Rather Expose Them Christian News Blog

Medical Student Purposely ‘Misses’ Vein With Needle When Patient Laughs at Her Pronoun Button

Kychelle Del Rosario, a fourth year medical student at ...


SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/kevindowneyjr/2022/03/31/woke-at-wake-medical-student-purposely-misses-vein-with-needle-when-patient-laughs-at-her-pronoun-button-n1585827;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

A woke fourth-year medical student at the Wake Forest School of Medicine purposely “missed” a patient’s vein when he giggled at the student’s “she/her” pronoun pin.

Kychelle Del Rosario, calling herself K. Del, then went on to brag about it on social media.

I had a patient I was doing a blood draw on see my pronoun pin and loudly laugh to the staff, “She/Her? Well of course it is! What other pronouns even are there? It?” I missed his vein so he had to get stuck twice.

FACT-O-RAMA! The phrase, “First do no harm” does not appear in the original Hippocratic oath from 245 AD. However, the oath does contain the phrase, “I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm.”

The Bolshie Del Rosario has since deleted her Twitter account.

She also seems to have a history of pro-trans activism, having once tweeted:

“For all the doctors saying ‘I don’t care about pronouns’ or ‘it’s too hard to remember,’ here are the facts:” and retweeted some “facts” about how trans people are less likely to kill themselves if people use their preferred pronouns. She finished the tweet with “you better f****** care.”

On the @wakeforestmed fellowship site, one year before sticking a patient who mocked her "pronoun pin", Wake Forest medical student Kychelle Del Rosario railed against "transphobia" in the North Carolina legislature. https://t.co/BnDDp6t41X

— Gregg Re (@gregg_re) March 30, 2022

As a medical professional, one would expect Del Rosario to understand that trans people have a condition called “gender dysphoria.” More importantly, suicide attempts are anywhere from 32%-50% higher for the trans community. Maybe pronouns aren’t their biggest problem.

The Nurse Ratchet wannabe wrote this for the Albert Schweitzer Fellowship website:

This role prepares me to become a trustworthy doctor and advocate for the transgender community—a population which the medical field has harmed greatly in the past. It also allows me to train other healthcare professionals who aim to improve their practice to be more welcoming and gender-affirming.

The Wake Forest School of Medicine took the usual path of least resistance regarding their recalcitrant Dr. Jekyll and tweeted the following,

The actions described in this student’s social media post do not in any way reflect the quality of care and compassion that Wake Forest University School of Medicine strives to provide to our patients each and every day. We stand behind our values that include trust, excellence and a space where all belong, and we actively reinforce those values with learners and providers.

Publicist at @wakeforestmed finally sends this. This statement is false. Federal law does not preclude Wake Forest from telling the public whether this doctor is seeing patients and whether she is still enrolled. THE DOCTOR BOASTED ABOUT MISTREATING A PATIENT B/C OF HIS POLITICS. pic.twitter.com/WtDYAwh2Td

— Gregg Re (@gregg_re) March 30, 2022

Del Rosario’s Facebook page sported support for BLM (shock). It has since been deactivated (more shock).

More importantly, no one seems to know what, if any, actions will be taken by the school or the police against the prickly Del Rosario.


Joe Biden to end Title 42, enabling migrants to pour into the southern border~Senator Lankford: Biden repeal of Title 42 could spur new flood of migrants

President Joe Biden is considering ending the CDC's order known as Title 42. One America's John Hines has more.

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) is warning the southern border could see a flood of as many as one million illegal migrants within weeks. One America's John Hines has more from Capitol Hill.

Texas DPS spokesperson warns of ‘complete chaos' at border

Lt. Christopher Olivarez of the Texas Department of Public Safety shares his thoughts on the Biden administration's move to reverse Title 42.

SUDDEN DEATH: We all have to somehow come to grips with people dying ALL AROUND US AS GLOBALISTS WAGE TOTAL WAR AGAINST HUMANITY~DEPOPULATION CONFIRMED: Ever since covid vaccines were introduced, U.S. population growth has plummeted


SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-03-30-sudden-death-we-all-have-to-come-to-grips-with-people-dying.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) Today’s Situation Update podcast is entitled, “Sudden Death.” It’s both a description of what I just experienced with the loss of a beloved ranch animal late last night, as well as an observation about the globalists waging total war on humanity and thereby achieving the mass extermination of billions of human beings.

Strange, isn’t it? How we can talk about “billions” of human beings being outright murdered by vaccines and engineered famine, yet when an animal close to us dies — or a loved one, relative, spouse, etc. — it hurts far more than the thought of “billions.” That’s because every human being who is murdered by the globalists was loved by someone. Every death counts because every life matters. Yet we live in such an insane, fascist, woketard society that merely uttering, “All lives matter” gets you de-platformed and branded a racist.

That’s because the left-wing Marxists running America are actually members of a satanic death cult. They celebrate death, which is why they celebrate post-birth abortions (i.e. murdering human babies up to 28 days after they are born). They even celebrate the mass death of billions in the name of “saving the planet,” which explains how we got to this current situation where nearly every government in the world is now weaponized against its own citizens, unleashing biological weapons, death-inducing vaccines, and engineered food scarcity that’s designed to collapse human civilization.

The sad, blatant truth is that we are all going to have to come to grips with people dying all around us. This includes people you know, people you love, and people you once considered friends, neighbors, or coworkers. Over the next two years, many of these people will face extreme food scarcity and panic. Their personalities will transform into something you and I no longer recognize. They will change from being friends to looters, in many cases. And some will resort to violence to get the food they need.

Over the next decade, an estimated 1-2 billion people will die across the planet from vaccine-induced injuries and sudden death. This outcome is already baked in and cannot be reversed by any known treatment. Millions have already died — and at least 1.1 million are already dead in the United States alone — but the final death count from these vaccines will be measured in the billions.

Farmers are being paid by the USDA to destroy crops and create mass famine

Then there’s the engineered food scarcity. We have arrived at the point of government treason and engineered starvation where governments fake bird flu outbreaks among chicken flocks in order to demand the culling of millions of chickens, thereby driving up food prices and increasing food scarcity.

At the federal level, every effort is being made to destroy food production, including the USDA paying farmers to destroy their own crops, as the video below reveals. According to this video, farmers are being offered 150% of the value of their crops to destroy them and make sure these crops don’t enter the food supply:


This next video from Infowars’ Greg Reese reveals a shocking message from Shad Sullivan, an American farmer. He warns that farmers are being ordered to destroy their livestock and plow under food crops.

It’s all part of the engineered, weaponized food scarcity that’s being unleashed on the world in conjunction with planned bioweapons attacks, spike protein biological assaults and a global economic collapse:


When your own government literally pays (and threatens) farmers to destroy crops and kill off their own livestock, rest assured you are living under a genocidal regime of totalitarian enemies of humanity. They will stop at nothing to starve you to death in their attempts to wipe humanity from the face of this planet.

We must understand this is a spiritual war against evil and that only God has the ultimate weapon to destroy all evil

In today’s Situation Update podcast, I cover how this war against humanity is a spiritual war between good and evil. All the globalists, high-level Democrats, vaccine-pimping scientists, journo-terrorists, and woketard school teacher pedophiles are, of course, working for Satan. So are many of the church leaders in the mega-churches that are nothing but fronts for satanism and obedience to evil government.

On the other side of all this is Jesus Christ, God, and the true Christians who maintain their obedience to God. They exercise morality, courage, compassion, and love for life. These are the remnant of humanity, and it is these people who will rebuild a new civilization in alignment with God’s laws after the collapse of this current civilization and the eradication of evil.

Understand that as this happens, billions of human beings will die, and billions more will be destroyed by God for their evil ways. The planet will become sparsely populated by the time this is all over. Cities of extreme evil — San Francisco, Washington D.C., Chicago, Seattle, Portland, etc. — will be ghost towns, with almost no one remaining.

Those of us who live through what’s coming will see death on a daily basis. We will often be surrounded by the dead and the dying, and we will witness them lash out with their evil intent, their pedophilia, their coordinated lies, and their contempt for God. You see this contempt every day in the actions of the corporate media, the White House and the fake president, Big Tech, public school counselors in liberal cities, Hollywood, and even Disney, which has become a hub for pushing pedophilia and grooming of young children.

Understand that most of these people are pro-vaccine and anti-prepping. The vast majority of them will die in the coming decade. They will die from the spike protein, starvation, or even from violence stemming from the economic collapse. For those who are steeped in evil and yet somehow manage to survive all that will be destroyed by the Word of God, in an instant upon His return.

