All of today's articles

June 17, 2021


First day of US bishops’ meeting marked by division over Eucharist for abortion promoters

A vote is taking place today.
Thu Jun 17, 2021 - 1:01 pm EST
Featured Image
Archbishop Jose Gomez USCCB screenshot
Michael Haynes Michael Haynes Follow Michael
By Michael Haynes

WASHINGTON, June 17, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — The first day of the Spring General Assembly of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was described by USCCB president Archbishop José Gomez as “fruitful.” Nevertheless, it revealed the amount of division among the bishops over the issue of Holy Communion for abortion promoters: Early debate was sparked about the format of the agenda, and regarding the amount of time to be given to discussing the proposed document drawn up by the Committee on Doctrine on a “formal statement on the meaning of the Eucharist in the life of the Church.”

While no vote is to take place on the proposed document until the end of the second day (June 17), the document’s text was at the forefront of the minds not only of the hundreds of virtually assembled clergy, but also of the members of the media who were allowed to pose questions at the post-meeting press conference.

Archbishop Rozanski and pro-LGBT Bishop Stowe were two prominent figures among several bishops who asked for unlimited time to discuss the document, which would allude to pro-abortion Joe Biden’s reception of Holy Communion, a subject which would be covered as part of the document. Rozanski stated that the matter was too important to be rushed by the prescribed time limit of 5 minutes discussion per bishop.

However, this motion was overruled by a number of bishops, including Archbishops Cordileone, Sample, Naumann, and Coakley. Naumann, the USCCB Chairman of the Committee for Pro-Life Activities, even called the request a “delay tactic” to avoid a decision, while Sample noted that a certain limited amount of time was necessary in order to at least make any progress on the document.

Rozanski’s motion to delay failed, with 59% of bishops voting against it. The general agenda of the conference was approved by 86% of bishops.

Sensing the heightened focus on the Eucharistic document, Bishop Rhoades, the chairman of the doctrine committee, intervened to say that the proposed document was broader than reception of the Eucharist by pro-abortion politicians.

It remains to be seen what exactly will be in the document, assuming its language is approved by the bishops in their vote later today.

Reference was made to the May letter sent by Cardinal Luis Ladaria, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), warning USCCB president Archbishop Gomez away from drawing up a policy on giving Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians who call themselves Catholic. “In light of Cardinal Ladaria’s letter, we are not intending to propose any kind of national norms” for the reception of the Holy Eucharist, stated Rhoades.

Notably, Chicago’s Cardinal Blase Cupich also called for a discussion with Catholic politicians who hold views contrary to the teaching of the Church, regretting the fact it had not yet happened, while the Papal Nuncio to the U.S., Archbishop Christophe Pierre, issued an address calling for a “synodal” Church, which would be marked by encounter, dialogue, and accompaniment, and urging the bishops to be guided by Pope Francis’s encyclical Fratelli Tutti.

Pierre also urged people to avoid “moralism” and engage in dialogue, the goal of which “should be unity and not merely doctrinal and juridical unity.” The family “teaches the art of unity in diversity,” he stated, calling for the Church to be such a family.

As chairman of the Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone presented a preview of its work entitled Called to the Joy of Love, the pastoral framework proposed for the year of Amoris Laetitia. Primarily directed to bishops and priests, and secondarily to the families, Cordileone stated that the program proposes four pillars for strengthening family life: prayer, formation, accompaniment, and advocacy.

It purportedly looks to protect the role of parents as primary educators.

Cardinal Cupich protested against the draft document, noting there was no use of Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia, which infamously proposes Holy Communion for the divorced and “re-married,” defending the move as an act of the Church accompanying Catholics in a variety of situations.

Cordileone responded by referencing the underlying accompaniment promoted by the document, a point which was defended by Bishop Burbidge in comments made to the press, who mentioned that the document was written with such “accompaniment” as a key principle and would assist the clergy to accompany people in “various circumstances.” LifeSiteNews has not been able to see a draft copy of the proposed document, on which a vote will be taken June 17.

— 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

LifeSiteNews took part in the press conference after the meeting, joined by members of the mainstream and Catholic media, hoping to question the USCCB on doctrinal matters, particularly relating to the continued support by some U.S. bishops for same-sex blessing, in spite of the Vatican’s recent ban on such blessings. However, the allotted question time did not provide LifeSite with a chance to have questions answered.

Much remains to be decided on the second day of the spring meeting, with the public session live-streamed on the afternoon of June 17. In this session, the bishops will vote on nine action items. The last item to be discussed is the request to draft the document on the Eucharist. The results of the debate and vote will be revealed Friday, June 18.

  eucharistic coherence, jose gomez, usccb, usccb spring 2021


BREAKING: New York priest accused by security guard of assault confirms charges have now been dropped

'I want to express my gratitude to the many people who have written to me and offered their support over these last seven months,' Father George W. Rutler said today in a statement sent to LifeSiteNews and other media outlets.
Thu Jun 17, 2021 - 12:21 pm EST
Featured Image
Father George W. Rutler EWTN
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

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

NEW YORK, June 17, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A New York priest has made his first public statement regarding the dismissal of charges against him. 

Today Father George W. Rutler reached out to LifeSiteNews and other media today with the following remarks:

I want to express my gratitude to the many people who have written to me and offered their support over these last seven months.

After having diligently and thoroughly examined accusations, the Manhattan District Attorney has stated that he is not going forward against me

September 8, the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, will be the 40th anniversary of my ordination as a Catholic priest by the Servant of God Terence Cardinal Cooke. I cherish my years of service. Please continue your prayers that the Lord may lead us all to trust in His Providence.

Rutler, the author of several books, is a familiar and beloved figure to Catholics across the United States, thanks not only to his ministry but to his many appearances on EWTN. Before Gonzalez went to the media with her allegations, Rutler made a statement saying that the accusations against him were untrue. He said also that he had voluntarily stepped aside from his pastoral duties for the duration of the investigation. 

— 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

LifeSiteNews originally broke the news of the dismissal on May 28. Manuel Gomez, the private investigator hired by Ashley Gonzalez before she went public with her accusations against Rutler, subsequently told LifeSiteNews that he was disappointed to hear that the D.A. had dropped the charges. 

Gonzalez, then 22, had worked fewer than two entire shifts at the Church of St. Michael in Manhattan on November 4, 2020, when she accused the priest of watching internet porn, indecent behavior, and then attacking her “sexually, aggressively.”

