Current Events

Our Country Was Founded By Geniuses But It’s Being Ruined By Idiots

An interesting article from NOQ report talks about the decline between the founding fathers of the USA and the current leadership.

From the article:

The eminently quotable Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana said sometime back: “Our country was founded by geniuses, but it’s being run by idiots.”  I heartily agree, and the problem is not self-correcting.
The principles behind the formation of America’s government were and are exquisite, but the American government, like all forms of government, is corrupt as hell.  This isn’t an extraordinary statement.  Exquisite things often break, and even the noblest of institutions become distorted over time until the original purposes for their creation are eclipsed (and often contradicted) by the personal motives of the men running those institutions into the ground.

There is no doubt that history repeats. And those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat its mistakes.

Anyway, the article continues:

John O’Sullivan, a senior policy adviser for Prime Minister Thatcher, wrote a short essay thirty years ago that should have made freedom-minded conservatives rethink any lingering attachments to institutional authorities.
He asked a question we often ask ourselves: how is it that almost all institutional bodies — whether governmental agencies or purportedly “nonpartisan” scientific academies or even religious groups and charities — transform over time into left-leaning entities?  In grappling with what might seem inexplicable, he corralled three insights about organizational behavior: (1) Robert Michels’s Iron Law of Oligarchy asserting that all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic their foundations, will come to be run by an elite group of people; (2) Robert Conquest’s Second Law stating that every organization behaves as if “headed by secret agents of its opponents”; and (3) O’Sullivan’s very own First Law positing that “[a]ll organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.”  In other words, Michels tells us that the key to understanding any institution is its leadership, not its charter.  Conquest argues that the leadership will always have objectives at odds with the organization’s intended purpose, if for no other reason than that the leadership’s continued employment and future power paradoxically depend upon never completely succeeding.  And O’Sullivan takes this insight farther by noting that the type of person who staffs such organizations tends to disdain private profit and the historic composition of Western civilization’s free-market culture.
Note also that these three observational laws explicitly take as a premise that the organizations have not been actively infiltrated by Marxist saboteurs or actual enemy agents, but rather evolve over time by the weight of natural sociological tendencies.  When we add Occam’s Razor into the mix, it is just as persuasive to suppose that all institutions become increasingly socialist over time at the rate of success that Marxists have in quietly but persistently insinuating themselves into the hierarchical ranks of absolutely any institution with power, whether those with legal teeth such as the FBI and CDC or those with cultural teeth such as Coca-Cola and Major League Baseball.  Hence, if Gramsci’s “long march through the institutions” seems to have succeeded, it’s probably because the political left has never stopped marching.
You can read the full article here


I think while good intentioned, the article misses it on one point. The people who are running our country are not idiots, by any means.

Oh, sure, some of them are. And how they got elected is still a great mystery to me, at least in some cases.

But the problem is not one of intellect, but of moral failure.

The problem with our leadership is not a lack of intellect, but of a moral compass. People hungry for power put their finger to the wind and found out what people wanted, and simply promised to give it to them.

As long as people want power more than they want to serve, this is what we will get. The only way out of this is to pray for revival.

Read More
The Lancet Publishes and then retracts a daming paper about the covid vaccines

Lancet Publishes Paper Showing 3 Out Of Five Deaths From Vax And Then Withdraws The Paper

Dr. Joseph Mercola had a recent article[1] about another switcheroo just pulled by "The Lancet." They published a paper (preprint, which I will explain briefly) and then, in a flash, withdrew it from publication. You have to wonder if it was anything other than political pressure from Big Pharma.

The summary, from Dr. Mercola's paper:

July 5, 2023, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Harvey Risch, Dr. Roger Hodkinson, an expert clinical pathologist, and colleagues published a systematic review of autopsy findings in people who died after receiving a COVID shot on The Lancet journal’s preprint server
The autopsy review found that 62.5% to 73.9% of post-jab deaths were likely caused by the injection
Preprints with The Lancet pulled the study in less than 24 hours
The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) also rejected the paper, as did the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The preprint server medRxiv and others also refused to post it
Belgian researchers report that two doses of the Pfizer mRNA COVID jab induced lethal “turbo cancers” in a mouse. Two days after receiving its second dose, one of the 14 injected mice (7%) died suddenly. No clinical signs of illness were present before its abrupt death. Upon post-mortem examination, the mouse was found to have lymphoma in several organs, including the heart, liver, kidneys, spleen and lungs

Concerned about the spike proteins? About consequences from the vax? About "shedding?"

Dr. Peter McCollough and his associates have developed what I believe is the best detox formula out there for strengthening your immune response to the spike proteins.

The details of what happened

Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Harvey Risch, Dr. Roger Hodkinson, an expert clinical pathologist, and several other colleagues published an article on July 5th, 2023.

It was a systematic review of autopsy results in people who died after receiving a COVID shot.

They published it on The Lancet journal’s "preprint server."

What is a "preprint server?"

According to "Author Services," (a research publisher) "A preprint[2], also known as the Author’s Original Manuscript (AOM), is the version of your article before you have submitted it to a journal for peer review."

The paper was published by these doctors and the Lancet apparently pulled it because of the number of downloads that were obtained by the public so rapidly.

So, what, exactly, did the paper say? Read it for yourself.[3] (You can download the paper here, even though the Lancet pulled it from their server.)

We initially identified 678 studies and, after screening for our inclusion criteria, included 44 papers that contained 325 autopsy cases and one necropsy case. Three physicians independently reviewed all deaths and determined whether COVID-19 vaccination was the direct cause or contributed significantly to death.

The most implicated organ system in COVID-19 vaccine-associated death was the cardiovascular system (53%), followed by the hematological system (17%), the respiratory system (8%), and multiple organ systems (7%). Three or more organ systems were affected in 21 cases.

The mean time from vaccination to death was 14.3 days. Most deaths occurred within a week from last vaccine administration. A total of 240 deaths (73.9%) were independently adjudicated as directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination ...

Among adjudicators, there was complete independent agreement (all three physicians) of vaccination causing or contributing to death in 203 cases (62.5%). The one necropsy case was judged to be linked to vaccination with complete agreement ...

The consistency seen among cases in this review with known COVID-19 vaccine adverse events, their mechanisms, and related excess death, coupled with autopsy confirmation and physician-led death adjudication, suggests there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death in most cases.”

Dr. McCollough has literally hundreds of peer-reviewed papers. He knows his stuff.

The study showed that the most common cause of death or contributing factor after the vaccination was the vaccination. But we can't talk about that.

The vaccine and "Turbo-Cancers"

According to Dr. Mercola, "Belgian researchers have report that two doses of the Pfizer mRNA COVID jab induced lethal “turbo cancers” in a mouse. Two days after receiving its second dose, one of the 14 injected mice (7%) died suddenly. No clinical signs of illness were present before its abrupt death."