The world will instantly go from chaos to silence.

The madness, lunacy, and murderous intent of the anti-human Leftists will be vanquished as their souls are sent to purgatory (i.e. infinite separation from God).

From there, humanity will rebuild a new society. And this is the reason why our own survival is so critical: Because we shall be the architects of the new society, and we must make every effort to banish the mistakes and corruption of this current society. We must decentralize all power, agriculture, finance, technology, and (limited) government. We must enforce morality and stop those who pervert the morals of a civilized world. We must arrest and imprison those engaged in corruption or coordinated media lies designed to mislead the public and steal elections.

We get to decide the new rules of the new society, for we will be the survivors.

Discover more details in today’s situation update podcast, which is admittedly a bit on the gloomy side due to the sudden death on my ranch:



DEPOPULATION CONFIRMED: Ever since covid vaccines were introduced, U.S. population growth has plummeted


SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-03-30-covid-vaccines-introduced-us-population-growth-plummeted.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) For the past two years, we were told that the answer to the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) plandemic, and the thing that would “save lives,” was everyone taking the Operation Warp Speed “vaccines.” It turns out, however, that population growth in the United States has reached an all-time low ever since the jabs were introduced.

In 2021, the year when most of the “fully vaccinated” got their jabs, the U.S. saw its population growth reach the lowest levels ever. This is according to the latest data from the Census Bureau.

The year prior, 2020, was not much better, as the population growth rate in America has been declining for some time. But things really ramped up in the depopulation department right after the “cure” for the Fauci Flu was introduced on a broad scale.

“U.S. growth didn’t slowly fade away: It slipped, and slipped, and then fell off a cliff,” wrote Derek Thompson for The Atlantic.

“The 2010s were already demographically stagnant; every year from 2011 to 2017, the U.S. grew by only 2 million people. In 2020, the U.S. grew by just 1.1 million. Last year, we added only 393,000 people … What’s going on?”

Thompson answers his own question in a roundabout way by pointing out that the vast majority of deaths in America occurred after the shots were released. He adds that they were particularly concentrated in 2021, which is when most people got jabbed.

“Last year, deaths exceeded births in a record-high number of U.S. counties,” Thompson further points out.

“Never before in American history have so many different parts of the country shrunk because of ‘natural decease,’ which is the difference between deaths and births.”

Rather than blame the jabs for declining population numbers, The Atlantic says there isn’t enough immigration

Between 2019 and 2021, excess deaths accounted for 50 percent of the difference in population growth. Thompson blames the “pandemic” for this, but the reality is that a bulk of those deaths occurred after the jabs were introduced, and after they were plunged into people’s arms.

He stops short of linking the two things together, of course, but it is clear from his deduction as to the true cause of much of this death: the so-called “vaccines.” (Related: Covid vaccines have been linked to causing AIDS.)

Amazingly, Thompson goes into a lengthy diatribe blaming a lack of immigration in recent years on America’s declining population numbers. Back in 2016, he says, as many as one million new people from other countries legally immigrated to the U.S. Now, that figure is around 250,000 a year.

If true, this still does not explain the excess deaths that all occurred since the start of the plandemic when patients were being killed with respirators and remdesivir – this was pre-jab – as well as from late-2020 onward after the injections were widely administered.

Something clearly dramatic has happened ever since the Fauci Flu was foisted upon the world, but almost nobody is willing to identify the elephant in the room that caused it.

“These fake vaccines have the HIV genome embedded in the spike protein,” suggested someone at Natural News. “Fauci is a major shareholder in all of them. Major conflict of interest, along with being a mass murderer.”

“Vaccines are designed to prevent immunity, not bestow it,” wrote another. “This includes mRNA jabs. Vaccines do this by throwing the immune system off balance so that it attacks the body, thereby creating pharma clients for life.”

“When you are sick, or you have an injury or infection, your body temporarily produces antibodies to cope with the problem. Vaccines hijack this process and chronically hyper-stimulate the production of antibodies, causing severe inflammation. This is very harmful, and sometimes fatal.”

More related news coverage can be found at Genocide.news.

Sources for this article include:




Rep. Madison Cawthorn says he’s been asked to “orgies” in DC, has seen politicians do “coke” while media gathers blackmail materials

Madison Cawthorn INFURIATES GOP with talk of ORGY invitation, DRUG USE by Congress colleagues

Just HOW Corrupt is D.C? Rep. Madison Cawthorn gives insider look

Congressman Madison Cawthorn pulls no punches in describing just how bad Washington D.C. really is. In this interview, I ask how close the show ‘House of Cards’ gets to giving a real glimpse of our ruling class. His answers shocked me. Support Madison Cawthorn: https://cawthorn.house.gov/

Image: Rep. Madison Cawthorn says he’s been asked to “orgies” in DC, has seen politicians do “coke” while media gathers blackmail materials


SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-03-30-rep-cawthorn-been-asked-to-orgies-in-dc.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) Freshmen Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) has made interesting – albeit not surprising to some long-time Washington observers – revelations about his short time in the nation’s capital since winning in the 2020 election.

In an interview last week with John Lovell of the “Warrior Poet Society” podcast, Cawthorn said that since moving to D.C., he has been invited to orgies with politicians and saw other powerful people doing “key bumps” of cocaine while in front of him, and with various media figures who then document the scandalous stories to use as blackmail.

The young GOP representative was asked if “House of Cards,” the television series starring Kevin Spacey as the Democratic chief whip, and his “secret life of corruption and power and money and perversion” is anything close to the reality of life in the nation’s capital. He responded by claiming to be shocked at the amount of “sexual perversion” in Washington (which explains why most lawmakers never want to retire).

He also told the interviewer that as a young man who has always paid a lot of attention to politics, he was amazed and surprised that some people he “looked up to” had invited him to “sexual get-togethers,” which he noted were actually just orgies. He also said that cocaine and drug use among D.C. insiders was rampant.

“Some of the people that are leading on the movement to try and remove addiction in our country and then you watch them do, you know, a key bump of cocaine right in front of you and it’s like, wow, this is wild,” said Cawthorn.

The North Carolina Republican also said that there is a “whole espionage aspect” to what goes on in Washington.

“So many people trade in secrets, and there’s a currency to secrets,” he said, adding that one of the most disturbing things is that members of the media intentionally pursue those secrets to “keep nasty stories about you or other people on a shelf,” ready to drop at a moment’s notice as a means of blackmail.

“If you’re about to speak out against something they don’t want you to, they’ll come out and say ‘we’re about to drop this story of when 17 years ago you did X, Y, and Z, and you don’t want us to drop that story do you, so we’re going to bully you back into this position.'” Cawthorn added.

But then, there are also times when the left-wing “mainstream media” commits heinous acts of omission and commission.

For instance, before, during, and after Donald Trump’s presidency, the media has allowed itself to be used by the Deep State intelligence apparatus to convey one false story after another in a direct attempt to bring down a duly-elected leader of our country.

In fact, the various outlets likely were well aware that the stories they’re being fed were false, based on Cawthorn’s revelations, but they published those fake stories anyway because of their disdain for Trump – and they did so at the expense of what little trust remained of our media institutions, which was already at a low point.

At the same time, the same outlets refused to cover real, documented, damning information about Hunter Biden, the current president’s son, as well as disturbing claims of corruption and foreign influence regarding Joe Biden himself. These outlets refused to report on these revelations even though reporters and editors were well aware that electing a president who was indebted to foreign governments like China and Russia, two of our biggest global competitors and potential enemies in the future, compromised U.S. national security.

It should be obvious once more that our media no longer exists to serve as a check on power, it serves as an enabler of power provided the “right” politicians are in charge.

Sources include:



Brighteon-Dr. Tenpenny: Hemorrhagic Fever Virus Being Threatened for the Next Pandemic

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny of https://www.tenpennyimc.com/ and https://vaxxter.com/ joins The Alex Jones Show to break down what she sees for the future of humanity under medical tyranny rule.


Nigeria: Muslims murder 50 Christians, abduct 100 more, burn down church, houses, stores


SEE: https://robertspencer.org/2022/03/nigeria-muslims-murder-50-christians-abduct-100-more-burn-down-church-houses-stores;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The world yawns. This kind of story doesn’t fit the establishment media narrative, in which Muslims are always and in every case victims, so it will get no traction.

