All articles from April 27, 2021


News

Opinion

Blogs

Episodes

  • Nothing is published in Episodes on April 27, 2021.

Video

  • Nothing is published in Video on April 27, 2021.

The Pulse

  • Nothing is published in The Pulse on April 27, 2021.

News

Retired hockey player: ‘God always wins’ despite politicians taking Him ‘out of the equation’ in dealing with COVID

Former NHL standout Theoren 'Theo' Fleury says that 'seeing what they are doing to the churches is absolutely the biggest disgrace.'
Tue Apr 27, 2021 - 9:18 pm EST
Featured Image
Shutterstock
Anthony Murdoch
By Anthony Murdoch

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

CALGARY, Alberta, April 27, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – A retired Canadian National Hockey League player says he is “not afraid of being canceled” for speaking out against COVID-19 restrictions, adding that lockdown mismanagement and rising debt are a direct result of governments taking God “out of the equation.” 

“And when you take God out the equation, what do you think happens? This ... this is what happens,” Theoren “Theo” Fleury, who was raised Catholic, said in an interview with Rebel News that aired late last week.

“I also do know that God wins, and I would say, I’ve prayed more than at any point in my entire life, I’ve leaned on my faith to get through this very difficult year. Seeing what they are doing to the churches is absolutely the biggest disgrace,” Fleury said. 

Fleury’s home life was chaotic. In his autobiography Playing with Fire, he attributed his local church priest as being one of his life’s most early positive influences. Unfortunately, the priest died of a heart attack, which left a huge void in his life in terms of having a positive adult to look up to.  

Fleury, who is now 52 years old, was just a rising young star when he won his first (and only) Stanley Cup with the Calgary Flames in 1989. He spent many years with the Flames and played for a variety of other NHL teams before retiring from hockey in 2009.  
Besides winning the Stanley Cup with the Flames, Fleury’s other career highlight came in 2002, when he along with his Canada teammates took home the Olympic gold medal in men’s hockey. 

Fleury said that as someone who has dealt with depression and severe addiction, he is all too aware of the mental health toll COVID-19 lockdowns have caused.

“The catalyst that brings us into the mental health space and the addiction space is trauma, right, and COVID-19 is the most traumatic event since World War II. And so, seeing that the majority of the population already has trauma, we've just added another layer of trauma on top of that,” Fleury said.

“And so that's why we've seen a spike in mental illness. That's why we've seen a spike in suicides and whatnot. And so, you know, we've got more opioid overdoses and deaths and suicides.”

Fleury battled addictions for years and has been sober since 2005. In his autobiography, he revealed that he was sexually assaulted by his youth hockey coach, Graham James, and for years suffered from the trauma associated with the abuse. 

He was successful in filing a criminal complaint against James, who later pleaded guilty to sexual assault charges. 

'I just tell them, you know, get on your hands and knees and pray' 

— 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

Fleury now resides in Calgary and works as a motivational speaker.  He also helps many with addictions, as well as those who have suffered sexual abuse. 

Fleury said the “government knows” COVID-19 lockdown measures add to people’s isolation and depression, which then can lead to severe trauma. He also said this is “planned” and not a “coincidence.” 

“People are isolated, there's no such thing as community anymore, you know, the arenas are shut down, the churches are shut down, all those things. And that's where we go, we get, you know, our daily dose of community and connection and relationship and all those things. And so, you know, the government is very aware that the whole entire populace of the world is traumatized,” Fleury said. 

“And so, let's throw another traumatic event at them and, you know, and here we are, you know, and in complete chaos and insanity. And, you know, I don't think that this is a coincidence. I really believe that this is well thought out and well planned, and the plan is being carried out.” 

Fleury said he has had “thousands of people” reach out to him with stories of how they have been having a hard time due to COVID-19 lockdowns.

“You know, thousands of people who have reached out to me who are going through difficult times. And, you know, I just tell them, you know, get on your hands and knees and pray and, you know, try to find, you know, some help, you know, through this whole thing,” Fleury said.

It’s all 'ideological lunacy' 

Fleury has been vocal on social media in his opposition to COVID-19 lockdowns and climate change hysteria, and has blasted Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other politicians for a variety of reasons, notably for them promoting “global” agendas. 
In his interview, Fleury said that when it comes to seemingly coordinated COVID-19 lockdowns, he believes it is connected to some kind of world agenda. 

“You know, I you know, I've heard I've heard this story, I've read about this story and, you know, I said to myself, you know, there's, there's no way that this could possibly happen in my lifetime," Fleury said. "Well, here we are in the middle of it. And yah, when people can't provide for their families, when people, you know, have trouble buying food and all that stuff, and let's face it, we live in Canada, you know, this isn't some third world country where we have no resources.”

“It's all ideological lunacy, this has been tried 24 times in the history of this planet and 24 times it's failed. And 100 hundred million people have died because of this ideology.” 

Fleury said that the politicians in charge have not led with any “compassion,” bringing up again his opinion that its all part of an agenda.

“You know, people will follow you to the ends of the earth. And there's not one politician in Canada who has shown any compassion or any empathy or nothing. It's about agenda, it's about, its all about, you know, agenda and this hidden plan that, you know, is being played up,” said Fleury.

"You can't fix stupid, that's the bottom line. You know, there are no critical thinkers left because they've indoctrinated our kids in the schools. And this generation are now adults and they've been indoctrinated to, you know, to believe everything that they're being told." 

Fleury said of Trudeau: 'He is so, so phony' and has 'no soul' 

Fleury said Trudeau has shown no “compassion” and is a “phony” leader who is leading Canada as a “traumatized” man.

“Look at, you know, Trudeau's childhood, Trudeau's adolescence, all those things. You know, the guy's traumatized. Trudeau’s traumatized. And he's leading this country as a traumatized human being,” said Fleury. 

“You know, his eyes are black, which means he's got no soul … he's got no compassion, you know, and, you know, he is so, so phony. It's unbelievable, you know, and because I'm a great judge of character, you know, I had to be in order to survive my life, you know? And, you know, he's not one (a leader).” 

Fleury said that, ultimately, Trudeau and other politicians have promoted lockdowns to “buy votes.”

“It's all about buying votes for the next election. That's it. You know, and not a lot of people, you know, are able to think, you know, on, on a different level, you know, but, you know, when you're traumatized, which the majority of the planet is, you know, then you just going to fall in place because all you're all you're doing is surviving day to day, you know,” Fleury said. 


  canada, covid-19 lockdowns, justin trudeau, mental health, national hockey league, theoren 'theo' fleury

News

WATCH: 100,000 + march in UK for freedom from COVID lockdowns, vaccine passports, medical tyranny

United for Freedom participants urged citizens to ‘resist the new normal.’
Tue Apr 27, 2021 - 8:40 pm EST
Featured Image
United for Freedom "Humanity on its feet" march in downtown London Oracle Films screenshot
Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug
By Doug Mainwaring

UPDATE, April 28, 2:44 p.m. EST: This article has been updated to reflect accounts of a far larger crowd size than initially reported by the mainstream media. 

LONDON, April 27, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Hundreds of thousands of people descended on downtown London to demand freedom from the U.K. government’s extreme COVID-19 restrictions.

Masked police officers looked on as the maskless “United for Freedom” marchers wound their way through the city on Saturday.  

Chanting “Freedom!” along a route that took them past Buckingham Palace to Hyde Park, hundreds of thousands of marchers carried signs saying “Freedom, from tyranny,” “No to vax passports,” and “Resist the new normal.” 

Image
Several commentators estimated that over 100,000 people marched through the streets of London. SOURCE: Screenshot

Despite the pro-lockdown mainstream media estimating “thousands,” or “10,000” marchers were there, several commentators and journalists present at the protest declared that there were well over 100,000 people present. They were supported by video clips showing the significance of the crowd size, and Daily Expose even described the event as “possibly the largest protest the United Kingdom has ever seen.”

Other signs read, “Freedom over fear; fight for your rights,” “Medical Freedom,” and “No amount of manipulation is a match for a mother’s intuition.” 

One man wore a shirt bearing the message, “Choose life, not fear.”

The beautiful six-minute video, titled “Humanity on its feet,” was produced by Oracle Films, “professional filmmakers that have joined the fight for open debate and freedom of information in the face of global government encroachment and big-tech censorship.”


  lockdowns, london, marchers, masks, protests, united for freedom, united kingdom

News

Montana passes ban on males in female sports, governor has yet to sign

The Save Women's Sports Act awaits the approval of Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte, who has not disclosed where he stands on the bill.
Tue Apr 27, 2021 - 7:50 pm EST
Featured Image
Shutterstock
Raymond Wolfe Follow
By

CONTACT GOVERNOR GIANFORTE: Sign HB 112! Click to contact your Governor Gianforte now.

April 27, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Montana is poised to become the latest state to approve new measures to protect women’s and girls’ sports. 

Last week, the Montana House and Senate passed a bill to ban males from competing against female athletes, sending the legislation to the desk of Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte.

House Bill 112, or the Save Women’s Sports Act, stipulates that any sports team or athletic association sponsored by Montana public schools or higher education institutions be designated based on biological sex. It expressly requires that “athletic teams or sports designated for females, women, or girls may not be open to students of the male sex.”

HB 112 cites inherent differences between men and women that result in male athletes having “denser, stronger bones, tendons, and ligaments,” “larger hearts,” and “greater lung volume.” Sex-specific teams “promote sex equality,” the bill states, by allowing women and girls to demonstrate athletic abilities equally and access opportunities like college scholarships.

Gov. Gianforte has yet to announce whether he intends to sign the Save Women’s Sports Act.

“Science definitely establishes that sex is determined at birth and allowing males to compete as females will destroy female sports,” Republican Rep. John Fuller, who introduced HB 112, said, adding that the bill is “designed to protect the great societal gains accomplished by the passage of Title IX.”

In recent years, gender-confused males competing against female athletes have severely injured opponents, deprived them of athletic opportunities, and repeatedly taken championship titles thanks to immutable, biological advantages. Men “transitioning” to a feminized appearance still significantly outperform women in physical contests after more than 24 months of cross-sex hormones, a peer-reviewed study published earlier this year found.

The Biden regime nevertheless promulgated an executive order on Inauguration Day suggesting that sex-based sports teams for children constitute illegal “discrimination.” The NCAA likewise has threatened to retaliate against states that uphold biological standards in sports and has pledged to “closely monitor” bills like the Save Women’s Sports Act. 

HB 112 explicitly prohibits government entities and athletic associations from taking adverse actions against Montana schools for separating athletes by sex. 

Today, LifeSiteNews launched a campaign in support of the Save Women’s Sports Act. “This legislation’s reasoning is rooted in scientific reality, and it goes without saying that the right of young women to compete on an even playing field must be protected against such outright attacks from our federal government,” LifeSite’s campaign statement reads.

“Individual states are our last line of defense against the left’s attack on female athletes and biology,” it adds. “Let’s help Montana put Joe Biden on notice that his radical agenda will not be tolerated!”

Gov. Gianforte’s approval of HB 112 would make Montana the seventh state to enact restrictions on males in women’s and girls’ sports this year. The majority of Americans, including three-quarters of Republicans, support legislation to protect sex-specific athletics, according to recent polling.

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


  female athletes, greg gianforte, male athletes, montana, save women's sports act, women's sports

News

Major vaccine ‘fact-checker’ funded by group headed by former CDC director with $1.9B in J&J stock

U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie pointed out that a link between FACTCHECK.org’s program and the CDC's ties to vaccine companies raises further questions.
Tue Apr 27, 2021 - 7:05 pm EST
Featured Image
Shutterstock
Emily Mangiaracina Emily Mangiaracina Follow
By

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

April 27, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A U.S. congressman has highlighted the fact that a Facebook-partnered website’s COVID-19/Vaccination “fact-checking” project is funded by a group that holds $1.9 billion in Johnson & Johnson stock and is headed by the former director of the Centers for Disease Control.

U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky tweeted Saturday, “NOTHING TO SEE HERE … Former director of CDC is now CEO of the foundation that funds FACTCHECK.org’s vaccine fact checking program. Roughly 15% of said foundation’s assets are J&J stock.”

“Bless your heart if you think factcheck.org is an unbiased source of vaccine information,” he continued.

Massie attached a screenshot from Factcheck.org in which the site explains that its SciCheck “COVID-19/Vaccination Project is made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,” which it reveals is worth $53,501.

SciCheck is a section of the FactCheck website that it says “focuses exclusively on false and misleading scientific claims that are made by partisans to influence public policy.” 

SciCheck has now become wholly devoted to “debunking” criticism of vaccines, masks, and other COVID-19 related concerns, attempting, for example, to refute Tucker Carlson’s questioning of the effectiveness of the vaccines.

“Vaccines benefit those who have had COVID-19, contrary to viral posts,” is the title of another recent SciCheck article.

The CEO and president of the group that funds the SciCheck arm of the FactCheck.org site, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), is Richard E. Besser, who has led RWJF since April 2017. His bio on the RWJF website, which Massie also screenshotted, explains that “Besser is the former acting director for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

— 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

Besser’s bio further explains that before joining ABC News in 2009, where he was the chief health and medical director, he worked as director of the Coordinating Office for Terrorism Preparedness and Emergency Response at the CDC,” and “He also served as acting director of the CDC from January to June 2009, during which time he led the CDC's response to the H1N1 influenza pandemic.”