Upon post-mortem examination, the mouse was found to have lymphoma in several organs, including the heart, liver, kidneys, spleen and lungs. From the study[4]

“Two days following booster vaccination (i.e., 16 days after prime), at only 14 weeks of age, our animal suffered spontaneous death with marked organomegaly and diffuse malignant infiltration of multiple extranodal organs (heart, lung, liver, kidney, spleen) by lymphoid neoplasm.

Immunohistochemical examination revealed organ sections positive for CD19, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase, and c-MYC, compatible with a B-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma immunophenotyped ...

Given the paucity of data on the long-term safety of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines, it is vital that clinicians and scientists report any adverse event to establish potential correlations.

Our case adds to previous clinical reports on malignant lymphoma development following novel SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination. Interestingly, we are the first to report a B-LBL subtype ...

Although strong evidence proving or refuting a causal relationship between SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination and lymphoma development or progression is lacking, vigilance is required, with conscientious reporting of similar cases and a further investigation of the mechanisms of action that could explain the aforementioned association.”

So what to do if you've already had the jab?

Well, according to Dr. Mercola,

Your health may still be impacted long-term, so don’t take any more shots.

When it comes to treatment, it seems like many of the treatments that worked against severe COVID-19 infection also help ameliorate adverse effects from the jab. This makes sense, as the toxic, most damaging part of the virus is the spike protein, and that’s what your whole body is producing if you got the jab.

As mentioned earlier, eliminating the spike protein is a primary task to prevent and/or address post-jab injuries. Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine bind to and facilitate the removal of spike protein. According to McCullough, nattokinase, bromelain and curcumin also help degrade the spike protein.[5]

Consider a "detox" with nattokinase, bromelain and curcumin.

Dr. McCollough and his colleagues have actually developed what is probably the best "detox" formula for those who have been exposed to the spike proteins, whether from the virus or the vax.

Dr. Peter McCollough and his associates have put together a "detox" formula with the proper proportions of all the best defenses against the spike proteins - nattokinase, bromelain and curcumin.


Read More
Sound Of Freedom Under Attack By Leftist Mob
Analysis, Current Events

The Reasons For The War Against The Movie, “The Sound Of Freedom”

We should have expected a movie piercing the darkness of the evil that is child abuse would get backlash.

Though the speed and fury of this backlash is disappointing, it should have been predictable. Unfortunately, I don't think most Christians expected it. 

We should have expected it. But I think many were like me.

We saw the movie hit the theatre and thought, "this will be it, now." Now the truth will come out. 

But the problem is that Christians are, by and large a trusting lot, some of us always hoping for the best without a struggle or a cost to us and our comforts. At least, we want to trust that truth will arrive, in blazing glory, and people will just see it.

But the problem is, the darkness is still dark. And people who have come to love the darkness have become blinded to just how much darkness really is out there.

Don't know if you know it or not, but this movie was purchased when it was completed, in 2018, for the purpose of making sure it never saw the light of day.

“Sound of Freedom” started life as a major studio project that was originally produced by 20th Century Fox and finished back in 2018. Despite being completed and ready for distribution, the film was shelved after Fox was acquired by the Walt Disney Company in 2019, with the new owners refusing to release the movie.

Aurin MacIntyre, in an article at "The Blaze," seems to say this movie was purchased by Disney specifically to be able to control the narrative by owning it to keep it out of circulation. There's a technique for ya.

Why would they do that? Because if you've got something as lucrative as the child sex industry, you want to make sure it lasts.

We often underestimate the enemy and his allies, even though this movie represents a $160 billion per industry.

How naive we are.

By enemy, I mean, as a Christian, the devil. But in a larger framework, that means the devil and anyone who is aligned with him in this. In this case, anyone from consumers of child porn all the way up to those who make it, those who sell it and/or those who sell and/or use the children to make it are "aligned" with it.

Jesus said, "he who is not for me is against me." Anyone who tolerates it is at least partly aligned with it.

But why the need for so many on the left (and, unfortunately, even some on the right) to malign this movie as some crazy conspiracy?

I wish it was a joke, or else just some fringe theory held by a few. But it's not.

This idea that the movie is "the fringe" has a lot of people behind it.

Aurin MacIntyre, in his article, says,

This is the kind of story journalists should be lining up to write glowing celebratory pieces about. Instead, as if some form of order had been issued to all, the most vile leftist outlets simultaneously, a flurry of hit pieces suddenly appeared to denounce the movie as red meat for QAnon conspiracy theorists.

Outlets like Rolling Stone, Jezebel, the Washington Post, and the Guardian fell into immediate lockstep, framing the box office upset not as a David and Goliath story for the ages, but as evidence that dangerous right-wing conspiracy theories have seized the minds of the movie-going public.

Each article made sure to use phrases like “QAnon-tinged” despite never linking any content from the movie itself to the fringe movement. Rolling Stone described the film as “A superhero movie for dads with brain worms,” while the Guardian accused the movie of “seducing America.”

Rolling Stone famously defended the French movie “Cuties” against charges of child sexualization in 2020, praising the movie as “a sensitive portrayal of growing pains.” The writers who attended a showing of “Sound of Freedom” for their article treated the experience like a trip to the zoo, taking every opportunity to mock the backward yet dangerous nature of the GOP-voting plebians were absorbing conspiracy-theory-laced marching orders from their Klan-hooded overlords.

The breathless journalists were desperate to frame the film as “Birth of a Nation” for the disgruntled Trump voter, a cartoonish depiction of hate designed to whip up the latent violent tendency of a conspiracy-addled public.

We shouldn't be surprised. They also framed "The Passion Of the Christ" as "Pornographic Violence."

Seems to me that the whole purpose of pornography is to unleash a constant storm of endorphins to link the porn to the feeling the endorphins give ya.

As such, you'd think that "pornographic violence" would appeal to an audience that gets its kicks from blood and gore.

The passion was anything but, and did anything but. And yet,

The left tends to smear anything they don't understand with a derogatory label so they don't have to deal with the reality that is otherwise in their face.

Aurin MacIntyre has his ideas as to why they are doing this.

Journalists hate the movie for a simple and very telling reason: They have managed to code opposition to child sex trafficking as a radical right-wing position.

But the question still remains: WHY would they "code the opposition" to a "radical, right-wing position?"

What is to be gained by doing so? Do they resent giving credit to the right for having the corner on something they do not? Perhaps. But perhaps it's worse than that.

Might I suggest that the theory that this movie is a "right wing conspiracy" has a lot of power, money and entrenched evil behind it?

Maybe that's too simple. But I don't think it's at all inaccurate. Not a bit.

If you look at the downward spiral that is described in Romans 1, you see that people saw truth, held it up to inspection, found that the God who is revealed in nature and conscience is found "a little bit lacking," and so people give up the real God they see there, and chase after other gods, instead, because they like them better.

And as a result, God gives them over to a "reprobate mind" - a mind incapable of discerning truth from error.

Get a load of how twisted the logic is in the brain of Myles Klee at "the Rolling Stone."