Why identify the perpetrators as “Muslims” rather than as “militants” or “insurgents”? Because it was their Islamic faith that led them to do this: their attacks are “inspired by their desire to forcefully take over Christians’ lands and impose Islam.” If they had a different motivation, another signifier would be appropriate.

“Terrorists Kill 50 Christians and Abduct 100, including Priest,” Morning Star News, March 28, 2022:

ABUJA, Nigeria (Morning Star News) – Fulani herdsmen on Thursday (March 24) killed an estimated 50 Christians and abducted a Catholic priest in attacks on communities in an area of Kaduna state, Nigeria, area sources said.

In late-night attacks on 10 predominantly Christian communities of Giwa County, herdsmen and others also took about 100 people captive and burned down a church building, area residents said.

“They also burned houses, stores and killed animals,” resident Nuhu Musa told Morning Star News by text message. “These attacks continued and lasted up to the morning of Friday, 25 March. They didn’t allow even the dead bodies to be buried, as they shot at mourners and those who returned to the villages to conduct funerals for those killed.”

Women and children were among those killed, Musa said. The burned church building was located in Zangon Tama village, and the assailants also raided the villages of Unguwar Kaya Fatika, Barebari, Dillalai, Unguwar Bakko, Gidan Alhajin Kadi, Kadanya and Durumi, he said.

“Giwa Local Government Area of Kaduna state is bleeding,” Musa said.

Samuel Aruwan, commissioner in Kaduna state’s Ministry of Internal Security and Home Affairs, said initial reports showed the assailants had attacked the villages of Dillalai, Barebari, Dokan Alhaji Ya’u, Durumi, Kaya and Fatika.

The Catholic priest, the Rev. Felix Fidson Zakari of St. Ann’s Catholic Church, was taken away at gunpoint from Zangon Tama village along with others, four area residents said. The residents and a spokesman for the Catholic Diocese of Zaria requested prayer for the abducted priest.

Among other villagers, Julius Agbado, a member of the Catholic church, said, “Please kindly pray for the safe release of Rev. Fr. Felix Fidson Zakari, a priest of St. Ann’s Catholic Church, Zangon Tama, under the Catholic Diocese of Zaria, who was kidnapped after armed herdsmen and terrorists attacked Zangon Tama.”

Another area resident, Muazu Gogi, lamented the government’s failure to protect villagers against such attacks, which have become commonplace in Kaduna state.

“Pray for us to survive these attacks by herdsmen and bandits,” Gogi said. “These herdsmen and bandits attacked several villages in Giwa Local Government Area and killed more than 50 persons. The government is aware about the killings and destructions by these Fulani terrorists and armed bandits but is unable to protect the people.”

Killings in Benue State

In Benue state, Fulani herdsmen early Wednesday (March 23) killed three Christians, following the slaughter of more than 20 people in predominantly Christian areas of the state earlier in the month, sources said.

Residents of predominantly Christian Yoli village, in Katsina-Ala County, said the Fulani attacked at about 2 a.m. and also wounded a dozen people, forcing many to flee their homes.

“The Fulani, who had guns and weapons like machetes, attacked Christians in one of our villages, Yoyo community in Katsina-Ala Local Government Area,” Comfort Angula told Morning Star News in a text message. “They killed three members of the community, and many were forced to flee the village.”…

Christian leaders in Nigeria have said they believe herdsmen attacks on Christian communities in Nigeria’s Middle Belt are inspired by their desire to forcefully take over Christians’ lands and impose Islam as desertification has made it difficult for them to sustain their herds.

Nigeria led the world in Christians killed for their faith last year (Oct. 1, 2020 to Sept. 30, 2021) at 4,650, up from 3,530 the previous year, according to Open Doors’ 2022 World Watch List report. The number of kidnapped Christians was also highest in Nigeria, at more than 2,500, up from 990 the previous year, according to the WWL report.

Nigeria trailed only China in the number of churches attacked, with 470 cases, according to the report.

In the 2022 World Watch List of the countries where it is most difficult to be a Christian, Nigeria jumped to seventh place, its highest ranking ever, from No. 9 the previous year.

Tucker: With Nuclear Threat Nigh, Unstable Biden Should Be Removed via the 25th Amendment

Tucker: With Nuclear Threat Nigh, Unstable Biden Should Be Removed via the 25th Amendment


SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/tucker-with-nuclear-threat-nigh-unstable-biden-should-be-removed-via-the-25th-amendment/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

“Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f*** things up.” This comment, reportedly made by Barack Obama, could now come to mind. Less than a year and a half into Joe Biden’s presidency, after all, conflict and civilization-ending nuclear war with Russia have become a chilling possibility. Despite this, Biden has done nothing but exacerbate tensions with his words. Over just the course of three days recently, in fact, the president went off-script and indicated that 1) the U.S. might use chemical weapons (i.e., against Russia) if Moscow employs them; 2) American troops were heading for Ukraine, and 3) the administration seeks to oust Vladimir Putin from power.

All three comments were later repudiated by the administration — while Biden essentially claimed they were never made — but some damage had been done. Add to this that Biden also has called Putin a “pure thug,” a “murderous dictator,” and a “war criminal,” and a question arises:

Is this the best way to deal with a volatile situation and a man with 6,000 nuclear weapons at his fingertips?

Tucker Carlson has his answer. Warning that Biden can no longer regulate his emotions and thus poses an existential danger to our country, the Fox News host said Monday that if there was “ever a time to invoke the 25th Amendment, it is now.” This amendment, of course, allows for the removal of a president unfit to discharge his duties.

Carlson introduced the topic by pointing out that Biden had always been known as a charming, engaging, personable character. (It should be mentioned, however, that even when younger he would often react aggressively when challenged by the less powerful.) Yet in recent times, “the most authentic feature of Joe Biden’s public performances has been his anger,” stated the commentator. “It seems to come over him in waves.”

After showing video-clip examples of such, Carlson said it’s clear why this is happening: Displays of anger and a decreasing ability to regulate emotion often accompany senility — and Biden has long exhibited signs of dementia.

This oft-seen phenomenon of aging is ever and always sad and tragic, noted Carlson, yet in this case, it takes on yet another dimension. As he explained:

Biden is the president of the United States, and this is the single most volatile moment in the recent history of our country. Biden is leading the U.S. toward war and so it’s fair to assess the effect on the rest of us of his mental and emotional conditions, not simply about age; Biden is 79. Biden is clearly unable to speak with precision and when you’re president of the United States and the world hangs on your every word, when your words constitute American policy, when you can change American policy, particularly America’s foreign policy, simply by saying so, it is essential that you speak the words you intend to speak, that you not get carried away because you’re mad and say something you don’t mean that might threaten the long-term interests of this country, threaten the families and the children of the rest of us and our future, but he is.

Carlson later played clips of Biden’s off-script, off-kilter remarks. First, when asked last Thursday if Russia’s using chemical weapons in Ukraine would trigger a NATO military response, Biden stated, “It would trigger a response in kind; whether or not you’re asking whether NATO would cross, we’d make that decision at the time.”

Of course, “in-kind” means in the same or a similar way; Biden may not now know this (if he ever did), given his diminished state. But the statement was later walked back by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, whose remarks reflected the U.S. policy of never deploying chemical weapons.

Biden’s next bumble occurred when, after flying to Poland Friday, he addressed American troops and indicated they’d be entering Ukraine. “[Y]ou’re going to see when you’re there,” he said, “and some of you have been there, you’re going to see, you’re going to see women, young people stand in the middle in front of a damned tank saying, ‘I’m not leaving. I’m holding my ground.’”

This, too, was walked back, with the White House later saying, “The president has been clear we are not sending U.S. troops to Ukraine, and there is no change in that position.” Of course, the point is that Biden’s above remarks make this anything but clear.

But then Biden muddied the waters yet again on Saturday. While inveighing against Putin, the president stated, “Brutality will never grind down the road to be free. For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”

This prompted, you guessed it, another walk-back. “The President’s point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region,” a White House official told Fox News shortly after Biden’s remarks. “He was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia, or regime change.”

The kicker is that Biden later called the relation of his words’ literal meaning a misinterpretation (video below).

Regime Change in Russia? How About Regime Change in America?

Yet Biden’s later claims about his words’ intended meaning are so greatly divorced from their literal meaning that senility is the only charitable explanation (unless one believes he’s purposely trying to spark WWIII). It’s a perfect example of that Biden ability Obama warned about: to royally foul things up.