The CDC, which proclaims that it “works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats,” has been frequently reproved for conflicts of interest and unethical practices that critics claim compromise its mission of promoting public health. 

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) shared an editorial last year on “Bias and Disturbing Conflicts of Interest” at the CDC, and noted, “In 2016 a group of more than a dozen senior scientists at the CDC lodged an ethics complaint alleging that that the CDC was being influenced ‘by corporate and political interests in ways that shortchange taxpayers.’ They noted ‘the pervasive nature of unethical practices throughout all levels at the CDC,’” AAPS wrote.

The author of the editorial, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Lawrence R. Huntoon, M.D., Ph.D., concluded, “The CDC has a long history of bias and troubling conflicts of interest. This history calls into question the scientific validity of recommendations made by the CDC.”

Huntoon noted, “In 1983, the CDC became authorized to accept 'gifts' from industry and other private parties,” and that the creation of the non-profit CDC Foundation in 1992 “greatly expanded the CDC’s ability to accept private funding.” 

“As donations to the CDC Foundation started pouring in, the door to conflicts of interest and corruption was opened wide. The CDC accepts millions of dollars in 'conditional funding' from entities, including pharmaceutical corporations. This funding is 'earmarked for specific projects,'” Huntoon continued.

As an example of one such conflict of interest, Huntoon recounted how the CDC Foundation “accepted conditional funding” from the pharmaceutical and diagnostics company Roche “for the Take 3 flu campaign.” The CDC thereafter cited a study sponsored by Roche in support of its recommendation of influenza antiviral drugs (e.g. oseltamivir), claiming the study was independent. However, “All four authors had financial ties to Roche, Genentech, or Gilead (the first two sell oseltamivir and Gilead holds the patent),” Huntoon explained.

Robert Kennedy Jr. has also blasted the CDC for corruption. “The CDC is actually a vaccine company,” he told RT America in 2020. 
“The CDC has a total budget of about $11 billion a year, and $5 billion of that buying vaccines from those four companies making sweetheart deals. And then they distribute those vaccines to the American public,” Kennedy said.

“The CDC also owns patents on many of the vaccines. In fact across the HHS, which is the mother agency (of) FDA, CDC and NIH, which all regulate vaccines, different parts of the vaccine industry are all parts of HHS, and those agencies are allowed to hold patents on the vaccines that their scientists work on, and then collect royalties.”

“And in fact, officials in those agencies, who worked on the vaccines, can also own part of the patent and collect royalties of up to $150,000 a year. So every bottle of Gardasil that is sold, HHS is making money on it. They make tens of millions of dollars a year. 

“And these are zero liability products. No matter how toxic the ingredient, no matter how grievous your injury no matter how negligent the company, you can’t sue them. They can do anything they want with a vaccine and you can’t do anything about it,” Kennedy continued.

Interestingly, while Factcheck.org has directly denied Rep. Massie’s accusation of bias in the article, “SciCheck and our Commitment to Transparency,” it ignores the possibility of bias stemming from Besser’s former role at the CDC. 

In fact, far from attempting to extricate themselves from CDC interests, they treat it as an unquestionably reliable source for their fact checking work, admitting this in the same article: “In researching claims, we rely on primary sources of information, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration and National Academy of Sciences,” they explain.

“For SciCheck articles, for example, that might mean reviewing the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports and its data on COVID-19 cases, deaths and vaccinations, as well as the FDA’s briefing document for each vaccine.”

FactCheck.org defended itself against Rep. Massie’s accusation of bias, saying, “Contrary to Massie’s suggestion, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation — as is the case with all of our funders — has no control over our editorial content. Period. Full stop.”

However, Massie nowhere says that RWJF has “control” over FactCheck.org’s editorial content. It is commonly acknowledged that outside parties can exercise influence upon an organization in a more indirect manner, such as through quid pro quo exchanges.

As Rep. Massie pointed out, FactCheck.org has also admitted in that same article that their vaccine fact-checking donor, RWJF, “reported that, as of Dec. 31, 2019, it had nearly $12 billion in total assets, including $1.9 billion in Johnson & Johnson stock.” They even share the fact that RWJF “was founded by the late Robert Wood Johnson II, who was president of Johnson & Johnson from 1932 to 1963.”

It is notable that Factcheck.org touts itself as an unbiased group dedicated to “the facts.” They describe themselves as a  “nonpartisan, nonprofit ‘consumer advocate’ for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.” 

“We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players,” the site continues. 

However, a cursory review of their website reveals that aside from COVID-19 related concerns, their articles overwhelmingly defend liberal partisan policies, and attempt to undercut conservative positions: “Capitol Protestors Were Armed With a Variety of Weapons,” “Bogus Claims About Biden’s Treatment of Homeless Veterans,” and “MyPillow CEO’s Video Rehashes Debunked Election Fraud Claims,” are a few articles that showcase a cross-section of the site’s content.

It is also noteworthy that FactCheck.org partnered with Facebook “shortly after the 2016” allegedly in order to “debunk hoaxes and malicious falsehoods posted on the social media site,” according to the University of Pennsylvania Almanac.


  association of american physicians and surgeons, cdc, centers for disease control, covid-19 vaccine, factcheck.org, johnson & johnson, journal of american physicians and surgeons, lawrence huntoon, thomas massie

News

Over 500 German priests vow to defy Church’s ban on same-sex couples’ blessings

A much-hyped blessing service for same-sex couples in Germany at more than 50 parishes is being planned for May 10.
Tue Apr 27, 2021 - 5:42 pm EST
Featured Image
Monument of Martin Luther in Wittenberg, Germany Shutterstock.com
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

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

April 27, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Hundreds of priests in Germany have vowed to defy the Vatican’s ban on same-sex blessings. A much-hyped blessing service for same-sex couples titled “Love wins, blessing service for lovers” is planned for May 10 with more than 50 Catholic parishes so far signing up to offer such a blessing.

Last month, openly homosexual German priest Bernd Mönkebüscher created a Facebook post to protest the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s March 15 declaration that the Church cannot bless same-sex relationships since God “does not and cannot bless sin.”

The Congregation stated that it is “not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex.”

Mönkebüscher called the Congregation’s teaching “outdated” in his declaration of protest created with the help of Burkhard Hose.

“In view of the refusal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to bless homosexual partnerships, we raise our voice and say: We will continue to accompany people who commit to a lasting partnership and bless their relationship,” the declaration of protest states.

“We do not refuse to celebrate a blessing. We do this in our responsibility as pastors who promise people at important moments in their lives the blessing that God alone gives. We respect and appreciate their love and, moreover, believe that God's blessing is with them. Theological arguments and insights have been sufficiently exchanged. We do not accept that an exclusionary and outdated sexual morality is carried out on the backs of people and undermines our work in pastoral care,” the declaration added.

Mönkebüscher told LifeSiteNews that his declaration has received the support of more than 2,500 individuals, 551 of whom are priests. The declaration has already been sent to the head of the German Bishops' Conference, Bishop Georg Bätzing.

Bishop Bätzing, in comments this week about the May 10 event, said that it would not be a “helpful sign and a way forward.”

— 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

“Of course, people with a homosexual orientation, including those living in a same-sex partnership, have a place in the Church. They are welcome to us. It is part of the pastoral ministry of the Church to do justice to all these people in the respective concrete situations on their path through life and to accompany them pastorally. In this context, however, I do not consider public actions, such as those planned for May 10, to be a helpful sign and a way forward. Blessing services have their own theological dignity and pastoral significance. They are not suitable as an instrument for ecclesial-political manifestations or acts of protest,” he told Dbk.de. 

Bätzing defended the bishops’ Synodal Path as the proper context for having a discussion about blessings for same-sex couples. 

“In Germany and in other parts of the universal Church, there have been discussions for some time about the way in which the Church's sexual morality, also regarding homosexuality, can be further developed with viable arguments — on the basis of fundamental truths of faith and morals, progressive theological reflection, and likewise in openness to more recent results of the human sciences and the life situations of people today. This also includes an appropriate discussion of the question of blessing services. In the present situation, the Synodal Path is a central place to discuss the topic of successful relationships in a comprehensive way,” he said. 

It is expected that many of the priests who supported the declaration of protest will be giving blessings to same-sex couples on May 10.

Bishop Franz-Josef Overbeck of Essen, who has called for the Church to reassess homosexuality, has stated that priests in his diocese who bless same-sex couples next month will face no canonical consequence.

Spanish Bishop José Ignacio Munilla Aguirre of San Sebastián reacted to news of the blessing event in Germany with a call to Catholics around the world to pray for the Church in Germany so that it be faithful to the Magisterium and not to fall into schism.

“I invite you to join a chain of prayer and fasting for the unity of the Church in Germany and throughout the world. Lord, grant us communion in fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church,” he tweeted April 14.

Cardinal Raymond Burke commented last month that defiance to the Church’s teaching against same-sex blessings shows that an “aggressive homosexual agenda” is dominating those who have been elevated as shepherds.

“The blowback is simply an expression of a worldliness, a mundanity, which has entered into the Church by which the aggressive homosexual agenda is now dominating even in certain ecclesial circles and even among certain bishops,” Cardinal Burke, who is the former head of the Vatican's highest court and one of the world’s foremost canon lawyers, told EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo in a March 25 interview.

Burke went on to say that shepherds who openly defy the decree should voluntarily “renounce” their office.

“The bishop, if he's pained by what's declared by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, then he must examine himself with regard to his own coherence with the Catholic faith. And if he is not holding to the Catholic faith, then he should renounce his office. He has to be relieved of his office as diocesan bishop, because this is simply unacceptable. It can’t be,” Burke said.

April 28, 2021 update: This report now includes comments from Bishop Georg Bätzing given to Dbk.de. 


  bernd mönkebüscher, blessing for gay couples, catholic, congregation for the doctrine of the faith cdf, franz-josef overbeck, germany, homosexuality, josé ignacio munilla aguirre

News

12 state attorneys general demand Facebook, Twitter crack down on vaccine ‘misinformation’

Given ‘anti-vaxxers’ reliance on your platforms, you are uniquely positioned to prevent the spread of misinformation about coronavirus vaccines that poses a direct threat to the health and safety of millions of Americans in our states and that will prolong our road to recovery.’
Tue Apr 27, 2021 - 4:39 pm EST
Featured Image
Activists opposed to a forced vaccine hold signs in front of the Massachusetts State House on August 30, 2020 in Boston, Massachusetts Photo by Scott Eisen / Getty Images
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

April 27, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — The attorneys general of twelve states have signed a joint letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, calling on the world’s top social networks to do more to suppress negative claims about COVID-19 vaccines.

“The people and groups spreading falsehoods and misleading Americans about the safety of coronavirus vaccines are threatening the health of our communities, slowing progress in getting our residents protected from the virus, and undermining economic recovery in our states,” declares the letter, spearheaded by Connecticut Attorney General William Tong and co-signed by his counterparts in Delaware, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Virginia.

Given “anti-vaxxers’ reliance on your platforms, you are uniquely positioned to prevent the spread of misinformation about coronavirus vaccines that poses a direct threat to the health and safety of millions of Americans in our states and that will prolong our road to recovery,” the law enforcement officials continue. But Facebook “has not taken sufficient action to identify violations and enforce these guidelines by removing and labelling misinformation and banning repeat offenders.”

Specifically, the attorneys general want Facebook and Twitter to “remove from all their platforms the accounts of prominent ‘anti-vaxxers’ who have repeatedly violated the companies’ terms of service”; “consistently apply misinformation labels and popups on Facebook pages and groups that discuss vaccines or COVID-19”; and to stop allowing so-called “anti-vaxxers” to “skirt its policy of removing misinformation that health experts have debunked, by failing to prevent them from using video and streaming tools like Facebook Live and sites like Bitchute, Rumble, and Brighteon to evade detection.”

Approximately 95.9 million Americans have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 so far, but hesitancy persists among much of the population. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found, for instance, that 73% of Americans say they are unwilling to take the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, use of which was temporarily paused due to concerns about blood clots.

While many officeholders and media figures blame online “misinformation” for lingering vaccine hesitancy, considerably less contemplation has been spent on how the government’s own actions contribute to mistrust, from public health officials’ contradictory guidances on every aspect of the pandemic (including masks, lockdowns, and social distancing) to mixed messaging about vaccinated people still potentially transmitting the virus to others.

In addition, COVID vaccine skeptics point to the fact that clinical trials for the currently-authorized COVID-19 vaccines were performed in less than a year, when such trials traditionally take a minimum of two to four years. One of the innovations of the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed was conducting various aspects of the development process concurrently rather than sequentially, but that does not fully account for the condensing of clinical trial phases — each of which can take anywhere from 1-3 years on its own — to just three months apiece. 

Vaccine defenders note that the number of deaths reported to have followed the COVID vaccines is an extremely small percentage of the overall vaccine recipients, and that being listed in the VAERS reporting system does not necessarily establish a causal link to the vaccine. But skeptics argue that leaders’ widespread preference for pressuring Americans into compliance and shutting down debate on the subject, as exemplified by the Tong letter, evidences a lack of interest in earning Americans’ confidence by getting to the bottom of those deaths. 

