funding shortfalls and disruptions to trade — we could be facing multiple famines of biblical proportions within a short few months,” World Food Program Executive Director David Beasley told the U.N. Security Council.
“Without urgent action, the global number of children suffering from wasting could reach almost 54 million over the course of the year,” according to UNICEF. “This would bring global wasting to levels not seen this millennium.”
Moreover, the U.N. says that beyond the alarming number of child deaths, childhood wasting due to malnutrition is just the “tip of the iceberg.”
For those who survive the current food shortages, childhood malnutrition could lead to a generation of adults with physical and mental impairments.
“We cannot allow children to be the overlooked victims of the COVID-19 pandemic,” said the agency’s executive director. “We must simultaneously think both short and long term, so that we not only address the challenges posed by the pandemic and its secondary impacts on children, but also chart a brighter future for children and young people.”
UNICEF has issued a call to action, saying that “Humanitarian agencies immediately need USD $2.4 billion to protect maternal and child nutrition in the most vulnerable countries from now until the end of the year.”
WILMINGTON, Delaware, July 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Pro-abortion Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said during a campaign event on Tuesday that he will announce his pick for vice president “in the first week in August.” The Democratic National Convention, where both Biden and his running mate will be officially nominated, is scheduled for August 17-20.
A number of candidates are in the running to complete Biden’s ticket, but Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) seems to emerge as the frontrunner, just days ahead of the final decision.
Harris has been a U.S. senator since 2017, following her work as California Attorney General for six years. She ran for president herself, but withdrew from the race in December, before the start of primary season.
Like Biden, Harris is staunchly pro-abortion. During a debate on October 15, 2019, she said, “Reproductive healthcare is under full on attack in America today. There are states that have passed laws that will virtually prevent women from having access to reproductive healthcare.”
“It is not an exaggeration to say women will die, poor women, women of color, because these Republican legislatures who are out of touch with America are telling women what to do with our bodies,” she claimed. “People need to keep their hands off of women's bodies and let women make the decisions about their own lives.”
Harris notably used her power as California Attorney General to raid the home of and prosecute Center for Medical Progress undercover journalist David Daleiden, who exposed Planned Parenthood harvesting and selling baby body parts.
Additionally, Harris promotes homosexuality and gender ideology. She wrote on her campaign website, “We must speak truth: Homophobia and transphobia are real in this country, and they’re being fueled by an Administration that openly attacks Americans based on who they are or who they love.”
“Kamala believes we also must fight for equality around the globe by making LGBTQ+ rights an integral part of our foreign policy approach,” the website added. “That starts with America living by the values we preach.”
President Donald Trump briefly weighed in on Biden’s potential running mate, saying on Wednesday, “I think she’d be a fine choice. Kamala Harris. A fine choice.”
Other possible running mates are also strongly pro-abortion women
A list of other possible Biden running mates compiled by Politico includes pro-abortion Senator Tammy Baldwin, who would be the first openly homosexual vice president. In 2012, she became the first openly homosexual senator, but she is still not well-known among voters.
Also on the list is Susan Rice, the former national security adviser of the Obama administration. She was never elected to public office, which means her positions on numerous issues are unknown, though it can be assumed she is as supportive of abortion as other candidates for vice president.
Stacey Abrams, former candidate for governor in Georgia, said in 2019, “Anti-abortion is not the will of the people.” She claimed that “[l]ess than 25% across the country believe that we should overturn Roe v. Wade, and yet in Kentucky and Ohio and Indiana and Missouri and Mississippi and Georgia and Alabama we see these [abortion] bans moving forward, and it is not a reflection of the will of the people.”
Both Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico are pro-abortion.
Her full plan includes the objective of “[r]epealing the law that criminalizes abortion … [r]einstating funding for family planning … [e]nsuring access to abortion and contraception,” as well as more explicit sex education.
Whitmer’s coronavirus lockdown was one of the most draconian in the country.
Governor Lujan Grisham said in 2019 during her “State of the State” address, “The old criminal abortion law of this state, one of only nine left in the country, must go. Bring me that bill. I will sign it.”
No matter who will be his vice president, Joe Biden’s position on abortion is clear. In his “Agenda for Women” released on Monday, Biden said he “will work to codify Roe v. Wade, and his Justice Department will do everything in its power to stop the rash of state laws that so blatantly violate Roe v. Wade.”
Biden also mentioned his intent to repeal pro-life policies like the Hyde Amendment (which bans federal tax dollars from funding most abortions) and the so-called Mexico City Policy, which Trump has expanded and now calls Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance.
Tucker Carlson pointed out in his July 29 opening monologue that Biden’s running mate, if the Democrats take the White House, will be possibly the most powerful vice president in history, given questions about Biden’s mental lucidity and his promise that he would only serve one term.
UNITED STATES, July 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Breitbart News has released data that it says shows that “Google is deliberately working to interfere with the reelection of Trump in 2020” through purging Breitbart and other conservative websites from search results.
The online conservative news site also says its organic traffic from Google search results is down 63% from the first half of 2016.
Perhaps most striking of the evidence they present is that at the beginning of May, following Google’s core search update, traffic to Breitbart from Google as a result of searches about Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden dropped overnight from tens of thousands a day to zero.
Breitbart says it spoke with a professional analyst of search engine trends who has extensive experience working with Google’s own tools for analyzing online search results who told them that in 25 years he has “never experienced such a wholesale removal of rank and visibility on specific concepts on a site as I have seen being applied to Breitbart.”
“The sheer fact that there are thousands of pages of Breitbart content that reference Biden that were ranking before May 6, that now have no rank or impressions on search is a sign of manipulation, not algorithmic devaluing,” the source, who Breitbart says wished to remain anonymous, added.
Dr. Robert Epstein, a researcher who has estimated that Google may have swung as many as 2.6 million votes to Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016, told Breitbart he believes that Google has placed them on a “blacklist.”
“For news websites large and small, Google — in combination with its YouTube offshoot — typically drives between 30 and 50 percent of the traffic to those sites,” Epstein said.
“For the New York Times, the percentage is currently 39.3%. At the moment, Google is responsible for just 9 percent of Breitbart’s traffic, and YouTube is sending a negligible amount, if any. Given the size of Breitbart’s audience, this suggests to me that Breitbart is listed on one or more of Google’s blacklists.”
In July 2018, Epstein told the U.S. Senate that he has identified “nine different blacklists Google maintains to suppress information worldwide,” encompassing Google’s search results, autocomplete feature, Google Maps, YouTube searches, Google News, AdWords and AdSense, banned user accounts, and website quarantines.
“Those are the lists that Google denies having — even under oath in Congressional hearings — even though two of those blacklists were leaked from the company last year by whistleblower Zach Vorhies,” Epstein told Breitbart.
“How many blacklists they actually maintain is unknown, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s a hundred or more.”
During yesterday’s antitrust hearing at the U.S. House of Representatives, Florida’s Republican congressman Matt Gaetz drew an admission from Google CEO Sundar Pichai that the creation of lists of sites blocked from search results “can involve a manual portion.”
Pichai initially insisted that Google’s censorship tools are managed “algorithmically” and that the company doesn't “manually tune” search results.
However, he subsequently said that if a website or actor is considered to be “interfering in elections,” then the company puts that site on a list in order to stop it appearing in online searches.
“There is either a manual component or there is not a manual component. Which is it?” Gaetz pressed.
“For creating those lists, that process can involve a manual portion,” Pichai responded.
Breitbart also cites data from Alexa showing that conservative websites see a dramatically smaller percentage of their total traffic coming from Google searches compared with liberal mainstream media giants.
But a Google spokeswoman told Breitbart that there is “no validity whatsoever to these allegations of political bias.”
“Our systems do not take political ideology into account, and we go to extraordinary lengths to build our products for everyone in an apolitical way,” the spokeswoman said.
“Anyone can easily cherry-pick a range of conservative, progressive or non-political sites that have seen traffic changes over time. The improvements we make to Search undergo a rigorous testing process and are done to provide helpful information for the billions of queries we get every day.”