And thus did Carlson say that “too much is at stake.” “If there was ever a time … in U.S. history … to invoke the 25th Amendment, it is now,” he continued. “As Joe Biden himself put it, ‘For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power’ — for all of our sakes” (video below).

But the problem, many will point out, is that dispatching Biden leaves us with Kamala Harris who, though not senile, may as well be. Were she eliminated, we’d be stuck with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who’s older than Biden and has also exhibited signs of neurological dysfunction.

It’s another example of how elections — stolen ones perhaps especially — have consequences. It’s ironic, too, that Trump Derangement Syndrome and warnings of the last president’s alleged mental unfitness have helped visit upon us a truly mentally unfit president.

Yet onus also belongs on those controlling Biden, as the latter is no doubt very much a puppet. Sending this senile man overseas to manage the Ukraine crisis is like throwing gasoline on a fire and indicts his handlers’ judgment. As French president Emmanuel Macron warned Sunday, now is the time for diplomacy and de-escalation — not playing Dr. Strangelove with a 6,000-nuke-strong nation.

Video: Gender Studies Professor Outlines Democrats’ Endgame For American Children

'Professor' Mark Dice makes a surprise appearance at a California city council meeting.

In this new Mark Dice video, a gender studies professor makes a surprise appearance at a California city council meeting to share the Democrats' plan for American public schools. Don't miss it!

Shut Up, Mickey: Disney Vows to Fight DeSantis in Court While a Fourth-Grade Teacher Is Arrested for Attempted Child Rape

DeSantis signs Parental Rights in Education bill

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signs the Parental Rights in Education Act into law during a visit to Classical Preparatory School in Spring Hill. The bill bars instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity for young public-school students.

NEW: Biden slams Florida's DeSantis over parental rights law

 SEE CENSORED VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do2hJOwrN6M

Shut Up, Mickey: Disney Vows to Fight FLORIDA GOVERNOR DeSantis in Court While a Fourth-Grade Teacher Is Arrested for Attempted Child Rape


Everything woke literally turns to s--t and now it’s Disney’s turn! Disney executives get caught red-handed pushing a radical woke agenda that promises to completely destroy the company! In this video, we’re going to look at the shocking leaked video from a recent executive meeting, we’re going to see how Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is responding, and stick with me until the very end of this video when I’ll reveal that all Disney is ultimately doing here is guaranteeing their inevitable demise; you are NOT going to want to miss this!

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis Says Disney "Crossed a Line"

DeSANTIS: The state of Florida is governed according to the interests of the people, not according to the political posturing of corporate executives in California. We will never allow corporate influence to repeal the substantive rights of parents in our state.

Disney has eliminated all mentions of ‘ladies,’ ‘gentlemen,’ ‘boys,’ and ‘girls’ in its theme parks

Disney ripped for bowing to woke crowd, sanitizing park greetings


SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/lincolnbrown/2022/03/29/shut-up-mickey-disney-vows-to-fight-desantis-in-court-while-a-fourth-grade-teacher-is-arrested-for-attempted-child-rape-n1585399;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

We interrupt the wall-to-wall national coverage of the outbreak of violence at this week’s Annual Narcissists’ Convention to bring you other entertainment news. According to The Mix, the Walt Disney Company announced this week that it would do everything it can to have Florida’s HB 1557 either repealed or struck down in court. Darth Mickey issued the threat via Twitter:

“Florida’s HB 1557, also known as the ‘Don’t Say Gay Bill’ should never have passed and should never have been signed into law. Our goal as a company is for this law to be repealed by the legislature or struck down in the courts, and we remain committed to supporting the national and state organizations working to achieve that. We are dedicated to standing up for the rights and safety of LGBTQ+ members of the Disney Family as well as the LGBTQ+ community in Florida and across the country.”

Wow. You can almost see those letters in gold, moving vertically over a starfield while a symphonic theme stirs feelings of rebellion against a repressive regime….

There are, however, some problems with that notion.

1) As anyone with brains enough not to watch the Oscars can tell you, Disney is part of the oppressive regime.

2) The “Don’t Say Gay” bill, as leftists and cloistered elites like calling it, literally does not say “gay.”

3) You can read the text of the bill here. The bill has the unmitigated gall to give parents access to what is happening with their children in school and allows them to take action if they have concerns.

Now someone out there in the LGBTQ+/-TRFKPOBMDL@#$%^&* crowd who identifies as a non-binary Maldivian cat-faced spider and whose pronouns are lkhsfs/fwmf is going to howl that this will put non-cis-gendered children at risk. Okay, howl to your heart’s content. It’s what your side does best. But let’s talk about risk for a moment.

Related: Florida Teacher Says She’ll Break the Law to Keep Secrets About Sexuality From Parents

According to the Post Millennial recently, 50-year-old Andrew Bert Hammond was arrested in Redmond, Washington. Mr. Hammond (who incidentally offered a plethora of advice on supporting BLM in the aftermath of the George Floyd incident) has been interacting with 13- and 14-year-old girls over the web and had arranged for a meeting with them specifically for sex in a hotel room in Redmond. He even brought along some of his favorite party supplies, which included handcuffs, duct tape, condoms, and lubricant.  One can only imagine Mr. Hammond’s dismay when he answered the door to find not the realization of his twisted fantasies, but members of the local constabulary who promptly escorted him to the King County Correctional Facility. I am sure that handcuffs did end up playing a prominent role in the evening’s events after all. He was arrested for two counts of attempted rape of a child, and charged with four counts of communication with a minor for immoral purposes, second-degree attempted rape of a child, and third-degree attempted rape of a child.

But wait, there’s more. In addition to his hobbies as a social justice warrior and pervert, Andrew Bert Hammond was a fourth-grade teacher at McMinnville Elementary School in Oregon. Principal Erika Nesvig did alert parents to the incident and told them that Hammond had been placed on administrative leave. She also noted the proper background checks and verifications of Hammond had been completed before Hammond was hired.

So tell me, Mr. Chapek, tell me you howlers and protestors and virtue signalers, do you think the parents of those fourth-graders had any right to know what was going on in that classroom? Please provide your answers in the space below and remember to show your work.


COVER-UP: White House Accused of Withholding Docs on SCOTUS Nominee


SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2022/03/30/cover-up-white-house-accused-of-withholding-docs-on-scotus-nominee-n1585454;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Senate Republicans are accusing the White House of “intentionally” withholding documents relating to Biden’s Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson and her record of giving lenient sentences to child pornographers.

When the White House provided the Senate Judiciary with a list of Jackson’s child abuse cases, some were left off. One such case was U.S. v. Cane, which involved “over 6,500 files depicting children appearing to be of elementary, middle and high school ages, engaged in sexual acts or posing sexually.” The recommendation was for the defendant to be sentenced to 84 months, but Jackson sentenced him to the mandatory minimum of 60 months.

“Not only does this case, which Judge Jackson left off her list of child abuse cases, undercut her argument that she followed the probation office’s recommended sentences, but it also underscores the perils of moving too quickly in the vetting process,” a Republican Judiciary Committee aide told Fox News.

Related: Joe Manchin Announces His Decision on Ketanji Jackson’s Confirmation

The White House claims the case was “unintentionally” left off the list given to the committee, however, that claim is contradicted by the fact that the White House leaked specific information to the media and Democrats on the committee while excluding Republicans.

Nevertheless, the White House claimed the case undermines accusations from Republicans that Jackson is soft-on-crime — however, transcripts of the sentencing prove otherwise.

“The transcripts—the only public material to address sentencing in this case—confirm that the probation office recommended a longer sentence than the minimum term imposed by Judge Jackson,” the GOP aide explained. “They also reveal the government’s arguments for enhancing the penalty, which suggests interest in a sentence longer than the term Judge Jackson handed out.”

“It’s clear from the sentencing transcript that the probation office, which Judge Jackson repeatedly referenced to justify her sentences, wanted a longer sentence in this case,” the GOP aide continued. “Moreover, Judge Jackson even pointed to a case (Cooper), where she imposed the shortest possible sentence despite the prosecutor’s higher recommendation, to justify her sentence in this case.”

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee only got the transcript for the Cane case on Friday — after the hearings had concluded. “Clearly, the White House either didn’t thoroughly vet the nominee or were aware of the record and they intentionally left it out in hopes that the nominee would be confirmed before the full record could be uncovered and reviewed,” the GOP aide insisted.

Article III Project founder Mike Davis says the White House engaged in a cover-up.