— 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

Apart from potential health risks, some of the COVID-19 vaccines carry ethical concerns for many, particularly religious and pro-life Americans, due to the use of cells derived from aborted babies in their creation and/or testing. To help pro-lifers make an informed decision, the Charlotte Lozier Institute has released a detailed breakdown of all the various COVID-19 vaccines in development and which ones used or did not use abortion-derived cells at any stage of the process.


  big tech, connecticut, coronavirus, covid-19, covid-19 vaccine, democrats, facebook, misinformation, twitter, william tong

News

Ontario Catholic school board won’t fly pride flag but will ‘raise awareness’ of pride month

'Although there will be no gay pride flag flown, the amended motion represents an even more stunning victory for gay supremacists who’ve hijacked the Catholic Board.'
Tue Apr 27, 2021 - 4:30 pm EST
Featured Image
Nicole Glass Photography / Shutterstock.com
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

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

BURLINGTON, Ontario, April 27, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – A Catholic school board in Ontario decided in an illegal meeting last night that it will not fly the gay pride flag from its Catholic schools. 

Instead, Halton Catholic District School Board (HCDSB) trustees decided 7-3 with one abstention that all school staff must undergo “mandatory training” about LGBT students, schools must “raise awareness around Pride month,” and schools must post pro-LGBT signage “to ensure that students in the 2SLGBT community are supported throughout the entire school year.”

Jack Fonseca of Canada’s pro-life and pro-family organization Campaign Life Coalition called the amended motion that was ultimately adopted a “stunning victory” for LGBT activists seeking to control Catholic schools.

“Although there will be no gay pride flag flown, the amended motion represents an even more stunning victory for LGBT activists who’ve hijacked the Catholic Board,” he told LifeSiteNews. 

“At the HCDSB, Jesus Christ has been knocked off His throne. In His place, homosexual sin will now be celebrated. The Word of God in the Holy Bible will no longer be exalted. Instead, sodomy and all the permutations of homosexual and transgender lifestyles will be lifted high, adored and glorified in the name of the false gospels of ‘equity’ and ‘inclusion,’” Fonseca added.

Trustee Brenda Agnew’s original motion, presented to the board on April 6, called for the board’s Director of Education Pat Daly to “direct all HCDSB schools including the Catholic Education Centre to fly the Pride flag during the month of June starting with 2021.”

— 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

A vote on the motion was delayed last week due to the allotted time for the board meeting being consumed by delegations for and against the motion. An emergency meeting, bypassing the usual procedures and allegedly violating the bylaws for such meetings, was called last night by HCDSB Chair Patrick Murphy. The meeting was filled with drama concerning trustees challenging procedures.

The meeting began with a move from some trustees to have the meeting canceled due to what one trustee called its “illegal” nature.

When it came time to deal with Agnew’s motion to fly the pride flag, trustee Janet O’Hearn Czarnota proposed an amendment that struck out the portion dealing with flying the pride flag and replaced it with three new action items. These included the following:

  • That "mandatory training” be provided for all HCDSB senior staff, principals, teachers, chaplains, etc. on “Catholic Social Teaching on loving and accompanying students who identify as 2SLGBTQ+.”

  • That HCDSB staff must “raise awareness around Pride month, utilizing the guidelines the Institute for Catholic Education (I.C.E) has provided to each board through the Directors of Education.” The May 2020 ICE document referenced provides messaging on how Catholic boards can raise pride month awareness. ICE gives the following example: "June is the month traditionally devoted to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which for Catholics is a sign and symbol of God’s boundless and passionate love for all humanity. The month of June is also designated as PRIDE month in (the region of … the city of … many communities across Ontario …). This month, and each and every month, our Catholic schools are committed to nurturing safe and inclusive learning environments where every student and every member of the community is welcomed, valued, and respected.”

  • That HCDSB schools be mandated to “post safe space signage, to ensure that students in the 2SLGBT community are supported throughout the entire school year.”

The remainder of the almost four-hour meeting was taken up by unsuccessful proposals to amend Czarnota’s amendment.

Some highlights of the drama included Trustee Tim O’Brien’s failed attempt to strike out Czarnota’s amendment and his two failed attempts to have the motion indefinitely postponed.

Another dramatic moment happened when Trustee Vincent Iantomasi made the case for flying only the Canadian flag at Catholic schools. “The national flag is an unmistakable symbol of unity of inconclusiveness for all Canadians no matter their sexual orientation race or color. I believe in upholding the dignity of the Canadian flag which means it should always be flown on its own,” he said. Trustee O’Brien later put forward an amendment to the main motion at hand that “only the Canadian flag will fly at any HCDSB schools as well as the Catholic Education Center. His proposal did not move forward, however, when no one seconded it.

In the end, seven trustees voted in favor of the amended motion, three opposed, and one abstained.

Voting in favor

  • Janet O’Hearn-Czarnota, Halton Hills Trustee

  • Brenda Agnew, Burlington Trustee

  • Peter DeRosa, Oakville Trustee

  • Marvin Duarte, Vice-Chair of the Board

  • Tim O’Brien, Burlington Trustee

  • Nancy Guzzo, Oakville Trustee

  • Patrick Murphy, Chair of the Board, Milton Trustee

Opposed

  • Kirsten Kelly, Student Trustee

  • Vincent Iantomasi, Burlington Trustee

  • Helena Karabela, Oakville Trustee

Abstention

  • Nicholas Gubert, Student Trustee

Fonseca criticized the amended motion for creating “safe spaces” for students who identify as LGBT that will ultimately not be safe for Catholic students who believe what the Church teaches about the immorality of homosexual practices.

“The real purpose of the so-called ‘safe spaces’ for LGBT students is to make every classroom un-safe for Bible-believing Catholics,” he said.

“Likewise, LGBT activists are giving the name ‘safe space’ to classroom environments that will be hostile and dangerous for traditionalist Catholic students, teachers and staff. Any faithful Catholic believer who might be tempted to defend or explain the Church’s teachings on human sexuality will be publicly condemned and accused of bullying, bigotry and homo/transphobia.”

Fonseca said that inside such LGBT safe spaces, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and many passages from the Bible will be “banned and condemned as ‘hate.’”

“Every classroom in every school will be an unsafe space for the Word of God,” he said.

He also took issue with the “mandatory” LGBT training sessions for staff, principals and teachers.

“They will serve to pulverize any Christian resistance that may yet remain in anyone’s heart. Teachers who are already disaffected Catholics will become more fervent disciples of LGBT ideology. They will be trained to stamp out traditional Catholicism in the name of equity and inclusion,” he said. 

Fonseca said that the motion adopted last night is more evidence that the HCDSB is becoming less and less Catholic as it adopts “heretical and even apostate” positions that are contrary to the Catholic faith.

“I’m not sure what faithful Catholics are supposed to do now? Pull their children and homeschool/private school? That’s probably necessary in order to protect your children’s eternal salvation, which will now be at risk, every single day in a Catholic school. Children losing their Christian faith is a very real possibility now. But I don’t know what to say to the poor parents for whom homeschooling is not possible or for whom a private Christian school is unaffordable.”

“How do we move forward? For one, if the Halton Board is worth saving at all, every single one of the trustees who voted in favor of this needs to be replaced in the October 2022 municipal election. Then, a new slate of trustees will have to repeal this policy and invoke Section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867 in order to cast out all of the ‘equity and inclusive education curriculum’ that has infected the board and served as a false gospel to justify all this evil in our schools.”

May 4, 2021 update: This report now includes information that it was Trustee O’Brien who proposed to amend the motion that only the Canadian flag be flown at TCDSB schools and Catholic Education Center. 


  canada, catholic, gay pride flag, halton catholic district school board, homosexuality, institute for catholic education, ontario, pride flag, safe spaces

News

Anti-lockdown politicians join Ontario pastor in Sunday service violating COVID rules

‘Pastors should be known for having a backbone,’ Pastor Henry Hildebrandt said.
Tue Apr 27, 2021 - 4:19 pm EST
Featured Image
Pastor Henry Hildebrandt and several politicians Pastor Henry Hildebrandt / YouTube
Anthony Murdoch
By Anthony Murdoch

AYLMER, Ontario, April 27, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — In one of the largest church services to be held in Ontario during COVID-19 restrictions, an outspoken anti-lockdown pastor was joined by likeminded politicians this past Sunday in direct defiance of provincial health rules limiting church size.

The service was held at the Church of God located in Aylmer, Ontario, where Henry Hildebrandt is the pastor. He welcomed to his church Independent MP Derek Sloan and Independent Ontario MPP Randy Hillier, who both briefly spoke at the pulpit

“Usually I stick to political things, but on this morning I would like to say that I feel blessed and honored to be here, and I think we are honoring God, and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, by being here today,” said Sloan. “And there is no other foundation on which we can build than Jesus Christ our rock, our Lord and our Savior. God bless you, and God bless Canada.”

Hillier spoke next, saying that it brought tears to his eyes to see so many people gathered to worship God in defiance of COVID health rules.

“I don’t believe I’ve ever spoken at a pulpit before. It brings tears to my eyes to see so many people here … and it brings tears to one’s heart just to see the joy and the celebration and the fellowship,” said Hillier. “The last 13 months has been a dark time for many people … but there is [sic] silver linings in every darkness. And for me, one of those silver linings was just understanding how much, how important, and coming to a recognition that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior. Thank you very much.”

Hildebrandt thanked Sloan and Hillier for coming to the service to stand with them against the “common foe.”

“It doesn’t matter where they’re from, it doesn’t matter what they are, what their career is, but when we stand to together against this common foe, that makes us one family,” said Hildebrandt.

After the service on Sunday, Hillier tweeted that “over 400 people attended” the illegal church service. It is believed to be one of the largest religious gatherings held in the province, with an estimated 200 cars parked on the property.

Multiple people were charged for attending the Church of God Sunday service, according to a CBC report.

Aylmer police Chief Zvonko Horvat said cops were monitoring the church service, and “observed a large number of participants” in attendance. “This is probably one of the largest services that we’ve seen at the Church of God, and although we don’t have [an] exact count, it would be in excess of 100 for sure.”

Over the course of the last few months, several members of the Church of God have received fines for defying local health orders. Hildebrandt’s son Herbert was charged with obstruction of justice in December. 

Ontario Premier Doug Ford on April 16 introduced extended “stay at home orders” that 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, the Ford government walked back some of its coronavirus rules less than a day later. Playgrounds were allowed to stay open, and police had to have “reason to suspect that you are participating in an organized public event or social gathering” in order to question people. 

Hildebrandt, in a video message earlier this month, urged Ford to commit “political suicide” and remove all restrictions in place, which are some of the strictest in North America. 

I am very ashamed of many, many pastors in this land”

Hildebrandt’s sermon for the packed Sunday’s service was titled “civil disobedience” — or “nonviolent resistance,” as he put it. He called on pastors to stand up and have a “backbone” in fighting restrictions imposed on churches.

“I am very ashamed of many, many pastors in this land, very ashamed, because they are telling on themselves that they don’t know any more what civil disobedience is. They no longer know what nonviolent resistance means,” said Hildebrandt.

“The Book of Martyrs over a thousand pages recorded of civil disobedience. Why do they not know that? What is going on? Since when are they noodlebacks? Pastors should be known for having a backbone. Pastors, prophets are known throughout the Bible for people that would be willing to face the governors, the kings, and tell them you are that man.”

— 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

Hildebrandt said in his sermon that “civil disobedience” in reality is akin to is obeying God. “The point is, what does civil disobedience mean, you know what that really is? It’s obedience. Civil disobedience is obedience to God. That’s what that is,” said Hildebrandt.

Recently, Sloan and Hillier, along with former federal MP and leader of the People’s Party of Canada (PPC) Maxime Bernier, spoke about their opposition to lockdowns in a gathering in Ottawa.

The trio founded the non-partisan “End the Lockdowns National Caucus.” The group states it is “unified in pursuit of the truth, and resolved to ensure there is open, honest, and public debate regarding the COVID-19 government response.”


  coronavirus restrictions, derek sloan, henry hildebrandt, lockdowns, randy hillier

News

NIH to study allergic reactions to Pfizer, Moderna vaccines, but trial design raises questions

The study, announced one day after UK researchers identified polyethylene glycol (PEG) as the compound that triggered a woman’s allergic reaction to the Pfizer vaccine, specifically excludes individuals most likely to develop anaphylaxis, those with PEG allergies and autoimmune disorders.
Tue Apr 27, 2021 - 1:30 pm EST
Featured Image
Lyn Redwood, RN, MSN
By Lyn Redwood RN, MSN

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

April 27, 2021 (Children’s Health Defense) – More than four months into the rollout of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines in the U.S., health officials launched a clinical trial to study allergic reactions to the vaccines.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) announced the trial April 7, one day after researchers in the UK published a study confirming polyethylene glycol (PEG), a compound in the two vaccines, caused the anaphylactic reaction experienced by a woman who received the Pfizer vaccine.

However, a close look at the NIAID trial guidelines reveals the study excludes individuals most likely to experience allergic reactions to the vaccines — those with PEG allergies and autoimmune disorders.