During yesterday’s antitrust hearing, Rep. Gaetz said that “it really doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes here to connect the dots and see what Google’s doing.”
Gaetz cited the recent removal of conservative websites from Google search results, as well as leaked video from 2016 showing Google’s co-founders and other top executives expressing their resolve to alter future elections after the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president. Gaetz questioned why anyone would believe Google when the company claims that it won’t interfere in this year’s presidential election.
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Florida congressman Matt Gaetz has accused Google of election interference through the blacklisting of conservative news websites from its online search results after Google CEO Sundar Pichai admitted that the creation of lists of blocked sites “can involve a manual portion.”
Gaetz drew the admission from the Google CEO through persistent questioning during yesterday’s antitrust hearing at the U.S. House of Representatives.
Pichai initially insisted that Google’s censorship tools are managed “algorithmically” and that the company doesn't “manually tune” search results.
However, he subsequently said that if a website or actor is considered to be “interfering in elections,” then the company put that site on a list in order to stop it appearing in online searches.
“There is either a manual component or there is not a manual component. Which is it?” Gaetz pressed.
“For creating those lists, that process can involve a manual portion,” Pichai responded.
Gaetz focused on Pichai’s admission, noting that it differed significantly from testimony that he gave to Congress in December 2018, when he said Google did not manually interfere in search results.
“You said something today different than you did with Ms. Lofgren, you confessed that there is a manual component to the way in which you blacklist content,” Gaetz stated.
“It seems to be no coincidence that sites like Gateway Pundit, the Western Journal, American Spectator, Daily Caller, and Breitbart that receive the ire or the negative treatment as a consequence of your manual tooling,” the Republican congressman continued.
“And it also seems noteworthy that whistleblowers at your own company have spoken out. You said that one of the reasons you maintain this manual tool is to stop election interference, I believe it is in fact your company that is engaging in election interference.”
Gaetz followed up by questioning Pichai as to why conservatives should believe him when he says Google won’t interfere with the upcoming U.S. presidential election, in light of leaked video from 2016 that shows Google’s co-founders and other top executives reacting to the election of Donald Trump with anguish, contempt, and resolve to alter future elections.
“Now I know you’ve testified today in response to my questions and Mr Jordan’s questions that you don’t intend this time to engage in electioneering on behalf of the former Vice President, but given the video evidence of senior members of your team in your presence saying that they had the intent to make the Trump victory a blip, why should we believe that testimony today?” Gaetz asked.
“Since that moment in time when we’ve seen all these conservative websites and conservative viewpoints censored, you can understand why people would be concerned,” he continued.
“So after your employees and top executives said in your presence that they intended to make the Trump victory a blip, what action did you take as the CEO to protect and preserve the neutrality of your platform?” Gaetz asked.
“No one had a view on ever interfering with the elections or so on,” Pichai responded.
“But what I can tell you is that we made it very clear about two years ago we announced new community guidelines for within Google, clearly making it clear that, you know, employees obviously are free to have their political views, but they shouldn’t bring that as they work on any of our products. And if we found any evidence that people are using a political agenda to manipulate any of our content platforms we would take strong enforcement action.”
Gaetz responded by noting multiple incidents suggesting that Google deliberately targets conservatives sites.
“Unfortunately we have a sort of string of events here,” Gaetz said. “We have the 2016 meeting where people demonstrated their intent to make changes to hurt the president, then we have your testimony today that’s a little different than your testimony from December, where you say that people can manipulate blacklists and then you have the outcome where sites like Breitbart and Gateway Pundit and others see that disparate treatment. So it really doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes here to connect the dots and see what Google’s doing.”
On Tuesday, Breitbart News released data that it says shows that "Google is deliberately working to interfere with the reelection of Trump in 2020" through purging Breitbart and other conservative websites from search results.
The online conservative news site also says its organic traffic from Google search results is down 63% from the first half of 2016 and that following an update by Google in May this year, traffic to Breitbart from Google searches about Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden dropped overnight from tens of thousands a day to zero.
Abortion and euthanasia are fruits of the same tree
In order to defend legal abortions, activists necessarily use arguments that can be applied to the killing of human beings who are old, sick, or disabled.
Thu Jul 30, 2020 - 1:19 pm EST
By Lothar C. Rilinger
By Lothar C. Rilinger
Lothar C. Rilinger
July 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The discussion regarding Planned Parenthood Federation of America and “SheDecides” raises questions that deeply touch the life of every human being. As part of their mission to ensure women’s health, they are pursuing a complete decriminalization of the killing of unborn human beings, which is trivialized in legal language as abortion. In order to achieve complete exemption from punishment, the pitfall of human life being destroyed by abortion must be avoided. In order to be able to act in conformity with the law, unborn life is therefore declared to be a thing, or it is to be determined by a social contract in which stage of development or life the human being is assigned the right to life. This could lead to legal consequences that affect the right to life as a whole.
“My belly is mine!” [the German equivalent of “my body, my choice”] – this battle cry has become an integral part of the collective memory of societies and reflects the demand to consider all that is present in a woman’s body as an integral part of her. No distinction is made between the contents of the stomach, intestines, veins or uterus. Only the woman should have the power of disposition over everything that is in her body; only she can and may determine what happens to the contents of her body. The fact that the contents of the womb, i.e. the unborn child, and other contents of the body are different, is ignored – they are regarded in toto as objects of rights and thus as things that the woman may dispose of, free from all restrictions. That is why the unborn human being is also only seen as a “clump of cells.” This deprives the unborn life of the legal quality of a legal subject, so that it cannot have any rights of its own. The legal subject, which has the human right to life, becomes a legal object through this viewpoint, which only has to be regarded as a thing. Since objects cannot be the owners of rights or claims, they cannot assert any rights or claims for themselves and are therefore completely subject to the mother’s power of disposition. This would mean that the woman could do what she wants with the unborn life.
Even if the right to life were to be taken away from the unborn child – the right to inherit remains. According to civil law, even the unborn child is entitled to inherit. If the testator should die before the birth of the child appointed as heir, the child cannot yet assert this right itself, not even through a representative, but at the moment of birth, this expectancy becomes a right that the child, represented by a representative, can assert with legal effect.
The unborn human being is entitled to this right, so that it cannot be called a thing simply by virtue of its capacity to inherit within the framework of our legal system, especially since it would contradict our idea that every human being must be regarded as imago Dei, as the image of God – with the consequence that every human being, whether unborn or born, has the right to life. In the case of abortion, therefore, the human rights of the mother collide with those of the unborn child. In this conflict, however, the right of the child must not be completely ignored; it must be taken into account when weighing the rights.
In order to avoid the pre-Enlightenment legal view that knew human beings as legal subjects and objects of law, i.e. both as free people and slaves or serfs, the two Australian philosophers Peter Singer and Helga Kuhse proposed that we would have to distinguish between “human being” and “person,” but this also means that “human being” is seen merely as a thing that can be freely disposed of. While the human being cannot claim a human right to life per se, the person should be entitled to it.
According to them, a person would become a person if he or she had self-confidence, self-control, a sense of future and past, the ability to make connections, and care for others. Only when a person has these abilities, according to Peter Singer, can he or she enjoy the protection of the right to life as a person. If he or she does not have these abilities, he or she is on the same legal level as an animal. Since the animal is a thing, the thing “human being” could therefore be disposed of at will.
On the basis of this assumption, it would be permissible to kill with impunity the unborn and those who are born within the first month, but also old, disabled and demented people. After all, all these people can be said to be deprived of the ability to have self-confidence, etc. This would open the door for society to free itself from unborn people, as well as those who only cost money. According to the guidelines of Singer and Kuhse, sleeping persons could consequently also lose the classification of “person,” since during sleep they are incapable of fulfilling the conditions that are supposed to be necessary to be privileged as a person. However, the two philosophers do not want to go that far, although it would be logical.