....In short, I was at the movies with people who were there to see their worst fears confirmed.

Sound of Freedom lives up to that anticipation. It’s a stomach-turning experience, fetishizing the torture of its child victims and lingering over lush preludes to their sexual abuse. At times I had the uncomfortable sense that I might be arrested myself just for sitting through it.

Nonetheless, the mostly white-haired audience around me could be relied on to gasp, moan in pity, mutter condemnations, applaud, and bellow “Amen!” at moments of righteous fury, as when Ballard declares that “God’s children are not for sale.”

They were entranced by what they clearly took for a searing exposé. Not even the occasional nasty coughing fit — and we had no shortage of those — could break the spell.

He speaks as if rejoicing in the exposure of this evil as evil is somehow titillating. 

I'm not sure how sick and twisted you have to be in your soul to get to the place where you can't separate the difference between the evil of using children as sex toys and the appreciation for the fact that this reprehensible evil is exposed.

But that's what it seems you just read in that quote from The Rolling Stone.

Perhaps they misunderstand the definition of fetishism.

Rolling Stone, in typical Rolling Stone fashion has turned the definition of fetishism on its head to justify hating "The Sound Of Freedom"

Unfortunately, I think at best it's more that they don't want to have to come to terms with how evil their hollywood heroes are. So they paint these hollywood people as villains to be able to distract from the real issue.

And at worst? The people who write this verbal excrement are part of the consumer base in that $160 billion economy.

I don't know. I'm just saying. Not startin' nothin.'

But here is the grim reality here.

The real issue is that most people have a love-hate relationship with darkness. And having to come to terms with this insensate evil requires you to have to recognize that the line between good and evil runs right through the middle of the human heart.

That includes your own heart. Right there in with the rest of 'em.

IF you're going to acknowledge what is true, that acknowledgement requires you to decide what you're going to do about what you now see as truth: repent or rebel. There are only these two choices.

The problem with porn is that it takes constantly greater and greater amounts of deviance to deliver the same endorphin high.

You can draw life from your sexuality by enjoying it in the confines for which God designed it, or you can try to get "life" out of it by pulling it out of any (and ultimately, every) kind of perversion of what God's design is.

The end result is "smoking it more and enjoying it less," to where you end up chronically frustrated and wanting, or actually acting on greater and greater perversion to get the endorphin high that a sexual addiction is.

And regarding the Rolling Stone article (and its author) it seems that unless you're willing to acknowledge that the end of porn is a greater and greater thrill at the expense of exploiting a greater and greater abuse of the power dynamic; then perhaps your desire to want to believe that man is "basically good" leaves you with nowhere to go except to project on people who appreciate this movie a personna.

And that personna has to be that "they" are the ones with the problem and not you.

Believing that the people who "enjoy" this movie are part of the problem requires you to ignore the realities of this sexploitation industry.

And the guy who is baffled and pissed about this left-handed reaction from the left (as much as anyone rightfully can be) is Tim Ballard

Ballard is the real-life agent portrayed in the movie. His thoughts about this nutbar attack from the left:

Ballard asked, “where is the QAnon doctrine being spewed in the film and the script?”, and argued that he would know best because he was there for these events that can be confirmed by others.

“This is just some other agenda … who would want to get the backs or run interference for pedophiles and human traffickers? That’s the more important question in all this. Why would you want to lie to push an agenda whose goal is to have children be in captivity? It’s kind of sick,” he said.

“But I think of the children that are really depicted in that film. I know what happened to them. Those children were the subjects of child rape videos. Those children were being sold for sex.”

Ballard, who noted that more than 100 individuals wound up being rescued, added that it is “embarrassing and frankly, grotesque for this guy who knows nothing to start throwing out terms like QAnon and connecting it to a real story.”

Is there hope? I certainly think so.

It's hard to remove this from the public discourse, now that it's out there. Ironically, the fact that the media keeps trying to frame the narrative is annoying. But in some ways, it's probably better than the alternative, which is to simply hope this movie just fades in the rearview mirror.

This is a war between good and evil, between light and darkness. But light and darkness are not opposites.

Light is light. Darkness is the absence of light. Now that the light is shining, darkness is put on notice.

But we need to arm ourselves with truth. As it says in 1st Peter (3:15), "Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope and confident assurance that is within you, yet do it with gentleness and respect."

The "endarkened" people in the media, in lockstep with the industry they are directly or indirectly trying to prop up, for whatever reason, cannot overcome the spirit of God and the light of truth for all that God is using this movie to awaken.

Pray up, get familiar with the problem, and the size and scope of it. The stakes have been established.

But the movie, although delayed, could not be silenced. Now that it's out there, we have to take a stand with those on the right side of this issue.

God is wanting to move and expose the darkness. Be sure you are prepared and of the right spirit to be a part of the solution as this scab gets peeled off of our sleeping society.

Read More
Australia is talking about $500,000 fines for publishing misinformation online

Australia To Fine People Up To 500,000 Dollars For Posting “Disinformation” Online

It could soon become very expensive in Australia to say things that the government says are not true.

Talk about George Orwell and 1984. You think it's getting bad in Canada and the US? Check this out.

A bill currently before Australian parliment could see Australians "jailed and fined for up to half a million dollars if they put something on social media: their Facebook page or put out a tweet whatever it is, deemed harmful to minorities, harmful to the environment, harmful to people's health."

Quick Question: WHO gets to decide just what is "misinformation?"

I guess we all know the answer to that. Sorry to digress.

The US court recently saw some sense and made some serious rulings in the direction of enforcing free speech rights. Not so in Australia, though.

They're moving the other way.

Watch this. Chilling "big brother" attempts at censorship, to say the least.

Read More
Are the WEF and the UN transforming our cities from within city leadership
Analysis, Current Events, NEWS CURRENT EVENTS

Is The UN Subverting Municipalities

UN Takeover Of Municipalities

I get a lot of feeds from all kinds of sources. Sometimes, too much. This post comes out of Canada, on Facebook, and it is discussing the UN takeover of our cities.

The US has been going down this rabbit hole for a while. But unlike the US, part of the problem for Canada is the same problem that plagues much of the rest of the world.

The right to bear arms is a fundamental right in the US. Take that and they take your ability to keep them in check.

Take note of the coverage here of a meeting with concerned citizens speaking up at a city council meeting in a city called Peterborough, Ontario (a few hours east of Toronto).

These people can only do what they do if we don't move to expose them for what they really want.

In the end, they want us to own nothing, eat bugs and be happy.

I'm not up for that. I think we need to make our voices be heard loud and strong.

I'm posting (for now) the Facebook post, as it was given. I will follow up with revisements and edits as I have opportunity to do so.


Follow Up After June 26th, Meeting

A restructuring of Canadian "mayors" by the United Nations started in 1992. This is a fraud of public/private partnerships.

A summary: CANADA was signed on to U.N. Agenda 21 in 1992 by Brian Mulroney. A total of 178 countries agreed because this international agreement promised them "big money" to go "green."