UK study focused on 52-year-old woman

On April 6, researchers from the Department of Allergy and Oncology at Cambridge University Hospitals and the National Health Service Foundation Trust in Cambridge, UK, published a research letter in Clinical and Experimental Allergy. The letter — “Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Is a Cause of Anaphylaxis to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine”  — confirmed PEG as the culprit in the increasing number of reports of anaphylaxis following administration of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines.

The UK researchers conducted a series of skin prick allergy tests on a 52‐year‐old woman who required immediate medical attention after receiving the Pfizer COVID‐19 vaccine. The woman developed throat constriction and a cough followed by loss of consciousness.

The woman told researchers she previously experienced allergic reactions and hives to multiple products including shampoos, conditioners and shower gels containing PEG, and immediate burning of the mouth with toothpastes and mouthwash containing PEG. Prior to her vaccination she was not known to be allergic to PEG.

Under medical supervision, the woman underwent skin prick allergy testing to test the Pfizer vaccine excipients (inert compounds, PEG and polysorbate 80) and the AstraZeneca COVID‐19 vaccine). All skin prick testing for allergy was negative, with the exception of PEG.

The researchers reported that 12 minutes after PEG skin testing the patient developed a systemic reaction with widespread pruritus (itching), urticaria (hives) and coughing with throat constriction. Her blood pressure dropped resulting in the need for emergency treatment  with intramuscular adrenaline, intravenous chlorpheniramine and hydrocortisone. Her blood pressure then improved but coughing persisted, with a drop in oxygen saturation to 85%. This resulted in the need for a second dose of intramuscular adrenaline.

The investigators concluded for the first time that PEG allergy was responsible for a severe COVID-19 vaccine anaphylaxis. They recommended for patients with suspected or proven PEG allergy, mRNA vaccines containing PEG should be avoided, as should vaccines containing polysorbate 80 which is structurally similar to PEG and present in other COVID vaccine formulations.

The rapidly developed and currently distributed COVID-19 mRNA vaccines rely on a new nanoparticle-based carrier system that utilizes PEG. The lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) carrier system used in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines to facilitate the delivery of the mRNA into the cell is pegylated — meaning coated with PEG. Coating the lipid nanoparticle with PEG keeps it from being broken down in the body after injection.

U.S. study designed to exclude individuals most likely to experience anaphylactic reaction

The day following the Cambridge report, the NIAID announced its study to investigate allergic reactions to Moderna and Pfizer COVID vaccines. NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci, stated:

“The public understandably has been concerned about reports of rare, severe allergic reactions to the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines … The information gathered during this trial will help doctors advise people who are highly allergic or have a mast cell disorder about the risks and benefits of receiving these two vaccines. However, for most people, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination far outweigh the risks.”

The research is no small undertaking. The NIAID study will enroll 3,400 adults ages 18 to 69 years at up to 35 academic allergy research centers nationwide.

— 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 research is designed only to “estimate the proportions of systemic allergic reactions to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine in a High-Allergy/Mast Cell Disorder (HA/MCD) population, and if the risk in the HA/MCD is demonstrable, to determine whether the proportions are higher in the HA/MCD compared to a non-atopic population.”

There is no mention of trying to determine what specific ingredient in the mRNA vaccines is causing the allergic reactions, which are hardly rare. In the U.S., 24,841 cases of anaphylaxis following COVID vaccines were reported between Dec. 14, 2020, and April 16 to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Of those, 43% of the reports were attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine, 47% to Moderna and 10% to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (which contains polysorbate 80, but not PEG).

What is even more concerning about this study is that according to ClinicalTrials.gov, the study excludes the exact people who are likely to have allergic and anaphylactic reactions to the vaccines.

In other words, the study excludes anyone with: a history of a severe reaction to any component of the Pfizer or Moderna COVID vaccines; contact dermatitis with confirmed patch test reaction to PEG or Doxil® (a PEG-containing drug); autoimmune or other disorders requiring systemic immune modulators; and/or or acute urticaria (hives) within 28 days of being enrolled in the study.

It is important to note that in the clinical trials for these vaccines, the drug makers also excluded individuals with a history of severe allergic reactions, which is one explanation for why these adverse events were not recognized prior to Emergency Use Authorization.

Past studies highlight potential risk of PEG allergies

A landmark 2016 study published in Analytical Chemistry reported detectable and sometimes high levels of anti-PEG antibodies in approximately 72% of contemporary human samples and about 56% of historical specimens from the 1970s through the 1990s.

Of the 72% with PEG IgG antibodies, 8% had anti-PEG IgG antibodies greater than 500ng/ml., which is considered extremely elevated and a potential risk for severe allergic reactions. The authors of that study concluded that  “…sensitive detection and precise quantitation of anti-PEG Ab levels in a clinical setting will be essential to ensuring the safe use of PEGylated drugs in all target patient populations going forward.”

According to a 2017 study, “screening and monitoring the anti-PEG abs in blood before and during the treatment with PEG-containing drugs are of particular importance to provide safety and maintain therapeutic efficacy. The generation of anti-PEG abs can accelerate the clearance of PEGylated therapeutics, thus reducing therapeutic efficacy. Moreover, the existence of anti-PEG abs threatened patient safety with anaphylaxis and other reactions.”

In January 2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research issued a guidance document, “Immunogenicity Testing of Therapeutic Protein Products — Developing and Validating Assays for Anti-Drug Antibody (ADA) Detection: Guidance for Industry.”

The document cites research which specifically addresses the need to “adequately understand the risk of anti-drug antibodies … in products with modifications such as pegylation” and states that “information on immune responses observed during clinical trials, particularly the incidence of anti-drug antibodies induction or any implications of ADA responses affecting pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, or efficacy is crucial for any therapeutic protein product development program.”

It is mystifying how a never-before-utilized vaccine technology that contained a synthetic, nondegradable and increasingly controversial polymer (PEG) — known to be associated with adverse immune responses and the development of anti-drug antibodies — was allowed to bypass the bedrock of pharmaceutical development, which is immunological testing.

Children’s Health Defense warned FDA on PEG allergies last year

On Sept. 25, 2020, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Children’s Health Defense chairman and chief legal counsel, sent a letter to FDA Director Steven Hahn and Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biological Evaluation and Research, with a copy to Fauci, in which Kennedy voiced concerns about the use of PEG in the Moderna COVID vaccine trials, due to the development of anti-PEG antibodies and also because in recent years, PEG has come under increasing scrutiny.

In the letter to the FDA, Children’s Health Defense recommended additional steps be taken to reduce the risk of exposing trial participants to a substance to which up to 72% of the U.S. population may have pre-existing antibodies that could result in life-threatening allergic responses and decreased efficacy of the vaccine.

The recommended steps included:

  • Pre-screening trial participants for the presence and titers of anti-PEG antibodies
  • Using such data to characterize the potential association and impact of anti-PEG antibodies on adverse reactions in the trial
  • Identifying the level of anti-PEG antibody titers that preclude safe administration of the vaccine in the absence of secondary measures to address the anti-PEG immune response
  • Measuring the impact of the anti-PEG immune response on vaccine efficacy

Unfortunately, the FDA and National Institutes of Health (NIH) refused to consider our science- based recommendations which could have prevented the anaphylactic response to the vaccine experienced by the 52 year old woman and by thousands of others.

Instead of designing a study that excludes the most likely culprit causing these reactions, we call on FDA and NIH to instead do the studies recommended by their own guidance document, as Children’s Health Defense recommended in September 2020 and which should have been done as part of the clinical trials.

© April 27, 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. 


  anaphylaxis, moderna, national institute of allergy and infectious diseases, national institutes of health, pfizer, vaccine safety, vaccine side effects, vaccine studies

News

Tucker Carlson: ‘Science shows there is no reason to wear’ a mask

‘Well, it’s all a charade, maintained for reasons that have nothing to do with science or public health,’ he commented.
Tue Apr 27, 2021 - 1:23 pm EST
Featured Image
Tucker Carlson, April 26, 2021 Fox News screenshot
David McLoone David McLoone Follow
By

WASHINGTON, April 27, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Fox News host Tucker Carlson, famed for his incisive political analyses and biting commentaries, set his sights on COVID-inspired mask mandates yesterday, proclaiming “there is no scientific justification for any mask mandate, anywhere. It’s that simple.”

Mask mandates have been in effect across the U.S. for more than a year. During this time, numerous studies and peer-reviewed research papers from China, the U.S., and Japan, for instance, have all shown “that the odds of contracting the virus outdoors were about 19 times lower than the risk of contracting it inside,” Carlson noted.

Against the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence, all demonstrating the lack of a need to mask outdoors for safety from COVID-19, “a virus that 99 percent of us would have survived anyway,” as Carlson said, public officials, such as Vice President Kamala Harris, refuse to take the mask off while outside and “ostentatiously” keep an absurd physical distance.

“Why? Well, it’s all a charade, maintained for reasons that have nothing to do with science or public health,” Carlson said. The Fox News host compared the contradictory positions of “the science” on politically important matters, such as between normal social activities and the Black Lives Matter riots of summer 2020.

“You’re not allowed to get married or go to church or see your elderly parents as they die alone. But if you break things on behalf of the Democratic Party’s power structure, you can loot the dollar store and no one gets sick. That’s science,” he said, noting the blatant hypocrisy within the “public health community” who backed this position.

 

Still, many Americans walk the streets with face masks on, concerned about contracting the virus even in the fresh air. It is these people, Carlson said, who will shame unmasked individuals in public, but “they’re the aggressors.”

“The only people who wear masks voluntarily outside are zealots and neurotics,” Carlson pointed out. “These people making these demands don’t own America. They didn’t build America. They didn’t build anything — they can’t … Theirs is an evangelical faith. They will not stop until we make them stop. Fighting back is the only option. If we don’t resist, there’s no escape.”

An April 5 letter from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), obtained by pro-family organization Moms for Liberty, demonstrates the government’s own knowledge that masks don’t fully protect against COVID-19, even when doubled up, as suggested by Dr. Anthony Fauci in January.

According to the letter, “CDC is not aware of any randomized control trials that show masks or double masks or cloth face coverings are effective against COVID-19.” They attached links to some “experimental data” which claims to show that “masks block particles.”

Fauci, the chief medical advisor to the president — described by Carlson as “America’s leading purveyor of lockdown porn” — admitted that he thinks “it’s pretty common sense now that outdoor risk is really, really quite low.”

Even with Fauci’s recognition that face masks are not medically necessary, school districts still require children to wear them during the school day.

Carlson described one such district, in Colorado Springs, where a teacher showed the school board pictures of the grimy, dirt-ridden masks which her kindergarten students are forced to wear “just an hour into the school day.”

“I don’t need to tell you it is very unhealthy for a student to breathe through this mask,” teacher Stacy Adair told the board. In addition, physician Dr. Mary Harrow instructed the board on the dangers of mask use, including “low oxygen and high carbon dioxide levels, shortness of breath, toxicity, inflammation, increased stress hormones and sugar in the body.” Harrow also mentioned that masks “create fear, anxiety, headaches, compromised cognitive performance and other problems.”

Accordingly, Carlson explained that if you deprive children of fresh air, “you hurt them. You knew that, we all knew that, it is obvious.” Despite this common-sense conclusion, the school board simply ignored Adair and Harrow’s advice and began to enforce the mask rule more widely than before.

Holding no prisoners, Carlson issued strong advice to those who witness children being forced into face masks, saying “[y]our response when you see children wearing masks as they play should be no different than your response to seeing someone beat a child in Walmart: call the police immediately.”

“Contact child protective services. Keep calling until someone arrives. What you’re seeing is abuse. It’s child abuse, and you’re morally obligated to try to prevent it.”


  anthony fauci, mask mandates, tucker carlson

News

Pfizer vaccine may cause heart inflamation in people under 30, leaked study suggests

Israeli researchers found 62 cases of myocarditis, including two deaths, after recent vaccination with Pfizer. Fifty-five of the cases occurred in men — most between ages 18 and 30.
Tue Apr 27, 2021 - 12:30 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 27, 2021 (Children’s Health Defense) – Details leaked from an Israeli Health Ministry report have raised concerns among experts about a possible link between the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and myocarditis, according to The Times of Israel and other news outlets.

The preliminary report by a committee tasked with monitoring vaccine side effects found 62 cases of myocarditis, including two deaths, in people who received the Pfizer vaccine. Fifty-six of the cases occurred after the second dose of the vaccine, and 55 cases occurred in men — most between the ages of 18 and 30.

The two patients who died were reportedly healthy until receiving the vaccine and had no pre-existing conditions. One was a 22-year-old woman, the other was a 35-year-old man. The report noted that 5 million people in Israel have been vaccinated for COVID.

Myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle, can lead to cardiac arrhythmia and death.

Israel’s pandemic response coordinator, Nachman Ash, confirmed  “tens of incidents” of myocarditis occurred in vaccinated people, primarily after the second dose, but emphasized the health ministry had yet to draw any conclusions.

Determining a link, Ash said, would be difficult because myocarditis, a condition that often goes away without complications, can be caused by a variety of viruses, and a similar number of cases were reported in previous years, Reuters reported.

However, according to researchers at the National Organization for Rare Disorders, myocarditis can result from infections, but “more commonly the myocarditis is a result of the body’s immune reaction to the initial heart damage.”

