All articles from April 22, 2021


News

Opinion

Blogs

Episodes

  • Nothing is published in Episodes on April 22, 2021.

Video

  • Nothing is published in Video on April 22, 2021.

The Pulse

  • Nothing is published in The Pulse on April 22, 2021.

News

Pope Francis speaks at Biden’s climate summit after his name curiously disappears from schedule

The pontiff called the summit 'a beautiful decision to meet, to move forward and I accompany you,' but he did not mention Jesus Christ.
Thu Apr 22, 2021 - 9:11 pm EST
Featured Image
Pope Francis waves to crowd from the balcony of the US Capitol building after his address to a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden looks on. September 24, 2015 in Washington, D.C. Evy Mages/Getty Images
David McLoone David McLoone Follow
By

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

ROME, Italy, April 22, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis joined a slew of world leaders speaking at an online international climate activism event Thursday, convened by President Joe Biden, and geared toward “galvanizing efforts by the world’s major economies to reduce emissions during this critical decade.”

The two-day event, dubbed the “Leaders Summit on Climate,” focuses on a number of different topics, “including emissions reductions, finance, innovation and job creation, and resilience and adaptation.”

Pope Francis was slated under the “Investing in Climate Solutions” umbrella, a segment dedicated to emphasizing “the urgent need to scale up climate finance; efforts to increase public finance for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries; and efforts to shift trillions of dollars of private investment to finance the transition to net zero by 2050.”

Although Francis did speak at the event, his name was replaced with “featured speaker” Thursday morning after being named specifically in a schedule of events for the summit, just hours before he was scheduled to appear. Later, his entry was removed entirely.

No details have yet emerged that explain why his name was removed from the U.S. Department of State’s billing of the event.

The Pope previously committed the “Vatican City State … to reducing net emissions to zero by 2050” to the U.N. virtual Climate Ambition summit in December 2020. Furthermore, he promised that the “Holy See is committed to promoting education in integral ecology,” explaining that this means that “(p)olitical and technical measures must be united with an educational process that favors a cultural model of development and sustainability.”

Francis addressed the elites gathered at Biden’s climate summit by referring to the “initiative” as “a happy one,” later calling the convention a “beautiful decision to meet, to move forward and I accompany you.” He remarked that Biden’s climate summit, hailed as America re-entering “the global climate fight,” “puts us on the road … concretely, to take charge of the custody of nature, of this gift that we have received and that we have to heal, to guard and to carry forward.”

Francis noted the summit as being a steppingstone on the “road towards the Glasgow meeting (UN Climate Change Conference),” which he is billed to make an appearance at later in the year.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

The Pope emphasized the role played by “the pandemic,” which he said “takes on a much greater significance,” presenting an opportunity for change. “We know that we do not come out of a crisis in the same way: either we come out better or worse.”

“And our concern,” Francis continued, “is to see that the environment is cleaner, purer and preserved. And to take care of nature so that it takes care of us.”

He did not mention Jesus Christ. 

Speakers scheduled to appear alongside Francis included the president of the European Council, Charles Michel, the prime minister of Jamaica, Andrew Holness, and New Zealand’s prime minister, Jacinda Ardern.

Biden invited 40 international leaders to attend the event, with figures like U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, billionaire and U.N. Special Envoy on Climate Ambition and Solutions Michael Bloomberg, and famed population control advocate Bill Gates topping the list. Xi Jinping, president of China, is also billed to speak.

As signaled by Francis, the summit is seen to be a “key milestone on the road to the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) this November in Glasgow,” set to be attended by many of the same world leader and climate activists.

Almost in tandem with his appearance at the “Leaders Summit on Climate,” Francis released a video message marking “Earth Day,” an annual event created “to diversify, educate and activate the environmental movement worldwide.”

The Pope used the opportunity to further the globalist campaign against so-called climate change, imploring world leaders and ordinary citizens to avoid “a path of self-destruction.”

“The adversity we are experiencing with the pandemic, and which we already feel in climate change, must spur us, must push us to innovation, invention, to seek new paths,” the Pope urged.

Francis issued an ominous message, warning that “we don’t have time to wait any longer … It is time to act, we are at the limit.” While “God always forgives,” he said, and “we men forgive from time to time, nature no longer forgives,” anthropomorphising the created world in the process.

The Pope concluded his message in “commemoration of Earth Day,” saying “when this destruction of nature is triggered, it is very difficult to stop it. But we still have time. And we will be more resilient if we work together instead of doing it alone.”

The co-founder of “Earth Day,” Ira Samuel Einhorn, murdered and attempted to compost his girlfriend.

The Pope’s speech to the Biden climate event comes less than a month before the Vatican’s fifth annual “health” conference, which this year will feature vaccine developers, Mormon elders, pro-abortion Chelsea Clinton, population control advocate Jane Goodall, a New Age activist, a prominent UK Muslim scholar, and a pro-abortion American actress known for posing nude. There are only two Catholic clergy listed among the 114 speakers.

RELATED:
Viganò on Vatican ‘health’ conference with Fauci: Holy See is ‘making itself the servant of the New World Order’
Vatican hosting Fauci, Chelsea Clinton, Pfizer CEO, Big Tech oligarchs at ‘health’ conference


  catholic, climate change, globalists, joe biden, leaders summit on climate, pope francis

News

Dissident San Diego bishop elevated to Vatican position

Pope Francis ally Robert McElroy, who dissents from Church teaching on abortion and marriage, joins the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development in Rome.
Thu Apr 22, 2021 - 8:26 pm EST
Featured Image
Bishop Robert McElroy during a Feb. 1, 2021 GeorgeTown University online Public Dialogue. Global Georgetown / Youtube screen grab
Michael Haynes Michael Haynes Follow Michael
By Michael Haynes

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

SAN DIEGO, California, April 22, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Bishop Robert McElroy, well known for his public opposition to Catholic Church teaching on several issues, has been appointed by Pope Francis to the Vatican’s Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development

The move, announced in the Vatican’s newly released yearbook and reported by Jesuit-run America Magazine, serves to cement McElroy as one of Pope Francis’s favored clerics. McElroy joins the the board of the Dicastery that Francis himself established in 2016.

The Dicastery itself also announced the news in a tweet, linking to America’s report.

McElroy will thus now join one of the larger bodies of the Roman Curia, which is made up of four former councils: Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, the Pontifical Council Cor Unum, and the Pontifical Council for Health Care Workers.

Pope Francis amalgamated the four bodies into one, with the Motu Proprio Humanam Progressionem, and the Dicastery was given the mission to deal with the Pope’s “concern for issues of justice and peace, including those related to migration, health, charitable works and the care of creation.”

Under the direction of Cardinal Peter Turkson, the Dicastery itself has the mission of “integral human development,” a key part of which is the “care of creation.” As such, it seeks to promote the Pope’s “climate change” encyclical Laudato Si in order “to spread a culture of respect for the planet and the human being.”

It also attempts to “establish a relation between humanity and the Earth,” which would thus enable the “reawakening the dignity of individuals and peoples based upon the need for the material and spiritual maturity that each one of us possesses, improving at the same time the environmental, social, cultural and religious conditions in which we live.”

History of deviation from Church teaching, adherence to Pope Francis

McElroy, the current bishop of the Diocese of San Diego, will now take up his duties in the Dicastery, after having distinguished himself by supporting causes close to Pope Francis’s heart and by having a consistent opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church in a number of areas.

McElroy, who objects to Church teaching on abortion, divorce and “remarriage,” homosexuality, and the priesthood, was described by America’s Vatican correspondent as being, “recognized in Rome as a top expert on the social doctrine of the church.”

However, Faithful Shepherds, a site launched by LifeSiteNews to hold bishops accountable and encourage them to uphold the Deposit of Faith, has compiled a long list of McElroy’s actions against the truth of the Catholic faith.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Indeed, only recently, McElroy repeatedly expressed his strong support for radically pro-abortion Joe Biden, saying on one occasion that he hoped Catholics, and his fellow bishops, would be “proud collaborators” with Biden, particularly on addressing issues of “racial justice and division which have been so exacerbated in the last four years” and responding to COVID-19 issues.

He subsequently added that it would be “destructive” for U.S. Catholic bishops to adhere to Church teaching and to deny Holy Communion to Biden due to his continued public support for the evil of abortion. 

To deprive Biden of Holy Communion would be “a weaponization of the Eucharist,” McElroy stated. He also used the example of Pope Francis to support his argument, praising Francis as one who “has placed encounter, dialogue, honesty and collaboration at the heart of his approach to public conversation, and who is unlikely to endorse the deprivation of the Eucharist from the president.”

The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is always wrong because it kills an innocent human being, thus violating the Church’s prohibition on murder, and that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” and “under no circumstances can they be approved” (CCC 2270-2272; CCC 2357). Additionally, Canon 915 of the Catholic Code of Canon Law says that those who “obstinately” persevere “in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

However, despite this directive contained in Canon Law, McElroy’s words supporting Biden were not a surprise, as in the 2019 fall assembly of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, he previously used Pope Francis’s words to support his own objection to the consensus on abortion as being the chief issue, saying “it is not Catholic teaching that abortion is the preeminent issue that we face as the world in Catholic social teaching. It is not.”

Such dedication to dialogue with anti-Catholic politicians will certainly stand him in good stead with Pope Francis, who has reportedly taken the same stance with Biden, and administered Holy Communion to the pro-abortion politician, in direct violation of Church law.

Another passion of McElroy’s, which aligns with the interests of the Dicastery, is “climate change.” While speaking in February 2020, McElroy equated climate change with abortion as the “core life issues in Catholic teaching.”

McElroy has also joined a number of other left-leaning clerics in deviating from the Church’s teaching on the subject of homosexuality. In a statement addressed to LGBT youth, jointly signed with six other bishops and Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark, New Jersey, McElroy and his fellow clerics affirmed the young people, writing, “God loves you and God is on your side.”

Most recently, McElroy followed the Pope’s lead in promoting the abortion-tainted, hastily developed COVID–19 injections. Only last month, McElroy launched a media campaign in the diocese, stating that “God has brought us vaccines that can heal us and heal our world,” and committing himself to combatting “misinformation” about the injections. 

He wrote that it was “vitally important that all of us receive the Covid vaccine,” adding that the “Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson and Johnson vaccines are safe and effective.”

Once more, McElroy referenced Pope Francis in this move.

However, even before copying Pope Francis’s actions of dialogue and referencing the Pope in doing so, McElroy received signal favor from the Pontiff some years ago. 

He was one of only three other U.S. bishops who attended the Amazonian Synod in the Vatican in October 2019. The two other prelates were the high ranking cardinals, Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston, one of the Pope’s close advisers, and Cardinal Kevin Farrell, prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life.


  catholic, climate change, dicastery for promoting integral human development, kevin farrell, laudato si’, peter turkson, pope francis, robert mcelroy

News

Ontario police rough up 12-year-old who was not wearing a mask in skate park, incident under investigation

Video of what happened shows an officer pushing to the child to the ground.
Thu Apr 22, 2021 - 7:48 pm EST
Featured Image
Anthony Murdoch
By Anthony Murdoch

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here. 

April 22, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – A Canadian provincial police force is facing an investigation after one of its members was caught on video pushing to the ground a 12-year-old boy, allegedly because he refused to put on a face mask. 

The incident took place last Sunday in Gravenhurst, Ontario. Video posted online, which has since gone viral, shows a boy being pushed to the ground off his scooter while speaking to a member of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

In the audio of the incident, a voice can be heard saying, “he’s 12 years old” and “we are trying to leave, man,” after the boy was shoved to the ground. 

In an interview with the boy posted online by the Muskoka Post, the youth said police asked those in the skate park to put masks on, but most of them did not comply. 

“The police came by to tell us to put our masks on, and most of us did it. But I recorded a video saying, like, ‘we have a right to breathe and stuff.’ And he came asking for my identification,” the boy said. 

“And I told him I was 12 and he came over and took my scooter because I was trying to leave. And I didn't let go and he threw me to the ground.”

Peel Regional Police are now investigating the matter after OPP commissioner Thomas Carrique requested they do so.

“Officers stopped to speak to a group of young people, none of whom were wearing masks or social distancing. Officers attempted to interact with the youths which led to a physical confrontation between one officer and one young person,” said the OPP in a statement.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Sgt. Jason Folz told Country 102 that they are “investigating and will be speaking with of course the officers involved, as well as direct witnesses to the case." 

The officer who was involved in the incident has been put on desk duty for the duration of the investigation. 

The Gravenhurst skate park was closed under enhanced “stay at home orders” introduced by Ontario Premier Doug Ford last Friday. 
As part of new measures introduced last week, the Ford government extended a stay-at-home order, placed a 10-person limit on church service attendance size, closed playgrounds, implemented provincial border checks, and gave police the power to stop anyone outside his or her home without cause.

After public backlash, however, the Ford government walked back some of its coronavirus rules less than a day later. Playgrounds were allowed to stay open, and police must now have “reason to suspect that you are participating in an organized public event or social gathering” in order to question people. 

The backtracking of some of the rules came about after dozens of local police forces in Ontario, in multiple statements, said they would not conduct random stops and searches of people just because they had left their homes.

Today, Ford said he was “sorry” for going “too far” with the original measures introduced last Friday. 

“Simply put, we got it wrong. We made a mistake. These decisions, they left a lot of people very concerned. In fact, they left a lot of people angry and upset. I know we got it wrong, I know we made a mistake and for that, I’m sorry and I sincerely apologize,” Ford said at a press conference. 

New Blue Ontario Party founder Jim Karahalios called Ford’s apology “crocodile tears.”


  coronavirus vaccines, doug ford, facemasks, jim karahalios, ontario provincial police, peel regional police

News

Big Tech, American Airlines, Marriott attack bills that ban child ‘sex changes,’ protect girls sports

A total of 43 corporations are targeting Texas for banning gender-change surgeries for kids and safeguarding athletic competition.
Thu Apr 22, 2021 - 6:45 pm EST
Featured Image
Shutterstock
Raymond Wolfe Follow
By

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

April 22, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) -- U.S. corporations are doubling down on their “woke” advocacy with new attacks on Texas bills that ban child “sex changes” and protect women’s sports. 