Once signed, CANADA became a U.N. Member State (Nation State) & no longer a "sovereign country" under the rule of law & the supremacy of God. Any country signed on to U.N. Agenda 21 ceased to be a "nation," and all their governments restructured as the U.N. MEMBER STATES. All towns were to be abandoned or merged to form UN CITY STATES.

By 2000, we saw countries being "governed" by directions of the United Nations, G7, G20, Council of Foreign Relations, World Bank, World Economic Forum (WEF), World Health Organization, International Council on Local and Environmental Issues (ICLEI) etc...

Instead of following parliamentary procedures for law changes, the Municipal Primer was sent to all of our local towns in 1994 & it outlined how they were to restructure their governments.

-Our public officials/office - which is our elected mayor and councillors - were "partnered" with a private corporation (CITY OF PETERBOROUGH) that would "help" the local agenda implement these global goals HERE in Peterborough.

-Chief Administrative Officers (CAOs) were brought into every town to "work" with the mayor to implement the global agenda instead of a local one and to commit local public funds to private sustainable development goals & foreign investors. Under the guise of "saving the planet." (CAO tells the mayor what to do.) They also brought ICLEI into our town. ICLEI is the United Nations.

Government restructuring included rewriting our local laws & this became the Municipal Act, 2001.

This initiated amalgamation, regionalization & incorporation of independent, autonomous local towns into a private 'governing' environment.

The Municipal Act converted the public mayor (head of local government) to a private Head of Council (for the CITY), making him answer to a BOARD & controllable.

The BOARD determines their own "Code of Conduct,".... which means ZERO liability for ALL of this, while the United Nations/ICLEI steals everything.... right in your town. This is a "corporatocracy" - where the corporations/partnerships (The CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PETERBOROUGH)/ International Council on Local and Environmental Issues-ICLEI) CONTROL EVERYTHING, and we no longer have a say.... and we no longer have a local government protecting us.

Now let's look at your reports,

Firstly, Report, PEAC 23–010

Here, a linked plan identifies the actions required to achieve NetZero by 2050.

-Measures include a vague reference to "targeting mobility."

-This report is to nominate one of you to sit in on an upcoming advisory working group hosted by an unnamed "project consultant" to launch this July.

-This project consultant is no doubt connected to ICLEL.

The PEAC 23–002 report states

-Peterborough declared a Climate Emergency in 2019. There was no local event that triggered this declaration. This declaration came into effect through the U.N.'s global agenda and not the local agenda of the residents of Peterborough.

-This report states that the city participated in ICLEL Canadas, Advancing Adaptation Project and received a grant of $15,000. "Big money for going green."This is a small fraction of the money Peterborough has received from ICLEL since 1994.

-Most disturbingly, the report you accepted states that the recent reductions in GHG emissions were PRIMARILY the result of the COVID-19 pandemic "modifying our travel patterns," and is repeated in report PEAC 23–009

When you put this together with the previous statement on "targeting mobility," the question of whether the SACRED mobility rights of residents of Peterborough are at stake and if your participation in the furthering of this agenda is not in violation of your oath to uphold the constitution of Canada along with the Bill of Rights.

I, Maggie Braun, gave a verbal notice that if you accepted these reports, a Notice of Liability would be issued to each of you individually.

Before I proceed with such actions, I will remind you that every man and woman is responsible and can be held personally liable for their actions. Positions of authority, such as a seat on the town council, do not protect you from liability.


As promised, the founding and local document references are listed below.


A global agenda

United Nations: Sustainable Development Goals-

Canada is implementing Agenda2030-

World Economic Forum (link 404)

U.N. Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 -

A Guide to Agenda 21 for Canada -

U.N. General Assembly: Transforming Our World -

Implemented Locally

A Municipal Primer on the U.N. Conference -

Summarization of Shelagh McFarlane Mayoral Candidate in Guelph ON -

…implemented locally…

CITY OF GUELPH is implementing Agenda2030 -

ICLEI Local Sustainability 2012 review -

ICLEI Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide -

Guelph Cease & Desist + Trucker Convoy Summary -

Guelph Flyer 2022 -

A Municipal Primer on the U.N. Conference -

Guelph Mayor Served -



This can be imitated across the country...

- Go to your municipal website.

- Review their Environmental Committee Agenda/Reports and the Town Hall Agendas.

- Look for ICLEL and anything climate-related.

- Call the Town Clerks' office and get on the agenda to speak as a delegate when they are passing any “environmental” reports or motions.

- Take the information below and localize the content for your 5-minute speech.

- Afterwards, send this information to your Mayor and Councillors

- Utilize Stand4Thees Notices of Liability to serve the Mayor and Council.

Video and link for NOL -

Read More

Ontario Police Pushing Back On Government Over Lockdowns

But for the highlight reel, the lawsuit alleges the following:

  • Quarantine is a federal jurisdiction, and “stay at home orders and curfews are acts of martial law and therefore federal jurisdiction
  • masking, social distancing, PCR testing and lockdowns, stay-at-home orders are not scientifically based
  • they are based on false and fraudulent use of the PCR test resulting in 96.5% false positivies
  • that these rules are all based on the 96.5% false positives
  • that the PCR test cannot distinguish between live virus and dead fragments
  • That isolaton and self-quarantine are cruel and unusual treatment
  • prolonged use of masks is HARMFUL, especially to children

Actually, it’s not just the police. It’s also being done by some of the members of provincial parliment.

As reported over at 6ix Buzz, one Ontario member of parliment is now suing the government over the lockdown restrictions.

“I am suing the attorney general of Ontario for our right to protest, pray and gather outdoors,” Baber wrote in a tweet which he posted Thursday afternoon.

“The risk of outdoor transmission is negligible, but the government enacted heavy-handed regulations that deny Ontarians their fundamental freedoms.

This is a good thing. The lockdowns are both unlawful and violate the Canadian Charter of Rights. This was supported recently in a decision in federal court.

As 6ix reported,

In his 14-page legal action document, which Baber filed on Wednesday with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the politician argues that the lockdown violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically the free expression of ideas and peaceful assembly, including for protests.”

But Roman Baber is not alone. Let’s get back to the fact that the POLICE are suing the province regarding the overreach.

As of the writing of this post, this hearing is today. And you can tune in to watch LIVE COVERAGE if you wish.

Right now, the link is on the home page over at Wholehearted Media. Click this LINK to go to their website and you can see live coverage of the action.

The suit is being filed by the Constitutional Rights Center of Canada.

Police take Court Action against Ontario Government over COVID Measures Enforcement Duties

PUBLISHED: APRIL 29, 2021 | by the Constitutional Rights Centre

PUBLISHED: APRIL 29, 2021 | by the Constitutional Rights Centre


Ten (10) active, and five (5) retired, Police officers have launched an Application in Ontario Superior Court, to seek clarification, and challenge, the Province’s Covid-measures, and their enforcement, as breaching and violating their Police Oath which Oath includes upholding the Constitution.