The fact that in many state legal systems abortion has been declared non-punishable in the first three months has already caused a breach of the dam. In the discussion regarding the legalization of abortion we went on a slippery slope, where now, there seems to be no more stopping. Once the notion is overcome that man, as an imago Dei, has the right to life as an intrinsic right, desires can be stirred that demand the removal of the criminal charge of killing any unborn life. But then it is only a small step to demand the killing of other people as well – especially those people whose care costs a lot of money and who can no longer pay for this costly care themselves. Since the costs of care would therefore have to be borne by the relatives, we can foresee that, in order to escape poverty of their own because of the assumption of the costs of care, they could press the relatives in need of care to agree to active euthanasia.
It is the very essence of a principle that, once it has been abolished, it can hardly be applied. We can follow this process in the discussion on the permissibility of active euthanasia. Whereas euthanasia was frowned upon after the end of the Second World War in view of the upheavals in the Third Reich, twenty years later consideration was already being given to allowing active euthanasia if the patient was irreversibly ill. Another ten years later, it was discussed that it should also be permitted to patients who were only seriously ill. After another ten years, the scientific discussion led to the demand to allow active euthanasia if the patient does not feel well. One step followed the next. In the meantime, active euthanasia is legal in some European countries.
These far-reaching consequences must be borne in mind when supporting institutions that advocate the widespread liberalization of abortion. In order to stop this development, it is necessary to demand a return to Christian ethics, so that all people, whether born or not, are seen as the image of God. A new evangelization would be the best way to achieve this.
Lothar C. Rilinger is a lawyer in Germany. This text was translated by LifeSite’s Martin Bürger.
Abp Viganò: ‘I see nothing paternal about punishing priests who do not want to profane the Sacred Host’
'A bishop who, instead of defending the honor owed to the King of Kings and praising those who strive for this noble purpose, even goes so far as to close a flourishing seminary and to publicly reprimand his clerics is not performing an act of charity but rather a deplorable abuse, for which he will be called to respond before the judgment seat of God.'
July 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In an open letter to an Argentine bishop who just punished faithful priests by closing their flourishing seminary, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò rebukes him for his lack of fraternal and paternal charity toward those who wish to receive the Holy Eucharist only on the tongue, and not on the hand. The Italian prelate writes:
A bishop who, instead of defending the honor owed to the King of Kings and praising those who strive for this noble purpose, even goes so far as to close a flourishing seminary and to publicly reprimand his clerics is not performing an act of charity but rather a deplorable abuse, for which he will be called to respond before the judgment seat of God.
As LifeSiteNews reported, the San Rafael Seminary in Argentina has been closed by Bishop Eduardo Maria Taussig, using the excuse of the coronavirus crisis, in order to rebuke more than 150 families and the seminarians for rejecting Communion in the hand. Taussig, after the reopening of the churches at the end of the coronavirus crisis, had ordered that Holy Communion only be given on the hand. The bishop then dismissed Father Alejandro Miguel Ciarrocchi, the rector of the diocesan seminary, from his post after he defended the right of his seminarians to receive the Blessed Sacrament according to the traditional norms. The Diocese declared that, “in accordance with instructions from the Holy See, it has been decided to close the seminary.”
As we hear from sources close to the situation, this seminary had excellent theologians and professors and was flourishing. Taussig is said to soon be transferred to another diocese, but this closing of the seminary clearly has found the approval of the Vatican. Some sources tell LifeSite that the seminary is to close in December.
Archbishop Viganò, in his fraternal correction, points out the damage that this bishop is now doing to the faithful who have kept the Faith in spite of “the relentless work of ultra-modernist indoctrination that has been carried out in the past few decades.” He also lauds the faithful for their reverence for Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist.
The prelate also mentions another scandal in Switzerland, where women are presiding now over fake Masses while only omitting the words of the Consecration (LifeSiteNews reported on this here). While these scandals go uncorrected by their local bishop, faithful who wish to receive Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist reverently are being punished.
Yet some Catholics are still following those priests who are faithful to Our Lord.
I can imagine your vexation in seeing that the lay faithful and even entire families – from what has been called “the Vendée of the Andes” – are following the good shepherds, of whom the Gospel says “the sheep recognize his voice,” and not the mercenaries who have “no concern for the sheep” (Jn 10: 4,13).
Below is the full open letter as first published by Marco Tosatti on his blog. It is reprinted here with permission from Archbishop Viganò.
30 July 2020
I am confused and hurt to hear the news in the international press about the decision to close the Seminary of the Diocese of San Rafael and to dismiss its Rector, Fr. Alejandro Miguel Ciarrocchi.
This decision is said to have been adopted, at your zealous insistence, by the Congregation for the Clergy, which considered inadmissible the refusal on the part of clerics under your jurisdiction to administer and receive the Most Holy Eucharist on the hand rather than on the tongue. I imagined that the laudable and coherent behavior of the priests, clerics, and faithful of San Rafael offered you an excellent excuse to close the largest seminary in Argentina and to disperse the seminarians in order to re-educate them elsewhere, in seminaries that are so exemplary that now they are empty. Your Excellency has done a very good job of translating the invitation to parrhesia [freedom, frankness] into action, in the name of which we are supposed to defeat the scourge of clericalism that has been denounced by the highest Throne.
I can understand your disappointment in seeing that, despite the relentless work of ultra-modernist indoctrination that has been carried out in the past few decades, there are still courageous priests and clerics who do not place the obeisance of the episcopal court ahead of the respect that is owed to the Blessed Sacrament; and I can imagine your vexation in seeing that the lay faithful and even entire families – from what has been called “the Vendée of the Andes” – are following the good shepherds, of whom the Gospel says “the sheep recognize his voice,” and not the mercenaries who have “no concern for the sheep” (Jn 10: 4,13).
These episodes confirm the action of the Holy Spirit in the Church: the Paraclete infuses the gift of Fortitude in the humble and weakest and confounds the proud and powerful, manifesting faith in the August Sacrament of the Altar on the one hand and its culpable profanation out of human respect on the other. Conforming to the mentality of the world may perhaps gain for Your Excellency the easy and self-interested applause of the enemies of the Church, but it will not avoid either the unanimous disapproval of those who are good, nor even less the Judgment of God, who is truly present under the veil of the Eucharist in His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, and who asks the Sacred Pastors to be His witnesses, not His betrayers and persecutors.
Your Excellency will permit me to point out to you a certain inconsistency of your behavior with the motto you have chosen for your episcopal coat of arms: Paterna Atque Fraterna Charitate [Paternal and Fraternal Charity]. I see nothing paternal about punishing priests who do not want to profane the Sacred Host, nor any form of true charity towards those who have disobeyed an inadmissible order. Charity is exercised in service of the Good and the True: if it has error as its origin and evil as its end, it can only be a grotesque parody of the virtue. A bishop who, instead of defending the honor owed to the King of Kings and praising those who strive for this noble purpose, even goes so far as to close a flourishing seminary and to publicly reprimand his clerics is not performing an act of charity but rather a deplorable abuse, for which he will be called to respond before the judgment seat of God. I pray that you will understand how serious your action is, considered sub specie aeternitatis, both in itself and also because of the scandal it causes to the little ones. Your studies at the Angelicum ought to help Your Excellency in this work of healthy repentance, which also imposes sub gravi the duty of reparation.
The press relates that in the Diocese of Basel [Switzerland], in the church of Rigi-Kaltbad, a woman wearing sacred vestments regularly simulates the celebration of the Mass, in the absence of an ordained priest, omitting only the words of the Consecration. I wonder whether Bishop Felix Gmür of Basel will distinguish himself with the same zeal that you have, having recourse to the Roman Dicasteries to punish in an exemplary way the sacrilegious simulation of the Mass. I fear however that the inflexibility you have demonstrated in punishing the priests who have dutifully disobeyed you will not be emulated in Switzerland. Certainly, if a priest had celebrated Mass in the Tridentine Rite on that same altar in Rigi-Kaltbad, the arrows of the Ordinary would not have delayed to shoot him down, but a woman who “celebrates Mass” abusively and sacrilegiously is today considered a negligible thing, just like exposing the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar to desecration.