“This is a cover-up by the Biden White House and Senate Democrats,” Davis said. “They’re covering up her record. They intentionally omitted this case from less than a year ago because it did not fit their political narrative.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) agrees that the White House deliberately withheld this information to protect Biden’s nominee.

“When we first highlighted her record on child porn cases, the White House leaked information to their friends in the media and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee,” Hawley told Fox News. “They hid it from the public despite knowing Judge Jackson gives lenient sentences to criminals. The White House is still refusing to be transparent about Judge Jackson’s record.”

Why People Are Rushing for Iodine Amid Nuclear Concerns


SEE: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/03/31/iodine-for-nuclear-fallout.aspx;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:


  • Fear of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine causing a nuclear incident has resulted in Europeans stockpiling iodine. In the case of a serious nuclear accident, radioactive iodine can be released into the air, increasing your risk of thyroid cancer and acute radiation sickness when inhaled
  • Non-radioactive iodine supplements help to prevent the radioactive iodine from concentrating in your thyroid gland, thereby reducing the risk of thyroid cancer
  • The conventional recommendation to ward off some of the health dangers of radiation exposure is to take supplemental potassium iodide. In addition to potassium iodide tablets, you could use Lugol’s solution, which includes both potassium iodide and iodine in water
  • The recommended daily dosage of potassium iodide for an adult in the case of acute nuclear radiation exposure from a nuclear reactor accident or a nuclear weapon detonation is 130 milligrams (mg), which is relatively high and far in excess of the normal daily requirement of 1 mg or less per day
  • For optimal protection, the iodine would ideally be taken one hour before the radiation exposure, and no later than 12 hours post-exposure
  • Other supplements that can help reduce damage associated with radiation exposure are vitamin D3, spirulina, and molecular hydrogen

Fear about potential nuclear fallout has resulted in Europeans stocking up on iodine. As reported by Agence France-Presse (AFP), March 8, 2022:1

“European countries have seen stocks of iodine fly off the shelves due to fears it may be needed to counter the risks of thyroid cancer if Russia's invasion of Ukraine causes a nuclear incident. France said it would send 2.5 million doses of the chemical compound to Ukraine after Russian forces there seized the defunct Chernobyl nuclear site and damaged Zaporizhzhia, Europe's largest atomic plant.”

Your thyroid gland needs iodine to make hormones that influence your metabolism and other vital functions. Since your body does not produce iodine, you must get it through your diet on a daily basis. When your body lacks sufficient iodine, it cannot make enough thyroid hormone.

If your deficiency is severe, your thyroid may become enlarged, a condition also known as a goiter. Iodine deficiency can also cause hypothyroidism (low thyroid function). On the other hand, excessive levels can result in hyperthyroidism (excessive thyroid function), elevated blood pressure, and abnormal heart rhythm.

In some cases, lack of sufficient iodine can trigger intellectual disabilities and developmental problems in infants and children whose mothers were iodine-deficient during pregnancy.

Iodine deficiency has also been linked to poor information processing, diminished fine motor skills, visual problems,2 fatigue, depression, weight gain, low basal body temperatures, and more.3 It’s also been known for some time that iodine can kill viruses, including influenza viruses.4

General Health Recommendations

The recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for iodine ranges from 110 micrograms (mcg) for babies from birth to 6 months of age and up to 150 mcg for men and women over 19 years. Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding have an RDA of 220 mcg and 290 mcg, respectively.5

I always recommend that you get as many nutrients as possible from your food, and iodine is no exception. Foods that are naturally iodine-rich include spirulina,6 sea vegetables, prunes, raw dairy products, eggs, and Himalayan pink sea salt.7,8 Eating these foods on a regular basis will help ensure adequate levels year-round.

In the case of nuclear fallout prophylaxis, however, you may need higher doses than these foods can immediately provide — especially if you have not been getting sufficient amounts on a daily basis.

Recommendations in Cases of Acute Radiation Exposure

The conventional recommendation to ward off some of the health dangers of radiation exposure is to take supplemental potassium iodide. In addition to potassium iodide tablets, you could use Lugol’s solution, which includes both potassium iodide and iodine in water.

The recommended daily dosage of potassium iodide for an adult in the case of acute nuclear radiation exposure from a nuclear reactor accident or a nuclear weapon detonation is 130 milligrams (mg).9 For optimal protection, the iodine would ideally be taken one hour before the radiation exposure, and no later than 12 hours post-exposure.

Why Use Iodine in Case of a Nuclear Accident?

In the case of a serious nuclear accident, radioactive iodine can be released into the air, increasing your risk of thyroid cancer and acute radiation sickness when inhaled.10

Non-radioactive iodine helps prevent the radioactive iodine from concentrating in your thyroid gland, thereby reducing the risk of thyroid cancer. As your thyroid gets saturated with non-radioactive iodine, the radioactive iodine gets flushed out of your body through your urine. As explained by thyroid.org:

“The thyroid gland cannot distinguish between stable (regular) iodine and radioactive iodine and will absorb whatever it can ... Babies and young children are at highest risk. The risk is much lower for people over 40. Thyroid cancer seems to be the only cancer whose incidence rises after a radioactive iodine release. Potassium iodide protects only the thyroid, but it is the organ at greatest risk from radioactive iodine.”

Nuclear radiation can be measured in millisieverts, millirem, and rem. Rem is an older unit measure still frequently used in the U.S. For reference, 100 millisieverts are the equivalent of 10,000 millirem, or 10 rem. Acute radiation sickness begins at exposures at or above 100 rem (1,000 millisieverts or 100,000 millirem).11 Spikes recorded at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in 2011 measured up to 40,000 millirem, or 40 rem.

The American Thyroid Association recommends that anyone living within 50 miles of a nuclear plant have potassium iodide in their household at all times in the event of a radiation emergency.12

However, you should only take potassium iodide if you are near active radiation fallout. This is NOT a strategy that should be used as a long-term preventive because it only protects your thyroid for one to three days, no longer, and taking it when not absolutely necessary could result in thyrotoxicosis.

Iodine Does Not Protect Against Other Radioactive Elements

It’s also important to realize that iodine does not offer all-around protection in the case of nuclear fallout. As mentioned, it only protects against radioactive iodine, and it primarily protects your thyroid. It does not protect against any other radioactive elements.

Authorities typically recommend sheltering inside a hard building in the case of nuclear fallout. But there may also be some other things you can take to help your body protect itself against radiation. Three supplements that come to mind are vitamin D3, magnesium, and molecular hydrogen.

Vitamin D Can Help Reduce Radioactive Damage

Vitamin D's protective action is carried by a wide variety of mechanisms, including cell cycle regulation and proliferation, cellular differentiation and communication, and programmed cell death (apoptosis). Scientists have identified a total of nearly 3,000 genes that are upregulated by vitamin D, so it makes sense that it would have multifaceted protective actions against cellular damage.

A paper on the subject argued that vitamin D should be considered among the prime nonpharmacological agents that offer protection against low radiation damage and radiation-induced cancer — and perhaps even the primary agent. According to the paper, published in the International Journal of Low Radiation:13

“In view of the evidence that has been presented here, it would appear that vitamin D by its preventive/ameliorating actions should be given serious consideration as a protective agent against sublethal radiation injury, and in particular that induced by low radiation.”

Ideally, the BEST way to get vitamin D is from sun exposure on your bare skin. This typically requires going out every day in the sun around noon to get enough UVB to generate vitamin D. We are entering the time of year when most people in the U.S. can do this for the next six months.

Sun exposure will also increase melatonin in your mitochondria, which is yet another fantastic method to reduce excess oxidative stress that can be exacerbated by exposure to ionizing radiation.

Rather than focusing on a specific dosage, your best bet is to measure your vitamin D level (which is done through a simple blood test) and then take whatever dosage required to raise or maintain an optimal level, which is thought to be between 40 ng/mL and 60 ng/mL. In one investigation, compared to having a blood level below 20 ng/mL, having a level of 60 ng/mL or higher resulted in an 82% reduction in breast cancer.14

Getting tested, ideally twice a year, is really the only way to determine if you have a protective level and are taking the correct dosage. If you are not getting sun exposure, most adults need about 8,000 IUs of vitamin D per day. Please remember though that this is a vastly inferior way to get vitamin D and in no way shape or form will increase your mitochondrial melatonin levels.

How Magnesium Can Help Protect Against Radiation

One of the interesting facts I learned when I wrote my 2020 book, “EMF’D” was that nonionizing radiation from cell phones causes cellular harm nearly identical to that of ionizing radiation, as you can see by the image below.