Instead of immediately calling police at 1:30 AM, when she alleged the attack happened, Gonzalez contacted Manuel Gomez, the controversial proprietor of Black Ops Private Investigators, to assist her in her complaint against Rutler. In 2017, the New York Post reported that NYPD detectives had been warned against speaking with Gomez, who allegedly was part of a “cottage industry” of bogus civil rights violation claims made against the NYPD by gang members.

In support of her claims, Gonzalez released photo footage she said showed the priest watching pornography in his office. The video appears to show a man who is completely bald watching pornography in a red room decorated with portraits of cardinals.

However, LifeSiteNews has obtained a photograph of what appears to be Gonzalez’s log sheet for her November 4 shift, and it shows that at 2 AM and 3 AM, she had found everything “all safe and secure.” LifeSiteNews reached out to Gonzalez’s former employer, also named Manuel Gomez (no relation to the private investigator) of MG Security Services for confirmation, but did not receive a response. 


LifeSiteNews also attempted to contact Gonzalez, but she has not responded. 


  george rutler


BREAKING: Supreme Court delivers narrow victory for religious freedom over LGBT ‘rights’

‘The Court has emitted a wisp of a decision that leaves religious liberty in a confused and vulnerable state,’ argued Justice Alito. ‘Those who count on this Court to stand up for the First Amendment have every right to be disappointed — as am I.’
Thu Jun 17, 2021 - 12:02 pm EST
Featured Image
U.S. Supreme Court Shutterstock
Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug
By Doug Mainwaring

WASHINGTON, June 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a unanimous judgement in favor of religious freedom in a case which had pitted so-called homosexual rights against a Catholic foster care agency’s conscience rights. Meanwhile, conservative justices as well as pro-homosexual activists are characterizing the ruling as having no relevance for similar cases before courts.

In a ruling issued this morning, all nine justices sided with Catholic Social Services (CSS) against the city of Philadelphia in a case known as Fulton v. The City of Philadelphia.

Philadelphia had stopped referring children to CSS for foster care because CSS would not vet same-sex couples as foster parents, as the Catholic agency believes that marriage is a bond between one man and one woman. The question before the court was whether the actions of Philadelphia violated the First Amendment Rights of CSS.

Chief Justice Roberts, who delivered the opinion of the Court, wrote: 

The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents cannot survive strict scrutiny, and violates the First Amendment.

Justice Alito noted that the city government had threatened the welfare of children awaiting placement in foster homes at a time when there was already an “acute shortage of foster parents,” and “went so far as to prohibit the placement of any children in homes that CSS had previously vetted and approved.”

“The City apparently prefers to risk leaving children without foster parents than to allow CSS to follow its religiously dictated policy, which threatens no tangible harm,” continued Justice Alito.

Today’s ruling is being hailed by many as an important victory.

“With more than 400,000 kids in foster care, we should be doing everything we can to support organizations that connect children in need with loving families. Discriminating against faith-based foster care providers because of their beliefs is not only unconstitutional, it makes it harder to get more kids into the safe, stable homes they deserve,” declared Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri. “The Supreme Court’s decision is a victory for religious liberty and for every child in the foster care system.”

“The decision today by the Supreme Court is a substantial win for religious liberty. In a time of growing hostility towards religion the Supreme Court’s reaffirmation of this fundamental freedom is even more critical,” said Family Research council President, Tony Perkins in a statement

“Increasingly, the Left refuses to tolerate the slightest deviation from their political orthodoxy regardless of who suffers as a result. While we stop to celebrate and thank God that the Supreme Court reaffirmed religious liberty today, we are fully aware and prepared for the attacks of the Left on this fundamental, God-given freedom to continue unabated,” concluded Perkins.

“The Supreme Court’s decision today is a great win for all children who are in need of a forever home. The staggering number of children in foster care demands an all hands on deck approach that allows for all people, no matter their religious beliefs, to open their homes and their hearts to a son or daughter who needs a family,” commented Leigh Fitzpatrick Snead, an adoptive mother and Fellow for The Catholic Association. “The state should not require foster care agencies to compromise, violate, or abandon their religious beliefs or identities as a condition of serving these children in need.”

A “wisp of a decision”

While clearly a victory for religious liberty in general, and Catholic social service organizations in particular, Justice Samuel Alito, who was joined in his concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch, warned that today’s ruling did not go far enough:

This decision might as well be written on the dissolving paper sold in magic shops. The City has been adamant about pressuring CSS to give in, and if the City wants to get around today’s decision, it can simply eliminate the never-used exemption power. If it does that, then, voilà, today’s decision will vanish — and the parties will be back where they started …

Not only is the Court’s decision unlikely to resolve the present dispute, it provides no guidance regarding similar controversies in other jurisdictions. From 2006 to 2011, Catholic Charities in Boston, San Francisco, Washington, D. C., and Illinois ceased providing adoption or foster care services after the city or state government insisted that they serve same-sex couples. Although the precise legal grounds for these actions are not always clear, it appears that they were based on laws or regulations generally prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. And some jurisdictions have adopted anti-discrimination rules that expressly target adoption services.

Today’s decision will be of no help in other cases involving the exclusion of faith-based foster care and adoption agencies unless by some chance the relevant laws contain the same glitch as the Philadelphia contractual provision on which the majority’s decision hangs. The decision will be even less significant in all the other important religious liberty cases that are bubbling up.

LGBT organizations interpreting today’s ruling on behalf of religious freedom are echoing Justice Alito.

— 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

“Supreme Court in Fulton rules in favor of religious adoption agency, but on narrow grounds (specific to the City of Philadelphia contract),” wrote Shannon Minter in a tweet.

“A narrow decision that leaves existing law largely unchanged & creates no sweeping new religious exemption,” said Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR).

“The Court has emitted a wisp of a decision that leaves religious liberty in a confused and vulnerable state,” concluded Justice Alito in his 77-page opinion. “Those who count on this Court to stand up for the First Amendment have every right to be disappointed — as am I.”

  adoption agencies, catholic social services, fulton v. philadelphia, homosexual adoption, supreme court


Exempting only the vaccinated from mandatory quarantine after travel will create ‘two-tiered society’ in Canada: lawyer

'Canada’s statement that it intends to relax the quarantine hotels and 14-day- quarantine rules for the vaccinated population creates a two-tiered society which punishes those who do not wish to or cannot receive the experimental COVID-19 vaccines.'
Thu Jun 17, 2021 - 11:48 am EST
Featured Image
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.