Together with the clerics and laity of your diocese, whom you have unjustly punished and seriously offended, I pray for you, Your Excellency, for the officials of the Holy See, and in particular for Cardinal Beniamino Stella, whom I knew as a devoted priest and a faithful Apostolic Nuncio, whom I visited in Bogotà in my capacity as Delegate for the Pontifical Representations. He was once my friend; I collaborated with him for years in the Secretariat of State. Unfortunately for some time now I can no longer recognize him as such, because of his participation in the demolition of the Church of Christ.
We pray for your conversion, a conversion to which we are all called, but that should no longer be deferred by those who are working not for the glory of God but against the good of souls and the honor of the Church.
Let us all pray for the seminarians and faithful of San Rafael, on whom you, Your Excellency, have declared war.
With fraternal Charity, in the Truth,
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
July 29, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Almost ten years ago now, a fellow pro-life activist told me a horrifying story. A woman in Vancouver, she said, had gone to an abortion facility and aborted her baby because the pregnancy interfered with a planned vacation, and she didn’t want to look pregnant in her bathing suit in the vacation pictures. It was one of those anecdotes of such breathtaking selfishness and cruelty that it sticks with you always. Is that a common reason for seeking an abortion? No. But the fact that it happened showed just how corrosive and corrupting an abortion culture truly is.
I was reminded of that story again this week when I read in The Telegraph that the U.K.-based organization Christian Concern had hired investigators to place calls to Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service — the U.K.’s two main abortion providers — to determine how easy it was to procure abortion pills. One of the activists stated that she didn’t want to keep her baby because she was worried about what pregnancy would do to her “bikini body.”
As it turned out, any reason for an abortion was a good reason — Christian Concern’s CEO, Andrea Williams, noted that its investigation revealed “that women could get these pills using any excuse whatsoever. One of them even said that it didn’t bode well for her having a bikini body, and that was put down as an emotional reason.”
Rebecca Reid of The Telegraph noted that the “revelation came during a discussion about whether the emergency legislation allowing women to have abortions at home should be scrapped or retained post-lockdown. The debate around access to abortion pills ... is well known, if ongoing. But the news that anti-choice campaigners are posing as women who need abortions came as something of a surprise.” BPAS spokeswoman Clare Murphy responded by pointing out that abortion is available on demand in most countries during the first trimester for any reason and denied that the transcripts provided by Christian Concern prove that the actor seeking the abortion cited only physical appearance as the sole reason for seeking an abortion.
Christian Concern provided the following transcript of the investigator’s conversation on its website:
I’d be more than happy to have children in the future and stuff like that. And we’ve discussed that and we want children, but just not at this particular point in time because we’ve just literally like booked a holiday and we were just quite confined during the lockdown. I mean, we’re both all right, but it’s just been a bit emotionally draining, all these restrictions and everything. And we were just so looking forward to this holiday and I just want to… We just wanted to really focus on this holiday and have a good time and not — I just didn’t want to worry about looking pregnant on the beach and all that. I just, it’s just so bad the timing right now.
Not so long ago, that would be considered shocking. But as I’ve noted before, today’s abortion activists are made of sterner stuff than their queasier (or more strategic) foremothers, and they’ve never met an abortion they can’t clap for. Reid scoffed at the idea that someone aborting their child for a “bikini body” is a problem: “the blunt truth is, even if a woman did want to have an abortion because she was worried about stretch marks and sagging breasts, that would still be a perfectly valid choice.” As it turns out, sometimes you have to kill to get a body to die for.
In fact, Reid doubles down in her response to Christian Concern’s investigation and interviews several women who had abortions for frivolous reasons just to highlight her belief that there’s no such thing as a frivolous reason for feticide:
Rachel*, now 29, had an abortion aged 26. “I didn’t have it for any of the ‘right’ reasons," she says. "I was married, my career was starting to flourish and my partner and I had enough money to support a child. But the moment I saw two pink lines on the test, I googled the Marie Stopes phone number. The career I had been building for the last five years was going to disappear basically overnight if I stopped working, and I couldn’t let that happen.
“But the main reason I had an abortion was that I wanted more time to live my life — to drink and smoke, and stay up until 4am with my friends. I just fundamentally was not ready. So, despite not being a gymslip mother, I had an abortion. I didn’t have a ‘good’ reason, or an ‘excuse’, I just didn’t want to have a baby. But I do still sometimes encounter people who are generally pro-choice, but who can’t quite hide their judgement about my reasons”.
Nadia*, now 37, had an abortion in her early thirties. She tells me: “Honestly, I didn’t put a lot of thought into it. I wasn’t ready to be a mum, I didn’t want a baby, my life was about having fun, going out and putting myself first. So I booked an abortion. When they asked me why I wanted to abort, I was a bit lost for words. I just didn’t want a baby. I didn’t expect to have to explain to a stranger why I wasn’t open to being a mum. Surely, ‘I want an abortion’ should be a good enough explanation of how or why you’re not ready to be a parent?”
Read it and weep. “Rachel” says that fundamentally, she “just didn’t want to have a baby.” When “Nadia” was asked why she wanted an abortion, she, too, says she “just didn’t want a baby.” Their words are nearly identical, and they reveal something vicious and ugly about our culture. These young women knew that getting an abortion was about getting rid of their babies. You’ll notice that they didn’t even bother talking about getting rid of the pregnancy, or eliminating a “clump of cells,” or exercising their “reproductive freedom.” They wanted freedom, all right — freedom from the baby they knew already existed. After all, if there had been no baby, what would they have been aborting?
It is true that most women do not have abortions simply because they want to look good on the beach. It is also true that many have abortions because they feel trapped, or abused, or terrified. But as Rebecca Reid and her vampiric fellow feminists will tell you, none of that matters. The only thing that matters is the unassailable right to be rid of an unwanted child, and choosing to abort a baby because you’ve suffered a sexual assault is in no way morally superior to seeking an abortion because a little girl might interrupt your partying or exacerbate your hangover. An abortion is an abortion, and an abortion is just someone who “just didn’t want a baby” getting rid of it.
Don’t take it from me. Take it from them.
Jonathon’s new podcast, The Van Maren Show, is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement. In his latest episode, he interviews Rob Hoogland, who was ordered by a judge to call his daughter a boy or face “family violence” charges. Hoogland’s daughter was undergoing testosterone treatment against his wishes after being convinced by her school counselor that she was a boy. To top it off, Hoogland couldn’t even share his story or seek help outside his lawyers due to a gag order placed on him by the court. You can subscribe here and listen to the episode below:
Explosion in mandatory masking isn’t driven by science, but fear - Part II
After reading this, you will have a far better understanding about masks, mandatory mask regulations, safety concerns about sending children back to school and the Wuhan virus in general than very few, if any, of your friends or neighbors will possess.
July 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – This is Part 2 of “Explosion in mandatory masking isn’t driven by science, but fear.” See Part I here. After reading this, you will have a far better understanding about masks, mandatory mask regulations and the Wuhan virus than very few, if any, of your friends or neighbors will possess. Below I will be quoting quite a few doctors, physicians’ groups and medical journals on masks and related issues.
Hopefully, you will also end up calmer and far less worried about the virus – no matter what all the media and institutions are telling you.
Get out every day for a walk. Enjoy the sunshine and fresh air and enjoy socializing without fear while taking common-sense precautions where warranted.
And hopefully, if you have children, you will no longer fear sending them off to school and will be relieved of fears that they might become infected at school or that they will bring Wuhan virus infection home. And if someone does become infected, other than someone with a serious comorbidity, you will understand that this virus is far less dangerous and more easily treated with early treatment than any of us previously realized – even for most of those with comorbidities.
The topics in Part 2 are, in order: - Crucial national, globalist Context
- Masks and fear
- Daily encounters with fearful masked runners, riders, walkers
- Contradictory information from experts
- Health agency negligence on giving advice for strengthening the immune system
- Thousands of lives lost because of suppression of effective treatments
- Children, Covid-19, and masks
- Medical information on mask effectiveness
- End Note
Crucial national, globalist groups Context
This presents crucial context for understanding anything related to the Covid-10, or what I prefer to more accurately call the Wuhan virus.