Their Notice of Application can be viewed on the Constitutional Rights Centre website at:

Some of the Applicants will hold a brief press conference, along with their legal counsel, on: Thursday, April 29th at 4:30 p.m. EST

You can join in at:

Any questions may be directed to legal counsel at: Rocco Galati

Rocco Galati Law Firm Professional Corporation
Tel: (416) 530-9864

Thank you for your continued and kind support of the CRC

Canada has a charter of rights and freedoms similar to the United States Bill Of Rights. But Canadians need to stand up against the tyrannical who will always want to strip their rights away.

Please make as many aware of this today as you can. In the end, it is only NUMBERS that make a difference.

For reference, you can view the document HERE or view the highlights below….

  • Quarantine is a federal jurisdiction, and “stay at home orders and curfews are acts of martial law and therefore federal jurisdiction
  • masking, social distancing, PCR testing and lockdowns, stay-at-home orders are not scientifically based
  • they are based on false and fraudulent use of the PCR test resulting in 96.5% false positivies
  • that these rules are all based on the 96.5% false positives
  • that the PCR test cannot distinguish between live virus and dead fragments
  • That isolaton and self-quarantine are cruel and unusual treatment
  • prolonged use of masks is HARMFUL, especially to children

Read More

The Baffling Incompetence at the National Institutes of Health

An Open Letter: Reflections On The NIH Interview With Franklin Graham

Dear Dr. Who

I watched (twice) your interview with Franklin Graham of Samaratin’s Purse regarding the Covid-19 vaccines and the musings between you over the safety and efficacy of the vaccines and your frustration with the apparent lack of willingness for about 90,000,000 of America’s finest to roll up their sleeves and volunteer for the jab.

I will say at the outset for you and for my readers (mostly for my readers, since I’m assuming you’ll not really be reading this) that I’m not a medical professional. Not at all.

Now, I’m a fairly smart guy and I know how to reason logically. But there are so many things about the coronavirus and these vaccines you’re pushing that I don’t know. I’m not going to propose to teach you anything here about the virus or the vaccines.

But you made a statement in that interview (a number of them, actually) starting at about the 2:35 mark that just leaves me scratching my head in disbelief.

You commented to Rev. Graham that there are about 90,000,000 Americans who are still unwilling to roll up their sleeves to get the jab and you’re having a hard time understanding why.

Pardon me, sir. But as the head of the NIH, if you think these vaccines are the cat’s pyjamas and 90 million citizens don’t want to partake, shouldn’t you be making more of an effort to find out why people are reluctant to get the jab?

Look. I get that you’re convinced you’ve got a wonderful product here. You rattle off all kinds of statistics about how safe they are and how effective they are at preventing extreme symptoms from Covid. You think the evidence is quite compelling that this vaccine is an answer to prayer.

But you seem oblivious to the fact that millions of Christians, having prayed about taking this vaccine, believe God is showing them quite clearly not to get it. And you don’t know why.

Shouldn’t you be asking them why?

But the problem (for me, at least, and I know I’m far from alone) is that all the information you gave out about your take on these vaccines has nothing to do with the medical issues that concern me and millions of others.

At about 3:56 in the video, you say it is interesting that 96% of healthcare providers have been vaccinated – that as people who have the evidence, they’ve clearly rolled up their sleeves to get the vaccine.

Question for you: of the 96% of medical professionals who have gotten the vaccine, what percentage of those have gotten it under duress – under threat of losing their jobs if they didn’t take the jab?

What percentage of these people who are health care workers got the vaccine, not because they believed in it, but were threatened to lose their jobs if they refused it or spoke out against it?

Shouldn’t you find out?

You don’t speak to any of my concerns about this thing:

  • How many injuries have there been with this vaccine that you are aware of? Why is this vaccine still being held up as the best way forward, when typically 25 or 50 deaths from a shot would remove a vaccine from the running in trials?
  • Why did Moderna/Pfizer stop their trials before they were done? Why was this allowed? Do you know this is a concern among the vaccine hesitant? What do you have to say about that?
  • Why do you not speak to the concerns those of us have about the “holy war” on ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine , when even YOUR WEBSITE has an article speaking to the effectiveness of ivermectin as a treatment for Covid? Are you even aware of this page on the NIH website?
  • Are you aware that your NIH website says, “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally,” and do you understand why we are bothered this information keeps getting buried by the mainstream media?
  • Do you have concerns that the multitude of medical professionals speaking out about the potential dangers of this vaccine are being systematically targeted and removed from Facebook, YouTube and Twitter? Do you have concerns they are being fired from their teaching posts at medical schools across the country, even though many of them have dozens of peer-reviewed papers to their credit?
  • On that note, do you even know who Florence Nightengale was and why she is an important historic figure from medical history?
  • Why do you continue to speak of this as a vaccine as opposed to an mRNA technology/gene therapy? Do you not know that the people who are concerned about getting this thing have specific concerns about that and that is the difference that causes them to hesitate? Are you aware that gene therapies have a whole higher level of testing and if so, why are you not speaking to the safety of this thing through THAT lens?
  • Would you reconsider any of your statements now, considering how the results of this in Israel are continuing to look like the worst problems in Israel are among the vaccinated as compared to the unvaccinated?
  • Are you aware of the results in Sweden from taking a non-lockdown approach and how herd immunity appears to have taken effect there without a vaccine?
  • If you are concerned about people and their health, why are you not speaking to vitamin C and D, and to zinc – as immune boosters? (Maybe you do, but why are so many hospitals refusing to even add these to the protocols?)
  • Do you even know about the concerns raised by so many doctors regarding the over-reporting of Covid as a cause of death when this is plainly not the case in so many deaths? Do you have any awareness of the payouts for reporting

Doc, I could go on and on. But the plain fact of the matter is you never spoke to the very issues that are of concern to the unvaccinated. You’re only ever preaching to the choir.

And, quite frankly, it seems you’re drastically uninformed as to the issues we need addressed before your advice will do any more than convince people like you that our concerns are unfounded.

Sigmund Frued was known to have said that “Christianity is a process whereby we teach people only to ask the questions for which we have answers.”

If you want to reach me, please hear the questions I am asking, and answer those. Otherwise, I already have heard what you’re saying and already know why it means nothing to me. But it is a sad commentary on how inadequate your approach is.

Maybe the government’s carrot-and-stick approach wouldn’t need so much stick if the carrots were what we were really hungry for. Just sayin’…..

Read More

Covid-19 Vaccines and Population Control

Yesterday, someone sent me a link to an article at Zero Hedge that presents an interesting concept – one I’ve wrestled with before and one that I believe has a lot of merit: the thought that there seems to be connection between the forces making a relentless push for 100% Covid vaccination rates and a desire for a reduction in world population.

Is there a link between the people pushing Covid vaccines and the people wanting to reduce the world population?

The article was originally from Brandon Smith Alt-Market and I’ve reprinted portions of it here.