OTTAWA, Ontario, June 17, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – A Canadian lawyer has blasted the federal government’s plans to lift its  quarantine mandate only for those who are fully “vaccinated,” saying that this will create a “two-tiered society”.

Allison Kindle Pejovic, a lawyer for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), told LifeSiteNews that distinguishing between vaccinated and unvaccinated punishes the latter.

“Canada’s statement that it intends to relax the quarantine hotels and 14-day- quarantine rules for the vaccinated population creates a two-tiered society which punishes those who do not wish to or cannot receive the experimental COVID-19 vaccines,” she said.

The plans were recently revealed by Canada’s Health Minister Patty Hajdu. “Fully vaccinated” Canadians will still have to take a COVID-19 PCR test upon their return to Canada and must isolate at home until a negative result is confirmed.   

Kindle Pejovic told LifeSiteNews that the new plan makes “no sense.”  

The federal government’s new relaxation of quarantine rules for those who have had the jab “ignores what the vaccine companies have admitted, that the vaccines do not prevent people from acquiring COVID-19, nor do they prevent people from transmitting COVID-19 to others,” the lawyer said.

“So if fully vaccinated people can still get and spread COVID-19, why does the unvaccinated population pose such a risk that they must still be subjected to the quarantine rules?” she continued.

“A policy that quarantines only the unvaccinated when the vaccinated can still spread COVID-19 is not science-based and is manifestly unfair. This change in policy is not only draconian, it also makes little sense.”  

Intergovernmental Minister Dominic LeBlanc said last Wednesday that Canadians can soon expect “more of an idea” about the details of the new rules, but LeBlanc said that “vaccination is key.”  

“The first phase we’re considering now is aimed at allowing fully vaccinated individuals who are authorized to enter the country to be able to cross the border without having to stay in a government authorized accommodation,” said LeBlanc.

Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently said he was looking to ease border restrictions, but only for those who had been “fully vaccinated.”

The news of the relaxation of quarantine rules for those who have received COVID-19 vaccine follows hard upon Trudeau’s recent statement that his government is working on “certificates of vaccination” for travel “right now.”

Recently, Trudeau’s office claimed  that a “broad consensus”  has been reached among the nation’s premiers to create “a proof of vaccine credential” system for travel. 

Last week, LifeSiteNews reported that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) says it has an “urgent” need to create an “Office of Biometrics and Identity Management” that could be used to verify the vaccine status of all Canadian and foreign travelers who enter the country.  

The province of Manitoba recently launched its own immunization card program for those who have “received both doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.”

Manitobans who have had both COVID-19 jabs are now allowed to skip mandatory 14-day quarantine rules which still apply to unvaccinated Manitobans who are returning to the province.

Health Canada has authorized four COVID-19 injections for adults, all with connections to abortion. All of them have been associated with severe side effects such as blood clots, rashes, miscarriages, and even heart attacks in young healthy men.

In early January, the Canadian federal government enacted new rules which required all air travelers coming into Canada to present a negative PCR or LAMP COVID-19 test to their airline before being allowed to board their flight. 

In late January, the government announced that “all air travellers … with very limited exceptions” would have to submit to a mandatory hotel quarantine for at least three nights while waiting for test results from a mandatory COVID-19 test given upon arrival.

— 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

Before arrival in Canada, passengers must reserve online and pay for a spot at a government-approved hotel. If a negative test result comes in during the three-day stay, a person is then permitted to leave the hotel, but is told to quarantine at home for 14 days. 

Only four airports in Canada — Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, and Montreal — currently service international flights.

The government recently increased the fines for those who do not comply with the quarantine rules from $3000 to $5000 

With the help of the JCCF, several people are suing the government over the quarantine program. 

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

  coronavirus vaccine, dominic leblanc, justin trudeau, patty hajdu, vaccine passport


Poll shows majority of faithful Catholic laity in favor of refusing Communion to Biden

A recent poll shows that almost three quarters of church-going Catholics are opposed to giving Holy Communion to the pro-abortion president.
Thu Jun 17, 2021 - 10:12 am EST
Featured Image
Joe Biden and his wife in church Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
Isabella Childs
By Isabella Childs

June 17, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — As the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) debates from June 16–19 whether or not President Joe Biden and other self-professed Catholic politicians in support of abortion should be able to receive Holy Communion, a recent poll shows that almost three quarters of church-going Catholics are opposed.

The poll was conducted by the national faith-based advocacy organization CatholicVote, and had 600 Catholic respondents. 70% of the respondents agreed with the statement: “Catholic public officials who disagree with their Church on serious or grave matters, should avoid creating confusion and disunity by presenting themselves for communion.” 86% of the respondents agreed that “[p]ublic officials who identify as Catholic but openly advocate for policies hostile to Church teaching are hypocritical.” 83% of the respondents said that “Catholic teaching holds that anyone conscious of ‘grave sin,’ who has not received the sacrament of reconciliation, should not present themselves for Holy Communion.”

Curiously, these statements received strong positive responses, even though only 38% of the respondents identified themselves as “conservative.”

The respondents agree with the Church’s teaching that Catholics who are obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.

The Church’s official stand against abortion and the other positions held by the Biden administration is very clear. As Pope Francis’ predecessor, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, stated in 2004, Catholic politicians who consistently campaign and vote for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws manifest “formal cooperation” with grave sin and must be “denied” the Eucharist.

Biden actively pushes for abortion, denies biological reality by advocating for transgender ideology, including supporting hormone therapy and hormone blockers for minors, encourages same-sex “marriages” (he even presided over such “weddings” as a public official), and suppresses faith-based religious organizations. According to the Catholic League For Religious and Civil Rights, Biden has actively disobeyed Church teaching at least 32 times.

Bishops are strongly divided on the issue of Holy Communion for those who publicly support abortion.

Some bishops call for “Eucharist coherence,” as they call it, which is theological shorthand for what is lost when famous people who identify as Catholics but persist in open scandal, for example, by promoting abortion, receive Holy Communion. On the other side of the issue, Cardinals Blase Cupich, Wilton Gregory, Sean O’Malley and Joseph Tobin were among the over 60 bishops who didn’t want the USCCB to discuss prohibiting pro-abortion self-identified Catholics in public life from receiving Holy Communion.