Earlier this week, 43 businesses took aim at Texas lawmakers over pro-family bills moving forward in both houses of the state legislature. 

“Such legislation would send a message that is at odds with the Texas we know, and with our own efforts to attract and retain the best talent and to compete for business,” the companies wrote in a statement on Monday. They added that they “will continue to oppose” bills they deem “divisive.”

Signers include Texas-based American Airlines, Amazon, Apple, Dell, Facebook, HP, IBM, Lime, Marriott, Nestlé, PayPal, Salesforce, Unilever, and United Airlines. Microsoft and bp, two corporate backers of the “Great Reset” – the U.N.-backed plan “to revamp all aspects” of global society – joined the letter as well. The statement was published by Texas Competes, a pro-LGBT coalition of more than 1,400 businesses

Texas Senate Republicans last week unanimously passed SB 29, a bill upholding biological standards for athletic competitions in the state. The senate also held hearings on SB 1646, which would redefine Texas child abuse laws to include “administering, supplying or consenting to provide” “gender transitioning” procedures to children. 

SB 1646, which resembles a law recently passed in Arkansas, bans puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and “sex change” surgeries for kids. A Texas House committee already has approved other legislation to criminalize transgender procedures for minors outright and to allow the state medical board to revoke the licenses of doctors who provide them.

In the Texas Competes letter, companies falsely characterized the measures as an attempt to “ban best-practice medical care that is proven to save lives.” 

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

In fact, the FDA has never approved transgender “transition” drugs, like puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, for any patients with gender dysphoria, and no reliable clinical studies ever have been conducted on gender-confused kids subjected to the practices.

Puberty blockers, the first step in the “transition” process, stop bone growth, inhibit fertility, and disrupt brain development, according to experts. The drugs, which were banned for minors in the U.K. last year, may actually increase suicide attempts, and have been linked to life-threatening side effects

While nearly all affected children naturally grow out of their gender confusion by adulthood, as many as 100 percent of kids given puberty blockers go on to take cross-sex hormones, compromising their fertility for life. Cross-sex hormones are typically followed by irreversible, often tragically regretted “sex change” surgeries to remove genitals and other sexual organs.

“Texans are fed up with corporations that don’t share our values trying to dictate public policy,” Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said earlier this month, slamming American Airlines for having “led the fight to try to force us to allow boys to play girls sports in Texas and take away their scholarships” in 2017. “They are probably still fighting for that today.” 

More than 70 major U.S. corporations, including Big Tech giants and several top food and hospitality companies, have publicly condemned pro-family bills moving through state legislatures this year. 

“As we make complex decisions about where to invest and grow, these issues can influence our decisions,” a recent statement backed by dozens of companies warned lawmakers. Ben & Jerry’s, Chobani, Coors, Instacart, IKEA, H&M, Hilton, Pepsi, Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, PayPal, and Pfizer were among the signers. The NCAA has similarly blackmailed states in recent weeks, saying that it will “closely monitor” transgender policies, and could alter championship game locations accordingly.

Around 1,000 corporations and business leaders also have targeted GOP-led election integrity bills moving forward across the United States in the wake of the highly irregular 2020 election. In an ad last week, hundreds of "woke" companies called for an end to allegedly “restrictive” voting legislation. Apple, Best Buy, Marriott, Walmart, and other election integrity opponents previously have excused, or even glorified, deadly violence linked to the Black Lives Matter movement


  american airlines, corporations, dan patrick, great reset, pro-lgbt, sex change laws, texas, texas competes, texas senate, women's sports

News

North Dakota Republican gov. vetoes bill to protect girls’ sports

Gov. Doug Burgum justified his actions by saying the state has never had a transgender 'girl' try to play on a boys teams, but the legislature could override the veto.
Thu Apr 22, 2021 - 4:45 pm EST
Featured Image
shutterstock
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

BISMARCK, North Dakota, April 22, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Another Republican governor has just vetoed legislation that would have ensured female students would only have to compete against other actual females in athletic programs, this time in North Dakota.

House Bill 1298 would have banned K-12 public schools in the state from “knowingly” allowing male students to play on teams meant specifically for girls, as well as provided for an interim study on the legislation’s impact on student athletics.

But Gov. Doug Burgum vetoed the bill Wednesday, claiming North Dakota already enjoys a “level playing field and fairness in girls' sports,” and saying “there has not been a single recorded incident of a transgender girl attempting to play on a North Dakota girls' team.” 

He also credited the North Dakota High School Activities Association, which opposed HB 1298, for already having rules in place governing the subject. Those rules allow biological males who “identify” as female to compete against females upon “completing one calendar year of documented testosterone-suppression treatment.”

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

“Gov. Burgum showed his hand and his priorities by cowering to the bullies instead of standing with female high school athletes,” responded Linda Thorson, state director of Concerned Women of America (CWA) North Dakota, which supported the bill. “By vetoing HB 1298, Gov. Burgum disregarded science and common sense and over 50 years of hard-fought battles by women to have their own athletic opportunities.”

CWA is currently urging state residents to contact their legislatures in hopes of overriding the governor’s veto. The bill passed the state House with a wide enough majority to do so, but additional Senate support would need to be gained.

LGBT activists claim it’s “discriminatory” to reserve female competitive sports for actual females, and conservatives argue that forcing girls to compete against boys deprives the former of recognition and scholarship opportunities that were originally instituted to advance girls academically and professionally. 

Further, scientific research indicates that testosterone suppression does not eliminate all the physical advantages that come with male physiology. 

In a paper published by the Journal of Medical Ethics, New Zealand researchers found that “healthy young men (do) not lose significant muscle mass (or power) when their circulating testosterone levels were reduced to (below International Olympic Committee guidelines) for 20 weeks,” and “indirect effects of testosterone” on factors such as bone structure, lung volume, and heart size “will not be altered by hormone therapy”; therefore, “the advantage to transwomen (biological men) afforded by the (International Olympic Committee) guidelines is an intolerable unfairness.”

Burgum’s veto comes weeks after South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem vetoed a similar bill in her own state, despite having previously told the public she would sign it into law.


  doug burgum, gop, lgbt, liberal republicans, north dakota, republicans, transgender athletes, transgenderism, women's sports

News

Ottawa police discontinue provincial border checkpoints after long lines and frustration

‘It’s not working and it’s causing a lot of grief and costing a lot of money,’ Ottawa’s mayor said.
Thu Apr 22, 2021 - 4:01 pm EST
Featured Image
Lockdown in Canada Shutterstock
Anthony Murdoch
By Anthony Murdoch

OTTAWA, Ontario, April 22, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Mere days after implementing provincial border checkpoints as part of new COVID rules — with long lines, public frustration, and backlash from the mayor — police in Canada’s capital city now say they will stop the checks.

Police in Ottawa, Ontario, announced they will cease 24-hour checkpoints between it and its neighbouring city of Gatineau, Quebec, instead only doing occasional stoppages at the border.

“Traffic was allowed to go, without any congestion, allowed to go through during morning rush hour,” Ottawa police Const. Amy Gagnon said in a CTV report.

Shortly after being applied, Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson said he did not think the “system of stopping people at the border, which is impractical and unnecessary, is going to last the rest of this week.”

“It’s not working and it’s causing a lot of grief and costing a lot of money,” said Watson in a CTV report.

Ottawa Police said in a news release that from last Tuesday onwards, it will rotate its personnel between the five bridges which connect Ottawa and Gatineau. There will no longer be a “a 24/7 presence at interprovincial crossings (bridges and ferries).”

“The operational changes announced today are designed to better ensure the health and safety of all, to minimize delays and/or hazards for travelers and to ensure essential workers can get to their places of employment on time,” Ottawa police stated.

At one point it was reported that line-ups were 13 kilometres long at some sections of the Ottawa/ Gatineau border, which normally sees around 185,000 vehicles cross each day.

The border bridge crossings are heavily used by federal politicians, some of whom go back and forth multiple times each day.

Last year, Canada’s Prime Minister was heavily criticized for breaking provincial COVID rules after going to his Rideau cottage located in Quebec for Easter.

Last weekend, members of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) tactical command unit were seen placing armed checkpoints at the Manitoba-Ontario border, which are still in effect.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

The new checkpoints were the result of new coronavirus orders enacted by Ontario Premier Doug Ford last Friday. The enhanced “stay at home orders” mean that provincial authorities are now screening those coming into the province from Manitoba and Quebec. 

Only “essential travelers” are to be allowed through the borders. Truckers carrying goods, and those with Ontario license plates, are let through without being stopped. Those who do not comply with the rules could face fines of up to $750. 

Lawyer Jay Cameron with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) told LifeSiteNews that the establishment of provincial border checkpoints is “antithetical to the purpose and principles of a free society. It is another frightening signpost in Canada’s rush to tyranny.”

“No Canadian is required to give police information at health checkpoints, and no police service in Canada should become the antagonist of its fellow citizens and enforce this outrageous order,” Cameron said.


  checkpoints, lockdowns, ottawa

News

What LGBT activists REALLY want for the Halton Catholic Schools — ‘and every school in the world’

Activist want to turn Catholic schools into 'safe spaces' where Catholic teaching on marriage and sexuality is forbidden.
Thu Apr 22, 2021 - 3:27 pm EST
Featured Image
Girls attending a Catholic school Shutterstock
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

ANALYSIS

BURLINGTON, Ontario, April 22, 2022 (LifeSiteNews) — The proposal to raise the homosexual “pride” flag outside Ontario Catholic schools pales in comparison to what activists really want: to turn the schools into “safe spaces” where Catholic teaching on marriage and sexuality is forbidden.

“Raising the flag is never going to be enough,” stated Dr. Alexandra Power, one delegate who spoke during Tuesday night’s contentious meeting of the Halton School Board to discuss new LGBT measures for the region’s Catholic schools. “But it has to be the start for right now.”

Student Teia Bodner, who was accompanied by her mother Michela to the online meeting, indicated that both indoctrination into LGBT terminology is on the wish list and that she believes it is in concert with Catholic doctrine:

School boards must lead, encourage and respect all community stakeholders by holding space for difficult but courageous conversations at all levels of the board. It means promoting the understanding of what an Ally is and what personal pronouns mean. This means committees, information sessions, and data collection. It means safe spaces. It means inclusive books in our libraries. It means digging in and doing honest work. It means honest and open Professional Development for ALL STAFF to empower them with credible information so that the 2SLGBTQ+ communities know that we love and support them, as they are Children of God. This is 2021. Let's practice what we preach. Follow the Catholic Social Teachings. Support this motion. [Emphasis added.]

Power went on to say that raising the rainbow flag and creating “signs for our teachers to show our students that they have a safe place to be themselves” will not be enough “until every child, adult, person amongst us feels safe being their own genuine self.”

Apparently equating anything but absolute acceptance as “judgement and hatred”, Power said that “progress is where we have to begin.”

“And progress, like the seeds of change, needs first to be sown,” she continued. “We need to plant this flag, and by doing so, cultivate love, the acceptance of everyone, and that is what is put before you tonight. That option to start somewhere …”

Another delegate at the meeting offered this thought: “Policies that are put in place must include specific measures and explicitly address homophobia. The GSAs [Gay Straight Alliances, LGBT ideology clubs for students] were a great first step. However, they obviously haven’t been enough and a decade has passed since their inception.”

The Halton branch of PFLAG Canada also indicated that have the pride flag flutter proudly outside Catholic schools is only the beginning. The LGBT advocacy group issued a statement after the meeting to say that flying the pride flag and having “safe space posters” in the Catholic schools would be “an important first step” in including “their” community, that is, Catholic students who experience and embrace same-sex attractions or reject their own maleness or femaleness.

“The flying of the flag during Pride month and having safe space posters within classrooms is an important first step toward inclusion for our community in these schools,” PFLAG Canada Halton stated. “We acknowledge the symbolic nature of the flag — it is a symbol of inclusion for our community and flying it at HCDSB [Halton Catholic District School Board] sends a message that 2SLGBTQ+ youth are welcome to be who they are in these schools.”

The organization, which is affiliated neither with the school board nor with the Catholic Church, went on to object to the appearance, at the meeting, of a delegation from a Catholic organization that ministers to people with same-sex attractions who wish to be chaste and remain faithful to Christ, Courage International. PFLAG Canada Halton also lied about Courage by saying it is a “conversion therapy program.”

Courage is not a so-called conversion therapy program.

“We were deeply disturbed that the Board saw no harm in allowing a delegation presentation advocate for Courage International — a known [sic] conversion therapy program that the Southern Poverty Law Center in the US has listed as one of the ten most prominent anti-2SLGTQ+ organizations,” PFLAG Canada Halton wrote, and even described their Catholic rival’s presentation as “a hateful diatribe.”

In fact, the LGBT activist group saw both the inclusion of chastity-promoting Courage and any opposition to the flag-and-signs measures as “a disturbing reminder” that the children the organization identifies as “2SLGBTQ+ youth” are “marginalized within the HCDSB.”

The grim, angry tone of the letter (below) was personified in the grim, angry faces of LGBT activists, young and old, during the Halton Catholic school board meeting.

Image

Meanwhile, the left-leaning, Pride-marching Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (OECTA), whose letterhead now contains an approximation of the pride rainbow, also called the motion to lift high the flag “just one progressive step we can take as a board to show that we are allies and welcome and accept everyone in our school communities.” In an April 20 letter to the Halton Catholic board’s trustees, OECTA claimed to be writing on behalf of 3,000 Halton Catholic teachers “in support of the motion to fly the pride [sic] flag in June.” OECTA, too, objected to the oppositions to the proposal, saying that they demonstrated “exactly why we need to fly the pride flag in June.” It also suggested that not flying the symbolic flag would be siding with “hate and division.”

OECTA will be flying their “own rainbow-coloured flags in [their] offices as a sign of support to [their] members, students and the community.” This may inspire yet more Catholic parents in Ontario to home-school or make sacrifices to send their children to a private Catholic academy.