Research15,16,17,18 shows low-frequency microwave radiation activates voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) — channels in the outer membrane of your cells. Once activated, the VGCCs open, allowing an abnormal influx of calcium ions into the cell, which activates nitric oxide (NO).

NO is the only molecule in your body produced at high enough concentrations to outcompete other molecules for superoxide, which combines to form a very dangerous free radical called peroxynitrite. Many believe peroxynitrite is as bad or even worse than hydroxy free radicals as they last so much longer. Peroxynitrate increases systemic inflammation and mitochondrial dysfunction,19 and damages your DNA.20

One of the strategies that we recommend to limit this damage is to make sure you have enough magnesium. Why? Well, first of all, more than 80% of people are deficient and magnesium is part of over 3,100 proteins and enzymes in your body. But in the case of radiation, it will likely serve as a calcium channel inhibitor and limit the amount of calcium coming inside the cell, which will limit free radicals.

There is virtually no downside to supplementing with magnesium as even if it doesn’t help mitigate oxidative stress from ionizing radiation exposure, which I believe is unlikely, it will benefit you in thousands of other ways. It is one of the few supplements that virtually everyone needs to be on.

Molecular Hydrogen and Radiation Protection

Last but not least, molecular hydrogen may also be helpful in cases of low-level radiation exposure. As explained in the 2012 paper, “Molecular Hydrogen and Radiation Protection”:21

“Molecular hydrogen (dihydrogen, H(2)) acts as a therapeutic antioxidant by selectively reducing hydroxyl radicals (OH) and peroxynitrite (ONOO-). It has been well-known that ionizing radiation (IR) causes oxidative damage and consequent apoptosis mainly due to the production of OH that follows radiolysis of H(2)O.

Our department reported the protective effect of H(2) in irradiated cells and mice for the first time, and this effect is well repeated by us and another laboratory in different experimental animal models.

A randomized, placebo-controlled investigation also showed consumption of H(2) can improve the quality of life of patients treated with radiotherapy for liver tumors. These encouraging results suggested that H(2) has a potential as a radioprotective agent with efficacy and non-toxicity.”

A simple way to protect against this damage is to upregulate your Nrf2 pathway, which can be accomplished by drinking molecular hydrogen water and making sure you’re getting enough magnesium.

Incidentally, molecular hydrogen tablets are actually an excellent source of ionic elemental magnesium. Each tablet provides about 80 milligrams of ionic elemental magnesium, so molecular hydrogen serves double duty.

In a study22 from 2010, the researchers suggested hydrogen therapy “may be an effective and specific novel treatment for acute radiation syndrome.” The key mechanism by which molecular hydrogen protects against radiation is by reducing hydroxyl radicals, which are responsible for more than half of the cellular damage associated with ionizing radiation.

One of the easiest and most effective ways to take molecular hydrogen is to use molecular hydrogen tablets, which you simply dissolve in water for about 60 to 90 seconds, and then drink while the bubbles are still visible. Molecular hydrogen is one of my go-to, must-have daily supplements.

How to Optimize Your Iodine Absorption

While women have a greater incidence of iodine deficiency related to their hormone production, the bodies of both men and women are subject to the poor absorption of iodine and suboptimal use due to environmental contamination that end up in the food supply.

Common contaminants that compete with iodine include the following. By avoiding or eliminating these from your diet, you can help optimize iodine uptake from the iodine-rich foods you eat, some of which were listed earlier.

  • Bromide — Bromides are known endocrine disruptors found in baked goods, pesticides, and plastics, among other sources. Because bromide is a halide, it competes for the same receptors used in your thyroid gland and other body areas to capture iodine, thereby inhibiting thyroid hormone production and resulting in a deficiency.
  • Fluoride — Fluoride has long been known to displace iodine. As cited by the Fluoride Action Network,23 Chinese researchers “have repeatedly found that an iodine deficiency coupled with fluoride exposure produces a significantly more damaging effect on neurological development than iodine deficiency alone.”
  • Nitrates — While there are healthy nitrates, the ones found in processed meats such as bacon, hot dogs, lunch meat, and sausage may interfere with your uptake of iodine, so be sure to avoid them. Nitrates from agricultural fertilizer, present in contaminated drinking water, have also been implicated as a potential cause of thyroid cancer.24
  • Perchlorate — A contaminant found in groundwater across the U.S. and in measurable amounts in milk, fruit, and vegetables. In high doses, perchlorate may inhibit the function of your thyroid gland. Even in low doses, it inhibits the uptake of iodine by your thyroid gland, leading to hypothyroidism.25,26

Rep. Massie Discusses Ukraine, Inflation, CDC Lawsuit, and Article V

In this interview with The New American, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) addresses a number of topics, including the U.S. handling of the situation in Ukraine; President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's recent video address before a joint session of Congress; inflation as a result of both massive Congressional spending and the Federal Reserve creating brand new money out of thin air, thereby devaluating the existing currency already in circulation; his lawsuit against the CDC over mask mandates on commercial airline flights; and where he stands when it comes to state legislatures applying to Congress to call for an Article V constitutional convention to supposedly rein in the federal government. 🇺🇸 The New American: http://www.thenewamerican.com/

Idaho MassResistance forces School Board to change guidance counselor policy after “trans” incident

SEE: https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen4/22a/ID-forces-change-to-counselor-policy/index.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Idaho MassResistance forces local School Board to change guidance counselor policy - after outrageous “transgender” issue with 11-year-old.

Idaho legislator works with MassResistance to craft statewide legislation.

Despite opposition from local “transgender” activists and state school counselors group – who are against parents “interfering”!

March 30, 2022
Within days of our report on the outrageous incident, the problem was brought up at the local School Board meeting.

It’s one of the most horrific things that’s been happening in elementary and middle schools. A child will come to a pro-LGBT school guidance counselor with some social or emotional issue. The counselor will persuade the child that the real problem is that he or she is “gay” or “transgender.” But the parents must not be informed about their conversations, the child is told.

By the time the parents find out, an enormous amount of psychological damage has been done to the child. We’ve seen this scenario over and over. MassResistance is dedicated to stopping this.

In November 2020, a family in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho contacted MassResistance describing how their 11-year-old girl had decided she’s a “transsexual” after talking with her elementary school counselor. When the family finally heard about this, the girl said that her school counselor and elementary school teacher both completely supported “her decision.” The girl insisted that it’s “who she is” and that the school people both told her, "I will accept you for who you are."

The school district had not reported any of this to the parents as it was developing. Instead of being directed to her family, the girl was given the phone numbers of local LGBT support groups.


Big uproar across the state

After our report, the incident caused considerable uproar in the Coeur d’Alene area and throughout the state.

National conservative media, including The Daily Citizen and The Federalist, ran stories on it.

The local liberal newspaper attempted to “correct” MassResistance’s reporting with statements from the elementary school, an LGBT group, and a pro-LGBT “human rights” group. They claimed that the counselor was actually helping the 11-year-old. The fringe LGBT movement also weighed in, bashing MassResistance. Our reporting apparently struck a nerve!

Two months after the incident, on January 23, 2021, the Idaho LGBT movement organized an “LGBTQ+ Youth Rally” at a local park to show support for the elementary school counselor who had helped the 11-year-old girl with her “transition.” According to the news report, the rally was also meant to counter the MassResistance report and the resulting “homophobia” in the community. Clearly, a big reason was to intimidate anyone who might speak out.

LGBT activists tried to intimidate parents in the community from speaking out. But it didn't work. {Photo: Coeur d'Alene Post Falls Press]

Parents fight back

But among regular people, there was growing outrage over such clear abuse of young children – and a strong belief that something must be done. Idaho MassResistance began mobilizing local parents and others who refused to be intimidated by the LGBT tactics.

Parents started holding protests outside the school district’s main office in Coeur d’Alene. They began attending the local School Board meetings in larger numbers. The School Board basically reflected the conservative leanings of the area, and as a group agreed that some change needed to be made. The parents’ show of force gave them the courage to move forward in the face of the LGBT movement, the unions, and the leftist education lobby.

Many parents remember when school counselors mainly provided academic counseling and helped with post-secondary and career goals. But in recent years they have taken on mental health and psychological issues, largely in collusion with the LGBT movement and other special-interest groups. (See, for example, this policy statement from the American School Counselor Association.) This is what the Idaho MassResistance parents are up against.

A new school counselor policy is passed

At the January 4, 2021, meeting of the Coeur d'Alene School Board - less than two weeks after our MassResistance report - the Board members reacted to the flood of emails they had received and agreed that they needed to explore what to do about the situation.