— 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

Pope Francis, meanwhile, hinted at favoring no restriction on distributing the Eucharist in his Corpus Christi homily on Sunday. The Church must be “a community with open arms, welcoming towards all,” Pope Francis exhorted during his June 6, Corpus Christi homily in a possible allusion towards the USCCB’s proposed denial of Holy Communion to anti-life politicians. “The Eucharist wants to nourish those who are tired and hungry along the way, let's not forget that!”

  catholic vote, joe biden, usccb


EXCLUSIVE — Ex-Clinton advisor banned from Twitter: De-platforming is ‘terrifying’ for democracy

'This systematic de-platforming, is very terrifying for democracy. I am a progressive Democrat, but it's extremely disturbing to see Twitter and Facebook systematically de-platforming conservative voices, and even a former American President.'
Thu Jun 17, 2021 - 10:12 am EST
Featured Image
Dr. Naomi Wolf Robin Marchant / Stringer / Getty
Stephen Kokx Stephen Kokx Follow Stephen
By Stephen Kokx

Editor’s note: LifeSiteNews does not agree with all the views expressed in this interview.

June 17, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Dr. Naomi Wolf has been permanently banned from Twitter. A life-long progressive Democrat, Wolf has been a sharp critic of coronavirus passports and vaccines lately, telling Fox News’ Tucker Carlson in February that “we’re really moving into a coup situation, a police state situation, and that’s not a partisan thing.”

Mainstream media outlets misleadingly claimed Wolf’s suspension was related to her spreading “anti-vaxx” conspiracy theories on the platform. In an interview with LifeSiteNews (presented below) Wolf, who had nearly 150,000 followers, rejects those claims, explaining that she was never informed by Twitter why she was banned.

In May, Wolf, who supports abortion during the first trimester, spoke to LifeSite about her time testifying to Michigan state lawmakers about the dangers of mandatory vaccine passports. She re-iterated those concerns to LifeSite in this exclusive interview.

Can you explain the tweet that got you suspended? Many outlets are saying you're spreading “conspiracy theories” and “anti-vaxx” info.

Twitter did not inform me of why I was suspended. But the accounts in the news stories that make claims that I was suspended for "conspiracy theories" and "anti-vaxx" info are not correct. I do not see how news outlets can make these claims without anyone having contacted me for comment, and without any Twitter spokesperson providing any documentation. 

I was suspended for posting a two-minute video in which I read verbatim a press release from Oregon State Senator Kim Thatcher, about her bill SB 872, which bans vaccine passports and mask mandates. The bill is based on our model bills on the Five Freedoms Campaign: No Mask Mandates, No Vaccine Passports, Open Schools Now, Freedom of Assembly, End Emergency Law. 

This campaign has been extremely successful and helped to end emergency law in New Hampshire, helped introduce bills to ban vaccine passports in Michigan and Maine, and helped to open Pennsylvania and end all unconstitutional restrictions on freedom and the rule of law in that state. 

I was also suspended a day after a video in which my husband Brian O’Shea, a private investigator/former military intelligence, read Dr. Ralph Baric's CV, which Brian had located on a public website. 

The CV confirms over $14 million in funding from NIH, including for gain of function research. It also mentions Dr. Shi Zhengli, the “Bat Lady” of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This CV contradicts the claim by Dr. Fauci to the US Senate that the NIH/NIAID did not fund gain of function research. After that video got 74,000 views in 24 hours, I was de-platformed. 

I am not “anti-vaxx” at all. That is inaccurate. I am pro-HIPAA, pro-Fourth Amendment, pro-Equality Act, pro-Nuremberg Codes; all of which make medical coercion illegal already. And I am pro-evidence-based reporting on public issues. 

We are certainly in a time when any solid investigative reporting that raises inconvenient questions — such as my reporting on some scientists' concerns around tissue inflammation post-vaccination — reporting I posted for months BEFORE the CDC called an emergency meeting this past week to address over two hundred cases of myocarditis (heart inflammation), notably in healthy young men, post-vaccination — are smeared baselessly as “conspiracy theories.”  That kind of inaccurate attack on evidence-based journalism and that silencing of journalists is not good for an informed public or a healthy democracy. 

What does your ban from Twitter say about the relationship between Big Tech and Big Pharma? 

Without a subpoena, it is impossible to see exactly what the ties are between Big Tech, the NIH and Big Pharma. That is why I called two months ago, on Tucker Carlson, for an investigation of conflicts of interest around Dr Fauci. I believe I was among the first to do so. I assumed we would find the conflicts and relationships that we are already finding.

The Fauci emails released already show communications between Mark Zuckerberg and Dr. Fauci, and coordination around COVID messaging on Facebook, at a minimum. The redactions are problematic. The American public owns those communications, and the emails cannot be redacted in a FOIA if they are not classified. If they are classified, why are they classified?

What this shows, even prior to undoing the redactions, is that this Big Tech platform coordinated with a government agency to spin a message, which is something that news outlets are not supposed to do and it is something that utilities such as the phone company cannot do. Google, Microsoft, Bloomberg, Amazon, Zoom, Nintendo, the Nasdaq and other tech companies united in “The COVID-19 Response Project” in early 2020, to coordinate messaging around the pandemic across all these platforms. As a tech CEO I can tell you that is an expensive and elaborate undertaking, yet they invested resources and engineers into the coordination to communicate a single message, fund research, and drown out conflicting evidence and commentators. 

All this coordination around messaging and now, this systematic de-platforming, is very terrifying for democracy. I am a progressive Democrat, but it's extremely disturbing to see Twitter and Facebook systematically de-platforming conservative voices, and even a former American President.

I am in very distinguished company as someone who was de-platformed for raising serious questions that turned out to be necessary to raise. Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University, one of the signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration, was de-platformed by Twitter. He was 100 per cent right about the disastrous effect of "lockdowns" on public health and on children. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been de-platformed from various platforms. The round table in which Governor Ron DeSantis spoke to Dr. Kulldorff, Dr. Battacharya of Stanford, and Dr. Gupta of Oxford, about the public health harms of “lockdowns,” was de-platformed. Some of the most prescient and conscientious scientists, doctors and journalists in this difficult moment, have been de-platformed. This is how the CCP consolidates its power, and it is happening in the West, systematically. 