Image

Unfortunately, the Diocese of Hamilton, to whose spiritual care the Halton District Catholic School Board belongs, has taken a position of neutrality towards the issue. In an April 16 memo to the archdiocese’s priests, Chancellor Monsignor Murray J. Kroetsch stated that it is not permitted to circulate petitions for or against the LGBT measures in the parishes.

“Furthermore, the motion before the School Board is not to be commented on in the Homily or the Announcements at Sunday Masses,” he wrote.

A source close to the Halton Catholic School Board who would speak to LifeSiteNews only under conditions of anonymity underscored that concerned Catholics must not lose sight of the real issue in the debate: not the flag, but the so-called “safe spaces” where Catholic doctrine must not be pronounced. This, he said, is what the LGBT movement wants for Ontario’s Catholic schools “and every school .”

To make your views respectfully known to the Halton District Catholic School Board, please either apply to become a delegate at the next meeting — May 4, 7:30 p.m. — or contact one or more of these nine trustees:

Marvin Duarte

416-559-9327
[email protected]

Patrick Murphy
905-630-1591
[email protected]

Brenda Agnew

[email protected]

Peter DeRosa
905-638-2529
[email protected]

Nancy Guzzo
[email protected]

Vincent Iantomasi
905-536-4100
[email protected]

Helena Karabela
289-230-1423
[email protected]

Tim O’Brien
905-632-2954
o’[email protected]

Janet O’Hearn-Czarnota
905-630-3581
o’[email protected]


  catholic, diocese of hamilton, gender ideology, halton catholic schools, homosexuality

News

Biden Medicare nominee took money from Planned Parenthood for lobbying work, docs show

Biden nominated Chiquita Brooks-LaSure as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
Thu Apr 22, 2021 - 2:54 pm EST
Featured Image
Shutterstock
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

WASHINGTON, April 22, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — President Joe Biden’s nominee for Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) accepted thousands of dollars from Planned Parenthood to advise Democrats on abortion issues, financial disclosure documents reveal.

In February, Biden nominated Chiquita Brooks-LaSure to the position, which oversees federal healthcare spending and various policy decisions. She has held numerous previous posts in the health bureaucracy, including Deputy Director of CMS’s Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight in the Obama administration. Her nomination is currently pending before the Senate.

The Public Financial Disclosure Report Brooks-LaSure filed as part of the confirmation process lists that she previously received an undisclosed amount greater than $5,000 from Planned Parenthood Federation of America for services described as follows: “Summarized Democrat candidates’ position on women’s health and facilitated discussion on their priorities as a primary care provider (client of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP).” The year in which this service took place is not specified.

The American Accountability Foundation’s BidenNoms.com watchdog site summarizes this description as “Washington-speak for using her position at her law firm to coordinate strategy with Democratic politicians on Planned Parenthood between the Biden campaign and elected officials in Washington. It is basically a lobbying position without having to be disclosed as a lobbyist.”

The site calls on Republican senators to ask Brooks-LaSure how much she received from Planned Parenthood, what “documents, events, or other work product” she created for the abortion giant, what promises she made to Planned Parenthood (which has endorsed her), whether she will recuse herself from policy decisions affecting Planned Parenthood, and whether she ever disclosed her pro-abortion work to one of her LLP’s other clients, Dignity Health, which is pro-life and refuses to perform abortions.

Republicans are currently holding up Brooks-LaSure’s nomination, albeit for an unrelated reason. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) says he is putting it on hold in protest of the Biden administration’s refusal to extend a Medicaid waiver the state relied on to reimburse hospitals for treating uninsured patients.


  abortion, biden administration, center for medicare and medicaid, centers for medicare and medicaid services, chiquita brooks-lasure, joe biden, planned parenthood

News

Alaskan village bans unvaccinated people from in-person shopping

People who have not received experimental coronavirus shots, however, 'can still make phone orders and their orders are delivered to their home.'
Thu Apr 22, 2021 - 2:18 pm EST
Featured Image
Kongiganak, Alaska wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Kong_housing.jpg
Victoria Gisondi Follow Victoria
By Victoria Gisondi

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here. 

BETHEL, Alaska, April 22, 2021, (LifeSiteNews) – Kongiganak, a village of fewer than 500 people in Alaska, is requiring inhabitants, the vast majority of whom are Native Americans, to be fully vaccinated to be eligible for any in-person shopping.

According to the AP, over a third of Kongiganak residents have contracted the Wuhan coronavirus and two have died from (or with) it. But it is unclear how many of those who supposedly contracted the virus had symptoms or if they were severe.         

Sheila Phillip, the Kongiganak Traditional Council secretary, said, “people who are fully vaccinated can go inside the village's two stores if they wear masks and follow social distancing guidelines.”

People who have not received experimental coronavirus shots, however, “can still make phone orders and their orders are delivered to their home,” Phillip said.

Harvey Paul, general manager for Qemirtalek Coast Corporation, which sells groceries, allows only four people at a time into his store. Paul explained that a list is provided by the tribe with names of vaccinated people. Those entering the store need to be on the list to be allowed to shop.

“Every couple of days, they’ll give us a new list,” Paul said. “The list keeps getting bigger and bigger. That is a good sign, you know?” Paul believes forcing people to be vaccinated in order to buy food and other goods in-person is a good thing.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

“It gives them the incentive, ‘Hey look, I better get vaccinated too so I can go to the store,’” Paul said. “The best way to curb this virus is to get vaccinated.”

Nearby stores in the Bethel and other Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta villages allow non-vaccinated shoppers to enter the store. However, the Yukon-Kuskokwim Fitness Center is also practicing segregation. It reopened on March 1, but only to fully vaccinated individuals.

Fitness Center Facility Director Stacey Reardon explained in an interview with KYUK Public Media the plans for verifying vaccinated individuals: “At check in, everybody needs to show their CDC vaccination card and a photo ID.”

However, a building full of vaccinated-only people does not mean masks are optional. Reardon said, “Everybody needs to wear masks all the time. And there [are] only two exceptions to that: while swimming and while showering.”

It is unclear if any exceptions will be made for pregnant women or people who are allergic to ingredients in the coronavirus vaccines, which are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration but have only been granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). It is also unclear if people who went into anaphylactic shock right after receiving the vaccine or had another severe reaction to it and thus did not receive a second dose will ever be permitted in the “vaccinated-only” stores.

RELATED:

100-year-old woman denied access to supermarket in Chile for lack of digital health pass

Sweden vaccine passports will ‘probably be required’ for shopping, eating out, travel, meeting loved ones

Vaccine passports are the definition of medical tyranny

‘Orchestrated’ global campaign to bring in ‘bio-fascism,’ vaccine passports: liberal feminist


  alaska, coronavirus, coronavirus vaccine, coronavirus vaccines, vaccine passport, vaccine passports

News

Gov’ts should not use fear as COVID response: Canadian emergency management leader

‘Fear here is a very powerful tool and should never have been used, it’s never to be used in emergency.’
Thu Apr 22, 2021 - 2:16 pm EST
Featured Image
COVID fear Shutterstock
Anthony Murdoch
By Anthony Murdoch

April 22, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A former member of the Canadian military who worked in emergency management blasted provincial governments across the country for using “fear” as a tool to keep the COVID lockdown narrative going, saying that people should never be deliberately scared.

“Fear here is a very powerful tool and should never have been used, it’s never to be used in emergency,” said the former head of Alberta Emergency Management, Lt. Colonel David Redman, during an online seminar hosted by The Canada Strong and Free Network on April 21.

“I’ll give you one short anecdote. I was a colonel in the middle of a war zone with a battalion. If every morning I walked out in front of my troops and said, ‘I think we’re going to be overwhelmed, I don’t think we can handle the enemy, I really think they’re going to kill us all today,’ or I walked out of my hut every morning to look at the troops saying, ‘We got this let’s go,’ what do you think the two reactions are from my soldiers?” asked Redman.

Over the past few months, Redman has come out against COVID lockdowns and the strategies of the Alberta government. He said that his anecdote describes “exactly” what has happened among the Canadian general public since the COVID crisis began.

“And since March last year they’ve heard nothing but ‘our hospital systems are going to fail, you’re all gonna die.’ We need to change that narrative of fear.”

The Canada Strong and Free Network’s online seminar discussed “the adverse impacts of COVID lockdowns and alternative courses of action moving forward.”

Joining Redman was Ontario Dr. Matt Strauss, Dr. Richard Audas, Conservative Party of Canada MP Pierre Poilievre, and Sun writer Anthony Furey.

Strauss works as an intensive care doctor, and during the seminar said that ICUs have always been “full” — not just since COVID-19.

“Hospitals have been full every year that I have been a physician, and I started medical school in 2004 … I don’t see any clear evidence that lockdowns will prevent ICUs from being overwhelmed. We cannot reward the healthcare mis-managers who have left our ICU and hospital system to be bedraggled the way it is, we can’t reward their incompetence with the power to suspend our human rights,” said Strauss.

“COVID is real, but is tied to age … If you are under 35, you are more likely to die in a car accident. Under 50 from any accident … our total ICU capacity … has not gone up appreciably over this whole year.”

Strauss noted that while he has seen and treated many COVID patients, the reality is people should be allowed to assess their own level of “risk” in going about their lives.

“We have to take personal risk … the government can’t tell you what the meaning of … your life is,” said Strauss. “It should be up to individuals.”

He said he has witnessed collateral damage caused by lockdowns, noting he has “personally, admitted patients to hospital who were starved to death” because they were not being properly cared for.

He also said speaking out against COVID lockdowns has resulted in many complaints leveled against him, but that to date no harm has come to him, as he backs up his claims with peer-reviewed studies.

“There clearly has been a chill factor, folks complain about things I say,” said Strauss.

Former emergency management head says “COVID vaccines” are a “red herring”

While emphasizing that he is not against vaccines — saying he himself has had “one shot” — Redman noted thatCOVID vaccines” are a “red herring”

“I don’t want to be seen as an outlier in this discussion but as far as I’m concerned vaccines are a red herring,” said Redman. “I say that as I’m an ex-soldier, I’ve been vaccinated all over. I’m a strong believer in vaccines, I’ve already had my first Pfizer, but the reason I called them a red herring is they’re now being used as the club to say we can’t reopen until everyone’s vaccinated. That’s absolutely wrong, it was wrong and we should never have chased the vaccine trail since last March.”

When asked about COVID jabs and concerns over their safety, which have been raised by many, Strauss argued the real issue is patient consent.

“I support folks who have a lot of questions getting those questions answered, and I’m very much against vaccine passports and infringing on their consent. I don’t think you should take it until you agree to take it,” said Strauss. “The thing going forward is to be bold. No one can come after you for speaking about consent … If I don’t get [a patient’s] consent, I am violating their human rights and individual consent.”

We should be “especially afraid when that same government has been misinforming its public systematically about the matter in hand for over a year”

Poilievre said that people should be bold and not afraid to “speak up” when it comes to voicing their opinion about COVID lockdowns. He also said there needs to be a plan to permanently reopen the economy.

“You know it’s being done all around the world … we’re being left behind as the rest of the world reopens safely and restarts its lives,” said Poilievre. “Here in Canada, we’re talking about some of the most severe restrictions anywhere on the planet earth, and then, furthermore, we have … the government come down on anyone who questions those ideas, [being] dismissed as a conspiracy theorist or a disseminator of misinformation.”

Poilievre, in turn, blasted the Candian federal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for being disseminators of “significant misinformation.”

“Let’s start with the fact that our own government disseminated significant misinformation from the very beginning when Trudeau told the house, and so did his health minister, that COVID was absolutely no threat to Canada,” said Poilievre.

“And then when we told him to close the borders, he left them open for three months after. He’d been briefed by the military of the brewing pandemic in China and then they said masks don’t work, don’t use masks. Now they say we must wear masks. So, we should all be afraid at any time when the government tells you that it is going to stop the spread of information it does not like. We should be especially afraid when that same government has been misinforming its public systematically about the matter in hand for over a year.”

It leaves me baffled why mainstream media won’t allow an alternative narrative”

Redman concluded the online seminar by talking about how the mainstream media has been a tool in controlling the COVID narrative to keep “lockdowns” going, and urged everyone to call their local MP and provincial politicians to demand the reopening of the Canadian economy.

“We know for a fact that people who speak a different narrative are being censored … It leaves me baffled why mainstream media won’t allow an alternative narrative,” said Redman. “Those who believe what we’re saying need equal time to give perspective in mainstream media we also need all our citizens to call their MLA, their MPP, and to do it every day … the response to a pandemic is a provincial responsibility. They run the healthcare system, so until the premiers remove the lockdown mentality, it’s going to stay [in place] in every province and territory in Canada, so we need you the public and all the people that think like you to call your MLAs, MPPs.”

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

The Canada Strong and Free Network is a conservative Canadian think tank focused on limiting government and protecting free speech. It was originally founded in 2005 by former Reform Party/Conservative Party MP Preston Manning as the Manning Centre for Building Democracy.

Just recently, despite the fact many states in the U.S. have opened up, the provincial government of Ontario under Premier Doug Ford extended a stay-at-home order, placed a 10-person limit on church services, closed playgrounds, implemented provincial border checks, and gave police the power to stop anyone for any reason, if they were outside their home without cause.

After a public backlash, however, the Ford government walked back some of its coronavirus rules less than a day later. Playgrounds were allowed to stay open, and police must now have “reason to suspect that you are participating in an organized public event or social gathering” in order to question people.

The backtracking of some of the rules came about after dozens of local police forces in Ontario, in multiple statements, said they would not be conducting random stops and searches of people.

Contact information

To contact your federal member of parliament, click here.