In March 2021, the School Board initiated an effort to change the district policy regarding school counselors. The Idaho MassResistance parents continued to push for strong protections, against the hesitations of some board members.

The new policy was drafted by a committee which included a School Committee member, two parents (not part of our group), an administrator, and three school counselors.

In October 2021, the new proposed policy language was released to the public for consideration. The draft still contained troubling language. Idaho MassResistance presented these critiques to the School Board members:

  1. The policy says that the counselor’s role is to “balance” the student’s privacy rights with the parents’ rights, which the counselor decides upon. But there should be no “balance.” The student is a minor. The parents must be told about everything. It's wrong to allow this secretive relationship to emerge and continue with school counselors. The result would be no trust between parents and the school.
  2. “School Counselors connect students and families to outside resources and agencies.” That has traditionally translated into sending kids to LGBT groups and abortion clinics. If anything, the counselors should only suggest these outside groups to the parents and let them decide.

Nevertheless, in February 2022, the school board formally approved the new policy. It’s not everything that we wanted. But it definitely is a shot across the bow – a strong warning to the school counselors in that city – to absolutely stop what they’ve been doing to children. Parents feel that MassResistance has helped them achieve a victory.

The Idaho School Boards Association jumps into the fight

When the Coeur d’Alene School Board released its proposed policy, the education establishment apparently got the message that they needed to quash this “anti-counselor” movement before it got any more momentum.

Two months later, on December 2, 2021, the Idaho School Boards Association (ISBA) voted by an overwhelming 7885-21 to pass a strongly worded resolution supporting school counselors.

The resolution directs the ISBA lobbyists:

“to work with the legislature to amend existing statute to allow school districts more flexibility in addressing the mental, social, and emotional needs of students …”

In other words, they want to write new state laws to keep parents from interfering with any secret LGBT counseling of children.

So far, the ISBA hasn’t moved forward by drafting a bill. But the group’s lobbying did impact what was to happen next in the legislature.

The State Legislature also gets involved

The outrage over the Coeur d’Alene issue even reached the State Legislature. In mid-February, an Idaho State Representative asked MassResistance for help in drafting a bill to protect children from this abuse. We submitted the following, which she moved forward with:

School counseling educational services provided by a school to a student addressing mental or behavioral health, including short-term individual or short-term small group school counseling services, are subject to parental disclosure and informed consent. 

Parental notification shall take place once a school counselor has recognized mental health warning signs; informed consent shall be obtained prior to any subsequent school counseling services for the purpose of addressing those mental health warning signs. A school counselor may provide parents with contact information for available community resources from a list of licensed, professional mental health providers in the area, which providers may request to be included on the list and shall not be excluded for the reason that the provider is a religious or faith-based organization.

But as soon as word got out about this new bill, the ISBA and state school counselors association heatedly approached the House leadership. They made absurd and insulting claims that if parents are told about their childrens’ homosexual or transgender “decisions,” the children will commit suicide. Floating this myth is unfortunately a common tactic used by the LGBT movement, though it goes against all responsible psychological understanding and practice. But the legislative leaders fell for it and immediately killed the proposed bill.

Since the legislative session was winding down, we will wait until next year and refile then. We’re not stopping.

Final thoughts

In the beginning, nobody believed that the Coeur d’Alene School Board would actually change anything. Even though it’s a conservative area, the Board members weren’t looking to make any waves on this hot-button issue. It was a direct result of the Idaho MassResistance parents being tireless and simply not giving up. At a certain point, the School Board basically gave in and acted.

Some places where this is happening will be harder to change than others. But no matter how difficult, that’s what needs to be done everywhere in America.

The Pandemic Treaty Is a Spreading Plague


SEE: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/03/30/who-pandemic-treaty.aspx;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:


  • The globalist cabal wants to monopolize health systems worldwide, and a stealth attack is already underway in the form of an international pandemic treaty, proposed by the World Health Organization
  • The treaty is a direct threat to a nation’s sovereignty to make decisions for itself and its citizens and would erode democracy everywhere. Not only would the treaty empower the WHO to mandate COVID jabs and vaccine passports globally, but it could potentially also expand the WHO’s power to dictate all health care policy worldwide
  • The treaty would also give the WHO the power to censor health information worldwide. This would be disastrous, as the WHO has a long history of corruption and health policy failures that are intrinsically linked to conflicts of interest
  • When people are harmed by the WHO’s health policies, there’s no accountability because the WHO has diplomatic immunity
  • Bill Gates, the second-largest funder of the WHO, has also been funding pandemic exercises, including Event 201 and the Nuclear Threat Initiative’s exercise on international response to deliberate biological events. This scenario involved a deliberate release of a genetically engineered bioweapon — a pneumonic plague — for which there is no available treatment. Both exercises were held in 2019

The globalist cabal wants to monopolize health systems worldwide, and a stealth attack is already underway in the form of an international pandemic treaty.1 The negotiations for this treaty began on March 3, 2022.2 As reported by The Pulse (video above):

“Coming off the back of the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization is proposing a new pandemic treaty they’re hoping will be accepted by enough member countries to become a reality by 2024.”

According to Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, “me-first” approaches “stymie the global solidarity needed” to address global threats. His solution? Give the WHO all the power.

Over the past two years, in the name of keeping everyone “safe” from infection, the globalists have justified unprecedented attacks on democracy, civil liberties, and personal freedoms, including the right to choose your own medical treatment. Now, the WHO wants to make its pandemic leadership permanent, and to extend it into the health care systems of every nation.

Treaty Threatens National Sovereignty

As noted by The Pulse, “there are a number of things in the treaty that the people of the world need to consider before going down this path.” In the featured video, The Pulse’s Joe Martino interviews Shabnam Palesa Mohamed, a member of the steering committee of the World Council for Health, who points out that the treaty gives the WHO:

“... an inordinate amount of power to make decisions in sovereign countries as to how people live and how they deal with pandemics, from lockdowns to mandates over treatment.”

In short, it would create a one-size-fits-all approach to disease, without regard for all the varying situations found in individual countries, and this is something we already know doesn’t work. The treaty is a direct threat to a nation’s sovereignty to make decisions for itself and its citizens and would erode democracy everywhere.

At the same time, it would cost each member country millions of dollars to participate in this process. As explained by Mohamed, the treaty will need to go through a voting process at the World Health Assembly in 2023. They need a majority for it to pass and, if passed, all member countries will be bound by it.

The Treaty Is ‘Invalid and Unlawful’

Another concern raised by Mohamed is that many countries don’t even know about this treaty as of yet, and it’s possible that the WHO might try to push for earlier implementation than 2024 — all without public participation or input. “It is undemocratic, it is unconstitutional and therefore it makes the treaty invalid and unlawful,” she says.

She also highlights the WHO’s history of corruption and many health policy failures, which are “intrinsically linked to conflicts of interest.” In an open letter on the WHO’s pandemic treaty, the World Council for Health writes, in part:3

“The proposed WHO agreement is unnecessary, and is a threat to sovereignty and inalienable rights. It increases the WHO’s suffocating power to declare unjustified pandemics, impose dehumanizing lockdowns, and enforce expensive, unsafe, and ineffective treatments against the will of the people.

The WCH [World Council for Health] believes that the people have a right to participate in any agreement that affects their lives, livelihoods, and well-being.

However, the WHO has not engaged in a process of public participation, which is evidence that its priority is capturing more power for itself and its corporate accomplices, than serving the interests of the people. Without an unbiased democratic process, any agreement by the WHO, acting via the United Nations, will be unlawful, illegitimate, and invalid.

Historically, the WHO leadership has failed the people. Among many examples, it approved the injurious H1N1 (swine flu) vaccine for a controversially declared pandemic.

Equally, the WHO failed during the COVID-19 chapter as it encouraged lockdowns, suppressed early preventive treatments, and recommended product interventions that have proven to be neither safe nor effective.

The WHO cannot be allowed to control the world’s health agenda, nor enforce biosurveillance. While it receives funding from public sources belonging to the people, it is caught in a perpetual conflict of interest because it also receives substantial funding from private interests that use their contributions to influence and profit from WHO decisions and mandates.

For example, the Gates Foundation and the Gates-funded GAVI vaccine promotion alliance, contribute over $1 billion a year.”

Another concern is the fact that when people are harmed by the WHO’s health policies, there’s no accountability because the WHO has diplomatic immunity. According to Mohamed, “the WHO should not be making ANY decisions about world health in the future.”