There is also a financial incentive to de-platform critics of “lockdowns” such as myself. Big Tech CEOs are up double-digit BILLIONS since March 2020, because “lockdown” policies drove everyone onto social media platforms. Why would they not wish to extend the disastrous “lockdown” policies? Shareholder obligations require that they lobby to keep people at home, kids out of school, etcetera.  Coordination of messaging with the government and news outlets distorted both policy and news about the pandemic and extended “lockdowns” though they made no difference in COVID outcomes, and turned out to be horrible policy. $12 million to the CDC Foundation a year from Big Pharma, $10 million a year from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, also corrupt the messaging of the CDC, in my view, and pose a serious conflict of interest. 

The fact that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is invested in Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, and that Microsoft built the first “vaccine passport,” poses an additional conflict and puts pressure on government agencies to message in only one direction regarding those issues. Tim Schwab of the Columbia Journalism Review has documented the flow of millions of dollars from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to legacy news sites, which again puts pressure on editors in those news outlets and incentivizes misreporting on or marginalizing those of us asking what used to be understood, without these pressures on news sites, as reasonable, responsible questions. 

And lastly Big Pharma and Big Tech also fund the Democratic Party's runs for re-election, just as fossil fuels, the defense industry, fund the Republicans’.

All these conflicts result in a tangle of attacks on good journalists and decent civic leaders when we engage in basic reporting or basic civic leadership.  

Where are we, as a country, when people like yourself and others are cancelled simply for exercising free speech online?

We are where Germany was in 1933. It was still a fragile democracy, but outspoken critics of fascism were systematically fired, shamed, attacked, marginalized, lied about, intimidated and silenced. We should recall too that National Socialism early on organized a “health passport.”

How have your liberal friends taken to your outspokenness on COVID? I imagine you may have lost a few along the way?

Many liberals are as shocked and appalled as I am at how our traditionally liberal, tolerant, human-rights-oriented, equality-oriented, free-speech-supporting world view, has been so suddenly rebranded and re-launched as a Chinese Communist Party style straight up Marxist set of views, intolerant of dissent, resistant to Enlightenment style discussion of evidence and science, and totalitarian and punitive in its orientation. 

They are mostly quiet in public but discussing this among themselves privately, I am finding; I think we will see a big migration of these true liberals away from what has, I hope temporarily, become a party that appears to be held hostage by un-American interests and ideologies. I hope something good and new comes from that migration. I am seeing a massive realignment on the grassroots level — The Five Freedoms Campaign is a great example — in which patriots across the right, left and center are uniting to defend the Constitution and preserve an American culture of equality, freedom of speech and individual rights, and are saving the arguments over our differences around abortion, or the environment, or guns, for a day after our nation's actual liberty has been re-secured. 

I recall you tweeting not long ago that the conservatives you've met in recent months aren't what you originally thought they were. Can you expand on that? 

Sure. I lived in the NY/SF/DC bubble of liberal urbanites, for most of my life. We are raised to fear and dread conservatives and libertarians, as I wrote in my tweet. Most news outlets caricature anyone who is a practicing Christian, owns a gun, voted for Trump, has reservations about abortion, and so on, as "deplorables" — universally uneducated, racist, homophobic, violent, misogynist hicks who are a danger to the nation.

Libertarians are feared as heartless individualists driven by selfishness. Many liberals never actually meet a conservative or a libertarian in a context in which they can have a reasoned discussion about their respective views.

I am lucky to have a job that has taken me outside my demographic “bubble” to speak to audiences from every walk of life, and patriots have supported my work since I wrote The End of America and Give Me Liberty, so I got to know people across the political spectrum. I married a libertarian (though I am not one, I'm still a classical liberal) and I had a wonderful fellowship at AIER. It was a joy to make friends with libertarians — what a pleasure to disagree with people without them feeling forced to change your mind; what a pleasure to be around people who tolerated other people's choices. In a time of coercion and CCP style efforts to forge mass consensus, this openness to others' choices was beautiful to behold. 

I've also been invited by many Republican state legislators to speak about the Five Freedoms. It's painful to me that almost all of the political leaders who are trying to pass bills to end tyrannies now are Republicans. I wish the Democrats were showing leadership on this instead of, usually, trying to kill these bills. Also, right-wing news outlets want to talk to me about this campaign — the usual liberal news outlets where I have appeared for decades, do not want to talk to me about freedom. 

This is disappointing for sure politically, but it also means I have made many news friends. And while we still don't agree on many issues, I am struck by how hospitable, civil, kind and patriotic so many are.

It's time to heal our country of its divisions so we can unite to save America from what is really a coup by now by interests that do not represent us. We can unite as lovers of our country, and argue in the proper time and place, about policies on which we don't agree. Surely, we can agree on saving our Constitution and our culture of liberty.  It will save the nation and our kids if we can continue to make spaces to grow this kind of community and open, respectful dialogue and debate.  

— 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

What will you be doing going forward to keep raising awareness about the COVID injection and other totalitarian measures being taken by governments and social media platforms?

I'll forge ahead with DailyClout and the Five Freedoms Campaign. I'm also launching a podcast as so many have asked, “where can we find Naomi?” We received many offers of distribution since my de-platforming. I am also taking legal action against some of these entities' unlawful behavior, about which more soon. 

Again, to note, I am not "anti-vaxx";  my efforts rather are always around the Constitution, which means opposing any illegal coercion; but I am glad that DailyClout can serve so well as a platform for all groups — ranging from health freedom groups to Moms for Liberty who are lobbying to reopen schools and get masks of our kids, to those wanting to end emergency law in their state. Any American wanting to affect the laws of the nation, or even to draft news laws, can use our platform and be a leader. 

That's how our Founders set up our system and I am honored to have helped create a platform that supports citizen leaders in a trans-partisan way. We need to save democracy together. And if Twitter thought that by de-platforming me I would be silenced in my fight to preserve the Constitution — our fight — they will find that they were sadly mistaken.

  big tech censorship, cancel culture, coronavirus vaccine, naomi wolf


Physician: ‘Fanaticism’ — not science — governs CDC’s aggressive push to vaccinate even those with natural immunity

Public health insiders increasingly are calling out the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention over the 'insanity' of pushing COVID vaccines on people who have already acquired natural immunity.
Thu Jun 17, 2021 - 8:42 am EST
Featured Image
Children’s Health Defense
By Children's Health Defense

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

June 17, 2021 (Children’s Health Defense) — Although accurate numbers are difficult to come by, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conservatively estimates more than a third of Americans (at least 114.6 million) have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. There is ample reason to believe that in most of these individuals, SARS-CoV-2 infection “induces long-term immunity.”