From the article:

I don’t think I am the only person that has noticed it – There has been a sudden deluge of covid vaccination propaganda and vaccine passport propaganda in the past month, more so than I think we have seen since the beginning of this year. I am speaking of the US in particular, but it is important to point out that in the US the establishment is still desperately clamoring for a much higher vaccination rate. In places like Europe, the UK and Australia vaccinations rates are higher and governments have moved on to the vaccine passport phase of their agenda.

Some people may be confused by the obvious lockstep that most nations are moving in as far as covid mandates and restrictions are concerned. How is it possible that almost all the governments on the planet are in agreement on medical totalitarianism? Well, it’s rather easy to understand when you realize the majority of them are linked together through globalist institutions like the World Economic Forum, which has repeatedly called the pandemic a “perfect opportunity” to push through their plans for a “Great Reset”.

The “Great Reset” is a long term ideological usurpation of what’s left of individual freedom and free market economies, and it’s goal is the imposition of a global socialist/communist dictatorship. Globalists wrap these objectives in pretty sounding words and humanitarian sounding aspirations, but at bottom the “Reset” is about an end to liberty as we know it. This is not an exaggeration, this is reality; this is what these people desire above all else. But how to achieve such a goal?

Well, interestingly enough the WEF and the Bill And Melinda Gates Foundation described exactly how they planned to do it during a “simulation” they held in October of 2019 called “Event 201”. During the event, they imagined a massive coronavirus pandemic, spread supposedly from animals to humans, which would facilitate the need for pervasive restrictions on individual liberties, national economies as well as the internet and social media. I’m sure it’s all a coincidence, but the exact same scenario the globalists at the WEF played out during Event 201 happened in the real world only two months later.

In any case, the pandemic itself has been a boon for the globalists. We have not seen a far reaching government power and corporate power grab since the rise of the National Socialists in Europe and the spread of communism in Russia and China almost a century ago. In fact, I would say that what humanity as a whole is facing today is much worse than what those wretched empires ever could have produced.

There is no doubt; globalist institutions and their government “partners” are the greatest beneficiaries of the covid crisis. They stand to gain ultimate social and political power if their agenda to exploit the pandemic succeeds.

That said, there a few hangups in their plan, and this is why I believe we are seeing an aggressive propaganda push in recent weeks. For example, as I outlined with extensive evidence in my article ‘Biden’s Vaccine Strike Force Plan Stinks Of Desperation’, it appears that the vaccination rate, especially in the US, is nowhere near as high as the elites would like.

While the Biden Administration and the CDC claims an overall vaccination rate of 67%, numerous other stats including the Mayo Clinics state map numbers indicate that only four states in the US actually have a vaccination rate over 65% (for one dose or more), and the majority of states have rates around 50% or less. Even large population blue states like California and New York are not above the 65% mark, and frankly, those numbers are going nowhere as vaccinations are dropping off a cliff.

If someone has not submitted by now with zero wait times and ample doses everywhere, then they are unlikely to ever be vaccinated.

Contradictory stats suggest to me that Biden and the CDC are inflating their vaccination numbers to create the illusion that a larger majority of Americans support the jab. And if this is the case, it explains why Biden, Fauci and the mainstream media are force feeding the public with pro-vaccine hype that consistently contradicts the real science. They are not getting the fear and public compliance that they had hoped for.

But why do they want 100% vaccination? Why are they so desperate for every single person in the world to get the mRNA jab?

After all, the average (IFR) death rate of covid is a mere 0.26% of those infected (this is a stat that the media consistently and deliberately refuses to mention to the public). This means that 99.7% of the public is in NO danger from covid whether they are vaccinated or not.

Do the vaccines ensure better odds? Well, according to recent statistics from Massachusetts, not necessarily, as they report over 5100 infections and 80 deaths of fully vaccinated patients. The media keeps telling us that only the unvaccinated are dying, but this is a lie, like so many other lies they have been peddling when it comes to covid. So, what’s the point of taking an experimental vaccine if the death rate of the virus is so low and the jab doesn’t necessarily protect you anyway?

There is no point. The science and the stats do not support it. The vaccines can’t even be credited with the decline in infections and deaths this year; the numbers plunged in January – Only 5% of the population was vaccinated by February. The only explanation for this is that the population hit herd immunity many months ago. Remember when governments said that they needed 70% herd immunity or vaccination to stop the lockdowns and mandates? The goalposts have been moves several times and the government “science” changes monthly. Now they claim herd immunity doesn’t matter and demand 100% vaccination.

We must ask the question again – Why the relentless government push for total vaccine saturation? It’s not saving lives, and the mandates remain regardless, so why?

It sure does seem pretty obvious that those who have already decided not to vaccinate have done so because they are suspicious that this push for vaccines is not about public health or about saving lives.

It sure feels like it is about something else. And the way this is forced into a controlled debate by Facebook, Youtube and Twitter by silencing all the dissenting opinions is constantly reinforcing the feeling for those of us “vaccine hesitant” that it is about something else entirely.

The author continues…

As numerous virology and vaccine experts have warned over the past year, there is a great risk of harmful health side effects when it comes to experimental mRNA technology. Even one of the creators of mRNA vaccines has suggested that there are dangers in rolling out these gene manipulation cocktails without more testing. Of note are concerns about longer term disorders such as autoimmune disorders and infertility.

The mainstream media and the globalists will argue that there is “no evidence” that the mRNA vaccines will cause deadly side effects or infertility. I would argue back that there is NO EVIDENCE that they are safe. Most vaccines are tested over the course of 10-15 years before they are released to the public for use. The covid vaccines were unleashed on the public within months. Honestly, I have no intention of acting as a guinea pig for an untested vaccine.

But what if the elites know exactly what the side effects will be? What if the vaccines are a pivotal part of their “Great Reset?”

The infertility question in particular is drawing the most fire from the establishment, and I would point out a particularly insidious narrative being implanted in the media. Whenever people question the chance of sterility caused by the vaccines, bureaucrats and media talking heads go on the attack, and then say “There’s no evidence that the vaccines cause infertility, but Covid-19 might cause it…” Just watch this recent speech by the governor of Arkansas where he and his medical flunky were almost run from the podium by an angry audience for peddling the same propaganda:

And there you have it. The stage is being set, in my view, for a mass infertility event, and covid will be blamed in place of the experimental vaccines. This is why the establishment needs a 100% vaccination rate; unvaccinated people would stand as evidence of their crime. Let me explain…

My concern is that Klaus Schwab’s reset agenda is impossible to enforce in a permanent way unless the human population is greatly reduced over a short period of time (a generation or two). Globalists are constantly talking about population control and reduction. Elites like Bill Gates are famous for it. Is it any wonder that they would devise a plan to institute it?

What if, as many experts have suggested, the vaccine side effects create this condition of a diminishing population? What if they are meant to? We will not know for certain for a couple of years at least as autoimmune disorders and infertility take time to become visible in a population. The average timeline for actually diagnosing an autoimmune disorder is 4.5 years. Infertility can take six months to a year to diagnose.