Mandated masks have become the latest wave of exploiting the coronavirus by Trump haters and New World Order globalists that we were warned about in the historic appeal of Catholic prelates and lay leaders decrying the crackdown on basic freedoms over coronavirus. That appeal was originally written by Archbishop Vigano and signed by three cardinals and numerous other notable persons that has now reached over 55,700 signatories.
That has been followed up on July 13 with an explosive new release by the same people under the name of the non-profit Vicit leo association. In it they announce a very ambitious campaign of “preparing to file a criminal complaint against the WHO, in which the web of corruption and conflicts of interest that move this international organization will be brought to light.”
Vicit leo charges that
“Behind this pandemic lies the multi-billion pound economic interests of the vaccine industry, big pharma and a developing dictatorship that aims to keep the world population under control through microchips and fear-mongering.
We are gathering an overwhelming amount of evidence showing how a planned project of depopulation lies behind these economic interests. There are a lot of people who are responsible for this developing dictatorship: the most important two are Bill Gates and Tedros Ghebreyesus, who appear to want to rule and terrorise the population using AI systems and laws that reduce human rights.”
Then there is the related, planned for next year, post-covid “Great Reset” that LifeSite reported was discussed at the secret Davos 2020 meeting of world elites,
“Nothing will ever be the same again.” It was the mantra that we heard in many countries at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. It came with a warning that a “new normal” would replace the existing order. Easy travel, interpersonal relations, large gatherings, even things like shaking hands would have to give way to long-term social distancing, drastic rules, and surveillance. But these changes on the personal level are only a part of the picture. The World Economic Forum, together with Prince Charles of England and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), has launched an initiative revealingly dubbed “The Great Reset,” with the objective of “rebuilding” the world’s economic and social system in order to make it more “sustainable.”
This is not fiction or conspiracy thinking. These people are open about their general plan. The Guardian reports that climate change and depopulation extremist Prince Charles “said the pandemic was the result of a breakdown in the link between humanity and nature that could be corrected by recognising “the interdependence of all living things”. “We have a golden opportunity to seize something good from this (Wuhan virus) crisis. Its unprecedented shockwaves may well make people more receptive to big visions of change.”
What on earth is he talking about with this weird New Age spirituality sounding concept that the virus was the result of a mysterious human and nature breakdown that he says will make people more open to undefined “big visions of change?” What change?
We all know the virus was created at the Chinese Communist Party controlled, level 4 biolab in Wuhan and that it somehow escaped out of the lab into the Wuhan region. Whistleblowers tried to warn how extremely infectious it was but they were disappeared and perhaps killed by the CCP. The Communist government did not notify the world about the virus until late January but in the meantime, they stopped all travel between Wuhan and the rest of China while permitting infected persons to travel from Wuhan to the rest of the world.
The prince gave five points in his speech which was part of the launch of The Great Reset project. The first one was “To capture the imagination and will of humanity – change will only happen if people really want it.”
Let me translate that – “change will only happen if people can be manipulated and kept frightened and disoriented enough to really want it” – that is, continued devastating lockdowns, masking mandates and anything else that can keep the public is great fear to the point of desperation where they will accept what they would otherwise never accept.
Masks and fear
Msgr Charles Pope warns in a LifeSite posted article to not give in to “crippling fear” of the coronavirus pandemic, which he believes is a “far more serious ailment” than the disease itself. Most of the public believes there is a need for masks because of fear in response to news reports on infection spikes always given without the crucial context that the death rate has plummeted as I explained in Part 1.
“Will there ever be a day when we say, ‘Let’s all get back to normal?’ Will we always have to wear masks? … Will those who go about living life normally always be shamed and called selfish and irresponsible?”
Last week and just this morning I heard in a couple of news reports that masking mandates may have to continue for one to four more years in order to completely be rid of threats from this virus. When in the past was it thought absolutely necessary to completely be rid of a coronavirus? We have flu shots every year because we know most viruses come back and are a natural part of life.
Renowned UK writer Peter Hitchens also commented along the same lines in a ripping, scathing July 18 Daily Mail article,
Face masks turn us into voiceless submissives - and it’s not science forcing us to wear them, it’s politics.
The scientific papers in favour of muzzling are full of weak, hesitant words such as ‘probably, ‘could’ and ‘may’ – which can equally well be expressed as ‘probably not’, ‘could not’ or ‘may not’.
The truth is that the muzzle policy is all about power and fear.
The Government began its wild, disproportionate shutdown of the country by spreading fear of a devastating plague that would destroy the NHS and kill untold thousands.
Now, as many people find that Covid-19 is, in fact, nothing of the kind, new ways have to be found to keep up the alarm levels.
Findings are now also pouring in which suggest that a horribly high number of the excess deaths during the last few months were not caused by Covid, but by people failing to seek treatment for heart attacks, strokes and cancer.
Look at the muzzled multitudes, their wide eyes peering out anxiously from above the hideous gag which obscures half their faces and turns them from normal human beings into mouthless, obedient submissives. The psychological effect of these garments, on those who wear them, is huge.
Dissenters, who prefer not to muzzle themselves, are made to stand out from the surrendered majority, who then become quite keen on pressuring the non- conformists to do as they are told, and on informing against them..
When all this began, I felt fear. But it was not fear of the disease, which was clearly overstated from the start.
It was fear of exactly what is happening to us, the final closing down of centuries of human liberty and the transformation of one of the freest countries on Earth into a regimented, conformist society, under perpetual surveillance, in which a subservient people scurries about beneath the stern gaze of authority.
It is my view that, if you don that muzzle, you are giving your assent to that change.
Daily encounters with fearful masked runners, riders, walkers
For the past few months my wife and I have gone for a one hour or longer walk every single afternoon or evening. We pray the whole time because of all the things that are happening, while also getting the exercise, fresh air and sun that we need to stay healthy and maintain our sanity from all the isolation and fears of the pandemic lockdown restrictions and the bad news we read and see on television and on the Internet all day.
We could not help but notice the numerous people running, riding bikes, walking along the streets and even driving by themselves in their cars wearing masks to supposedly protect themselves and others from the Wuhan virus. In all of those cases, the mask-wearing makes no sense at all. Running and bike riding with a mask on is clearly a foolish and very unhealthy thing to do and cannot possibly prevent any virus transmission. The same applies to walking and quickly passing by others.
There is not a chance that such brief exposure to others could lead to any virus transmission. The worst part has been the obvious fear in the eyes of most of these mask wearers. In a lot of cases when they come up to us they widely pass around us as though we could shoot the virus some distance into them.
Contradictory information from experts
Breitbart reported on July 14 that “Dr. Robert Redfield, director of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said that a universal masking policy could bring the coronavirus epidemic “under control” in four to eight weeks, just one day after stating that cloth masks “may” help reduce the spread of the virus.” Sure. There is plenty of reason to be skeptical about Redfield’s latest advice on masking, beyond recalling Deborah Birx’s memorable statement that she does not trust anything that comes from the CDC.
Here's a little more history on past US health bureaucrat instructions on masking usefulness.
The May 28 New American magazinereported on US government health guru Anthony Fauci’s discombobulated advice on masks:
Fauci now says that everybody should wear one in public, that he does as a “symbol” of right action, and that it shows “respect for another person.”
First we had March Fauci: “No, right now, people should not be wearing — there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask,” he told CBS’s 60 Minutes on March 8.
“When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better, and it might even block a droplet. But it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is,” Fauci 3.0 continued. “And often there are unintended consequences; people keep fiddling with the mask, and they keep touching their face.”
But then there’s Early May Fauci, who may (and actually does) say differently. He stated during remote Senate testimony a couple of weeks back that people should wear masks whenever they can’t socially distance.
Of course, Fauci 5.0 has a lot of company in mask Machiavellianism, with the CDC flip-flopping and also the World Health Organization, the WHO, which never seems to know what, where, when, why, or how. But the real point is that Early May Fauci (4.0) seemed to be confessing that Fauci 3.0 was lying (lucky for him they’re not the same guy) because he wanted masks saved for healthcare workers.