For example, a December 2020 study by Singapore researchers found neutralizing antibodies (one prong of the immune response) remained present in high concentrations for 17 years or more in individuals who recovered from the original SARS-CoV.

More recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published evidence of durable immune responses to natural infection with SARS-CoV-2.

Even back in March 2020, the NIH’s Dr. Anthony Fauci shared his view (in an email [p. 22] to Ezekiel Emanuel) that “their [sic] would be substantial immunity post infection.”

Yet despite these recent findings, health authorities are largely ignoring natural immunity’s stellar track record. In fact, as the American Institute of Economic Research reported, it appears in order to promote the COVID vaccine agenda, key organizations are not only “downplaying” natural immunity but may be seeking to “erase” it altogether.

Until recently, the Mayo Clinic reported that individuals who survived the 1918 influenza pandemic were immune, 92 years later, to H1N1 influenza. However as economist Jon Sanders noted, the Mayo Clinic removed the mention of 1918 influenza immunity from its website this spring. And late last year, the WHO was caught attempting to unscientifically exclude “immunity developed through previous infection” from the very definition of herd immunity.

Why, asks Sanders, are Americans being kept in the dark about the fact that so many “have faced COVID-19 and won” — and, therefore, “don’t need a vaccine?”

Policy reversal

The evidence that natural immunity is strong and long-lived goes back decades. In contrast, the one-dimensional immunity conferred by vaccination and vaccine boosters is often fickle, short-lived or altogether absent.

The well-studied phenomenon of vaccine failure observed following mass vaccination against illnesses such as measlespertussis and influenza — and the serious or fatal “breakthrough infections” we are now observing after COVID shots — have proven this point repeatedly.

The CDC’s indiscriminate advice to the segment of the population that has recovered from COVID-19 to get a COVID vaccine stands in stark contrast to the agency’s approach to other infections.

For example, CDC does not recommend measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination for individuals who have confirmation of past infection or who were born in the pre-MMR era, when everyone got those childhood diseases.

Recognizing that vaccination is beside the point for people who acquire immunity naturally — by experiencing a given illness naturally — CDC likewise tells individuals who have lab confirmation of “disease-induced immunity” against varicella that they do not need to get a chickenpox vaccine.

— 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

Surprising criticism from insiders

Online medical news outlet MedPage Today, owned by “leading Internet information and services company” J2 Global, describes itself as “a trusted source for clinical news coverage across medical specialties.”

For the most part, this translates into bland mainstream coverage that, in the COVID era, has included heavy promotion and endorsement of the public health party line on vaccination.

However, the publication’s “Enterprise & Investigative team” also professes to be willing to “shine a light on wrongdoing in medicine — whether individual, corporate or governmental” as well as “following the money in healthcare.”

Of late, this investigative team appears to have decided to blow the whistle on the suppression of discussion about natural COVID immunity. On May 28, MedPage published an op-ed bluntly titled “Quit Ignoring Natural COVID Immunity.” Days later, Dr. Marty Makary, MedPage Today editor-in-chief, in public interviews reiterated many of the arguments laid out in the op-ed.

Dr. Jeffrey Klausner, one of the op-ed’s two co-authors, is a former CDC medical officer and “frequent advisor to the CDC, NIH and WHO.” In their op-ed, Klausner and co-author Noah Kojima ask why we are “so focused on vaccine-induced immunity … while ignoring natural immunity” and also criticize policy-makers for ignoring the “complexities of the human immune system” —  including the evidence that both B cells and T cells contribute to post-COVID cellular immunity.

Arguing that protection among COVID-recovered individuals “is similar to or better than vaccine-induced immunity,” they also condemn the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) advice against using antibody testing, instead urging the following:

“[P]olicymakers should include natural immunity as determined by an accurate and reliable antibody test or the documentation of prior infection … as evidence of immunity equal to that of vaccination [emphasis added]. That immunity should be given the same societal status as vaccine-inducted [sic] immunity. Such a policy will greatly reduce anxiety and increase access to travel, events, family visits, and more … allowing [those who have recovered] to safely discard their masks, show their faces, and join the legions of those vaccinated.”

In his public statements, Makary has been even more outspoken, describing the sidelining of natural COVID immunity — which he believes is “probably lifelong” — as “[o]ne of the biggest failures of our current medical leadership.”

According to Makary, the CDC’s relentless focus on vaccine-induced immunity and its “demonizing” of individuals who choose not to get a COVID vaccine makes the agency “the most slow, reactionary, political CDC in American history.”

Makary, whose other professional roles include professor of medicine and public health at Johns Hopkins University and election to the National Academy of Medicine, also remarked, “I never thought I’d say this, but please ignore the CDC guidance.”

Makary has also expressed dissent on the topic of COVID vaccines and children. In a June 10 opinion piece in MedPage Today, Makary told parents to “think twice before giving the COVID vax to healthy kids,” characterizing the risk of a healthy child dying of COVID as “between zero and infinitesimally rare.” (Blunting the force of this statement, however, Makary signaled his support of COVID-19 vaccination in “any child with a medical condition, including being overweight” — which means at least 54% of American children).

In a June 13 television appearance, Makary continued to criticize the CDC, accusing it of “sitting on a lot of data,” including important information about the serious heart complications now being experienced by adolescent recipients of the COVID injections. According to a news account, Makary suggested that “fanaticism” governs the aggressive push for COVID vaccination, again citing “the insanity of insisting on a vaccine to immunize those already immune.”

Pushback welcome

In early June, Children’s Health Defense called for an immediate halt to COVID vaccination of minors, pointing to the significant risk of adverse events, including blood clots and heart inflammation, and the vaccines’ unknown long-term effects.

Scientists recently offered a dramatic explanation for some of these adverse outcomes, disclosing that the spike protein in the Pfizer and Moderna injections is actually a pathogenic toxin that accumulates in organs and tissues and crosses the blood-brain barrier.

In this context, reminders about the role and benefits of natural immunity can counterbalance the dangerous and false herd immunity rhetoric that seeks to justify COVID vaccines for kids.