If a large population of millions of people remain unvaccinated after the next couple of years, then they will represent a sizable and undeniable control group. A control group is a group of subjects that act as a pure sample untouched by a drug or vaccine experiment. If the vaccinated group becomes ill or dies from specific conditions and the control group does not have those same conditions, then that is a pretty good sign that your vaccine or drug is poison.

The 50% of Americans and smaller percentages in other nations are a control group for the experimental vaccines. If something goes wrong with the vaccines, then we will be the proof. I suspect this is what the elites are really afraid of.

They have to force us to be vaccinated as well – ALL of us, so that there is no control group and thus no proof os what they have done. They could simply blame mass health disorders on covid itself, or some other false culprit.

If the vaccines are a Trojan horse that causes widespread illness or infertility, and the globalists get caught because a control group exists, then it will mean outright rebellion along with ropes and lampposts for them. Their “Great Reset” will fall apart.

To be sure, this might happen anyway. Vaccine passports are the line in the sand for most people. We are even seeing extensive protests and riots in places like Italy, France, UK and Australia over the draconian passport scheme. The US, though, is where the biggest fight will take place, in my opinion. We have an armed population, millions upon millions of trained combat veterans and civilians, a military with around 70% conservatives and independents and a historical understanding of asymmetric warfare. As we have seen in places like Afghanistan, tanks, jets, missiles and drones are no guarantee of victory against a guerrilla force.

Vaccine passports are not going to happen here. We simply won’t allow it.

The globalists have set in motion an end game – It could be an end game for us, but it also could be an end game for them. They are on a strict timeline. They must get near 100% vaccination rates in the next couple of years or sooner. They must get their vaccine passports in place in the next couple of years or sooner. And, they must instill permanent lockdown conditions in the near term to stifle growing dissent. We are now in a kind of race in which the globalists must implement their agenda as fast as possible while we must hold out and hold them back until the truth becomes obvious to the masses; the truth that the lockdowns, mandates and vaccines were never about safety and were always about control – from social control to population control.

So I don’t know what to make of all of that. But it does strike me odd that there seems to be such a concerted effort to hide one side of the body of information on all of this stuff. Doctors and other healthcare professionals who are speaking out about this problem of increasing numbers of injuries and deaths from the vaccine seem to be getting systematically sidelined. It’s not right.

It looks sinister.

Read More

MIT Researchers Infiltrate Anti-Maskers And Are Stunned To Discover They Do SCIENCE

You can’t make this stuff up. You really can’t. Someone sent me a link from an article at “Life Site News” that left me not knowing whether to laugh, cry or both.

MIT researchers infiltrate ‘anti-maskers,’ but find they ‘practice a form of data literacy in spades’

‘Far from ignoring scientific evidence to argue for individual freedom,’ the researchers conceded, ‘anti-maskers often engage deeply with public datasets.’ The scientists went on to smear data-savvy people who question harsh lockdowns or the orders of public health officials, comparing them to January 6 Capitol rioters and warning about too much ‘critical thinking’ undermining trust in government institutions.

A group of scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has released a research paper examining the scientific justification behind groups which challenge the purportedly scientific basis of restrictions introduced on the back of COVID-19, admitting that such groups “value unmediated access to information and privilege personal research and direct reading over ‘expert’ interpretations.”

The paper, published in January and titled “How Coronavirus Skeptics Use Orthodox Data Practices to Promote Unorthodox Science Online,” aimed to show how “activist networks of anti-mask users [a term used to describe lockdown protestors generally] leverage the rhetoric of scientific rigor in order to oppose public health measures like mask mandates or indoor dining bans.”

So as the story goes, a team of five – four academics from MIT and a mathematician from Wellesley College joined some Facebook and Twitter groups and “observed” them and their interactions.


The group reportedly analyzed “close to half a million tweets that use data visualizations to talk about the pandemic,” as well as “over 41,000 images” of graphs and charts used by “anti-mask groups” to demonstrate the myriad statistics from COVID-related studies.

According to the study, the researchers acknowledged “a high level of scientific competency and literacy among critics of non-medical interventions against the Wuhan coronavirus.”

They also seemed a little annoyed by that. Listen to this curious quote from the article.

“Calling for increased media literacy can often backfire: the instruction to ‘question more’ can lead to a weaponization of critical thinking and increased distrust of media and government institutions.”

The authors of the report criticize the skeptics for capitalizing “on the skeptical impulse that the ‘science simply isn’t settled.’

The problem for these people is this causes people to ‘think for themselves,’ and this, apparently, has been leading to disastrous ends – which, I assume, are the ends that people don’t believe the narrative that contradicts the science?

Listen to these tidbits out of the report…

  • Their study “finds that anti-mask groups practice a form of data literacy in spades.”
  • “[w]ithin this constituency, unorthodox viewpoints do not result from a deficiency of data literacy” but that, in fact, “sophisticated practices of data literacy are a means of consolidating and promulgating views that fly in the face of scientific orthodoxy.

In addition, the study found that “anti-mask groups on Twitter often create polished counter-visualizations that would not be out of place in scientific papers, health department reports, and publications like the Financial Times.”

Counter-visualizations is a term used to describe graphical representations of COVID-related statistics which refute or otherwise challenge the data used by public health officials to justify civil restrictions.

In essence, the research team admitted that skeptical groups have relied on robust datasets in order to challenge the opposing assertions of medical elites, like the radically pro-mask Dr. Anthony Fauci.

The researchers ultimately commended skeptics as acknowledging “the subjectivity of how datasets are constructed” and their subsequent effort “to reconcile the data with lived experience,” thus ruling out F

“Far from ignoring scientific evidence to argue for individual freedom,” the researchers conceded, “anti-maskers often engage deeply with public datasets.”

“[T]hese groups seek to make the process of understanding data as transparent as possible in order to challenge the powers that be.”


The study found that both pro-lockdown and anti-lockdown groups utilize public health data to bolster their claims for and against public health mandates, though drawing different conclusions. The researchers noted that lockdown skeptics in particular “are critical about the data sources used to make visualizations in data-driven stories.” This leads more skeptical groups to “engage in lengthy conversation about the limitations of imperfect data,” according to the study.

“These anti-mask activists therefore conclude that unreliable statistics cannot be the basis of policies that actively harm people by isolating them and leaving businesses to collapse en masse,” the authors wrote. Furthermore, “anti-maskers often reveal themselves to be more sophisticated in their understanding of how scientific knowledge is socially constructed than their ideological adversaries, who espouse naive realism about the ‘objective’ truth of public health data.”

MIT researchers fret about ‘weaponization of critical thinking’ making more people distrust media, government institutions

Now, this next part would be funnier if it didn’t have such “disastrous implications.