Israeli researchers presented their findings to the Israeli Health Ministry Director-General, Pfizer, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Asked by Reuters about the review, Pfizer said it was in regular contact with the Israeli Health Ministry to review data on its vaccine and was aware of the Israeli observations of myocarditis that occurred predominantly in young men.

“Adverse events are regularly and thoroughly reviewed and we have not observed a higher rate of myocarditis than what would be expected in the general population,” the company said. “A causal link to the vaccine has not been established. There is no evidence at this time to conclude that myocarditis is a risk associated with the use of Pfizer/BNT COVID-19 vaccine.”

Pfizer said it had not detected similar findings in the rest of the world but would look deeper into the phenomenon.

However, a search for “myocarditis” in the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System revealed 62 cases of myocarditis, with 70% occurring in people between the ages of 17 and 44. Of the reported cases, 23 were reported after the Pfizer vaccine.

Researchers who conducted the Israeli study stressed further investigation was needed to confirm a link between myocarditis and the vaccine, but added they had significant concerns. They wrote:

“At this stage, according to preliminary findings, which need further corroboration, there is an impression of a higher number than expected, especially for ages up to the age of 30. A more advanced report on the subject will be prepared soon.”

“The impression is that there is an increase in the incidence of the phenomenon especially in young men on the scale of 1:20,000 after vaccination. It is likely that the onset of myocarditis is associated with receiving the vaccine (especially the second dose).”

— 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

Experts at the health ministry are reviewing the report and will make results public. However in an interview, Ash said the benefits of the vaccine are so great that “even if we do find a connection between some of the cases and the vaccine, it won’t be justified to take any action regarding the vaccine.”

Past research suggests mRNA vaccines can cause same symptoms as COVID

According to Lyn Redwood, RN, MSN, and president emerita of Children’s Health Defense, “It is not surprising that we are seeing the same immune response resulting in myocarditis from the vaccines’ spike protein as we see in the actual infection.”

Redwood explained that mRNA vaccines work by incorporating the genetic blueprint for the key spike protein on the virus surface into a formula that — when injected into humans — instructs our own cells to make the spike protein.

“The problem with this approach is that the spike protein alone — which the mRNA vaccines instruct the body to make — has been implicated as a key cause of cardiac injury and death in people with COVID-19,” Redwood said.

According to Redwood, based on research conducted to date, it is very likely that some recipients of the spike protein mRNA vaccines will experience the same symptoms and injuries associated with the virus.

As The Defender reported Feb. 10, Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, M.D., Ph.D sought to alert the FDA about the potential for COVID vaccines to cause injuries. Specifically, Whelan was concerned that the mRNA vaccine technology utilized by Pfizer and Moderna had “the potential to cause microvascular injury (inflammation and small blood clots called microthrombi) to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways that were not assessed in the safety trials.”

While Whelan did not dispute the vaccines’ potential to quickly arrest the spread of the virus (assuming the vaccines prove to actually prevent transmission — also not assessed in the clinical trials), he cautioned that “it would be vastly worse if hundreds of millions of people were to suffer long-lasting or even permanent damage to their brain or heart microvasculature as a result of failing to appreciate in the short-term an unintended effect of full-length spike protein-based vaccines on other organs.”

In October 2020, physicians warned that research demonstrated the SARS-CoV-2 virus could impact multiple organs of the body, including the heart, and that nearly a quarter of people hospitalized with COVID experience myocardial injury, such as arrhythmias or thromboembolic disease.

Dr. Hyung Chun, a Yale cardiologist, suggested that the endothelial cells lining the blood vessels potentially release inflammatory cytokines that further exacerbate the body’s inflammatory response and lead to the formation of blood clots. Chun stated: “The ‘inflamed’ endothelium likely contributes not only to worsening outcome in COVID-19, but also is considered to be an important factor contributing to risk of heart attacks and strokes.”

In a prospective study that followed 100 patients who recovered from COVID, researchers found involvement of the heart on MRI scans in 78% of patients, and ongoing myocardial inflammation in 60%. These findings were independent of the severity of the infection, overall course of the illness and time from the original diagnosis.

In October 2020, researchers took a more detailed look at the heart after death from COVID-19 and found “cardiac damage was common, but more from clotting than inflammation” and that “microthrombi (small blot clots) were frequent.”

“We did not expect this,” said study co-author Dr. Renu Virmani, of CVPath Institute in Gaithersburg, Maryland. “It seems to be unlikely that the direct viral invasion of the heart is playing a major role in making myocardial necrosis and microthrombi.”

A subsequent study published in January confirmed the findings of microthrombi resulting in myocyte necrosis, indicative of a recent myocardial infarction (heart attack), in 40 individuals who died from COVID infection — the studies also identified microthrombi as a major cause of cardiac injury.

Clinicians around the world have seen evidence suggesting the virus may cause heart inflammation, acute kidney disease, neurological malfunction, blood clots, intestinal damage and liver problems.

© April 27, 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. 


  cdc, children's health defense, covid-19 vaccine, israeli health ministry, myocarditis, pfizer, vaccine safety, vaccine side effects, vaccine studies

News

Texas House hears testimony ‘to support an end to unilateral no-fault divorce’

‘No government should have a policy of always taking sides with the party who wants the marriage least,’ said Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse of the Ruth Institute.
Tue Apr 27, 2021 - 11:59 am EST
Featured Image
Divorce proceedings Shutterstock
LifeSiteNews.com
By LSN

April 27, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Testifying in support of a bill that would permit “no-fault” divorce in Texas only by mutual consent of spouses, the president and founder of the Ruth Institute said on Monday, “No government should have a policy of always taking sides with the party who wants the marriage least.”

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, whose Ruth Institute aims to defend the family and build a civilization of love in the face of the sexual revolution, explained, “Only about one-quarter of divorces take place by mutual consent. Seventy-five per cent of divorces take place against the will of one of the parties.

“One party can drag the other into court and have the assets of the family subject to division.” Also, “The division of custody of the children comes under the jurisdiction and control of the state.”

Morse charged, “The forced division of financial assets and child custody amounts to a serious penalty imposed by the State on a law-abiding citizen, simply at the request of their spouse.” That might mean, for instance, that a party guilty of adultery “could unilaterally end the marriage and have the legal right to contract another marriage with his or her paramour. The law supports the guilty spouse against the innocent spouse.”

The losses to children of divorce are “staggering and well-documented,” Morse pointed out. “One survey of the literature cataloging the harms to the children from divorce includes more than 300 footnotes.”

These children experience diminished academic performance, greater likelihood of drug abuse and suicide, “loss of stability of their relationships with their parents,” inability to trust, and “compromised ability to form stable and satisfying love relationships of their own.”

In conclusion, Morse noted, “These considerations lead me to support an end to unilateral no-fault divorce. No citizen should have the right to unilaterally inflict costs of this magnitude on their spouse and children without a finding of fault.”

Read Morse’s full testimony here.


  divorce, jennifer roback morse, no-fault divorce, ruth institute

News

Argentinian father pleads for the life of his unborn baby while mother wants abortion

On Sunday, a ‘massive march’ took place in San Juan in support of the father.
Tue Apr 27, 2021 - 10:35 am EST
Featured Image
Depressed man Shutterstock
Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent Follow Jeanne
By Jeanne Smits

SAN JUAN, Argentina, April 27, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Franco Spadding, a young man from San Juan, Argentina, is pleading for the life of his unborn baby in the Argentinian courts after his wife decided to ask for a legal abortion. The couple separated over the decision. The woman is over 12 weeks pregnant and has refused to keep her baby until it is born, although her child’s father is willing to take care of the baby right after birth, letting the mother “get on with her life.” It is not clear at the time of writing whether the abortion has taken place or not.

On Sunday, a “massive march” took place in San Juan in support of the father. Eduardo Cáceres, a deputy to the National Assembly of Argentina, joined the march for Spadding’s rights, asking for the adoption of a current draft law he authored that would “seek equality between men and women and put an end to the wars of the sexes.”

The “Ley Alejo,” as it is called, calls “sexual violence” any attack on a man’s right to decide about his “sexual or reproductive life,” for instance by preventing him through abortion from being a father. The same would go for a woman obtaining the implantation of an embryo without her partner’s consent. The draft law has the support of over 50 NGOs and underscores that there are many complaints of men reporting violent acts on the part of their female partner. One of its motivations is that men are often accused of sexual abuse of their children in divorce cases, but that a study has revealed that in two cases out of three, the claims are false.

The Argentinian press has widely commented on the court proceedings of Franco Spadding, characterizing them as a test case for the rights for the “thousands and thousands” of men who don’t have their say when their partner opts for an abortion, which is free and legal on the sole demand of the woman in the country since the beginning of 2021, up to 14 weeks of gestation — with doctors being obliged to perform the act within 10 days of the request, or refer the woman to a non-objecting colleague. Any attempt on the part of the doctor to delay or hinder a legal abortion is a penal offense and can cause the offender to lose his medical license.

Spadding made headlines last Wednesday when he filed an emergency request in a tribunal for family affairs asking the judge to order the suspension of the planned abortion. He told local media that he was aware that Law 27,610 on Access to the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy (IVE) is in force throughout the country and protects women’s “right to decide,” but insisted: “I know about the rights of my former partner, but I only ask her to have it [the baby] and give it to me.”

“I am doing my utmost to defend the life of my child … I am not going to let him lack anything,” he added, remarking that the pregnancy is 12 weeks along and time was running out to receive an official answer.

He also stated: “I simply want Justice to understand that my son and I are also persons and we have rights. It is a very difficult fight; the days go by and we are running out of time.” He explained that he and his ex-partner had “lost the capacity to have a dialogue” over the case because they “think differently.”

In a televised interview published on Sunday by Canal 8 San Juan, Spadding explained that when their pregnancy test turned positive, his partner was at first apparently very glad and followed the usual health exams and ultrasounds, in which Franco took part. But she was also worried about their financial capacities and her own youth (the couple married in 2018) and, according to Spadding, expressed hesitations. She ended up going to a social service, asking for an abortion “behind his back,” also making the request in his name. It was he who left the couple’s house over her insistence on getting an abortion.

By that time Franco had seen his child on the ultrasound and heard its heartbeat. “When you see un ultrasound, you see the baby alive … and to think that such a barbarian act can have taken place … I have no words,” he told a reporter from Canal 8.

Unfortunately, Judge Marianela Lopez declared herself incompetent at the end of the week, explaining that the case should be taken to a civil court and not to a family magistrate. On the Canal 8 show, Spadding called on the judge to reflect on her decision: “I would ask this lady, if she is a mother, if she has nieces and nephews, regardless of the jurisdiction. A person, in this case a judge, must have the capacity to understand and render justice. Justice has to determine whether it is for good or for bad … let it be in her conscience or in the conscience of any judge.” “The father simply doesn’t exist. Why must I be an accomplice of something I don’t want and don’t accept?”, he said.

Spadding’s lawyers, Monica Lobos and Martin Zuleta, the former being a supporter of the pro-life “Celeste” movement, stated that their defense of the young father was based on the “violation of rights: the right to life, the right to be born, the right to equality, the right to exercise parental responsibility in caring for and protecting his child, who is threatened with death.”

They made clear that whatever the outcome of the proceedings, they would use further legal arguments and appeals in order to help Spadding save the life of his baby.

— 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

“He is a father who is present, who wants his child to be born, who wants to protect his child and who is at this moment devastated by the possibility of losing him or her,” said Monica Lobos. She also told the local press: “We ask that the child’s life be protected and that the welfare agencies, as well as any other public or private entity, refrain from performing abortions because this annihilation of rights cannot be remedied. Once the child is dead, regardless of the court’s decision on the merits, it will be impossible to revert and guarantee respect for the essential rights that we ask to be protected,” she stressed.

“In the preparation of the Law on the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy (IVE) it was common to hear that the right to life is not an absolute right, so now I wonder: Is the freedom of a woman an absolute right? Can it be imposed even by violating and eliminating other people’s rights? What equality do we intend to achieve as a society? A confrontation between men and women, or a real equality that tends to justice?” she asked.

The case was given a further twist when someone, possibly the mother, suggested that the unborn baby was not in fact Franco’s biological son. Canal 8 put the question to him: Would he act in the same way if he thought that the child was not his? “Yes. Legally, I am the father, and the child has a right to live like any other,” he replied.


  abortion, rights of fathers

Opinion

Left-of-century: Biden’s first 100 days

Of the 62 executive actions Biden has taken so far, a record-setting number – 32 – were a direct attack on life, family, and religious freedom.
Tue Apr 27, 2021 - 11:10 am EST
Featured Image
Archna Nautiyal/Shutterstock
Tony Perkins Tony Perkins
By Tony Perkins

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

April 27, 2021 (Family Research Council) – Joe Biden hasn’t even been president for 100 days, and it already feels like an eternity. In just three months, the man absurdly dubbed a “moderate” has emerged from his campaign basement and dispelled that notion – to the delight of the party’s radicals. He has embraced the far-Left’s all-out war on every pillar of democracy.

Shell-shocked, Americans have watched this White House spend us into insolvency, inflame our divides, and lead a charge to radically makeover the Supreme Court, our states’ election laws, the U.S. Senate, immigration policy, religious freedom, and human biology. He’s exceeded expectations to be sure – just not in the way most voters had hoped.