Readers of The Defender are also likely familiar with the numerous conflicts of interest that make it so difficult to trust advice from officials at captured agencies like the CDC and the FDA. When insiders cloaked with titles and prestige from the public health establishment put forth critiques of these agencies, we would be foolish not to pay attention.

In the context of the growing censorship of any information that runs counter to government and industry claims, pushback from all corners is welcome, particularly when it is grounded in both evidence and common sense.

© June 16, 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.

  anthony fauci, cdc, coronavirus vaccine, covid immunity, jon sanders, marty makary


5th exec joins Moderna billionaire club — as stock price soars despite growing number of injury reports

For the fifth time since the onset of the COVID pandemic in early 2020, the skyrocketing price of Moderna stock has produced a billionaire, but the vaccine is coming under increasing scrutiny for possible links to blood clots and heart inflammation.
Thu Jun 17, 2021 - 8:15 am 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.

June 17, 2021 (Children’s Health Defense) — For the fifth time since the onset of the COVID pandemic in early 2020, the skyrocketing price of Moderna stock has produced a billionaire.

Moderna President Dr. Stephen Hoge is the company’s latest shareholder and executive to join the “three-comma-club” — with an estimated $1.1 billion fortune.

Other club members are CEO Stéphane Bancel, chairman and cofounder of Noubar Afeyan, founding investor Timothy Springer and cofounder Robert Langer, Forbes reported.

Hoge, 45, joined Moderna in 2012 and owns 0.4% of Moderna stock — worth $365 million — in addition to about $685 million in options. Like the other Moderna shareholders, Hoge frequently sells stock —  including $65.5 million worth (pre-tax) between March 2020 and April 2021.

Hoge is one of more than 40 new billionaires who made 10-figure fortunes with companies involved in the “battle against COVID.”

Activists say this wealth generation highlights the stark inequality that has resulted from the pandemic, CNN reported.

“These billionaires are the human face of the huge profits many pharmaceutical corporations are making from the monopoly they hold on these vaccines,” Anne Marriott, Oxfam’s health policy manager, said in a statement. “These vaccines were funded by public money and should be first and foremost a global public good, not a private profit opportunity.”

Since February 2020, Moderna’s share price has gained more than 700%. Over the past month alone, the company’s stock is up 29%. During this same timeframe, Moderna applied for Emergency Use Authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for its COVID vaccine in adolescents, and increased its forecasted production of vaccine in 2021, from 800 million doses to 1 billion.

Taxpayers foot the bill for vaccine research

As The Defender reported previously, Moderna’s COVID vaccine is funded almost entirely by U.S. taxpayers. Through its partnership with the U.S. government, Moderna received nearly $1 billion for research and development of its mRNA vaccine, and up to $1.525 billion for delivering 100 million doses, with an option for another 400 million.

According to Public Citizen, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) owns a 50% stake in Moderna’s mRNA vaccine, which the NIH helped develop under the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), run by Dr. Anthony Fauci.

As described in The People’s Vaccine, the U.S. government provided millions of dollars to Moderna as early as 2013 to help develop its mRNA technology. The NIH meanwhile was also developing new methods to target COVID spike proteins. When the new coronavirus emerged in Wuhan, China, the NIH worked with Moderna to design and test a vaccine.

The U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research Development Authority provided Moderna an additional $483 million to further develop the vaccine and scale up manufacturing.

Fauci and the NIAID have a financial incentive to push Moderna’s vaccine over competitors’ COVID vaccines — because Fauci personally, and others on staff, have a financial stake in the Moderna vaccine. Fauci and four of his hand-selected deputies will split hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties with Moderna from sales of the vaccine.

Moderna continues to ignore problems with its vaccine

Moderna’s stock has risen steadily, and its top executives have benefited accordingly, despite a growing number of reports of injuries and deaths following the vaccine.

According to the latest data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), between Dec. 14, 2020 and June 4, a total of 329,021 total adverse events were reported following COVID vaccines, including 5,888 deaths and 28,441 serious injury reports.

Of the 329,021 total vaccine injury reports, 152,262 were attributed to Moderna’s COVID vaccine, including 11,454 serious injuries and 2,241 reported deaths.

As The Defender reported this week, Simone Scott, a 19-year-old freshman at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., died June 11 of complications from a heart transplant she underwent after developing what her doctors believe was myocarditis following her second dose of the Moderna COVID vaccine.

Scott received her second dose of Moderna on May 1, after which she developed heart complications which required her to have a heart transplant. Her doctors have not fully confirmed the cause of her death, but they said it appears Scott suffered from myocarditis — which according to researchers at the National Organization for Rare Disorders, can result from infections, but “more commonly the myocarditis is a result of the body’s immune reaction to the initial heart damage.”

The Defender reported on June 15 that 21-year-old New Jersey student, Justin Harrington, suffered severe heart inflammation after receiving his second dose of Moderna’s COVID vaccine.

Justin, whose school required him to get the vaccine in order to attend classes in the fall, experienced flu-like symptoms followed by heart pain within eight to 12 hours of receiving the vaccine.

“He has to wear a heart monitor and take four different medications for six months,” Justin’s father said. “He has to sleep propped up, can’t exert himself and he’s missing out on one of the most important times of his life.”

As recently as last week, Moderna said it has not found a link between its COVID vaccine and cases of a rare heart inflammation condition reported in young people who have received the shot.

The vaccine maker said in a statement it arrived at this conclusion after “carefully reviewing available safety data to date for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for cases of myocarditis and/or pericarditis.”

The CDC said during a June 10 meeting of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee the agency had identified 226 reports of heart inflammation that might meet its “working case definition” of myocarditis and pericarditis following the shots, The Defender reported last week.

According to the CDC, a total of 475 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were recorded in patients 30 and younger who received an mRNA vaccine. The median age of people with myocarditis or pericarditis following the first dose was 30, and after the second dose, 24.

Moderna said it “will continue to closely monitor these reports and is actively working with public health and regulatory authorities to further assess this issue.”

“We clearly have an imbalance there,” said Dr. Tom Shimabukuro of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office during the June 10 FDA meeting. The committee met to discuss safety issues surrounding the use of COVID vaccines in children as young as 6 months old.

The CDC has scheduled an emergency meeting of its advisers on June 18 to discuss higher-than-expected reports of heart inflammation following doses of Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines.

EU probes Moderna’s vaccine

On May 10, EU regulators called on Pfizer and Moderna to provide additional data related to the companies’ COVID vaccines and a potential link to heart inflammation, after the agency completed a safety review of all four COVID vaccines authorized for emergency use in the EU.