Provincial contact information (MLAs by Province/Territory):

BC https://www.leg.bc.ca/content-committees/Pages/MLA-Contact-Information.aspx
ALBERTA https://www.assembly.ab.ca/members/members-of-the-legislative-assembly
SASKATCHEWAN https://www.legassembly.sk.ca/mlas/mla-contact-information/
MANITOBA https://www.gov.mb.ca/legislature/members/mla_list_alphabetical.html
ONTARIO https://www.ola.org/en/members/current/contact-information
QUEBEC http://www.assnat.qc.ca/en/deputes/rapport-liste-depute.html
NEW BRUNSWICK https://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/contacts/MLAReport.html
NOVA SCOTIA https://nslegislature.ca/members/profiles-table
PEI https://www.assembly.pe.ca/members
NFLD/LABRADOR https://www.assembly.nl.ca/Members/members.aspx
NUNAVUT https://assembly.nu.ca/members/mla
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES https://www.ntassembly.ca/members
YUKON https://yukonassembly.ca/mlas


  anthony furey, coronavirus restrictions, david redman, lockdowns, matt strauss, pierre poilievre, richard audas

News

18-year-old undergoes 3 brain surgeries from blood clots after J&J vaccine

The high school senior has improved and is now awake and off the respirator, but still requires a tracheostomy tube, which has impaired her ability to speak.
Thu Apr 22, 2021 - 12:52 pm EST
Featured Image
Megan Redshaw, J.D.
By Megan Redshaw J.D.

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

April 22, 2021 (Children’s Health Defense) – A Nevada teen who received Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) COVID vaccine on April 1 underwent three brain surgeries to repair blood clots she developed about a week after receiving the vaccine, Las Vegas Review-Journal reported.

According to family spokesperson Bret Johnson, after Emma Burkey, 18, suffered seizures, doctors placed her in an induced coma and on a respirator. The high school senior has improved and is now awake and off the respirator, but still requires a tracheostomy tube, which has impaired her ability to speak.

“She is improving slowly,” Johnson told Las Vegas Review-Journal. “The word we got from her parents last night was ‘slowly, slowly slowly.’ For a while there, her situation and condition was completely unknown. Very scary and very iffy, honestly.”

Although Burkey experienced a “massive brain injury,” her parents are “cautiously optimistic,” Johnson said.

Burkey was first treated at St. Rose Dominican Hospital in Henderson before being airlifted to Loma Linda University Medical Center in Southern California for specialized care.

According to Fox 5 Las Vegas, Burkey was one of the six women whose case is under review by U.S. health agencies, which last week paused the vaccine citing concerns about blood clots.

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel said Burkey and other women experienced headaches and back pain prior to the discovery of blood clots.

The CDC panel also disclosed that Burkey was given heparin, a blood thinner which typically is standard treatment for blood clots, but in cases like Burkey’s, can actually make the condition worse.

“If someone comes in with this really rather rare syndrome of thrombotic thrombocytopenia where you get thromboses, the most common way to treat that would be with heparin,” White House Chief Medical Advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci said during an April 13 White House news briefing. “That would be a mistake in this situation because that could be dangerous and make the situation worse.”

Ask Congress to Investigate COVID Origins - Take Action

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

As The Defender reported April 16, Children’s Health Defense queried data from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) for events associated with clotting disorders. VAERS yielded a total of 795 reports for all three vaccines from Dec. 14, 2020, through April 8. Of the 795 cases reported, there were 400 reports attributed to Pfizer337 reports to Moderna and 56 reports associated with J&J.

U.S. health authorities recommended a pause for J&J vaccinations last week while they investigate reports of what they described as “rare and severe” clot conditions. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet Friday to consider whether to resume vaccinations with J&J’s single-dose shot, and if so, what recommendations or restrictions for use should be put in place.
The European Medicines Agency said Tuesday its safety committee recommended a warning about a rare, serious blood-clot condition be added to the product information for J&J’s vaccine. The agency, which oversees drug regulation in the EU, said the benefits still outweigh the risks of the vaccine, but noted people should be aware of rare blood clot symptoms so they can quickly get treated if they develop symptoms.

© April 22, 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.


  blood clots, cdc, covid-19 vaccine, johnson & johnson, vaccine safety, vaccine side effects

News

Veteran ER doctor advocates budesonide as cheap drug to treat COVID

According to an Oxford study, ‘inhaled budesonide reduced the relative risk of requiring urgent care or hospitalisation by 90%.’
Thu Apr 22, 2021 - 12:41 pm EST
Featured Image
Dr. Richard Bartlett LifeSiteNews / Rumble
Michael Haynes Michael Haynes Follow Michael
By Michael Haynes

OKLAHOMA, April 21, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A veteran emergency room doctor is proposing a “silver bullet” treatment for COVID-19, suggesting that there has been a deliberate attack on promotion of the drug, despite an Oxford study showing it is 90% effective at reducing hospitalization in patients.

LifeSiteNews sat down with Dr. Richard Bartlett at the recent Health and Freedom Conference in Oklahoma, where he discussed the merits of budesonide.

Richard Bartlett, M.D., is a health professional with over 20 years of experience. Based in Texas, Bartlett gained first-hand experience in treating and curing COVID-19 in his role as an emergency room (ER) doctor.

Early on in the COVID-19 era, he was treating a woman who had “two forms of blood cancer” and was receiving radiation, while also being short of breath and “about to be put in the hospital on oxygen.” Bartlett said that after he treated her with budesonide, “her shortness of breath went away, her fever broke, and over the weekend she recovered,” so that she was able to teach her students for eight hours on Monday.

Upon such a discovery for treating the virus, Bartlett stated, “I couldn’t keep it quiet.”

While Bartlett and his newly recovered patient promoted budesonide, he was quickly censored by platforms such as YouTube.

He mentioned that Dr. Anthony Fauci, in a conversation with Mathew McConaughey, criticized the promotion of budesonide.

However, despite this attack from Fauci, Bartlett’s findings have since been supported by the STOIC study conducted by Oxford University in the U.K. The study found that “inhaled budesonide reduced the relative risk of requiring urgent care or hospitalisation by 90%.”

Oxford also discovered that budesonide brought about a “reduction in persistent symptoms” of the coronavirus in those who took the medicine.

This study contradicts Fauci’s testimony, noted Bartlett. “Is Anthony Fauci right, or is Oxford Uni right, that’s been around for 1,000 years, with a randomized controlled trial?”

“This is a medicine that’s so safe that it’s been used on two-pound preemie babies in the NICU, that’s about as delicate a human as they make, and that’s been used for decades — also been used on the fragile and elderly in nursing homes.”

Nor is such an effective treatment subject to crippling expense or limited supplies. Bartlett stated that a single treatment of budesonide costs only “three dollars.” The reason for this, he explained, is its “generic” nature.

This low cost could also be why promotion of the medicine has been censored, Bartlett suggested. “Nobody’s going to make any money off it, which might be part of the pushback. Can you imagine if 90% of the hospital revenue was cut off because all of a sudden people don’t need to be in the hospital, because 90% of hospitalizations could be avoided? Can you imagine if there is a proven, safe, readily available medicine that’s 90% effective at least, and I have 100% of my patient that have lived?”

“If that’s proven scientifically, which Oxford showed in the STOIC trial, then you might not be able to get Emergency Use Authorization [EUA] for any experimental vaccine, or possibly you might not be able to get EUA for experimental medicines like Remdesivir, or experimental vaccines.”

“Think about where people are dying from COVID,” continued Bartlett. “Are they falling over in their kitchen dying of COVID, or … are they dying in hospitals? I think everyone knows the answer to that.”

He furthered his point by hinting at potential negligence in the health system which has led to the death of thousands across the country.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

“Could 450,000 deaths in the United States have been avoided with the safe, readily available, and inexpensive medicine that’s available in every pharmacy on every corner? I think that’s a good question.”

Bartlett has concerns not only about the health system, but Fauci in particular. He questioned why Fauci would have taken the time to deliberately speak against budesonide, when it was in fact saving lives. “If someone has been the medical expert for COVID in front of everybody … and he’s speaking against something that’s been an overwhelming success at saving lives, why are we still listening to him, why does he still have a microphone, and what was his motive in hiding this from the public?”

“I can’t answer what’s in his head, but I don’t think I like it. But I can say I care about people, God cares about people. This winning strategy was here available at the front end of this pandemic, and it was surpassed on purpose, targeted on purpose.”

Notwithstanding the attacks, Bartlett firmly promotes the use of budesonide for treating COVID-19. “There’s no randomized controlled trial for the things which [Fauci] is forcing upon the American people, but there is a randomized controlled trial for an effective, readily available, safe, inexpensive medicine that has been powerful, effective at saving lives from COVID, and that is good news.”

Bartlett revealed that he had been promoting the use of budesonide on local radio, and in his county there were “[fewer] deaths in 2020 during a pandemic, than in 2019, or 2018.” This was because doctors were using budesonide on the quiet.

He pointed readers and viewers to a website dedicated to the promotion of budesonide, which also assists people to source the medicine and thus gather effective treatment.

A committed Christian himself, Bartlett urged Americans to have hope, saying that “God still answers prayer, he’s still our provider and our protector.”


  anthony fauci, budesonide, covid treatments, richard bartlett

News

US Commission calls out world’s worst religious freedom violators

Over the past year, many countries used the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext to discriminate against religious groups, including discriminating against religious minorities seeking COVID relief aid.
Thu Apr 22, 2021 - 12:04 pm EST
Featured Image
NoonVirachada/Shutterstock
Arielle del Turco
By Arielle del Turco

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

April 22, 2021 (FamilyResearchCouncil) – The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) released its annual report Wednesday, providing an overview of the world’s top violators of religious freedom. The dire status of religious freedom around the globe is a call to action for the Biden administration to prioritize religious freedom in its foreign policy.

Numbers help tell the story of global religious freedom violations. An estimated 50,000 Christians remain in bondage in North Korean prison camps. Over 2500 Yazidi women and girls are still missing following ISIS' genocide. And in 2020, 15 houses of worship were attacked in Nigeria.

Over the past year, many countries used the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext to discriminate against religious groups, including discriminating against religious minorities seeking COVID relief aid.

However, there were a few signs for hope in 2020, the year studied in the report. At USCIRF's report launch, USCIRF Vice Chair and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said, “we were encouraged by the evident progress” on religious freedom in Sudan, including the repeal of the country's apostasy law. Commissioner Anurima Bhargava also noted that three religious prisoners of conscience whose cases had been adopted by commissioners had been released in 2020.

The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 established mechanisms in the State Department to designate nations as “Countries of Particular Concern” (CPC) for severe violations of religious freedom. This year, USCIRF recommends adding India, Russia, Syria, and Vietnam to the list. Though India is the world's largest democracy, USCIRF found that “one-third of India's 28 states limit or prohibit religious conversion to protect the dominant religion from perceived threats.” In 2020, Russian authorities raided the homes of 477 Jehovah’s Witnesses. Persistent problems in Syria and Vietnam warrant international attention as well.

For the second year in a row, USCIRF recognized Nigeria as a place where religious persecution runs rampant and recommended a CPC designation. The report stated that religious freedom conditions continued to deteriorate in Nigeria, and “Christian communities were hit particularly hard in the country's Middle Belt.” Commissioner James Carr thinks Nigeria can do better, and he urged the country to “shape up.”

At USCIRF’s report launch, USCIRF Commissioners also emphasized China as a growing threat to religious freedom. In addition to committing an ongoing genocide against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, China continues to crack down on house churches, underground Catholics, and those of other faiths. But as if that is not enough, China also works to suppress criticisms of their human rights abuses at home and around the world.

In April, the Chinese government sanctioned USCIRF Chair Gayle Manchin and Vice Chair Tony Perkins for speaking out about grave abuses against religious believers in China, including an ongoing genocide against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, they responded to the sanctions, saying, “We won’t be intimidated or silenced.”

The Chinese government’s attacks on the Commission only proves how effective it is. Authoritarian regimes do not like it when USCIRF draws attention to their religious persecution. This is exactly why they must continue to do so.

The United States’ advocacy matters to other governments, even the Chinese government. To maintain U.S. energy on the issue, USCIRF recommends that the Biden administration promptly fill the role of Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom.

Vice Chair Tony Perkins also said in a statement, “In order to maintain the crucial momentum of international religious freedom as a U.S. foreign policy priority, USCIRF strongly urges the Biden administration to take a unique action for each country designated as a CPC to provide accountability for religious freedom abuses and to implement the other recommendations contained in our report.” The CPC designations should not just be a list -- they must have consequences.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

The Trump administration demonstrated impactful moral leadership on international religious freedom. Now is not the time to back down.

The last few years have seen religiously motivated attacks, genocides, and oppressive policies receive much-needed attention on the world stage. This provides for an opportune moment to seize on international religious freedom as a bipartisan issue.

As a historic leader on human rights, America has a unique role in advocating for religious freedom for all people, everywhere. For the sake of the persecuted and oppressed, President Biden should embrace this role. The need is great, but so is our potential to make a difference.

Reprinted with permission from Family Research Council


  catholic persecution, china, family research council, joe biden, persecution of christians, tony perkins, us commission on international religious freedom, vietnam

News

French drug assessment center demands removal of all four widely used COVID vaccines

According to the CTIAP, all of the vaccines were put on the market and actively used on human beings before ‘proof of quality for the active substance and the finished product’ was produced.
Thu Apr 22, 2021 - 10:42 am EST
Featured Image
Coronavirus vaccine Shutterstock
Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent
By Jeanne Smits

April 22, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A regional independent drug assessment center, the CTIAP (Centre territorial d’Information indépendante et d’Avis pharmaceutiques), which is linked to the Cholet public hospital in the west of France, recently published a report showing that the vaccines used against COVID were not only submitted to insufficient clinical testing, but that the quality of the active substances, their “excipients, some of which are new,” and the manufacturing processes are problematic. “These new excipients should be considered as new active substances,” the Cholet hospital team stated, in a study that according to them raises issues that have not been commented to date.

The team led by Dr. Catherine Frade, a pharmacist, worked on public data released by the EMA with relation to the Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) shots, and its first caveat was that all these products only have temporary marketing authorizations. They are all subject to further studies that reach as far as 2024 and even beyond, and these will be almost impossible to be completed because of the way the vaccines are now being distributed, said the CTIAP report.

These studies even include the stability and comparability of the vaccine batches put on the market and the quality and safety of excipients — substances formulated alongside the active ingredient of a medication to facilitate or enhance their absorption.