And now untrustworthy Fauci is really doubling down on his new-found emphasis on mask-wearing just as COVID deaths and the death rate have been significantly declining,
“Dr. Anthony Fauci said Friday state and local government leaders should be "as forceful as possible" in urging the wearing of face masks to prevent the spread of the deadly coronavirus, which the top infectious disease expert says is still in the first wave in the United States and has hit Americans "very severely."
I would urge the leaders -- the local, political and other leaders -- in states and cities and towns to be as forceful as possible in getting your citizenry to wear masks," Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during a video conference with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
"...Physical distancing is the most important, but practically when you're living your life and trying to open up the country. You are going to come into contact with people. And for that reason, we know that masks are really important. And we should be using them. Everyone."
“Surgeon General Jerome Adams has changed his story yet again in the latest attempt to impose the mandatory use of face masks. On Tuesday, he said the U.S. economy will not fully reopen unless all Americans wear face masks in public.
Back in March, the surgeon general urged people not to buy face masks and claimed they don’t prevent coronavirus. However, Adams is now threatening to partially close the economy again if Americans don’t wear them.”
Health agency negligence on giving advice for strengthening immune system
What everyone should be questioning is that most lockdown promoting, mask-advocating health authorities have been seriously negligent by not instructing the public on how they can strengthen their immune systems to avoid COVID infection or to at least experience minimal affects should they become infected.
Dr. Kelly Victory in her video provides some very useful prevention advice re: Covid. Here is the text of that part of her presentation,
“One of the greatest tragedies of the covid-19 pandemic is that, though it all, fueled by the constant fear and panic fueled by the 24/7 news cycle by politicians, social media and by people who are perhaps well meaning, but are simply misinformed, people have failed to trust their own immune systems and common sense. We know the things that are most useful in ensuring that our immune systems are able to operate at peak efficiency – healthy diet, adequate sleep, regular exercise, exposure to the sun, taking extra vitamin D and vitamin C and zinc, particularly during cold and flu season. Managing stress is critically important, including maintaining school routines for children, social support, gathering with friends and family, the ability to worship and join in the fellowship of your congregation. It always makes sense to follow reasonable hygiene guidelines for washing hands, particularly after using the bathroom, before meals, using a tissue when coughing or sneezing and cleaning common household surfaces, but healthy people wearing masks, avoiding social gatherings and disinfecting the legs of chairs or knobs and window sills wasn’t necessary before covid-19 and it’s not necessary now.”
My wife and I and many others I know have been taking vitamins C, D and a daily zinc supplement for the past few months and maintaining a healthy diet to keep our immune systems strong. You will find articles on the Internet mocking the effectiveness of taking these supplements. Ignore them. Dr. Victory and high level researchers and physicians that I have talked to have told me that it is helpful to do this.
Yesterday, I watched part of a live “White Coat Summit” on Capitol Hill to address what the participating covid FrontLine doctors call “a massive disinformation campaign” surrounding the Chinese coronavirus. One doctor stressed the importance of taking vitamins C and D and Zinc supplements to boost one’s immune system and added that these supplements were especially needed, along with Melatonin and Coricidin for those in the high-risk categories such as those with Alzheimer's and dementia.
LifeSite news contributor Steve Mosher passed on to me a screenshot from a trusted medical advisor’s website indicating people in our age (in the 70s or over) should take the following each day to limit the possibility of coronavirus infection:
Vitamin C: 3,000 miligrams in divided doses
Vitamin D3: 2,000 International Units daily
Magnesium: 400 milligrams daily
Zinc: 20 milligrams daily
Selenium: 100 micrograms daily
Thousands of lives lost because of suppression of effective treatments
The massive attention on masking has distracted the public away from attempts by physicians, and health authorities in other nations, to promote what for them have been very successful results in treating their covid-infected patients with a very safe, decades-old, inexpensive medication protocol involving hydroxychloroquine, an antibiotic and Zinc.
The World Health Organization opposed this protocol based on what turned out to be a very flawed study reported in the renowned Lancet medical journal. In an historic precedent, the Lancet was forced to withdraw that study because it was based on fake data from a highly questionable shell company. And yet, anti-HCQ entities such as Facebook continue to use the Communist China-controlled World Health Organization opposition to the protocol that was based on that fake study to justify their totalitarian censorship of all positive reporting or opinions on HCQ.
This has been a massive medical scandal created by intense political, media, tech giant, government health authority and medical society suppression of this already available treatment for covid infection that could have saved many thousands of lives. Part of the reason for this suppression has been that President Trump has promoted the treatment and Chief adviser to the US government, Dr. Anthony Fauci, has been consistently negative about HCQ.
The medical and government health establishments have been directing all their efforts towards developing and promoting very costly pharmaceutical industry products such as Remdesivir and especially promoting a vaccine as the supposed only solution for “returning to normal.”
Dr. Fauci has a massive conflict of interest in being heavily involved with the development of the leading vaccine candidate produced by Moderna with his friend Bill Gates who both want it to be given to the entire world. This historically unprecedented and extreme vaccine distribution plan does not make sense for a virus such as covid-19 as though it were a type of Bubonic plague or Spanish flu. It is a vastly less dangerous and now known to be easily treatable virus with an over 98.5% survival rate. Sweden and some other nations are already nearing herd immunity which would make a vaccine, if it were even possible to produce one, unnecessary.
The graph below comparing the huge differences in the death rate between nations that use Hydroxychloroquine as the primary treatment for coronavirus infection and as a prophylactic to prevent infection is mind-blowing. The opposition to proper use of successful HCQ protocols for Covid-19 is in effect killing many thousands of people.
In an American Thinkerarticle, James Stansbury writes, While speaking with Laura Ingraham on Fox News on Monday, July 20, Yale epidemiology professor Dr. Harvey Risch said hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), if used properly, could save between 75,000 and 100,000 lives and can also be taken safely as a preventative. See Dr. Risch’s thorough study on the effectiveness of HCQ and his debunking of the claims that it is supposedly not effective or that it is even harmful. Don’t believe any of that self-serving, life-depriving medical fraud.
Hydroxychloroquine has been a very effective treatment for covid-19 infection used by doctors in many countries and was known even by Dr. Fauci to be effective for the similar Sars1 virus in 2005. If widely promoted and properly used, with zinc and an antibiotic, the hydroxychloroquine protocol could likely eliminate the most of the need for masks, a vaccine and almost all oppressive virus mitigation policies because few people would be dying from the virus while we quickly reach herd immunity.
Regular low dosages of it can also be used as a prophylactic to prevent health care workers and high-risk category persons with comorbidities from experiencing serious virus reactions.
The Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS) reported on a major new peer-reviewed Henry Ford Health System study confirming that hydroxychloroquine does indeed prevent covid infection deaths. They stated,
“HCQ impressively improved survival. In contrast, the government-favored drug remdesivir has only been shown to decrease survivors’ hospital stay by four days, with no demonstrable improvement in survival,” notes AAPS.”
The opposition to Hydroxychloroquine has been vicious. It is so nasty that the video and Facebook Livestream of a press conference, in front of the US Supreme Court, of frontline doctors who have been personally and successfully treating Wuhan virus-infected patients, was taken down or otherwise suppressed since Monday by YouTube, Facebook, Google, Twitter and Vimeo. This was done after the Facebook live stream had been viewed by over 17 million people in 8 hours and was at that time the second the most viewed Facebook LiveStream in the world.
In the transcript of the press conference talks, Dr. James Todaro, one of the speakers stated,
“If it seems like there is an orchestrated attack that’s going on against hydroxychloroquine it’s because there is. When have you ever heard of a medication generating this degree of controversy? A 65-year-old medication that has been on the World Health Organization’s safe, essential list of medications for years. It’s over the counter in many countries. And what we’re seeing is a lot of misinformation. We’re talking 70,000 to 105 … 70 to 100,000 patients would still be alive if we followed this policy.
I would strongly encourage all readers to watch this incredible press conference that is seen to be such a massive threat by the tech giants that they undertook this unprecedented, coordinated level of suppression of the information those frontline doctors who have been treating covid patients had to say. The vague reason given was that it included “fake information” as determined by the World Health Organization. Watch it here or here. It is an astonishing, impressive press conference.