In a report issued May 7, PRAC disclosed its members were aware of cases of myocarditis and pericarditis following Pfizer vaccination. Regulators said they didn’t see an indication the vaccine caused these cases, but as a prevention, PRAC requested Pfizer provide further data, including an analysis of events according to age and gender in its next pandemic summary safety report and will consider if any other regulatory action is needed.

Because Moderna and Pfizer use the same mRNA technology for their vaccines, the committee asked Moderna to monitor for similar cases of heart inflammation.

mRNA vaccines also linked to blood clots

Doctors have warned both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines also could cause blood clotting disorders, similar to those associated with the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and AstraZeneca vaccines.

As The Defender reported in April, U.S. regulatory officials were alerted to that fact as far back as December 2020.

A study released in April by Oxford University found the number of people who developed CVST blood clots after COVID vaccines was about the same for Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca, MarketWatch reported. (J&J is not approved for use in the EU, where the study originated).

A search in VAERS revealed 5,907 reports of blood clotting disorders between Dec. 14, 2020 and June 4. Of those, 2,017 reports were attributed to Moderna.

© June 16, 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.

  big pharma, blood clots, coronavirus vaccine, moderna, stephen hoge, vaccine side effects


Can we set a place at the Holy Family’s table for the father of the family?

On the essential role of fatherhood in salvation history and in child development.
Thu Jun 17, 2021 - 8:35 am EST
Featured Image
Statue of the Holy Family Shutterstock
Kevin Burke
By Kevin Burke

June 17, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Sometimes it can seem like the Holy Family consists of two spiritual superstars … and that other guy.

This is quite understandable.

The father of this family, Joseph, was called to a very unusual vocation as the spouse of Mary, who was given the mind-blowing vocation to carry within her womb the Word of God made flesh. God chose Joseph to love, serve, and protect this family, and entrusted Jesus to his fatherhood.

Now, God could have provided in every way for this mother and child without Joseph.

But the Lord wanted to achieve his plan of salvation within the heart of the human family, revealing the essential role of fathers in the physical, emotional and spiritual development of their children. This reveals how blessed are families when a man is present, and committed to working with the Lord to protect, love and serve his family.

We are discovering in our day how children suffer when a father is not present.

Children raised without fathers:

  • 4x more likely to be raised in poverty

  • 10x more likely to abuse substances; 70% of adolescent substance abusers come from fatherless homes

  • 11x more likely to commit violence and 20x more likely to be incarcerated.

  • 80% of adolescents in psych hospitals come from fatherless families

  • 9x more likely to drop out of school

Emotional Abortion

I have witnessed in the last 20 years as a professional social worker the way that father wounds from childhood can interact with a young man’s involvement with abortion, creating a toxic synergy that can be both confusing and deeply painful.

As shared in my book about men and abortion, Tears of the Fisherman, boys and young men who experience absent, abusive fathers, or faced the traumatic loss of their father through divorce, are especially vulnerable to strong and complex emotions after participating in the abortion of their child. They can express those powerful emotions in ways that hurt them and their loved ones.

The good news is there is emotional and spiritual healing available that can help men navigate through these turbulent waters. As men progress through abortion healing programs like Rachel’s Vineyard, they discover that while they may have wounds with their earthly fathers, and have seriously sinned against God and their fellow man, they have a Father in Heaven who still loves them unconditionally and passionately as his sons. This is often a life-changing moment of grace that empowers them to continue on the journey to recovery.

As the Rachel’s Vineyard weekend progresses, men are able to restore their fatherly relationship with the aborted child (and repent of their role in that child’s death.)

As they address their abortion loss, men learn on a deep and intimate level how to grieve in a healthy way, within a process immersed in God’s Word. Fathers have the opportunity to invite the Holy Spirit into the dark wounds of their own loss and abuse.

The abortion recovery experience empowers them to begin to let go of the unhealthy ways they used to cope with this pain in the past. They are restored and strengthened as men and fathers. (For those who suffered from a family divorce, Life Giving Wounds is a wonderful outreach that offers education, retreat ministry and support groups.)

Now more than ever: consecration to Saint Joseph

Regardless of your personal history, all men and fathers in these confusing and challenging times, will benefit from a closer relationship with the greatest father in the history of the human family.

— 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

Fr. Donald Calloway has written an excellent and user-friendly guide to draw men closer to the one blessed to be chosen by God as father of the Holy Family. Fr. Calloway outlines a simple, easy to read, but profound journey of spiritual renewal for men in his book Consecration to St. Joseph: The Wonders of our Spiritual Father.

What does it mean to consecrate yourself to St. Joseph?

Fr. Calloway explains:

Well, it basically means that you acknowledge that he is your spiritual father, and you want to be like him. To show it, you entrust yourself entirely into his paternal care so that he can help you acquire his virtues and become holy … The person who consecrates himself to St. Joseph wants to be as close to their spiritual father as possible, to the point of resembling him in virtue and holiness.

Fr. Calloway shares the great blessing of this consecration:

Saint Joseph, in turn, will give those consecrated to him his undivided attention, protection, and guidance.

You may wonder, “Well that’s fine and sounds nice. But Saint Joseph was a model of great holiness, chastity and faithful service. I feel like my life has fallen well short of that ideal.

As Jesus, son of Joseph, said, “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

The holiness and example of Joseph is not to make us feel ashamed, or focus on our failures as men. Rather, as a blessed Saint in the Heavenly Kingdom, he stands ready to father us in our faith journey.

Joseph is not a condemning, distant, unapproachable father. His holiness, and his unique vocation, are a gift to us. Joseph is a strong and loving spiritual father that will help you rise above the challenges and temptations that weigh you down. Joseph will lift you up so you can stand tall in humility, with a heart cleansed of sin, empowered to grow in your Christian vocation as a man.

Consider making this exciting journey of faith and conversion, and learn more about your spiritual father and mentor, Joseph, the father of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

This Father’s Day, let’s set a place at the family table, and in our hearts, for St. Joseph.

Kevin Burke, LSW, is a pastoral associate of Priests for Life and co-founder of Rachel’s Vineyard. An expert on men and abortion loss, he is the author of Tears of the Fisherman and co-author of Rivers of Blood/Oceans of Mercy.

  abortion, catholic, fatherhood, holy family, priests for life