According to the CTIAP, all of the vaccines were put on the market and actively used on human beings before “proof of quality for the active substance and the finished product” was produced: all the manufacturing labs obtained future deadlines to submit their studies in this regard.

The authors of the report consider that the “variabilities, which impact the very core of the product, could even invalidate any clinical trials conducted” in the coming months and years.

They go so far as to state: “Prudence would even dictate that, in all countries where these vaccines against COVID-19 have been marketed, all the batches thus ‘released’ should be withdrawn immediately; and that these MAs that have been granted should be suspended, or even canceled, as a matter of urgency until further notice.”

Here below is LifeSite’s full working translation of the CTIAP’s April 2 report:

Can we imagine launching a car manufacturing line and putting vehicles on the road, despite the uncertainties noted in the official documents published? These uncertainties are related to the quality of the parts making up the engine and the various other parts, including those related to safety, the manufacturing process, the reproducibility of the batches that are being marketed, etc.

In the field of medicines (including vaccines), the pharmaceutical act of “release” of the finished product (an authorized product intended for sale) constitutes the final stage of control that precedes the release of these products to the population. This key step of “release” is under the pharmaceutical responsibility of the manufacturers.

Following its previous analyses, the CTIAP of the Cholet Hospital Center has once again revealed to the public, and probably in an unprecedented and exclusive way, new vital information concerning the following four vaccines against COVID-19: the one from the BioNTech/Pfizer laboratory; the one from the Moderna laboratory; the one from the Astra Zeneca laboratory; the one from the Janssen laboratory.

This work was made possible thanks to the valuable contribution of Dr. Catherine Frade, pharmacist and former director of international regulatory affairs in the pharmaceutical industry. She graciously provided us with a documented, written alert. In this document, she sheds light on data extracted, on March 22, 2021, from the MA (marketing authorization) itself; an MA qualified as “conditional.” She has extracted “source data that is difficult to identify by someone who does not work in the field.” This data is therefore public and verifiable. First of all, it should be noted that the author of this document no longer works in the pharmaceutical industry; she states: “First of all, I would like to make it clear that I have no conflict of interest with the pharmaceutical industry.” It is therefore with her agreement that CTIAP intends to make available to the public, health professionals, decision-makers … an analysis of some of these data that all should read carefully.

This reflection first presents what a “conditional” MA is (I). Then, it recalls that the studies for these vaccines are not complete, as they run from “2021 to at least 2024” (II). Then, it reveals, in an unprecedented and exclusive way, that the official documents, published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), underline the insufficiency of the evidence concerning also the “quality” of the “active substance” and of the “excipients,” of the “manufacturing process,” of the “reproducibility of the batches” that are being commercialized, etc. (III). Finally, this analysis proposes a conclusion.

I — First of all, it is important to understand what a “conditional” MA is

An MA is to a drug what a car registration document is to a car. MA is granted when a drug has proven its quality, efficacy, and safety; with a positive benefit/risk ratio: that is, it presents more benefits than risks. Obtaining this MA is the essential condition for a pharmaceutical laboratory to sell any drug, including vaccines.

Here, in the case of these vaccines against COVID-19, the four MAs issued are so-called “conditional” MAs. They are temporary. They are valid for no more than one year, because they were obtained on the basis of “incomplete data.” To obtain a standard 5-year MA, the laboratories concerned must provide dossiers completed with “studies in progress and studies planned for the coming years.” Throughout “this development,” close and coordinated monitoring between the manufacturing laboratories and the health authorities is organized through regular discussions. The “conditional” MA is “re-evaluated each year” according to the contribution and critical analysis of additional data provided and collected during a full year.

This “conditional” MA is a European MA. It was obtained through the centralized accelerated procedure. It allows simultaneous marketing in the following 30 countries (European Union and European Free Trade Association): Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden.

The studies concerning these four vaccines are therefore still in progress.

II — Secondly, the planned studies are still in progress and are spread over a period ranging from “2021 to at least 2024”

All of the studies submitted during the MA application are summarized in the EPAR (European Public Assessment Report). This report is published on the European Medicines Agency (EMA) website. The planned studies, not yet completed, are also included.

This schedule, which “extends from 2021 to at least 2024,” depending on which COVID-19 vaccine is involved, is defined in the “annexes” of the conditional marketing authorization and in the published EPARs.

As an example, the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine received this European conditional MA on December 21, 2020. And the deadline for filing “confirmation” of efficacy, safety, and tolerability of this vaccine is “December 2023.”

The Moderna vaccine was granted marketing authorization on January 6, 2021. The deadline for filing “confirmation” of efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the vaccine is “December 2022” at the earliest.

AstraZeneca’s vaccine was granted marketing authorization on January 29, 2021. The deadline for filing “confirmation” of efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the vaccine is “March 2024.”

The Janssen vaccine was granted conditional European marketing authorization on March 11, 2021. The deadline for submitting “confirmation” of the vaccine’s efficacy, safety and tolerance is “December 2023.”

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

However, to date — and this is undoubtedly where the unprecedented and exclusive revelation of this study lies — another deadline has been set for these four vaccines. This deadline no longer concerns only the ongoing clinical trials, but also the “proof of quality for the active substance and the finished product” itself: that is, the intrinsic quality (the heart) of the product sold and administered to millions of people.

III — Thirdly, and this seems to be unprecedented, the published official documents also underline the incompleteness of the evidence concerning the “quality” of the “active substance” and “excipients,” the “manufacturing process,” the ”reproducibility of the batches” marketed, etc.

The deadline for submitting additional evidence on the “quality” of the “active substance” and the “finished product” (i.e., the vaccine that is authorized and sold) is set for:

  • “July 2021” for BioNTech/Pfizer;
  • “June 2021” for Moderna;
  • “June 2022” for Astra Zeneca;
  • “August 2021” for Janssen.

Indeed, for these 4 vaccines, paragraph E, “Specific obligation regarding post-authorization measures for the conditional marketing authorization,” taken from Annex II of the MA, clearly states the following:

For the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine (pages 18-19)

By “March 2021,” the laboratory must provide “additional validation data” to “confirm the reproducibility of the finished product manufacturing process.”

By “July 2021,” the laboratory must provide missing information to:

  • “complete the characterization of the active substance and the finished product;”
  • “strengthen the control strategy, including the specifications of the active substance and the finished product” in order to “ensure the constant quality of the product;”
  • “provide additional information regarding its synthesis process and control strategy” in order to “confirm the purity profile of the excipient ALC-0315” and “to ensure quality control and batch-to-batch reproducibility throughout the life cycle of the finished product;”
  • and by “December 2023,” and “in order to confirm the efficacy and safety” of this vaccine, the company “shall submit the final clinical study report for the randomized, placebo-controlled, blind observer study (Study C4591001).

For the Moderna vaccine (page 15)

The laboratory should provide the missing information to:

  • “complete the characterization of the manufacturing processes of the active substance and the finished product” (deadline “January 2021”);
  • confirm the reproducibility of the manufacturing process of the active substance and the finished product (initial and final batch sizes) (deadline “April 2021”);
  • “provide additional information on the stability of the active substance and the finished product and review the specifications of the active substance and the finished product after longer industrial practice” with the aim of “ensuring consistent product quality” (deadline “June 2021”);
  • “submit the final study report for the randomized, placebo-controlled, blinded clinical trial for the mRNA-1273-P301 observer” to “confirm the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccine Moderna” (by December 2022).

For the Astra Zeneca vaccine (pages 14-15)

The laboratory must submit the missing information in order to:

  • “provide additional validation and comparability data, and initiate further testing” with the aim of “confirming the reproducibility of the manufacturing processes of the active substance and the finished product” (by “December 2021”);
  • “Provide the main analysis (based on the December 7 data cut-off (post database lock) and the final analysis of the combined pivotal studies” to “confirm the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca” (deadline “March 5, 2021” (for the main analysis) and “May 31, 2022” (for the combined analysis);
  • “submit final reports of the randomized controlled clinical studies COV001, COV002, COV003 and COV005” to “confirm the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca” (due "May 31, 2022");
  • “provide additional data regarding the stability of the active substance and the finished product and revise the specifications of the finished product after extensive industrial practice” in order to “ensure consistent product quality” (deadline “June 2022”);
  • “submit the synthesis and summaries of the primary analysis and the final clinical study report for study D8110C00001” to “confirm the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca in the elderly and in subjects with underlying disease” — due “April 30, 2021” (for the primary analysis) and “March 31, 2024” (for the final study report).

For the Janssen vaccine (page 18)

The laboratory should submit the missing information to:

  • “provide additional comparability and validation data” to “confirm the reproducibility of the manufacturing process of the finished product” (deadline “August 15, 2021”);
  • submit the final report of the VAC31518COV3001 randomized, placebo-controlled, single-blind clinical study to “confirm the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 Ad26.COV2.S vaccine” by December 31, 2023.

These facts allow us to offer a conclusion.

Conclusion

For these reasons, which are not exhaustive, it has proved useful to look for and read the content of the paragraph E: “Specific obligation relating to post-authorization measures concerning the conditional marketing authorization,” extracted from Annex II of the MA, corresponding to each of these 4 vaccines against COVID-19.

The inadequacy of the evaluation does not only concern the clinical trials (studies conducted in humans (women and men)), but also the quality of the active substance, the excipients, some of which are new, the manufacturing process, and the batches released and administered to humans in several countries around the world.

Moreover, these new excipients must be considered as new active ingredients, and thus be the subject of a complete evaluation file similar to that required for a new active ingredient.

Changing the commercial name of one of these vaccines, as was recently announced for the AstraZeneca vaccine in particular, can only be considered as a cosmetic arrangement of the product’s image for marketing purposes (winning new public confidence, boosting sales). It would not answer the questions raised concerning the quality, efficacy and safety of the product. This is one of the usual techniques used to put make-up on (dissimulate) certain undesirable characteristics of the product concerned. It is a technique that has been used to present other drugs in the best possible light.

As already mentioned, in the field of medicines (including vaccines), the “release” of the finished product (intended for sale) is the final stage of control (of quality and therefore of safety) before making these products available to the population.

This key stage of “release” of batches is the pharmaceutical responsibility of the manufacturers. However, the responsibility of the users (institutions and health professionals in particular) may also be involved.

In our opinion, these clinical studies should never have begun before the intrinsic quality of the finished product and its manufacturing process had been fully mastered; before the formulas of these vaccines had been stabilized.

How can the results of these clinical trials, conducted on a global scale, be compared if the vaccine administered can vary from one manufacture to another, from one batch to another, from one region to another?

These variabilities, which impact the very core of the product, could even invalidate any clinical trials conducted.

Even in the case of a health emergency, it is therefore difficult for us to understand the basis for the MA (marketing authorization) that has been granted to these COVID-19 vaccines.

In addition to the uncertainties related to COVID-19, there are also the approximations related to the use, and the intrinsic quality, of these vaccines. Now two problems will have to be managed instead of one.

The maneuver seems subtle. The useful information is available in the official documents published in the framework of the MA; but this data is not made visible by the official discourse. It seems the latter has only tried to present these products as being effective and safe, without reservations; even though the formulas and manufacturing processes of these vaccines do not even seem to have been fully stabilized yet.

These new revelations, which are undoubtedly unprecedented and exclusive, further cast doubt on the validity of consent (a fundamental freedom) that is supposed to be free and informed, and which is said to have been given by the people who are now already vaccinated.

Every person has the right to clear, fair and appropriate information. This information is also perennial: if new data is revealed, those already vaccinated must be informed a posteriori (after the administration of this or that vaccine).

The “obligation” to vaccinate cannot therefore be sustained, even in a disguised form, notably through a “vaccine passport.”

This new analysis further confirms our previous reflections such as the one entitled “Could the Covid-19 vaccine (Tozinameran; COMIRNATY°) be qualified as ‘defective’ by a judge?” or those expressed in the two open letters that have already been sent to the Minister of Solidarity and Health and to the seven Orders of health professionals.

Vulnerability does not only arise from the age and state of health of individuals. Not being able to access independent information on medicines (including vaccines) is the first form of poverty and inequality.

Moreover, concerning the uncertainties on the effectiveness of these vaccines, the Council of State noted, on March 3, 2021, in particular the admission of the Ministry of Solidarity and Health itself, and the contradictions of the French “administration.” In this decision, and against the opinion of this Ministry, the Council of State had produced a decision that seemed to tend towards the recognition of this effectiveness. But, a few days later, in a new decision (n° 450413) issued on March 11, 2021, the Council of State changed its position and admitted “the uncertainty that remains regarding the real effectiveness of the vaccine in terms of the spread of the virus.” It should also be recalled that, on February 18, 2021, the Minister of Solidarity and Health also recognized, and that publicly, that no European country has been able to provide proof that these vaccines can prevent “severe” forms of COVID-19 (see press conference, starting at 34min 44s).

In its latest “Update on the surveillance of COVID-19 vaccines — Period from 12/03/2021 to 18/03/2021” published on March 26, 2021, and updated on March 29, 2021, the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines (ANSM) reports, in particular, the number of deaths that have occurred in France after the administration of these vaccines. Deaths that are notified (reported) in pharmacovigilance (regardless of the certainty of the “causal link” between these vaccines and these deaths): “311 deaths” after administration of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine; “4 deaths” after administration of the Moderna vaccine; “20 deaths” after administration of the Astra Zeneca vaccine; (no data is available at this time regarding the latest vaccine (Janssen) to be licensed). In general, for all drugs, there is a high level of under-reporting in pharmacovigilance despite the mandatory nature of these reports.

Consequently, prudence would even dictate that, in all countries where these vaccines against COVID-19 have been marketed, all the batches thus “released” should be withdrawn immediately; and that these MAs that have been granted should be suspended, or even cancelled, as a matter of urgency until further notice. In any case, this is the sense of the recommendations that we could suggest to the ad hoc authorities, and in particular to the French authorities. And, at the very least, this information must be made known to everyone in a clear, fair, and appropriate manner.