It’s no wonder, in this flurry of leftist wish-granting, that most people in this country aren’t giving Biden high marks. In a new ABC/Washington Post poll, the 46th president's approval rating at 52 percent is the lowest of any modern president except Donald Trump and Gerald Ford. “For the 14 presidents from Truman to Biden, the 100-day average is 66 percent.”

Biden’s highest marks, ironically, come from COVID successes he can’t even claim credit for, having been in set in motion months earlier under Trump’s Operation Warp Speed. And yet still, the mainstream media – the informal arm of Biden’s PR team – is even trying to spin the public’s response, claiming that 52-percent approval “is the new 60.”

“Any time you’re over 50 in this polarized environment, that's really solid,” NBC’s Chuck Todd argued. “It’s sort of the new 60 percent of the way when you and I grew up in the 80s and 90s.” But unfortunately for him, there’s no way to gloss over other numbers – like Biden’s glaring underperformance on foreign affairs, the border, and race relations.

In results that are sure to be ignored by the press, Pew found that 54 percent of Americans say they disagree with the president on “most or all issues.” Only 44 percent agree. A plurality think he’s spending too much (48 percent), Quinnipiac points out, and on immigration, his numbers are at crisis levels – even as he insists the actual problem is not.

Of course, some of Biden's most devastating decisions in these early days have been rolling back – or completely annihilating – Donald Trump’s progress on key issues. FRC just released a new document called, “Tracking the Biden Administration” that catalogues all of the president’s devastating actions so far. Stacked side-by-side with the Trump Accomplishments, it’s a sobering night-and-day contrast.

Of the 62 executive actions Biden has taken so far, a record-setting number – 32 – were a direct attack on life, family, and religious freedom. Add that to his cabinet, stocked full of pro-abortion, anti-faith extremists, and this administration is on track to make Barack Obama’s administration look centrist!

Obviously, Biden’s promise to unify was just another convenient throwaway line. “After campaigning on [it],” Gary Abernathy wrote in the Washington Post, “Biden so far recognizes Republicans only as one would acknowledge shoulder lint.”

The same goes for more than half of the country, who this president has trampled in his payoffs to groups like Planned Parenthood. He’s overturned the hugely popular ban on overseas abortion funding, opened the doors to fetal tissue research, relaxed the restrictions on dangerous chemical abortion pills, agreed to let abortion groups take Title X “family planning” dollars again, and picked a team of anti-Hyde amendment, pro-abortion radicals to run his government.

On gender and sexuality, the president has almost done more in 100 days than Barack Obama tried in two terms. His orders are on track to abolish girls’ sports, fight any limits on transgender treatments, march transgenderism into the military, and eliminate single-sex services in homeless shelters, prisons, and other housing arrangements.

— 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 if that weren’t enough, he’s created a “White House Gender Policy Council,” promised to strip away conscience rights from medical personnel on transgender hormones and surgery, and moved forward with plans to end gender-specific bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers in the public schools. Meanwhile, his diplomatic corps have already warned the world that they'll be forcefully pushing the LGBT agenda in every way.

FRC’s Mary Szoch points out in a new op-ed for Newsweek that back in 1974, Joe Biden told the Washingtonian that on social issues, “I’m about as liberal as your grandmother.” That might have been true 47 years ago, but it’s certainly not true now. The more powerful Biden has gotten, the more untethered from morality he’s become. If anything, his views would shock most of our grandmothers!

Reprinted with permission by Family Research Council


  abortion, democrats, donald trump, family research council, joe biden, left-wing totalitarianism, leftist

Opinion

We must not be forced into vaccinating our children from COVID

Our children are not for you to ‘experiment’ on. There is absolutely no data, no evidence, none,  to support the vaccination of our children in this matter. We are against it and find this unacceptable a proposition.
Tue Apr 27, 2021 - 10:05 am EST
Featured Image
Shutterstock
Paul E. Alexander
By

April 27, 2021 (American Institute for Ecomonic Research) – There is no basis for vaccinating children from Covid-19 as indicated by Dr. Anthony Fauci, none (6 months to 11 years old). The children are at very low risk of illness, especially severe illness from Covid, and children do not spread the illness. The most updated data by the American Academy of Pediatrics showed that “Children were 0.00%-0.19% of all COVID-19 deaths, and 10 [US] states reported zero child deaths. In states reporting, 0.00%-0.03% of all child Covid-19 cases resulted in death.” 

A high-quality robust study in the French Alps examined the spread of Covid-19 virus via a cluster of Covid-19. They followed one infected child who visited three different schools and interacted with other children, teachers, and various adults. They reported no instance of secondary transmission despite close interactions. These data have been available to the CDC and other health experts for over a year. Ludvigsson published a seminal paper in the New England Journal of Medicine on Covid-19 among children 1 to 16 years of age and their teachers in Sweden. 

From the nearly 2 million children that were followed in school in Sweden, it was reported that with no mask mandates, there were zero deaths from Covid and a few instances of transmission and minimal hospitalization. A study published in Nature found no instances of asymptomatic spread from positive asymptomatic cases among all 1,174 close contacts of the cases, based on a base sample of 10 million persons. The World Health Organization (WHO) also made this claim that asymptomatic spread/transmission is rare. This issue of asymptomatic spread is the key issue being used to force vaccination in children. The science, however, remains contrary to this proposed policy mandate.

The recent push by the CDC, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and other television medical experts who suggest that we can only get to herd immunity by vaccinating our children is absurd and patently false. They are denying scientific reality. They are spreading false information to the nation. The current data suggest that we are much nearer to herd immunity than they wish it to be. They continue to inaccurately discount cross protection immunity from prior coronaviruses and common colds. They have disregarded the fact that a large swath of the population was not captured in the case load, via laboratory confirmed cases. 

The estimates range that for every ONE confirmed case, there might be 6 or even 8 unidentified individuals who have had Covid. Many people have recovered from Covid and they are being disregarded in Dr. Fauci’s inaccurate statements on herd immunity e.g. his absurd statement that 90% must be vaccinated. Children can become infected as they do for usual pathogens they encounter in their daily lives, ‘naturally.’ Like the common cold or influenza, and alike for other infections. We already know that there is no emergency in children regarding Covid-19. And so why would Moderna Inc. seek to trial this vaccine on children with a death rate in this group of 0.003% (IFR 0.00003)? Moderna must show us why it is not dangerous to put this vaccine in children, and they have not.

We argue vehemently that if children are needed from a ‘numbers’ point of view for driving population level ‘herd’ immunity, then they must be allowed to get infected naturally and harmlessly as part of day-to-day living and we do it by opening schools and allowing them to live reasonably normal lives with sensible precautions e.g. enhanced sanitation, hygiene, and disinfectant. Children can and do get infected as they do for usual pathogens they encounter in their daily lives, ‘naturally.’ These pathogens include the common influenza virus and other influenza-like illnesses.  

Allow child-to-child daily interaction. Not only will that drive the adaptive immunity but it will give the children a more robust defense against any mutant variants of the virus itself. This will also allow our children’s immune systems to be taxed and tuned up daily, as opposed to the weakening we are subjecting it to with the year-long lockdowns and school closures. We do it while at the same time strongly protecting the elderly who are frail, the elderly in general, and those with comorbid conditions and obese individuals. We must use stringent protections of our nursing homes and other similar congregated settings (including the staff, who remain often the source of the infection). It is better science to use a more ‘focused‘ protection and targeting that is based on age and known risk factors especially, regarding the children. 

History teaches us to pause and reflect upon our previous miscues and unforced blunders that had significant consequences. It behooves us to remember the increased incidence of narcolepsy in children in Scandinavian countries following the H1N1 influenza ASO3-adjuvanted vaccine used for the 2009 pandemic (Pandemrix influenza vaccination program).  Additionally, the harms caused by the dengue vaccine in children in the Philippines also come to mind that bore a burden on our society of humans. Sanofi Pasteur halted the vaccines in 2017 due to the very dangerous risk of plasma leakage akin to ebola. “It’s a complication called plasma leakage syndrome…he [Halstead] was so worried, he started writing editorials to scientific journals, even warned the Filipino government about the problem…I just say, no, you can’t give a vaccine to somebody – some perfectly normal, healthy person – and now put them at risk for the rest of their lives for plasma leakage syndrome. You can’t do that.” The tainted polio vaccine that sickened and fatally paralyzed children in 1955 in the United States is also worthy of review in this context. The harm that can accrue from a rapid deployment of mass vaccination to the children has not proven to be safe in all the cases. Perhaps this comment is worth noting: “In 1977, for example, a triple vaccination (against diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus) from a defective batch left several children blind, deaf and disabled forever.”

There are potentially real harms to these Covid vaccines and as an example, Canada has now suspended the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine for those under 55 based on risk. “Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) is recommending provinces pause the use of the AstraZeneca-Oxford COVID-19 vaccine on those under the age of 55 because of safety concerns” (blood clotting and thrombocytopenia). There is the real concern of “disease enhancement” whereby “in the past for a few viral vaccines where those immunized suffered increased severity or death when they later encountered the virus [in the wild] or were found to have an increased frequency of infection.” This is a concern for the Covid vaccines, in adults and certainly children given the past catastrophic experience with the dengue vaccine. Harms and adverse events (e.g. blood clots) are being reported in the CDC’s VAERS system as well as globally and we need urgent study of the temporal relationship of reported adverse events to administration of the vaccines. Currently, there have been approximately 1,900 vaccine-related deaths reported to VAERS as of March 15th 2021. It is still too early to tell how this will play out with these vaccines and reported harms and we remain cautiously optimistic yet cognizant that the trials have not run for the optimal duration of time to assess safety. Thus, our grave concern for our children being administered these yet proven safe vaccines. 

Moreover, one has to understand that all medications and drugs including vaccines may have some adverse effects on the human body. All drugs, including all interventions carry risk. It is therefore imperative that parents of children be informed about the potential risks of any such intervention employed on a child. “But,” says the CDC representative, “Individuals react differently to vaccines, and there is no way to absolutely predict the reaction of a specific individual to a particular vaccine. Anyone who takes a vaccine should be fully informed about both the benefits and the risks of vaccination.” The key is to have total transparency of benefits and risks of using the vaccine in children. We agree wholeheartedly that vaccines are important and potent weapons we have in reducing disease in the population as a whole. 

In comparison, we point out that with the Polio vaccine, from inception of the vaccine concept in 1931 (10 years after FDR was stricken with Polio), indications are that it took roughly 20 years before Jonas Salk used the vaccine to vaccinate his family and then the world. Over the years, vaccines have saved countless lives and will continue to do so. We believe that vaccines have a large and critically important role in protecting human lives, but these protections have been the result of a thorough and sometimes tedious ritual of testing along with long-term safety assessment over a period of years in order to be confident that any one new vaccine is both safe and effective. Unfortunately, we cannot apply these time-tested requisites to the current crop of new vaccines for Covid-19. But again, we reiterate that it’s one thing to let adults decide, after informed consent, to be vaccinated but it is another thing entirely to go about vaccinating our children without evidence for long-term safety, especially when their risks of either becoming ill, or suffering severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 are infinitesimally small.

The argument for a well-tested and safe vaccine requires time under study, and this prevents unnecessary harm to the children that we aim to protect. Ensuring their safety requires a thorough review of well-established data of use of such vaccines in children. Otherwise, we as their caretakers are subjecting them to potentially real harm under the banner of doing good!

What is needed is to allow children to mingle and to acquire infection naturally and harmlessly, in their schools, home, and their everyday environments. We remain skeptical about the safety of the currently administered vaccines, since the FDA issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) and did not apply the needed full regulatory BLA approval. This continues to concern us greatly, since the safety component has not been fully assessed and essentially means that all persons taking Covid vaccines at present are in a large Phase III trial. The efficacy and safety results will be known in 2-3 years and perhaps longer for the longer-term adverse effects that become known at a later date. Exposing children to an untested Emergency Use medication implies that there is a dire risk to the children without it. There are no data to support such a potential risk. No such data, no evidence whatsoever of this exists, and for the CDC or Dr. Fauci or any medical expert to imply otherwise is duplicitous. We know the new CDC Director is working in a highly politically charged environment with many moving parts, and we urge her to ensure that the American population, and particularly parents, are not misled by public health experts on vaccinating children. We trust that she will ensure this. 

This really is a question of risk management for parents and parents must seriously consider that Covid-19 is a far less dangerous illness for children than influenza. This is known by the medical community and parents are being deceived as to greater risk. Parents must be brave and be willing to assess this purely from a benefit versus risk position and ask themselves: ‘If my child has little if any risk, near zero risk of severe sequelae or death, and thus no benefit from the vaccine, yet there could be potential harms and as yet unknown harms from the vaccine (as already reported in adults who have received the vaccines), then why would I subject my child to such a vaccine?’ And in the presence of the potential risks, as well as the fact that a vaccine for Covid-19 is simply not indicated in children, why would a loving parent allow their child to be vaccinated with still-experimental vaccines? Why put a foreign substance into the body of your child when they have vanishingly low risk of spreading it or getting seriously ill if infected? Why? You must take a step back, we plead, and think this through carefully. 