There are two other very promising treatments that are also not being mentioned by all the health authorities who are focused only on masks, social distancing, Remdesivir and a vaccine.
A video interview with Dr. Richard Bartlett has gained over 4 million views to date. In it Bartlett promotes a 20-years old, reliable medication treatment for covid-infected patients he has been using with 100% effectiveness. It involves an economical, Nebulizer-delivered, inhaled Budesonide steroid normally used to treat asthma.
He also gives zinc and an antibiotic and said the treatment is risk-free and that “there is an abundance of this steroid.” President Trump appeared to indirectly refer to this treatment during his recent press conference when he recommended mask-wearing. Bartlett says it is also being used in Japan, Taiwan and Singapore with the effect, according to him, that only 7 people have died of covid in Taiwan and 1000 in Japan.
Regarding masks, Bartlett questioned why “masks are being forced on people right now”. He adds, “We have never worn masks before to protect from the flu. This social distancing thing is not what is saving the Japanese, Taiwanese and people of Singapore. If used, our country would be wide open again and there would be no need for a vaccine.”
Bartlett’s protocol is written up here and here. In the interview, he warns there is a study being done on the protocol but that, just as has repeatedly happened with many badly and possibly deliberately flawed “studies” on Hydroxychloroquine, “it is designed to fail”, such as using it on patients who have reached too serious a condition to benefit from the protocol.
The Daily Signal reports on another seemingly very effective, unusual treatment is being used by “Dr. Thomas Yadegar, a critical care physician for 20 years and now director of the intensive care unit at Providence Cedars-Sinai Tarzana Medical Center in Tarzana, California, who has been on the front lines of the pandemic”. It is reported that “the mortality rate in their ICU has been in the single digits, whereas nationally the mortality rate of critically ill patients has been between 40% and 70%.”
Children, Covid-19 and masks
This is a very big topic at this time of year.
The media-generated hysteria over covid-19 has Americans so traumatized that a recent poll showed that Americans actually believe 30 million of them have died from the virus. That’s crazy! The Breitbart report on that poll states that the 30 million figure is off by more than 2,000 percent.
So it is no wonder that most US and Canadian parents are terrified of sending their children back to school. And even then, if they went back they will be required to “social distance” and wear masks during the school day. That cannot possibly be good for them. For many serious reasons, children do need to be sent back to school and without a lot of oppressive measures that will mess with their minds and interfere with them getting back to a normal school social and educational life.
Comparably, more children K–12 die from various other forms of the flu than from COVID, yet we are perpetuating a culture of fear among children in a form of politicized mass hysteria that treats COVID as if it were the Black Plague, which had a 100 percent mortality rate in its respiratory form across ALL demographics.
Instead of using common sense, we’re covering our young children and enshrouding them in an environment of fear, all the while calling it “kindness to others.” This could have damaging long-term effects on our children that far outweigh any threat from COVID.
In her video on Covid-19 Dr. Kelly Victory stresses,
It turns out that children who actually have the virus in their noses our mouths harbor a very small amount of it. They have on average, less that 25% or a quarter of the load that we find in adults. This may become part of the reason why children don’t become sick with the virus but it also means that we don’t need to be concerned about being in close contact with them.
Only a handful of children throughout the country have had any significant illness from covid-19 and all of them had serious underlying health issues. In fact, outside of New York City this virus has essentially been a nursing home problem. The general public simply not been impacted by the virus the way that public health officials and the media have led us to believe.
The NY Post reported the “National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine are the latest to issue a report calling for in-person instruction, saying remote learning is simply ineffective for younger and special-needs students. That echoes last month’s similar advisory from the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Dr. Bob Hamilton stated at the press conference in Washington,
“I also want to say that children are not the drivers of this pandemic. People were worried about, initially, if children were going to actually be the ones to push the infection along. The very opposite is happening. Kids are tolerating it very well, they’re not passing it on to their parents, they’re not passing it onto their teachers.”
It was a reported in an article in the July 21, 202 Uk Times that "There has been no recorded case of a teacher catching the coronavirus from a pupil anywhere in the world, according to one of the UK government's leading scientific advisers."
Tell that to everyone, especially the politicians and health authorities imposing these damaging policies on children. But also tell all of your friends and neighbors who probably all believe that social distancing and masks are necessary for students in school.
In California, about 80 percent of students will sadly not be returning to school in the Fall for a lot of bad reasons but especially because of demands by the California teachers unions that have nothing to do with eduction. They are demanding “Medicare for All, guaranteed housing, a wealth tax, a millionaire’s tax, defunding the police, financial support for illegal immigrants, and a moratorium on charter schools.” That’s California for you - La la land.
Dr. Andrew Bostom strongly advocates that “Americans must disregard Anthony Fauci’s Covid-19 pediatric panic porn.” Bostom writes that Fauci says “what “students ‘really want to know’ about their own safety, vis-à-vis covid-19, and school re-openings, is the availability of an effective vaccine—impossible by this fall” and that “Right now children [are] presenting with covid-16 (sic), covid-19, who actually have a very strange inflammatory syndrome very similar to Kawasaki’s Syndrome [Disease].”
In his response article to those claims, Bostom, along with Dr. Rand Paul, shred Fauci’s panic inducing reasoning.
Bostom urges that “Americans must demand that U.S. schools be re-opened selectively, now, and fully re-opened by late summer”, adding,
Children and young adults have strong immune systems. In the United States only 2% of COVID-19 cases were in people under 18 years of age, and of those youngsters who catch the disease, 99.94% survive according to an analysis of Covid19 deaths in New York City. Nationally, COVID-19 deaths for people under 25 year of age is 151, with 125 of those being over 15 years of age. Total deaths from all causes for this age group is 20, 076, thus COVID-19 accounts for less than 1% of all deaths for this age group. A child is far more likely to die in a car crash on the way to school than from COVID-19 contracted once at school.
A report about 85 infants in Texas infected by covid was blown out of all proportion by media. As it turned out the number was an accumulation over four months and was not a spike. And of course the infants were fine.
Medical information on mask effectiveness
Here is where we explore whether masks are actually effective or not in stopping coronavirus transmission and whether it is helpful to mandate that the general public wears masks in situations where they will be in close contact with others. I am relying on the CDC, other doctors’ organizations and individual physicians for most of the information in this section.
Don’t criticize me for what is stated about this subject. This is science!
Here is perhaps the most important item on this issue. It is a May 2020 study from the CDC as noted in a July 1 tweet from Dr. Andrew Bostom
CDC’s own journal Emerg Inf Dis, on masking in “Non-Healthcare Settings”, a May 2020 metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials,1946-2017: “Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza” https://t.co/6EpifQ80cbpic.twitter.com/Wck0LUvqOi
In the CDC’s own journal, Emerging infectious Diseases, on masking in “Non-Healthcare Settings”, a May 2020 metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials,1946-2017 reported “Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza,”
Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
We did not consider the use of respirators in the community. Respirators are tight-fitting masks that can protect the wearer from fine particles (37) and should provide better protection against influenza virus exposures when properly worn because of higher filtration efficiency. However, respirators, such as N95 and P2 masks, work best when they are fit-tested, and these masks will be in limited supply during the next pandemic. These specialist devices should be reserved for use in healthcare settings or in special subpopulations such as immunocompromised persons in the community, first responders, and those performing other critical community functions, as supplies permit.
Proper use of face masks is essential because improper use might increase the risk for transmission (39). Thus, education on the proper use and disposal of used face masks, including hand hygiene, is also needed.
That is vastly different from what most of you are reading and seeing in all the media and from schools, local and state, provincial and even some national governments and health authorities. So why the sudden surge and panic about mask-wearing?
There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.
Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.
The article then follows with “key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., “N95”) does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness”
Dr. Kelly Victory, a trauma and emergency physician with a specialty on disaster preparedness and response, presents one of the most helpful overviews on the Wuhan virus I have seen to date. She credibly dispels numerous fictions about the coronavirus and presents easy to follow directions on how to avoid serious infection from this virus. For all those who are still terrified and anxious about coronavirus infection this video will leave you with peace of mind.