All the more so since, in the case of serious adverse effects, including deaths, and in order to establish the said “causal link” with certainty, the victims and their families are often powerless when faced with the requirement of “probatio diabolica” [a legal requirement to achieve an impossible proof].


  astrazeneca, coronavirus vaccine, ctiap, johnson & johnson, moderna, pfizer, vaccine side effects

News

STUDY: Once top Trump-bashers, TV news now loves Joe Biden

It’s not fearless when journalists only use their influence to harass politicians from one political party and not the other. That’s actually twisting journalism to suit a blatantly partisan agenda.
Thu Apr 22, 2021 - 10:15 am EST
Featured Image
Rich Noyes and Bill D’Agostino
By Rich Noyes

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

April 22, 2021 (NewsBusters) – For four years, the liberal media led the Left’s fierce resistance to the Trump administration, slamming the President night after night after night. Now, a new study by the Media Research Center finds the broadcast evening newscasts have executed a full flip-flop, as they aid and abet liberal President Joe Biden’s administration with mostly positive coverage.

During his first three months in office, the broadcast evening newscasts have showered Biden with 59% positive press. Four years ago, those same programs were hammering Trump with 89% negative press — a stunning contrast.

For this study, MRC analysts reviewed all ABC, CBS and NBC evening news coverage of Biden and his new administration from January 20 through April 9. Total coverage amounted to a hefty 726 minutes — 18 percent of all evening news airtime — but that’s still just a small fraction of the 1,900 minutes those broadcasts spent deploring Trump and his team when we studied the same newscasts during the same time period in 2017.

The shift in tone is even more dramatic. Four years ago, Trump faced hellishly negative coverage right from the beginning. Our study at the time showed 89% negative coverage of the new President on the three evening newscasts, an unprecedented hostility that would characterize the media’s approach for the next four years.

Image

Today, President Biden faces a far friendlier media landscape. Overall, we found 59% positive coverage of his administration during those first weeks, a continuation of the positive coverage that the networks treated him to during last year’s presidential campaign. (There’s a fuller description of our methodology at the end of this article.)

If you want a flavor of how how the networks have swooned over Biden, here are a few highlights:

Four years ago, we tallied a massive number of evaluative comments (1,687 — 89% negative, 11% positive) about the new Trump administration. This year, those same broadcasts have churned out only 264 such evaluative statements, 156 of which (59%) offered praise or support for the Biden administration and its policies. These much lower numbers signify a news media that’s not trying to drown out the White House with its own aggressive criticism, as was their standard practice in 2017.

Most of Biden’s news coverage has focused on three big topics: his administration’s handling of the federal government’s COVID response; Biden’s $1.9 trillion spending bill the Democrats rammed through in early March; and the migrant crisis at the southern border.

Image

The administration’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic was by far the most-covered topic, with 242 minutes of total airtime, or one-third of all Biden news during these weeks. Viewers hoping for the networks to take an even-slightly adversarial tone with the new administration would have been disappointed: out of 39 evaluative statements on this topic, more than three-fourths (31, or 79%) praised Biden and/or his team.

The networks were even more enthused by the President’s partisan $1.9 trillion so-called COVID relief bill, which drew 120 minutes of additional coverage. Out of 67 evaluative comments we tallied, 59 of them (86%) were positive. Instead of pushing back on the White House message of the day, evening news coverage consisted of a parade of citizens happy to be receiving $1,400 checks and other benefits; we found only 29 seconds of airtime bothered to mention the exploding federal deficit or national debt, now in excess of $28 trillion.

But it wasn’t all good news — not even the networks could find a bright side to Biden’s disaster at the southern border, which drew 115 minutes of coverage. Out of 56 evaluative statements, only 10 (18%) were positive, leaving the administration with 82 percent negative coverage on this topic.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

That’s still marginally better, however, than Team Trump faced in their early days, when there was no massive influx of unaccompanied minors. Our study four years ago found 120 minutes of coverage of the administration’s immigration policies, 93% of which was negative (not counting the additional 223 minutes of airtime devoted to Trump’s ban on travel from unstable terrorist states such as Syria and Iran).

An important caveat: That these networks incorporated criticism of a liberal President into their coverage doesn’t mean they were aiming for ideological balance. In fact, one out of six criticisms that viewers heard about President Biden (18 out of 108) involved reporters actually hitting him from the far-left.

Back on February 17, for example, NBC Nightly News slammed Biden over his refusal to back a progressive scheme to forgive $50,000 in student loan debt. “President Biden said he’s willing to forgive $10,000 in student loans,” reporter Sam Brock explained, but “experts say it doesn’t tackle the root of the problem....More than 44 million Americans are drowning in some $1.7 trillion in student debt.”

On April 8, after Biden took executive action to further regulate firearms, ABC’s Mary Bruce channeled his leftist critics: “Some gun control advocates say the President should have taken bolder action even sooner, something he promised on the campaign trail.” Bruce was then shown lobbying Press Secretary Jen Psaki: “It is Day 78. What’s the holdup here?...Why not put out your own bill, lead the charge on this?”

Roughly 90% of network news coverage of the Biden administration (650 minutes out of 726) was spent on policy issues; that compares to just 45% of Trump administration coverage during those early weeks. Long before Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel, Trump’s media profile was already being smothered by the Russia collusion story (222 minutes), and the networks delighted in finding controversy in the non-politician President’s colorful comments.

Four years ago, the Big Three newscasts spent more than nine minutes on the irrelevancy of the size of Trump’s crowd on Inauguration Day, and more than 19 minutes on Trump’s assertion that Hillary Clinton had benefited from illegally cast votes in the 2016 election. Combined, they spent a whopping 98 minutes of coverage frothing about Trump’s claim that Obama officials had wiretapped Trump Tower.

Yet when President Biden said things that would have sparked a major feeding frenzy if uttered by Trump, these same newscasts merely yawned. Biden’s insult about Republicans exhibiting “Neanderthal thinking,” for example, drew a scant 83 seconds of airtime. His encouragement of Major League Baseball to economically punish Georgia by relocating the All-Star game — a first for a President — merited only 45 seconds across all three newscasts. And his wild claim that Georgia’s new voting law was like “Jim Crow” passed by with just 39 seconds of coverage, none of it in any way critical.

Journalists like to claim they’re “fearless” in confronting those in power on behalf of the public. But it’s not fearless when journalists only use their influence to harass politicians from one political party and not the other. That’s actually twisting journalism to suit a blatantly partisan agenda.

Methodology: For this report, MRC analysts reviewed all coverage of President Biden or the Biden administration on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts between January 20 and April 9, 2021, including weekends. That matches our study of these networks coverage of the Trump administration in 2017.

To determine the spin of news coverage, our analysts tallied all explicitly evaluative statements about President Biden from either reporters, anchors or non-partisan sources such as experts or voters. Evaluations from partisan sources (Democrats supporting Biden, Republicans criticizing him) as well as neutral statements, were not included. This also matches the methodology we used in 2017 to calculate the tone of coverage of the Trump administration.

Reprinted with permission from NewsBusters


  abc news, cbs news, donald trump, joe biden, media bias, media research center, nbc

News

Biden admin sues to force doctors to perform ‘sex change’ surgeries, attacks Catholic nuns

The lawsuit was filed by HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra and attempts to overturn a recent court ruling against the Obama-Biden administration’s ‘transgender mandate.’
Thu Apr 22, 2021 - 8:19 am EST
Featured Image
HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra Shutterstock
Raymond Wolfe Follow
By

WASHINGTON, April 22, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — The Biden administration on Tuesday sued to force doctors and hospitals to perform transgender surgeries, regardless of religious or conscientious objections.

The lawsuit was filed by Secretary Xavier Becerra of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and attempts to overturn a recent court ruling against the Obama-Biden administration’s “transgender mandate.” The Sisters of Mercy, a Michigan-based order of Catholic religious sisters, are listed as defendants in the case, making this Becerra’s second attack against Catholic nuns.

The transgender mandate, promulgated in 2016, required doctors and hospitals to perform “sex change” surgeries on any patient, regardless of age, upon the referral of a mental health professional. Several religious organizations, nine states, and an association of more than 19,000 healthcare professionals have challenged the rule in two federal courts.

The mandate was struck down in both cases, most recently by a North Dakota Eastern Division court, which held this year that it illegally “violates [healthcare providers’] sincerely held religious beliefs.” HHS appealed that decision on Tuesday, according to court filings.

“This is bad for patients, doctors, and religious liberty,” Luke Goodrich, Becket Fund senior counsel, said about the Biden administration’s appeal.

“The Biden Admin says it can punish doctors and hospitals for ‘sex discrimination’ unless they perform controversial gender-transition procedures,” he added. “The Transgender Mandate not only threatens religious doctors and hospitals. It also threatens patients, as there is ample evidence that certain gender transition procedures can be deeply harmful.”

The appeal is the latest of many radical assaults on religious freedom launched by the Biden administration in recent weeks.

Since January, the White House has terminated President Donald Trump’s inalienable rights commission, forced taxpayers to fund transgender surgeries and abortion, and mandated gender-confused children’s access to bathrooms and sports teams for the opposite sex. The Biden White House also has vowed to pass the Equality Act, which would codify abortion “rights” and require that Christian institutions hire active homosexuals and transgenders.

Tuesday’s appeal makes good on Biden’s threat to crack down on Catholic nuns who insist on their constitutional religious liberties. When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor last year, upholding a Trump administration rule exempting them from the abortifacient coverage requirement of Obamacare, Biden said he was “disappointed.”

“If elected, I will restore the Obama-Biden policy that existed before the Hobby Lobby ruling,” he said, referring to a 2014 Supreme Court decision that initially exempted religious groups from covering contraception and abortion pills under the Affordable Care Act.

As the attorney general of California, Xavier Becerra had led another suit against the Little of Sisters of the Poor, an order of nuns devoted to caring for the elderly poor. Becerra also spearheaded the baseless prosecution of pro-life activist David Daleiden after Daleiden exposed aborted baby body trafficking at Planned Parenthood centers. The prosecution of Daleiden was initiated by Becerra’s predecessor, now-Vice President Kamala Harris, who has also consistently attacked nuns.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Self-proclaimed Catholic Joe Biden and his administration have been regularly excoriated by U.S. bishops for their anti-life, anti-Catholic extremism. “I must point out that our new President has pledged to pursue certain policies that would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity,” USCCB president Archbishop José Gómez wrote in a letter published on Inauguration Day and publicly backed by over a dozen prelates.

Days later, USCCB committee chairmen Archbishop Joseph Naumann and Archbishop David Malloy slammed the Biden administration’s gutting of President Trump’s abortion spending cuts as “grievous” and “antithetical to reason.”

Without naming Biden directly, Cardinal Raymond Burke earlier this month called out pro-abortion politicians as “apostates” who suffer automatic excommunication. Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, affirmed that Cardinal Burke was “teaching the truth.”


  hhs, joe biden, sisters of mercy, transgender mandate, transgenderism, xavier becerra

Opinion

Swiss bishop: Amid COVID crisis, the Church ‘acted according to the general secular logic’

‘Your faith has helped you!’
Thu Apr 22, 2021 - 2:25 pm EST
Featured Image
His Excellency Marian Eleganti, auxiliary bishop of Chur, Switzerland. KATH.NET / YouTube
Bishop Marian Eleganti
By

April 22, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — What do you think the Lord would say about the universal sacramental shutdown within the Church that has deprived the faithful — among them many elderly and dying people — of the sacraments across the world? Such a thing has never happened in the 2,000-year history of the Church, not even in the hardest times of war, plague, and persecution.

What would have happened if the Church had intensified its sacramental life? But instead, it acted according to the general secular logic, which does not know faith and causes the shutdown of the sacraments and the desolation of the places of pilgrimage, among other things (cf. the empty St. Peter’s Square). Nevertheless, on March 25 of last year, Pope Francis urged us to ask God for the end of the pandemic worldwide. So to what do our faith and reason have to refer: to trust in our own measures, which did not achieve the desired effect but caused enormous damage, or to God’s supernatural help?

Was it reasonable for Israel to look to the bronze serpent raised by Moses in the wilderness (cf. Numbers 21:4-9) to escape with their lives after the deadly snakebite? Was it reasonable to think that five barley loaves and two fish (cf. John 6:9) could feed a huge crowd so that they would not collapse from emaciation on the way home? Was it reasonable to touch the hem of Jesus’ garment in order to be healed (Matthew 9:21)? Is it reasonable to believe daily in the change of the substance of bread and wine into the body of Christ, which presupposes an intervention of God in the here and now?

In Mark 16:18 we read that even the drinking of deadly poison will not harm the disciples. This does not mean that we should do it wantonly, where there are other solutions. It means only that the secular reason, not the faith, acts unreasonably in the contact with GOD from a certain point.

I know the pertinent place in St. Thomas Aquinas’s works. In our context, we talk about something else. With many miracle healings Jesus has praised the faith of the people in question as a prerequisite: “Your faith has helped you!” The biblical examples could be multiplied at will. Instead, all the world has seen that large parts of the Church think and act quite secularly, as if they had no faith in the efficacy and presence of God, e.g. in the sacramental context.

Mocking accusations were made even by worldly parties — which have no skin in the game — that the Church did not sufficiently bring God (“its core business”) into the conversation about overcoming the crisis. This has consequences.

In Nazareth, Jesus could do only few miracles, because he did not find there the faith which he looked for and presupposed for his supernatural work. I do not say that we should challenge God in an unreasonable way to abolish the laws of nature. But what the secular or political “reason” has imposed on us is to a large extent unreasonable, as well: for instance certain numbers which have not been put into the right context and have been manipulated arbitrarily to justify rigorous measures, or to talk about protection some measures allegedly offer, which are simply not real.

All COVID-related measures can be questioned with good reasons as to their actual protective impact and as to their negative to devastating effects threatening and destroying one’s existence (who is going to pay for it?). Others will do so.