Furthermore, it is nonsensical to suggest that the Covid ‘variants’ may drive infection in children and harm them and there is no basis for such a statement. For those who are trying to frighten parents by the illogical and absurd statements that a lethal strain may emerge among the variants, then we argue that you are using terms like ‘may’ and ‘could’ and ‘might.’ We can find no evidence to support such claims. It is simply rampant speculation! Making such claims is not science, and decisions based on such claims are not evidence-based. We need to see the actual science and not just rampant speculation by often nonsensical media medical experts. We have heard Dr. Fauci make statements with no science or data to back his statements up. Remember the retraction of the double-mask idiocy? Remember when he said Covid is 10 times more lethal than the seasonal flu? Now they are talking about a third vaccine booster shot and it suggests that those in charge are flying by the seat of their pants and do not know what they are doing. A very prominent Professor out of Johns Hopkins, Dr. Marty Makary, gets it right now when he calls out these experts and agencies for their foolishness and fear mongering that is often inaccurate. He recently eviscerated CDC’s guidelines and called out Dr. Fauci for his inaccurate claims on herd immunity

Focusing a bit more on the variants or mutations, of concern is the emerging indication (at this time we are prognosticating and conjecturing but we are indeed concerned) that the very narrowly focused ‘spike-specific’ antibody immunity provoked by the existing Covid vaccines is not broad enough, or comprehensive, durable, robust, and complete as ‘natural exposure immunity.’ There is debate that these vaccines are not as effective as they were reported to be and are not conferring the sterilizing type immunity with strong neutralizing antibodies, rendering the emerging variants as potentially noxious, capable of blowing past the vaccine-induced immunity. 

Vaccine developers may be faced with having to fix the spike protein (epitopes) immunity by swapping them out for the new variants as they emerge (else they will be ineffective), or, providing the host immune response with a much broader vaccine with multiple protein targets on the virus and not only the spike protein. Thus, we ask, is Dr. Fauci and the CDC etc. advising parents to take a vaccine that does not and will not provide the long-term safety assessment, and will be under ‘experimental’ emergency use by the FDA, and that will require multiple shots given the issue we just raised about the variants and the inability for the narrow immunity to confer protection? How many shots? How regular? Why not one ‘universal’ vaccine administered once, and only after the long-term safety data is available and assessed? Why not allow several years of adults having the current vaccine to assess the harms before we interfere with our low-risk children? Do you understand the issues involved and how unsettling all of this is and the lack of clarity by the public health experts and decision-makers, leaving parents in the dark as to what’s next? This makes no sense and is very frightening. 

Our purpose is to shed light on the risky nature of the proposed vaccine policy for children. Such a policy merits detailed investigation prior to implementation. Experts have proven to be less of experts and more of the fear mongering crowd. For fear of being exposed, these experts tend to blame others, especially those that offer valid critique of their failed methodologies and enacted policies. We therefore continue to urge that parents be fully informed in the decision-making process with their physician, prior to their children receiving the vaccine. Children, especially those who have not acquired the critical thought process, must not be used to experiment upon unless there is a valid consent form bearing the parent’s signature. We also reiterate that vaccines that have been tested thoroughly, such as the Mumps, Measles and Rubella vaccine, the Polio vaccine and others (to prevent vaccine preventable illnesses), are a must to avoid large-scale harm to children. But these vaccines have undergone the rigors of research and have a determinant safety record. The current Covid vaccines do not have such a detailed record of either safety or efficacy to warrant a large-scale vaccination of the children. The planned research suggests similar. 

We are in a dangerous situation here by advocating vaccination of our low-risk children and we must ask these experts for the evidence to support their often ridiculous specious statements. Look at how wrong they were on lockdowns. They have failed and continue to fail in protecting the elderly while destroying families and sacrificing our kids, especially low-income families. Incredibly, they now try to blame those who criticized and questioned the lockdowns for the failure of the very lockdowns they advocated and that were implemented. It makes no sense and the hubris of these experts defies logic. So you want to trust these same people when they just tell you nonchalantly that your child is to be vaccinated? And they do it with hollowness and no scientific basis whatsoever and we are to accept that speciousness? I say no! 

Our children are not for you to ‘experiment’ on. There is absolutely no data, no evidence, none,  to support the vaccination of our children in this matter. We are against it and find this unacceptable a proposition. Our children are far too precious to experiment with. And we make this clarion call to minority and African-American parents, to be careful and safeguard your children.

— 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

Faust stated para that “the FDA will assess the vaccines for children and consider them safe.” This is a forgone conclusion by Faust and we consider it absurd and reckless. It raises many questions for he does not know what the FDA will be assessing and what the trials will show. We urge the mothers and fathers to demand the science, demand the evidence before embarking on this journey.

We especially urge the minority parents and their children to seek as much information as possible and always make decisions with their physicians, regarding the risks and benefits of such a vaccine. 

Think carefully you mothers and fathers out there, you are well capable of informed decision-making. Demand the science, demand the evidence from these talking heads, often unscientific and unsound experts who till now have devastated societies with their nonsensical, baseless, damaging, destructive lockdownsschool closuresmask mandates, and other restrictions. Minority children (and minority women often with least bargaining power) have fared the worst in all of this pandemic lockdown insanity and may well fear the worst with these experimental unnecessary vaccines. To date, no argument, no information, no statements by Dr. Fauci, the CDC, or any of the television medical experts have made any sense on why children must be vaccinated. None. If there is a credible basis, if there is evidence, then bring the evidence and let us have a look at it, but until then, please leave our children alone! If we see evidence of the necessity, we will agree, but we have seen none and all we are hearing in this is fear mongering and falsehoods and the nation’s parents must not be lied to anymore! They want honesty, clarity, balanced information that could help them make informed decisions. We must not expose our children to ‘unnecessary’ harm. We must not expose them to a substance that has not been tested on children (or plan to be) in the way it should be and for as long as necessary. We must not expose children to a vaccine that based on their risk, is absolutely not needed. Moreover, they can become infected naturally, if their immunity is needed. 

To close, we make this plea and urge those in the medical field to reiterate the need for a thorough examination of the science of efficacy, the potential risks to the children and the evidence that supports the need for such a medical intervention foisted on our children. Failing which, it would seem a violation of the Hippocratic Oath, “Above all do no harm.” We will address the insanity of vaccine passports in a subsequent op-ed.

Reprinted with permission from American Institute for Economic Research


  american institute for economic research, children's rights, covid-19 restrictions, covid-19 vaccine

Opinion

Follow the science? Not when it comes to transgenderism

If this principle applies to a virus threat, why doesn’t it guide policy on gender identity disorder (GID)?
Tue Apr 27, 2021 - 8:35 am EST
Featured Image
Transgender symbol Shutterstock
Denise Shick
By

April 27, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — One mantra that emerged from the COVID-19 pandemic is “follow the science,” which suggests that health and social policy should be guided by scientific research. If this principle applies to a virus threat, why doesn’t it guide policy on gender identity disorder (GID)?

On March 24, the Senate confirmed President Biden’s choice for assistant secretary of health — a male pediatrician who claims to be a woman: “Rachel” Levine. Lambda Legal, which promotes LGBTQ civil rights, praised Levine’s confirmation as marking “the return of science, competence, and empathy to one of the most important institutions in our government.”

Touting Levine’s confirmation as “the return to science [and] competence,” however, is a questionable assertion. Yes, an article posted by American Family Physician claims that “gender-affirming hormone therapy … is generally safe” and that “those who receive treatment generally report improved quality of life and self-esteem.” But the same article admits that “transgender patients typically have high rates of mental health diagnoses” and that primary care physicians should “consider routine screening” for a number of mental health conditions, including depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and suicidal proclivity. Physicians should also look for signs and symptoms of metabolic disease and osteoporosis because “hormone therapy may increase the risk of these conditions.” Other risks listed include breast cancer and cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease.

Likewise, the American College of Pediatrics (ACP) says that puberty-blocking hormones “induce a state of disease — the absence of puberty — and inhibit growth and fertility in a previously biologically healthy child.” Also, for both children and adults, cross-sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) are associated with dangerous health risks including cardiac disease, high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke, diabetes, and cancer.

Despite this research, medical professionals (such as Levine), politicians, and educators advocate that children should be encouraged not only to question their gender but also to pursue irreversible hormonal treatments to alter their bodies.

After Levine’s confirmation, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, “As transgender Americans suffer higher rates of abuse, homelessness, and depression than almost every other group, it’s important to have national figures like Dr. Levine, who by virtue of being in the public spotlight, will help break down barriers of ignorance and fear.”

What Schumer and many other politicians fail to say as they spout LGBTQ talking points is that the higher rates of mental as well as physical conditions may be caused by the hormonal treatments transgenders take to alter their gender.

Educators also use LGBTQ talking points as a basis for policy. According to the Schools in Transition guide published by the Human Rights Campaign, “the expression of transgender identity, or any other form of gender-expansive behavior is a healthy, appropriate and typical aspect of human development,” and no student should be “asked, encouraged or required to affirm a gender identity or to express their gender in a manner that is not consistent with their self-identification or expression. Any such attempts or requests are unethical and will likely cause significant emotional harm.”

Yet the guide fails to mention scientific research that indicates hormonal therapies and sex-reassignment surgery may also cause “significant emotional harm” in children and teens. And not one of the guide’s authors is a medical professional.

For over 18 years, I have provided pastoral care for people whose lives have been torn apart because they believed that transitioning to the opposite gender would alleviate their pain and make them whole. Here’s a sampling of what they’ve told me:

  • “Six weeks after my sex assignment surgery, I knew I made a mistake. No one can put my body back together again.”

  • “I thought transition to a female was the answer for me, but today I struggle to forgive myself for what I’ve done to my own body.”

  • “Everyone thought transitioning was the answer for me, but now I wish somebody would have tried to stop me from transitioning.”

  • “I’m unable to ever have my own children due to my transitioning. I will live in regret.”

At Help 4 Families, where I serve as director, we acknowledge that the struggles gender-confused people endure are more than psychosomatic. They are real, and they need to be addressed seriously, with compassion. But hormonal treatments and invasive surgical procedures are not the answer. Our goal is mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual restoration. And we create opportunities for individuals and families impacted by gender brokenness to know God and thrive as the people he created them to be.

— 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

We need to follow all the science, not just studies that support the LGBTQ agenda. Let’s hold medical professionals, politicians, and educators to the standard of truth — the whole truth. As the ACP website notes, “For children experiencing gender dysphoria before the age of puberty, the confusion resolves over 80 percent of the time by late adolescence.”

If your child is questioning their birth gender or has displayed GID symptoms, you can make a difference. Provide a safe, open environment for them to discuss their feelings and ask questions. Invest more time in strengthening the parent-child relationship. Affirm their unique personality, praise their talents, and be engaged in their interests. Promote a healthy appreciation of their birth gender and help them cultivate healthy same-sex friendships.

Guide your child toward the truth about gender and a healthy understanding of their identity.

Denise Shick is the Founder and Director of Help 4 Families, a Christian ministry that compassionately reaches out to family members who are grappling with the emotional and spiritual issues encountered when a loved one identifies as transgender.


  gender ideology, help 4 families, transgenderism

Blogs

Pro-life and religious freedom legislation is still being passed on the state level

Just as during the Obama era, a wave of pro-life legislation passing in the states can ensure that Democratic federal control does not stop the pro-life movement.
Tue Apr 27, 2021 - 5:30 pm EST
Featured Image
American flag next to large cross Shutterstock
Jonathon Van Maren Jonathon Van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon Van Maren

April 27, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Those in need of encouragement during this period of total Democratic domination on the federal level should cast an eye towards legislation being passed on the state level. Montana, for example, has been taking action both on religious freedom and the rights of the pre-born.

On April 22, Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA, Senate Bill 215), which stipulates that all state agencies must illustrate a “compelling governmental interest” before violating the “freedom of people of all faiths to exercise their sincerely held religious beliefs,” according to the governor’s spokesman. The legislation, which has also been passed by 21 other states, is modeled on a federal version of the same bill signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993.

Back then, religious freedom was a bipartisan issue and passed with support from both Republicans and Democrats. Now, religious freedom is viewed as thinly-veiled bigotry by the LGBT movement and their allies in woke Big Business. The law was opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which stated that the protections could result in bakeries refusing to cater same-sex weddings or businesses declining to cover birth control. This, of course, is precisely the point of such laws: To allow those with deeply-held religious beliefs to opt out of practices they believe to be immoral.

In other states, governors have backed away from religious freedom protections or gutted legislation when major corporations threatened to pull their business out of the state. The same tactics were applied in Montana, with more than 250 national companies signing a letter condemning the law as discriminatory against LGBT people. Molson Coors Beverage Co., Google, Amazon, Verizon, and tobacco giant Altria Group (which, after all, is an expert on harmful products) all signed in an attempt to derail the passage of protections for religious freedom.

A spokesperson for Gianforte rejected the criticisms, stating, “Montana joins 21 other states with RFRA laws, where it has historically been used to allow Native American children to wear braids in school, Sikhs to wear turbans in the military, and Christian employers to refuse to cover abortions under their health insurance policies.”

On April 26, Gianforte signed three pro-life laws: the Montana Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which bans abortion at 20 weeks; HB 140, which stipulates that abortionists give women seeking abortion the option to view their baby on ultrasound and listen to the heartbeat; and HB 171, which requires that the abortion pill be “provided only by a qualified medical practitioner” and other stipulations. HB 171 is a response to the Biden FDA’s decision to suspend such requirements earlier this month.