The video has been removed from YouTube for “violating YouTube’s terms of service”, which as we all should know by now means it has statements that contradict statements by the Chinese Communist Party-controlled World Health organization that has been consistently been giving very bad information on the virus and many are blaming for playing a major role in the spread of the virus around the world.
Here is what Dr. Victory has to say about masks that concurs with what I have seen many other physicians say.
“Masks are intended for the ill when they will potentially be in contact with others and for those who are caring for them. Multiple medical authorities, including the World Health Organization, the CDC, the new England Journal of Medicine have all acknowledged that there is no scientific justification for normal, healthy people to be wearing masks. In fact, prolonged mask wearing actually increases the risk of disease to the wearer.”
Got that. That is very important what was just said. Very few members of the media brain-washed public realize any of this.
She goes on,
“People tend to touch their faces much more often when they are wearing a mask. In addition, we end up re-breathing particles that our lungs have exhaled, whether its pollen, dust, viruses or bacteria particles, they’re trapped in the mask and on the very next inhale we breath them back in. Lastly, many people are wearing other than surgical or medical masks and many of them are not porous enough to allow carbon dioxide that we exhale to fully dissipate, so in every inhalation we breath back in more carbon dioxide. Furthermore, and very importantly, habitual wearing of masks decreases the body’s natural immune response. We’ re supposed to regularly come in contact with foreign things – bacteria, viruses – all kinds of things – and that’s what helps to keep our immune systems on alert, working at full capacity. If you limit your exposure to everything by constantly wearing masks, or the overuse of hand sanitizer and disinfectants, your immune system in effect says, apparently, I’m not needed, I’ll go on vacation and take a nap and it won’t be prepped and ready when you need it to mount the appropriate immune response.”
And this is also very crucial to understand from the doctor:
So what’s the real risk of contracting covid-19. Despite what you are led to believe, Covid-19 has not proven to be as contagious. The recent New England Journal of Medicine study showed that it really takes quite a significant face to face exposure to someone who is sick from the virus for a matter of minutes and then even then transmission is far from certain. There is a very low risk of contracting exposure from hard surfaces. The CDC now admits that continuously disinfecting surfaces is unnecessary because the virus does not live for more than a very brief period of time on hard surfaces, and lastly, there is a very low risk of exposure to children.
I’ll bet that most of you have never heard that from anyone before.
As noted above, mask-wearing can cause its own negative health issues. A CBS Texas affiliate reported today on issues that persons required to wear masks all day at work are experiencing. You can bet that this is happening everywhere.
The report states,
Some people who are forced to wear face masks all day in the workplace complain of headaches, shortness of breath and anxiety.
“When I have long days, if it’s a 12 hour day, I’m sick when I get home,” said Courtney Warnell. “Sick to my stomach. As soon as I get in the car I’m pulling it off and I don’t want to do anything else. I just want to go home and be mask-free.
Here is more advice from physicians who are critical of broad mask mandates (as opposed to properly wearing masks in situations that might make some sense, such on crowded transit rides, while visiting people who are sick or who are especially vulnerable with comorbidities, in crowded indoor and outdoor settings where you are close to people for more than a few minutes): Click on the links for the full text in each case.
We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.
The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.
A mask will not protect providers caring for a patient with active Covid-19 if it’s not accompanied by meticulous hand hygiene, eye protection, gloves, and a gown.
I wore surgical masks daily for 36 years as an anesthesiologist. Their purpose was to reduce the chance that I would infect an open wound with bacteria from my mouth. This article of faith has been shown to be false. If staff who are working outside of the immediate sterile field do not wear masks, there is no increase in wound infections. And this is in a closed environment where staff will be present for hours. This casts a very large cloud of doubt on the utility of masks for COVID-19.
Another problem arises when we look at the use of masks by the public. Even accepting the uncertain premise that masks are useful, "incorrect use and disposal may actually increase the risk of pathogen transmission, rather than reduce it, especially when masks are used by non-professionals such as the lay public." Given that most "masks" are simply kept handy for use when required, set aside, and then re-used, most mask-wearing by the public is likely to increase virus exposure, not reduce it.
To protect yourself, you need an N95 respirator mask that is properly fitted. Then you need to re-sterilize it every four hours using UV light or properly dispose of it and start over with a new one. That is too expensive for most people.
The outside world is the safest place you can be. The state of Florida has zero cases of COVID-19 that can be traced to outside transmission. During the day, solar UV kills all viruses very quickly, and there's always enough air movement to disperse aerosols, making them non-infective. It has become clear that virtually all cases have been spread in closed spaces with prolonged (>10 minute) exposure. And as the studies I've cited show, other than N95s, masks are no help there. For that matter, six-foot spacing doesn't help, either, since the aerosols that transmit the virus aren't adequately dispersed.
Caregivers in a high-intensity environment should have all the fitted N95s they need. Beyond that, it's time to recognize that the only person who should be wearing a mask is the Lone Ranger.
The Truth About Masks | COVID-19 Facts From The Frontline
Tony Robbins speaks to Senator Scott Jensen, a family physician from Minnesota, to uncover the truth about masks. After initially discouraging the public to wear masks, the CDC now recommends the use of cloth face coverings to slow the spread of coronavirus. But are they really effective? According to Senator Jensen, the answer is no.
Text of above video:
A covid particle is about 0.1 micronSo we know that even an N-95 mask has tremendous limitations. Yes, it does help some because Covid particles will, if you will, coalesce and coalgulate almost as they come into the magnetized or electrified field of the N-95 mask but the bottom line is that a surgical mask or a cloth mask are really designed only for particulate matter greater than 5 microns. Typical bacteria are 1 to 20 microns. We when we wear surgical masks in surgery we are simply trying to make sure that if we sneeze, cough or something, we are not spraying a lot of bacteria into the place we are doing surgery. But his idea of people thinking they are doing something particularly useful with a cotton mask or a handkerchief or a homemade mask or a surgical mask is just Looney Tunes
Brian Proctor, a licensed family practitioner, in McKinney, Texas along with two other Texas doctors has very successfully treated numerous covid-19 infected patients with a hydroxychloroquine protocol. He states in a Facebook video
“Wearing masks is a ridiculous long-term solution and there is no proven data about this. Another thing you need to know is this prevents us from developing passive immunity. So, if you are out in the public and you contract some disease and you develop antibodies to this you could passively, potentially give your antibodies to someone else and their own immune system might develop immunity to the same disease. So, wearing masks prevent us from developing passive immunity. Wearing masks all the time is just not what our body is built for. As far as a vaccine, if we did this early aggressive treatment we wouldn’t need a vaccine. Nobody needs a vaccine. We did not need a vaccine for SARS. We didn’t need a vaccine for MERS. They went away, why won’t this go away?
As I noted at the beginning of this article, there will be many articles and statements by others that will contradict the physicians and data presented in this article. That has been the nature of the Wuhan virus drama. I have told you why there are so many contradictions and that there are huge, national and international agendas at play that are the source of all this confusion.
I can confidently say that all of you have never experienced before what the world is going through right now related to this virus. It has been a very difficult time for everyone – physically, emotionally, spiritually and in every other way.
I did not get into the terrible disorientation that mask-wearing and forced and largely unnecessary or overdone virus mitigation policies imposed on religious services and church-going have caused many of you. The article is already far too long.
Hopefully this article has provided enough information to alleviate many of your fears and the uncertainties about what you should or should not believe and do in response to the chaos swirling around us all at this time.
See the very important Part I of this 2-part report here.
Topics covered in Part I are:
- What is truth and what is the agenda or agendas?
- All of a sudden masks are crucial
- Democrats demand masks
- The statistics used to justify new mask and lockdown policies
- Media manipulation of COVID numbers
- The importance of herd immunity
The government has forgotten that God’s law trumps state law by shutting down churches
By Mother Miriam
To help keep this and other programs on the air, please donate here.
Watch Mother Miriam's Live originally aired on 7.30.2020. In today’s episode, Mother Miriam shares a talk from Cardinal Raymond Burke from the Rome Life Forum in which he speaks about the over reach of government in shutting down churches.