In any case, there will be much to talk about for a long time to come. What’s important to me is that trust in God and counting on his help and his protection in our context is not at all unreasonable. Everybody decides for themselves how far he or she goes along with it, and how unreasonable he wants to appear to others. In this regard, I recommend to everyone Psalm 91, which sounds quite unreasonable in our context, but is not unreasonable at all in the mouth of a believer praying. He just sets other priorities.


  catholic, coronavirus restrictions, lockdowns, mass restrictions

Opinion

Officer Sicknick’s ‘natural cause’ of death undermines Democrats ‘insurrection’ narrative

Fuelled by media lies about January 6, the Deep State has persecuted conservatives with vengeful fury based upon a false narrative - a narrative aided in significant part by Officer Sicknick’s tragic, but entirely coincidental, death.
Thu Apr 22, 2021 - 2:14 pm EST
Featured Image
shutterstock.com and uscp.gov
Andrea Widburg
By Andrea Widburg

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

April 22, 2021 (American Thinker) – Democrats have insisted that January 6 was a murderous white supremacist, Trump-incited insurrection.  An important element in this narrative was the fact that Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick died on January 7.  Or according to Democrats, Trump supporters savagely attacked Sicknick with a fire extinguisher, making his death a murder.  

Fact after fact whittled away at that narrative, but they wouldn’t let it go. The coroner has finally spoken, though, and Sicknick’s death proves to have been the result of what his grieving mother always thought it was: a stroke.

On January 8, the New York Times reported as fact that Officer Sicknick “died on Thursday night from injuries sustained ‘while physically engaging’ with pro-Trump rioters[.]” And then there was the infamous fire extinguisher:

The circumstances surrounding Mr. Sicknick’s death were not immediately clear, and the Capitol Police said only that he had “passed away due to injuries sustained while on duty.” At some point in the chaos — with the mob rampaging through the halls of Congress while lawmakers were forced to hide under their desks — he was struck with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials.

Within a day, the media were insisting that protesters at the Capitol had effectively beaten Officer Sicknick to death.  This New York Daily News story, which MSN republished on its website, is representative of these reports in the way it combines “facts” and an almost hysterically patriotic feel for the Capitol Police:

Officer Brian Sicknick, mortally wounded by a fire extinguisher to the head while defending the U.S. Capitol from rioters, was a true American patriot: An Iraq War veteran, unafraid to question his country’s leaders.

Sicknick, a 42-year-old New Jersey native, passed away around 9:30 p.m. Thursday, one day after he was attacked by rioters who invaded the Capitol following an incendiary speech by President Trump.

Flags at the Capitol flew at half-staff Friday to honor Sicknick, who joined the Capitol Police in 2008. No arrests were yet made in the killing of the veteran law enforcer, who was injured in a scuffle with protesters.

Prosecutors were set to launch a federal murder investigation into his slaying.

Aside from the fact that Officer Sicknick appeared to have been a genuinely decent and patriotic man, every “fact” in that report is a lie. Nevertheless, those lies saw Sicknick lying in state in the Capitol, a new martyr to the leftists’ entirely successful efforts to lock down Biden’s win and lock up the city of D.C.

Sicknick’s own mother countered the narrative, saying she was told her son had died of a stroke.  Now we know she was correct. Following an inexplicable delay of three and half months from Sicknick’s death (that is, long enough for the narrative to be set in stone), the coroner finally returned a verdict:

Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick died of natural causes a day after supporters of President Trump rioted at the Capitol on January 6, the chief medical examiner for Washington, D.C., told the Washington Post on Monday.

Francisco J. Diaz, the examiner, said Sicknick died after suffering two strokes the day after the riot, caused by a blood clot that prevented flow to the base of Sicknick’s brain stem. 

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Here’s what happened on January 6: voters frustrated by the government's refusal to take seriously their concerns about election integrity did what Democrats have done for decades: they entered the Capitol, often with Capitol Police officers welcoming them in.

We know now that the Democrats must have had word that this was going to happen because they rejected the National Guard and told police to stand down.  There were provocateurs in the crowd.  The people who died on that die were felled by strokes, heart attacks, and a drug overdose.  No Trump-supporter (heck, not even a provocateur) killed anyone.

After the event, while Democrats mostly would have vanished in the night, and those few arrested would have gotten suspended sentences and passes for their conduct, the Deep State has persecuted conservatives with vengeful fury based upon the false narrative they conducted — a narrative aided in significant part by Officer Sicknick’s tragic, but entirely coincidental, death.

Reprinted with permission from American Thinker

RELATED

January 6 Capitol police officer died from ‘natural causes,’ despite leftist claims


  brian sicknick, capitol police, capitol riots, democrats, donald trurmp, january 6, media bias, media manipulation, new york times

Opinion

Following the Derek Chauvin trial verdict, there are two videos you should see

At one level, we’ve seen our criminal justice system reduced to one terrible message: Blacks win and Whites lose, or your cities will burn. If true, this is a disaster for Black and White communities alike.
Thu Apr 22, 2021 - 1:11 pm EST
Featured Image
A George Floyd protest turns into a riot in Indianapolis. shutterstock.com
Andrea Widburg
By Andrea Widburg

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

April 22, 2021 (American Thinker) – The Derek Chauvin trial and verdict may well mark a turning point in America.  At one level, we’ve seen our criminal justice system reduced to one terrible message: Blacks win and Whites lose, or your cities will burn.  If true, this is a disaster for Black and White communities alike.  At another level, this moment may be the prod that all Americans who believe in a free, colorblind society need to push them out of their comfort zones and into the ideological war being waged in America.  Candace Owens has articulated the first level, while Ben Domenech has stated the second.

Owens appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show after the verdict was rendered.  During an entire hour-long show with no commercial breaks, Tucker spent almost every minute talking to people about the verdict.  The worst person was a retired ex-cop from New York who applauded the verdict — except it became patent that he had absolutely no idea what the facts were and, instead, was reciting and relying upon propaganda.  Tucker shut him down.

The best guest was Candace Owens, who was absolutely outraged by the messages seen in the trial’s conduct, the Democrat politicians’ statements, and the ultimate verdict sent regarding race and criminal justice in America.

Candace nailed the situation when she said we have “a pandemic of cowardice going on in this country.”  In other words, as long as we have a Vichy GOP that functions as the marginally more conservative branch of the Democrat party, nothing will change.

And that leads to Ben Domenech’s monologue, in which he explains the battle for our nation’s soul. Again, this is not about the Republicans in Congress fighting over Chamber of Commerce issues or percentages on taxes.  

Instead, as Bonchie at RedState explains:

The monologue closes by pointing out the tension between those who want to govern themselves and an ever-growing segment of Americans and their chosen politicians who don't believe you have the capability or the right to do so. That tension isn’t going to go away by making another appearance on Face the Nation or bleating about free trade. Yes, economic issues are important, but as Andrew Breitbart famously said, politics is downstream of culture. You can win the battle on tax rates today and wake up tomorrow to find the culture has moved so far past your position that you’ve lost the war.

Watch the whole thing and see what you think:

I know that some of you are put off by the fact that Domenech is married to Meghan McCain, a shrew whose intellectual home is The View. There, she engages in inane battles with such political luminaries (intense sarcasm) as Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar. Although she does support conservative principles, McCain attacked Trump nonstop and shilled for (and voted for) Biden. She’s part of why America is in the mess it’s in.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Still, Domenech is not the same person as his wife.  Additionally, even a stopped watch is right twice a day — and Domenech’s monologue, standing alone, is a good one when it comes to reminding us that we're fighting a long war that’s shifted from a cultural battle to a political one.

Reprinted with permission from American Thinker

RELATED

The Chauvin verdict

The trial of Derek Chauvin has unleashed the dogs of thuggery and revolution


  american thinker, ben domenech, blm, blm riots, candace owens, derek chauvin, george floyd, tucker carlson

Opinion

TV Doctor: Fauci has chalked up 300+ media appearances over past year

Other than working his way up the ranks of a government bureaucracy, and using crafty political maneuvers to build his personal status in Washington, D.C. and around the world, it’s unclear what exactly Fauci has accomplished to deserve the label of the nation’s 'foremost infectious diseases expert.'
Thu Apr 22, 2021 - 9:43 am EST
Featured Image
Anthony Fauci ABC News / YouTube
Jordan Schachtel
By

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

April 21, 2021 (The Dossier) – For decades, Anthony Fauci was an unrecognizable government bureaucrat to anyone who lived outside of the D.C. Beltway. He would pop up out of obscurity and into the conversation every few years in the event of a niche issue involving infectious diseases. That all changed with the COVID-19 pandemic, which elevated the once-irrelevant mandarin to stardom. Today, he is a media mainstay. The celebrity doctor, who has become best known for his routine peddling of quackery related to the coronavirus, has developed a cult following thanks to his consistent political activism and regular appearances across a plethora of media platforms.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) — where Fauci has held the top post for 38 years — now accommodates their celebrity doctor by maintaining a dedicated list of his media appearances. Scroll through the “Fauci In The News” tab on the NIAID website and you will find page after page of Dr. Fauci’s seemingly endless schedule of media hits. By my count, he has accumulated well over 300 media appearances over the past year alone. On Sunday, Fauci got a high dose of his television fix, racking up 4 separate TV appearances on ABC, CNN, CBS, and NBC.

Image

The partial list, which was last updated on April 19, shows that Fauci has collected 309 media appearances over the past year alone. By comparison, in 2019, Fauci about 1 media appearance per week. Additionally, the “Fauci In The News” list does not account for many of Fauci’s appearances on random celebrity YouTube channels, podcast hits, radio interviews, livestreamed conferences and the like, which easily send his average media hits over the past year to well over one appearance per day. 

When Anthony Fauci isn’t in front of a camera, he’s said to be on the front lines battling the pandemic as the nation’s “foremost infectious diseases expert,” a label that is somehow justified by his track record of being a government bureaucrat for half a century. However, other than working his way up the ranks of a government bureaucracy, and using crafty political maneuvers to build his personal status in Washington, D.C. and around the world, it’s unclear what exactly Fauci has accomplished to deserve this label.

With all of that time in front of a camera, it might make some wonder if the celebrity bureaucrat has time to actually follow the latest data and statistics on the pandemic. Given his routine blunders, his lack of transparency, and his advocacy for continued shut downs (there are now over 50 published scientific studies that show lockdowns don’t work), it’s safe to say that the NIAID director is either ignorant and clueless and/or purposely advocating for measures that do not work to “stop the spread.” 

Good news doesn’t control people, which is why Fauci has become exclusively known as the bearer of bad news. Good news is not particularly good for ratings, nor is it good for the prospects of another exclusive appearance with Brian Stelter or Chuck Todd. He prefers to keep viewers afraid, malleable, and on edge. In media hit after media hit, Fauci predictably reminds viewers that there is supposedly an active or imminent crisis in the works. Without a perpetual crisis to shine a light on, the cameras may turn in another direction. Fauci, a seasoned operative, wants the show to continue. When the virus wasn’t scary enough, surely, the “double mutant” virus would keep people compliant. When people started accommodating the COVID vaccine, Fauci pulled the rug out from under them and openly speculated about the possibility of “variants” avoiding the vaccine, thereby making you “vulnerable” once more.

Fauci is having the best year of his life. It has become clear that he desperately wants the show to continue, even if that means demanding that tens of millions of people suffer by conforming to his pseudoscience-based edicts. The TV doctor sure knows how to drive ratings, with the hopes that this is just Season One of his long running hit pandemic series.

Image

Reprinted with permission from The Dossier


  anthony fauci, covid-19 lockdowns, covid-19 restrictions, lockdowns, national institute of allergy and infectious diseases

Blogs

Cardinals Burke and Sarah praise book studying Communion in the hand

‘[The authors’ contributions] are very valuable and irrefutable: for each of them, it is a precise, complete, well-documented work, with citations of sources in the notes,’ Cardinal Sarah wrote.
Thu Apr 22, 2021 - 4:48 pm EST
Featured Image
The Holy Eucharist Shutterstock
Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent
By Jeanne Smits

April 22, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Cardinal Raymond Burke and Cardinal Robert Sarah have both commended a book that was published earlier this month in France under the title Bref examen critique de la Communion dans la main, a “Short Critical Study of Communion in the Hand.” The theme has become more relevant because of the present COVID crisis that is being used to curb many religious, and in particular Catholic freedoms all over the world, including the right to receive Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue. Because yes, it is a right, as this book makes clear.

In his Foreword to the book, which features a number of authors, Cardinal Burke recalled the day of his own First Holy Communion, opening his remarks with these words: “There is nothing greater in the Christian life than to receive the Sacred Host, the Heavenly Bread which is the true Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing is more important in the life of a Catholic than the Holy Eucharist.”

With touching memories of his own preparation for First Holy Communion in 1956, Cardinal Burke underscores that the “catechesis” he received “continues to serve” him well to this day.” Reflecting on the 1969 decision to give bishops’ conferences the option to permit reception of Holy Communion in the hand, he noted:

Sadly, in some places, the result of the accommodation of reception of Holy Communion in the hand contradicts completely the stated intention of the Instruction. In those places, reception of communion in the hand is seen as equivalent to receiving Holy Communion on the tongue and as even preferable to it. The prohibition of reception of Holy Communion on the tongue, unimaginable in the immemorial tradition of liturgical discipline but now universally mandated by many Bishops in response to the current international health crisis, is a clear indication of how the accommodation granted by the Instruction has led to its implementation in contradiction of its clearly stated intention, the intention of the Roman Pontiff who authorized it by his special mandate.

With permission from the books’ editor, the full text of Cardinal Burke’s Foreword, as originally written in English, is available below this article.

Shortly after the book was published, Cardinal Sarah sent a letter to Renaissance catholique thanking the editor and the authors for their contribution to a theme that is very dear to his heart. Cardinal Sarah has on various occasions upheld Communion on the tongue in very firm terms. In his letter, he quoted some of his own words on the subject:

We know that the rejection or abandonment of the experience and values of the past has not always produced good fruit in many of our contemporaries. It seems to me that communion in the hand is a practice that should be strongly discouraged, based on previous provisions of the Church. To abandon the Church’s heritage without discernment or out of a purely ideological attitude can cause great spiritual damage in souls. Communion in the hand involves great dangers of profanation and cases of regrettable lack of respect for the Holy Eucharist. Above all, there is the risk of exposing the Body of Christ to sacrilege.