Gianforte stated that he was “proud to sign three bills that will protect the lives of the unborn” and that Montana was “taking action to protect the most vulnerable amongst us, the unborn — we are celebrating life.” The bills will be challenged in court, but legislators are hoping to pose a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. Planned Parenthood condemned the bill as an attack on abortion access.

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) also signed three pro-life bills yesterday, including a heartbeat bill, more restrictions on who can perform abortions, and even adding abortion to the list of “unprofessional conduct” by doctors.

As President Joe Biden works to remove all barriers and restrictions on abortion on the federal level, pro-life state legislators and governors are working overtime to ensure that these life-saving laws are implemented on the state level. Just as during the Obama era, a wave of pro-life legislation passing in the states can ensure that Democratic federal control does not stop the pro-life movement.


  abortion, greg gianforte, kevin stitt, religious freedom

Blogs

Cdl. Cupich essentially turns the Blessed Sacrament into a magical amulet

It is difficult to believe that Cupich really thinks that communicants receive graces entirely irrespective of the state of their souls and their good dispositions.
Tue Apr 27, 2021 - 9:25 am EST
Featured Image
Cardinal Cupich at The University of Chicago Institute of Politics Nov. 6, 2017. Facebook / University of Chicago IOP
By Dr. Joseph Shaw

April 27, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Following an article in America by Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila of Denver, in which he reiterated the Church’s teaching on the importance of approaching Holy Communion with the right dispositions, Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago wrote a curious admonition to Aquila (to which the archbishop then responded):

I respectfully note that to claim that we can do anything to diminish the Eucharist, or its effects, is contrary to the church’s longstanding teaching. Catholic sacramental theology is based on the premise that the sacraments are the work of Christ, which is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation at Trent (DS 1608) that the sacraments act ex opere operato, or, as St. Thomas wrote in the Summa, III, 68,8: “The sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God.” Owing to the nature of God, Christ and his works can never be diminished by any act on our part.

Here, Cupich points out that an unworthy recipient of Holy Communion genuinely receives the Body of Christ, and erroneously infers that he also receives the grace which should accompany Holy Communion. But God does not force His grace on us. As the ancient chant composed by St. Thomas Aquinas for the feast of Corpus Christi expressed it: “Sumunt boni, sumunt mali, sorte tamen inaequali, vitae vel interitus — The good take, the bad take, yet with unequal destiny, of life, or of ruin.”

It is difficult to believe that Cupich really thinks that communicants receive graces entirely irrespective of the state of their souls and their good dispositions. Such an attitude would by superstitious: It would make the Blessed Sacrament into a magical amulet which saves people without their knowledge or consent.

Again, take the sacrament of matrimony. The efficacy of the sacrament does not depend on the worthiness of the ministers, which in this case are the spouses themselves. If they fulfill the conditions for validity — essentially, they are free to marry and intend to marry before an authorized witness — they will indeed marry, no matter if they are marrying for unworthy motives (money, for example), or are in a state of mortal sin. The couple will be bound to each other by the marriage bond, yes, but that does not mean that they will enjoy the graces which the sacrament offers. They will be joined, as Shakespeare described such a couple, “as winter to rough weather”: indissolubly, but not happily.

The action of the sacraments are indeed objective, as the action of Christ, but if we are to benefit from them we must not create barriers to grace. Babies, of course, do not create such obstacles, but we won’t see the effects of this grace until they have grown up to an age in which they can cooperate with it.

Baptism does not make it impossible for us to go to Hell: There, indeed, it will be a mark of shame. Reception of any of the sacraments without the right dispositions is a sin against these holy things: It is sacrilege. We do not receive graces through sins, but lose those we had before.

Something else Cupich’s words obscure is the distinction between God’s intrinsic and extrinsic glory. He wrote that “Christ and his works can never be diminished by any act on our part,” and this is true of the glory intrinsic to Christ. But consider activities which, as we might say, “give glory to God”: teaching children the Faith, building a beautiful Church, taking part with fervor at a Mass celebrated in a truly worthy way by a holy priest.

These things do something: They give to God glory which He ought to have, but too rarely receives, on earth, from us. If those things stop happening, God’s glory is diminished on earth. It is not diminished in heaven: The glory which is intrinsic to Him cannot be diminished or augmented by anything we can do. But we can certainly make more, or less, of an effort to give Him the glory which He deserves here. In the words of George Herbert, “In my heart, though not in heaven, I can raise Thee.”

— 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

By the same token, when the Blessed Sacrament is received unworthily, when the liturgy is celebrated in a slapdash or ugly way, when rioters burn down or desecrate churches, or when priests are so unworthy of their orders that they abuse children, these things make a real difference to God’s extrinsic glory.

God is not harmed, certainly, but acts of desecration and calculated insult towards God are things to which Catholics must respond, with greater efforts to restore to God some measure of the honor which is His due, from the human race. It is perhaps convenient to think of God as being entirely above the fray, but we are called on to build God’s Kingdom on earth: to build up His Church, and His reign in the hearts of men. As we know, this is a project which can go backwards as well as forwards, according to the efforts of Catholics, and of the Church’s enemies. They don’t let up. Neither must we.


  blase cupich, holy communion, sacramental theology, samuel aquila, thomas aquinas

Blogs

Explaining the desire for ‘musical conversion’

Our secular life should not be a sealed-off compartment that has nothing to do with our spiritual and liturgical life, or worse, that would compete with it or dilute it or undermine it. There should be a smooth transition from outside the church to inside the church; from inside the church to the Blessed Sacrament; from the Blessed Sacrament to contemplation and the beatific vision.
Tue Apr 27, 2021 - 6:00 am EST
Featured Image
Ivanna Blinova/Unsplash
Peter Kwasniewski Peter Kwasniewski Follow Dr. Peter
By Dr. Peter Kwasniewski

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

April 27, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – A young man wrote a letter to me explaining that his attraction to traditional Catholicism had also begun to have an effect on the music he was listening to. He began to feel that he should avoid certain kinds of music and gravitate toward other kinds—he was getting into the three most popular Baroque composers, Vivaldi, Handel, and Bach—and asked me if I could help him understand why he was going through this unexpected “conversion” and if I had any advice. (The name has been changed.)

Dear Johnny,

I have to say it’s music to my ears to hear of your conversion to the beautiful in general and the Baroque in particular. I taught music for many years to college students, and I would say at least 50% of the students really perked up when they learned about the agreement of philosophers and Church Fathers that music both reflects and influences our moral state to a considerable extent, and many of those students would make a serious decision to listen to better music—always with excellent results, and with gratitude months or years later, of which I have many testimonies in the form of letters and cards. I have never met anyone who did not fall in love with the great composers after giving them a fair chance. Their music is superior in its depth of feeling, its subtlety of expression, its lyricism, harmonic complexity, and overall compatibility with the intellectual and spiritual life proper to man.

Yet it remains difficult for people to appreciate the objectivity of the beautiful—that x is more beautiful in itself than non-x—and this, for two main reasons.

First, the beautiful is perceived by a subject, an individual man, who must have an apt disposition for it. A person with a devout, well-ordered soul, open to God and intent on wisdom, will be drawn towards certain manifestations of order and beauty in any sensible domain, and repelled by their contraries. And as with moral habituation in general, one can strive to live a more beautiful life—a life of virtue, prayer, and study—so as to correspond more fully with beautiful liturgy and fine art. Put simply, the beautiful object is recognized and rejoiced in by a soul that is either morally beautiful or actively working to become so.

Second, beauty, like its sister, truth, requires a long and patient acquaintance, a real willingness to learn. The art of music is extremely deep and subtle, but kids plugged all day long into the Top Ten on the pop chart will never be aware of that. Only a foolish ignoramus (or worse, an ideologue) would say that a rap song is equivalent to a fugue by J.S. Bach or a symphony by Beethoven or a movement from The Planets by Gustav Holst. That is like comparing a comic strip to a novel by Jane Austen or Fyodor Dostoevsky, or a McDonalds to a Parisian bistro. Since modern Western people are dreadfully uneducated about almost everything, we cannot be surprised that their judgments about truth as well as beauty are not only skewed, but ridiculous. They don’t even know what they’re talking about.

I’m reminded of the quite similar phenomenon of Catholics who, having never attended anything other than the Novus Ordo, still have opinions about the Latin Mass. Or those who’ve perhaps attended a few traditional Masses, but have not (or not yet) paid close attention to the prayers, the ceremonies, the entire spirit of the thing. Indeed, it took me a couple of decades to realize the vast abyss that separates the old from the new worship in every way and at every level, but I wanted to take worship seriously and I stuck with it, believing that it would pay off—which it has done, superabundantly. Once you see it, you can’t not see it. Similarly, once you hear Gregorian chant often enough to feel, to grasp, how perfectly it expresses the letter and the spirit of the liturgy, you couldn’t possibly go back to guitars and pianos. Or rather, those things would grate on one’s consciousness like nails on a chalkboard.

There is a consensus among the great Western intellectuals—Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Boethius, St. John Chrysostom, Friedrich Nietzsche, Arthur Schopenhauer, Josef Pieper, and Roger Scruton, just to name a few—that music is a character-forming force of immense power and intimate influence, arguably the greatest force on the natural level. Given the changes in musical style over the past 1,000 years, it would be hard to find much consensus as one gets closer and closer to the details. I mean that the question of what is better, classical music or rock music, is a much easier question to answer than which is better, the Baroque or the Romantic period, or who is the greater composer, Bach or Handel? So one will find plenty of ammunition for arguing on behalf of more general principles, but it gets harder to argue for the superiority of this or that period in music history, and harder still to argue for the superiority of this composer over that one. Yet most people are not hung up on the question of Mozart vs. Beethoven, but on classical vs. jazz vs. pop, or, in the Church realm, chant and polyphony vs. praise and worship or vernacular hymns.

Sacred music exhibits the essential characteristics of the art of music with a particular luminosity and thereby helps us to understand music’s role in life more profoundly. I have come to think that all the music we listen to should be compatible or harmonious with sacred music. This doesn’t mean that we should listen to sacred music all the time (that would be weird: it is appropriate sometimes to dance!), but rather, that our secular life should not be a sealed-off compartment that has nothing to do with our spiritual and liturgical life, or worse, that would compete with it or dilute it or undermine it. There should be a smooth transition from outside the church to inside the church; from inside the church to the Blessed Sacrament; from the Blessed Sacrament to contemplation and the beatific vision. The Catholic view is that our whole lives are to be offered up as a pleasing sacrifice to God, in union with Christ, and on pilgrimage to heaven (see Rom 12:1; Phil 4:8; Col 3:3). In my view, authentic folk music is still compatible in this way; almost everything on the radio stations today isn’t.

Folk music—real folk music, such as people have sung for centuries everywhere in the West—is almost never a problem, ethically or spiritually. This is true for several reasons. First, the music is melody-driven. The rhythm is of course present, but the melody is king. Only barbaric music emphasizes the rhythm as the main thing or as equal to the other elements. Second, it is mostly meant for group singing, not for soloistic showing off. The instrumental accompaniment might have a single drum modestly keeping time, but it will usually consist of fiddles, plucked or hammered strings, harps, flutes, and other traditional instruments powered by hand or breath. Third, the rhythm itself is natural, that is, it emphasizes the strong odd beats—in common or 4/4 time, beats 1 and 3—not the weak even beats (“back-beat” or syncopation). Often folk music is written in triple time, which rarely deviates from an emphasis on the primary beat. Unfortunately, today a lot of folk material is taken up and “rockified” with a beat and amped-up instruments because that’s the sugar-candy the modern taste wants. This perverts its nature.

If you are interested in pursuing further reading, allow me to make some recommendations.

One of the best philosopher of art is Roger Scruton.  He explains why much of what people say about the fine arts is poppycock, and why there are—must be—objective degrees of beauty. This means too that there are great artists, good artists, and bad artists, and that we can identify the traits they have and the qualities in their work. Scruton was a social conservative and a non-believer sympathetic to Christianity, so he has his limits. See his works Beauty: A Very Short Introduction, The Aesthetics of Music, and Music as an Art.

For a Catholic take on the arts and the beautiful, I would recommend Dietrich von Hildebrand. While Thomists have their disagreements with him, his insights into aesthetics are extremely valuable, and unlike most Thomists of the twentieth century, he saw what was at stake in the liturgical reforms and resisted them. See his Aesthetics, Volume I and Volume II.

For music in particular, I recommend Josef Pieper’s Only the Lover Sings: Art and Contemplation. It contains the single best piece on what music is that I have yet found, and therefore always assigned to my students. Also worthy of note are Elisabeth-Paule Labat’s The Song That I Am: On the Mystery of Music, Michael Kurek’s The Sound of Beauty: A Classical Composer on Music in the Spiritual Life, and Basil Cole’s Music and Morals: A Theological Appraisal of the Moral and Psychological Effects of Music. I find this last book a little weak in some respects, but the author is trying to take the tradition seriously, and it’s one of few books that do so. I have been engaged to write a book on the subject and hope to have it done by Christmas 2021.

Warm regards, in Christ,

Dr. Kwasniewski


  beauty, church teaching, sacred music, sacred scripture, truth