From the article in LifeSite News:

The team compared lockdown skeptics to rioters at the U.S. Capitol building on January 6, an event that they said has “similarly illustrated that well-calibrated, well-funded systems of coordinated disinformation can be particularly dangerous when they are designed to appeal to skeptical people.” The researchers unqualifiedly claim that “the coup relied on a collective effort fanned by people questioning, interacting, and sharing these ideas with other people,” placing any person or group questioning of common assumptions into the category of criminal instigators.

The problem here is that their circular reasoning has turned into a logical circular firing squad. And they just don’t see it.

These people seem to be starting with the assumption that masks are good, and in spite of the data presented to them from the very people they are researching, they conclude the anti-maskers are still dangerous…. because, well, because…. science?

“Anti-maskers often reveal themselves to be more sophisticated in their understanding of how scientific knowledge is socially constructed than their ideological adversaries, who espouse naive realism about the ‘objective’ truth of public health data.”

Catch this gem: “calling for increased media literacy can often backfire: the instruction to ‘question more’ can lead to a weaponization of critical thinking and increased distrust of media and government institutions.”

According to the authors, skeptical groups have capitalized “on the skeptical impulse that the ‘science simply isn’t settled,’ prompting people to simply ‘think for themselves,’” a danger that they say has already led “to horrifying ends.”

The study characterized the skepticism of mainstream media-touted COVID data as “an act of resistance against the stifling influence of central government, big business, and liberal academia.” Such groups, they said, are “highly reflexive about the inherently biased nature of any analysis, and resent what they view as the arrogant self-righteousness of scientific elites.”


“Most fundamentally, the groups we studied believe that science is a process, and not an institution.”

The fact is, most scientists believe that, too.

Accordingly, “[c]onvincing anti-maskers to support public health measures in the age of COVID-19 will require more than ‘better’ visualizations, data literacy campaigns, or increased public access to data,” the researchers concluded.

“For these anti-mask users, their approach to the pandemic is grounded in more scientific rigor, not less.”

So maybe they’ll have to resort to brute force? Seems like their game plan to me.

Read More
Political correctness and gender studies
Current Events

Biology Professor Fired For Claiming There Are Only Two Genders

The law firm "First Liberty" has taken on a case defending a biology professor fired for teaching biology.

As stupid as that sounds, it just might be the sum of it. "First Liberty," (a law firm specializing in religious liberty and freedom-of-speech cases) has taken on the case of a biology professor who ultimately was fired for saying that sex is determined by chromosomes.

This week, First Liberty sent a letter to St. Philip’s College and the Alamo Colleges District in San Antonio, Texas informing them of their unlawful actions against our client, Dr. Johnson Varkey. The college fired him for teaching basic and widely accepted concepts of biology.

First Liberty is, of course, asking the college to immediately reinstate Dr. Varkey to his position and clear his record of any wrongdoing.

According to the First Liberty website,

In his role as an adjunct professor, Dr. Varkey taught Human Anatomy and Physiology to more than 1,500 students since 2003. During Dr. Varkey’s 20-year employment as a biology professor at St. Philip’s College, he consistently received exemplary performance reviews and was never subject to discipline. Throughout that time, he never discussed with any student his personal views—religious or otherwise—on human gender or sexuality.

In November 2022, four of Dr. Varkey’s students walked out of his class when he stated, consistent with his study of human biology and religious beliefs, that sex was determined by chromosomes X and Y. In two decades of teaching these basic, unremarkable concepts, no other students complained.

In January of 2023, Dr. Varkey apparently received a notification from the university that he was fired because of numerous complaints about his “religious preaching, discriminatory comments about homosexuals and transgender individuals, anti-abortion rhetoric, and misogynistic banter” and that his teaching “pushed beyond the bounds of academic freedom with [his] personal opinions that were offensive to many individuals in the classroom.”

In other words, it appears he was fired for teaching true and widely accepted concepts.

First Liberty's position is that "the statements he made are supported by research and consistent with his professional experience and education."

Now, Dr. Varkey is a devout Christian. He is, in fact, even an associate pastor at his church in San Antonio. More than that, he actually hosts a radio ministry. (But finding links to that is difficult - every article about this guy lately is about the law suit, due to the popularity of this issue by a post from Fox News.)

Nonetheless, First Liberty says it is so in their article, so I expect there is no reason to doubt it.

But the law firm maintains this is not (or should not) be at issue here.

Like millions of religious Americans, Dr. Varkey has a sincerely held belief that God created humankind male and female. His faith teaches that one’s sex is ordained by God, that one should love and care for the body that God gave him or her, and that one should not attempt to erase or alter his or her sex, whether through drugs or surgical means. He also believes God ordained the sexual function for procreation, that children are a gift from God, and that, absent a compelling reason, one should not sterilize oneself.

Nonetheless, First Liberty maintains that Dr. Varkey’s termination violates several laws that protect Americans from being punished for holding or expressing their religious beliefs:

“When decisionmakers at St. Philip’s College terminated Dr. Varkey because of his religious beliefs and classroom statements about biology, they violated several federal and state laws, including the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

First Liberty says this is a clear case of firing over a scientist teaching science, but coming up against political correctness.

What St. Philip’s College did is wrong—and Dr. Varkey should get his job back. Public universities have no business firing professors for teaching actual science. It’s harmful to academic freedom. It’s also harmful to religious liberty, as the college is sending a message that people of faith are not welcome and need not apply.

A thought from Cogny Mann:

There are other First Liberty clients—including Valerie KloostermanLacey SmithRobyn Strader and Fire Chief Ron Hittle—who lost their jobs due to "cancel culture."

It's happening all over the world. The ones above are in the US. Canada has its share of "cancel culture" embedded in the law, too. And in places like England and Australia, it's even worse.

I recently wrote a commentary on an article about how wokeism will kill our culture if we don't kill it.

We must stand our ground on these issues. But we have to do it the right way.

Daniel did it the right way. Jimmy and Johnny, the "sons of thunder," wanted to do it the wrong way.

Jimmy and Johnny, the sons of thunder, thought they could get brownie points showing Jesus how clever they were by suggesting a rain of thunder and lightening to kill their enemies. But when they suggested that approach, Jesus said, "you don't know what spirit you are of." God's ways are not always our ways.

Daniel knew that God's ways are not always our ways.

In the book, "God's Will And God's Desire," there is a reference to Daniel, and what his proper "heart attitude looked like as he prayed for Nebuchadnezzar:

Daniel did not see himself superior to the king and speak an attitude of judgment toward him. Daniel recognized that we all live under the remarkable grace of God. Daniel merely walked humbly in God’s grace, free of judgment, hoping instead for God’s mercy. Daniel told the king that the dream was showing him that he was a man of tremendous pride, that he should repent and let God be God…if God might perhaps relent of this punishment to come. 

Daniel recognized that the "right way" to influence the culture was by being on his knees before God with a desire for God's compassion, praying for those in authority, looking for God to move in their hearts.

In the end, this is a spiritual battle. We must fight. But the real enemy can only be fought on our knees.

Read More