Cardinal Sarah also forcefully commended the book: “Above all, I would like to emphasize the quality of the work accomplished: the three priests study this question from complementary angles: historical (Canon de Guillebon), liturgical (Abbé Barthe), and canonical (Father Rivoire). Their contributions are very valuable and irrefutable: for each of them, it is a precise, complete, well-documented work, with citations of sources in the notes.”

The full translation of his letter from the original French is also available below.

The book is a joint effort launched at the initiative of Jean-Pierre Maugendre, founder of Renaissance catholique, a French traditional Catholic lay organization which, by the way, is currently being sued by an LGBT activist group for having published the Catholic teaching on homosexual civil unions. Maugendre, following the example of the Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci in 1969, wanted to bring together under two covers a comprehensive study of all the aspects of the so-called reform of the way Catholics receive the consecrated Host.

Several books have been published about the subject, but the novelty here was to offer the public reflections and answers to all the common objections to those who wish to show their reverence to the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord in the Eucharist in using the traditional way of receiving Communion. At the same time the book presents historical, liturgical, and canonical reasons showing how and why Communion on the tongue is the common law of the Church, how Communion in the hand is a mere “indult” or permission and thus, legally, an exception that has been more or less imposed as a rule in so many places, and why it is incorrect to say that the present rite of Communion is a revival of ancient practices in the primitive Church.

This particular point was treated with extraordinary scholarship by Canon Grégoire de Guillebon of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, who looked back at history of the distribution of Holy Communion since Apostolic times up to the very end of the VIIIth century, when it was taken for granted that only consecrated ministers — priests and deacons — could touch the Eucharistic species with their hands.

Before that, Guillebon shows that reception on the tongue probably existed from the start of the Catholic Church, along with forms of reception in the hand that have absolutely nothing to do with the present-day practice of depositing the Host in the communicant’s left hand and letting them seize it and take it to their mouth as any morsel of food with the right hand. Instead, reception in the right hand involved particular ablutions and women would place an immaculate linen cloth over their hands; Communion was placed on the palm and the communicant, in a profound gesture of adoration and humility, would prosternate, bending over to take the Host directly from the right hand into the mouth. Other “methods” are described: all have in common the respect and adoration with which the Body of Christ was received.

Fr. Claude Barthe, a specialist on liturgical issues and symbolism, goes on in the book to describe how Communion in the hand was imposed in the 1960s by the most progressive countries and the modernist faction in the Church even before it was officially tolerated as a “concession” through the June 6, 1969, instruction Memoriale Domini. Reflecting on the “liturgical experiments” of the time, Barthe shows how an illegal practice was abusively imposed in very many countries through whirlwind procedures by which Rome approved requests by a number of bishops’ conferences. France was among the first to ask for the “indult” and received a positive answer from the Holy See in less than a week.

In a canonical study, Father Reginald-Marie Rivoire, of the traditional Dominican Fraternity of Saint Vincent Ferrer, assessed the juridical situation of Communion on the tongue under Church law: Is it always legal? Can it be suspended for sanitary reasons? Is it legal to impose Communion in the hand under any circumstance? His answer, rooted in canonical texts, is clear: Even in the Novus Ordo, a bishop may refuse to permit Communion in the hand in his diocese, and he may not refuse to permit Communion on the tongue. He then reflects on a possible “state of emergency” that might supersede these rules, and, notes that such a state is not a canonical notion. Only a state of necessity would allow a non-consecrated individual to touch the Host with his hands: for instance, when a Host is accidentally dropped and the “necessity” is for someone to pick it up, or in times of persecution when a lay person hides the Eucharist or distributes it because no-one else can do so.

He goes on to say that the present risk of contamination and gravity of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as considerations on the actual risk of getting a virus through reception of Communion on the tongue, make clear that a “state of necessity” does not exist. Fr. Rivoire also assesses the most recent document by the Congregation for the Doctrine for Divine Worship which says that bishop’s orders forbidding Communion on the tongue should be complied with. He shows how such an order cannot legally apply to the traditional Latin Mass, and how, regarding the Novus Ordo, the status of the Congregation’s letter is not clear, and might even constitute an “abuse of law.”

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

In the last section of the book, which I was honored to author, the recent history of Communion in the hand was told in the context of ever-weakening faith in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist, dwindling religious practice and the risks associated with the new practice. In particular, I noted the increasingly casual way in which Catholics receive the Host, failing to go to Confession when necessary, and showing no particular reverence for Our Lord and our King — much less than they would show to an immediate superior or the president of a secular state. I also tried to underscore the intimidation tactics used against Catholics who resisted against Communion in the hand. My own father, forty years ago in France, was kicked in the thighs by a priest when he knelt down to receive the Host: the priest wanted to force him to get up and take Communion in the hand.

I also underscored the risks associated with Communion in the hand which makes access to consecrated Hosts so much easier for Satanists and their “black masses,” as well as plain disdain for the reality of the greatest Sacrament given to us by Our Lord, at a time when so many Catholics do not know the tenets of their own faith: “If ever there was a period in time when Communion in the hand should not have been implemented, it is now.”

***

Here below is the full text of Cardinal Burke’s Foreword to the Bref examen critique de la Communion sur la main (Editions Contretemps, 2021, 170 pages):

Foreword

The day of First Holy Communion is the most important day in the life of a Catholic. There is nothing greater in the Christian life than to receive the Sacred Host, the Heavenly Bread which is the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing is more important in the life of a Catholic than the Holy Eucharist. Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, teaches us: “[T]he common spiritual good of the whole Church is contained substantially in the sacrament itself of the Eucharist.” [1] The reception of First Holy Communion and every reception of Holy Communion thereafter is our fullest and most perfect encounter with Our Lord during the days of our earthly pilgrimage and the foretaste of the destiny of the pilgrimage, our eternal home with God — Father, Son and Holy Spirit — in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Given the reality of Holy Communion and its significance for us, the Church has rightly disciplined very carefully the manner of receiving the Sacrament of Sacraments, “the source and the summit of all preaching of the Gospel” and the action by which Christ fully joins us to His Mystical Body. [2] For centuries, the normal manner of receiving Holy Communion was at the Communion Rail, which divided the sanctuary of the Church — in which the Eucharistic Sacrifice is accomplished — from the rest of the Church. The communicant, if possible, was to kneel with his hands placed under a white cloth which covered the length of the Communion Rail. He then received the Sacred Host directly on his tongue from the hands of the priest, acting in the person of Christ by virtue of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. The disposition of the communicant — kneeling at the entrance to the sanctuary, with hands covered, so that the Sacred Host would be placed directly into his mouth by the priest who remained in the sanctuary, expressed in a beautiful way the wonder of Holy Communion.

I recall vividly my own preparation for First Holy Communion in 1956. My parents at home, the priests of my home parish, and the Benedictine Sisters who taught me in the parish school all assisted me, instructing me about the great mystery of the Holy Eucharist, the Mystery of Faith, and the reverence with which one must approach so great a gift of divine love. That catechesis continues to serve me well to this day. Although on May 13, 2021, it will be 65 years since my First Holy Communion, the wonder of that day has ever continued and increased. Indeed, I realize more and more that my entire spiritual good is contained in the Holy Eucharist.

In May of 1969, the Roman Pontiff, through the then Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, gave permission for the reception of Holy Communion in the hand, according to the judgment of the Conference of Bishops, in addition to the centuries-old practice of receiving Holy Communion on the tongue. [3] While, on the one hand, the Instruction acknowledged that it was prompted by an abuse, [4] it also made clear that the plurisecular tradition of receiving Holy Communion on the tongue was to be preserved and indeed preferred. [5] While the Instruction makes it possible for the Conference of Bishops to permit reception of Holy Communion in the hand, it unequivocally declares: “[T]he Supreme Pontiff has decided that the long-received manner of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful is not to be changed.” [6]

Sadly, in some places, the result of the accommodation of reception of Holy Communion in the hand contradicts completely the stated intention of the Instruction. In those places, reception of communion in the hand is seen as equivalent to receiving Holy Communion on the tongue and as even preferable to it. The prohibition of reception of Holy Communion on the tongue, unimaginable in the immemorial tradition of liturgical discipline but now universally mandated by many Bishops in response to the current international health crisis, is a clear indication of how the accommodation granted by the Instruction has led to its implementation in contradiction of its clearly stated intention, the intention of the Roman Pontiff who authorized it by his special mandate.

Given the sanctity of the Holy Eucharist and its fundamental and supreme importance in the life of every Catholic, it behooves us to study once again the question of the most reverent manner to receive Holy Communion and, in particular, to examine the practice of receiving the Sacred Host in the hand. For that reason, it pleases me very much to commend Bref examen critique de la Communion dans la main, which brings together essays by experts who examine the historical origin of the practice, its doctrinal and juridical aspects, and the actual experience of the practice over the past five decades. While the attentive study of the text helps us to understand how the practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand has come about in our time, it also makes evident the profound reasons for the Church’s clear and constant preference of reception of Holy Communion on the tongue.

In thanking the authors and editors of Bref examen critique de la Communion dans la main, I pray that their labors may strengthen for many the knowledge and love of the Most Blessed Sacrament. Through the renewed and strengthened knowledge and love of the Holy Eucharist, may the practice of reception of Holy Communion give strong witness to the reality of the Most Blessed Sacrament: Christ, God the Son Incarnate, present — Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity — in our midst to be the spiritual food by which our minds and hearts are filled with divine grace for our earthly pilgrimage, and we anticipate the destiny of our pilgrimage, eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven. In the presence of the Most Blessed Sacrament, before the Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ, may we ever pray in the words of Saint Thomas Aquinas for the Feast of Corpus Christi: “O sacred banquet, in which Christ is received, the memory of His Passion is renewed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.” [7]

Raymond Leo Cardinal BURKE

19 March 2021 — Feast of Saint Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary

[1] “[B]onum commune spirituale totius Ecclesiae continetur substantialiter in ipso Eucharistiae sacramento.” Summa Theologiae, III, q. 65, art. 3, ad 1. English translation: St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Complete English Edition in Five Volumes, tr. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1981), p. 2372.

[2] “… fons et culmen totius evangelizationis.” Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum II, Decretum Presbyterorum Ordinis, “De Presbyterorum ministerio et vita,” 7 Decembris 1965, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 58 (1966), 997, n. 5. English version: Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, new rev. ed. (Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Company, 1992), p. 871, no. 5.

[3] Cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Cultu Divino, Instructio Memoriale Domini celebrans, “De modo Sanctam Communionem ministrandi,” 29 Maii 1969, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 61 (1969), 541-547. [Memoriale Domini celebrans].

[4] Memoriale Domini celebrans, p. 542.

[5] Memoriale Domini celebrans, pp. 542-543.

[6] “… Summo Pontifici non est visum modum iamdiu receptum sacrae Communionis fidelibus ministrandae immutare.” Memoriale Domini celebrans, p. 545. English translation: James I. O’Connor, The Canon Law Digest, Vol. VII (Chicago, IL: Canon Law Digest, 1975), p. 656.

[7] “O sacrum convivium, in quo Christus sumitur: recolitur memoria passionis eius, mens impletur gratia, et futurae gloriae nobis pignus datur.” Enchiridion Indulgentiarum. Normae et Concessiones, ed. 4ª (Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1999), p. 55. English translation: Manual of Indulgences. Norms and Grants, tr. USCCB Secretariat for the Liturgy, 4ª ed (Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2006), p. 49.

***

Here below is LifeSiteNews’ translation of Cardinal Sarah’s letter commending the Bref examen critique de la Communion dans la main:

I thank you for giving me the book: Bref examen de la Communion dans la main … I read it carefully, because the authors address a question that is both essential and painful, about which I have spoken out on various occasions, including in a conference addressed to the members of Sacra Liturgia, in Milan, on June 6, 2017. In particular, I said: “On the subject of communion in the hand, I humbly suggest that this question be, in all serenity and honesty, examined by the bishops, individually or in a collegial manner. We know that the rejection or abandonment of the experience and values of the past has not always produced good fruit in many of our contemporaries. It seems to me that communion in the hand is a practice that should be strongly discouraged, based on previous provisions of the Church. To abandon the Church’s heritage without discernment or out of a purely ideological attitude can cause great spiritual damage in souls. Communion in the hand involves great dangers of profanation and cases of regrettable lack of respect for the Holy Eucharist. Above all, there is the risk of exposing the Body of Christ to sacrilege.”

As you can see, the concerns of the authors of this book are similar to mine. It is a pity that a priest who usually celebrates according to the ordinary form of the Roman Rite was not associated with the composition of this book, even if some of them were quoted, such as Father Christophe Kruijen. Above all, I would like to emphasize the quality of the work accomplished: the three priests study this question from complementary angles: historical (Canon de Guillebon), liturgical (Abbé Barthe) and canonical (Father Rivoire). Their contributions are very valuable and irrefutable: for each of them, it is a precise, complete, well-documented work, with citations of sources in the notes. The conclusion of Jeanne Smits, in which she cites an impressive list of deplorable facts, might seem, at first glance, rather polemical, and yet she, speaking on behalf of many faithful, has the merit of showing the consequences at the universal level of this deleterious practice. In conclusion, I think that this book will be an important element in the reflection that I wish to make on this subject in view of a return to the traditional practice of communion on the lips, about which I said in this same conference in Milan: “Saint Mother Teresa of Calcutta received Jesus … in her mouth, like a little child who humbly allows himself to be fed by his God.” She was pained and saddened to see Christians receiving Holy Communion in their hands. Here are her own words: “Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.” When asked, “What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?” without pausing she gave this same reply. I wish you now a happy and holy Easter, praying for the intentions of your Community. I entrust you to the Blessed Virgin Mary and to St. Joseph, Guardian of the Holy Family and Protector of the Universal Church, in this year that is dedicated to him.

May God bless you!

Be assured of my most cordial sentiments in Corde Christi.

Robert Card. Sarah


  bref examen critique de la communion dans la main, communion in the hand, communion no the tongue, raymond burke, robert sarah