The Ultimate Power Grab

As noted by Martino, while the treaty claims to be focused on pandemic planning and responses, there’s serious concern that it could be expanded to cover other areas of health as well. Mohamed agrees, saying that it could potentially be expanded, using the WHO’s constitution as the basis for that expansion. Article 2 of the WHO’s constitution states:

“In order to achieve its objective, the functions of the Organization shall be: a) to act as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work ... k) to propose conventions, agreements and regulations, and make recommendations with respect to international health matters ...

s) to establish and revise as necessary international nomenclatures of diseases, of causes of death and of public health practices ... v) generally to take all necessary action to attain the objective of the Organization.”

Its power is already very significant, and the goal to turn the WHO into a global health dictatorship is virtually written into its constitution. Also, remember that the WHO removed the specificity of mass casualties from the definition of a pandemic, so now a pandemic can be just about any disease that occurs in multiple countries. Even obesity could theoretically qualify. So, the WHO could claim power over health care systems in any number of ways, given the chance.

Treaty Would Grant WHO Power to Mandate Vaccine Passports

While most of the world is more than ready to move on, the WHO seems unwilling to let go. A WHO official recently told the Ottawa Citizen that the COVID pandemic is still “far from over.”4

The reason for this reluctance to declare the pandemic over is likely because the WHO hopes to gain the power to mandate vaccine passports and COVID jabs worldwide. It’s already working on the creation of a global vaccine passport/digital identity program. As reported by WEBLYF:5

“Under the guise of a ‘trust network,’ another initiative called Vaccination Credential Initiative (VCI) is also gaining momentum.

Partnering with big tech companies, big corporations, and big universities, VCI describes itself as ‘a voluntary coalition of public and private organizations committed to empowering individuals with access to verifiable clinical information including a trustworthy and verifiable copy of their vaccination records in digital or paper form using open, interoperable standards.’

VCI’s SMART Health Cards, as reported by Off-Guardian, are already implemented by ‘25 states in America, plus Puerto Rico and DC, and have become the US’s de-facto national passport.’ As explained in the article:

‘The US government, unlike many European countries, has not issued their own official vaccine passport, knowing such a move would rankle with the more Libertarian-leaning US public, not to mention get tangled in the question of state vs federal law.

The SMART cards allow them to sidestep this issue. They are technically only implemented by each state individually via agreements with VCI, which is technically a private entity. However, since the SMART cards are indirectly funded by the US government, their implementation across every state makes them a national standard in all but name.’”

United Tribes of New Zealand Denounce the WHO Treaty

As noted by NZDSOS,6 “Is this the way we want to live our lives? Constantly at the behest of shadowy individuals and corporations who monitor our every move and determine what we can and can’t do, down to buying food?”

In a formal letter of notification to the WHO and the Executive Board of the World Health Assembly, the government of Aotearoa Nu Tireni in New Zealand strongly denounced this and any other treaty that challenges national sovereignty:7

“... you are thereby formally notified that the Wakaminenga Māorigovernment of Aotearoa Nu Tireni/New Zealand does not consent in any shape of form to any type of international pandemic treaty under the WHO or its assembly. Any such construct shall be void ab initio.

We, as United Tribes and Hereditary Chiefs, represent the only current legitimate government in New Zealand. The current NZ government represented by Jacinda Ardern is an illegitimate government because it is a corporation (SEC CIK #0000216105) listed on the US Security & Exchange Commission as Her Majesty the Queen in Right of New Zealand.8,9

In accordance with the Clearfield Trust Doctrine, a corporation does not have any implied right to govern a sovereign people. We hereby register our vote of no confidence in the actions or authority of the corporation unlawfully posing as a government in our territory.

This unlawful Ardern government and its ministers stand charged by the Nga Tikanga Māori Law Society and the Wakaminenga Maori Government of Nu Tireni with genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity related to their wilful disregard for the suffering and loss of life resulting from their unlawful response to the engineered bioweapon known as COVID-19 and the unlawful forced administration of a poison to our people and forced medical experimentation.

Also charged with serious crimes related to a pandemic response, the WHO and Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus have no standing or authority to form any binding agreement related to a pandemic response, in any jurisdiction and we command that these attempts shall cease and desist immediately pending the outcome of these charges under Rome statutes 6, 7 and 8, filed in the international Criminal Court 6 December 2021 ...

You are hereby directed to cease and desist discussions or negotiations with the unlawful Arden Government, a NZ Corporation, known as Her Majesty Queen in Right of New Zealand. The Wakaminenga Maori Government of Aotearoa Nu Tireni reserves the right to discuss/negotiate with any international partner(s) of its choice, including the World Council for Health (WCH).”

Treaty Would Create Global Censorship of Health Information

The treaty would also give the WHO the power to censor health information worldwide. On the European Council’s web page discussing the pandemic treaty, under the headline “Restoring Trust in the International Health System,” it states:10

“The agreement ... will set the foundation for better communication and information to citizens. Misinformation threatens public trust and risks undermining public health responses. To redeem citizen trust, concrete measures should be foreseen to improve the flow of reliable and accurate information as well as to tackle misinformation globally.”

In other words, under this treaty, we can expect even greater censorship than what we’ve experienced so far. Tech companies have already proven where their allegiance lies, and it’s not with the public.

Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and others have de-platformed just about everyone who posts health information that runs counter to what the WHO is saying, real-world data and verifiable facts be damned. Financial platforms have also banned people for the same reason. Now imagine there is a binding international law that makes all that censorship mandatory.

Their Playbook Was Revealed in 2019

Officially, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the second-largest funder of the WHO, second only to the U.S. government,11 but the combined contributions from the Gates Foundation and GAVI made Gates the unofficial top sponsor of the WHO as of 2018.12

Gates has also been funding pandemic exercises, including Event 201,13 held October 18, 2019, which gained notoriety for its extraordinary accurate “predictions” of the COVID pandemic mere months before it was declared. Other co-sponsors included the World Economic Forum and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

However, earlier that year, on February 14, 2019, Gates also funded the Nuclear Threat Initiative’s (NTI) pandemic exercise for senior global leaders on international response to deliberate biological events, which took place in Munich, Germany.14,15

NTI was founded to assess and reduce threats associated with the proliferation of nuclear weapons,16 but they’ve since expanded to include biological threats.17 Gates has also given grants to the NTI for vaccine development in relation to biological threats.18

While Event 201 featured a fictional coronavirus outbreak, the NTI exercise involved a response to “deliberate, high consequence biological events.” In other words, a deliberate release of a genetically engineered bioweapon — in this case, a pneumonic plague — for which there is no available treatment. This exercise scenario was the first of its kind. The video above features a summary of the four-phase exercise.

Curiously, in mid-November 2019, The Guardian, The New York Times,19 The Washington Post20, and others reported that two people in China had in fact been diagnosed with pneumonic plague.21

In addition to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the NTI event was sponsored by the Wellcome Trust, the “philanthropic arm” of GlaxoSmithKline and an investor in Vaccitech, which owns the patents to AstraZeneca’s COVID jab.22 Both Gates and Wellcome are part of the technocratic globalist network that is pushing The Great Reset forward.

Another sponsor was Georgetown University,23 which also curated the World Economic Forum’s library of COVID-19 treatments (primarily focused on antivirals and COVID gene transfer injections).24

Curation was done by three Georgetown University professors and Rebecca Katz, director of the Georgetown Center for Global Health Science and Security.25 Katz is also listed as an author on the NTI paper,26 “A Spreading Plague: Lessons and Recommendations for Responding to a Deliberate Biological Event,” published June 2019, in which they review the conclusions reached from that February 2019 exercise.

‘A Spreading Plague’

Together, these two pandemic exercises — both of which were sponsored by Gates — form a playbook for how to set up a biological attack and then hide the truth from the world so that you can not only profit from it in the short term but also centralize power, permanently transfer wealth and change the social and financial order to your own liking in the process.

Not surprisingly, a number of Event 201 participants also partook in the NTI’s exercise,27, and hold positions within technocratic institutions like Wellcome, the WHO, and the World Economic Forum.

Event 201, in particular, focused not on finding remedies and saving lives, but on how to control “misinformation.” A vast majority of that exercise centered around the creation of effective propaganda and censorship. Similarly, “A Spreading Plague” also includes the recommendation to enlist private companies as “assets” to carry out the globalists' bidding:28

“In 2019 and 2020, international organizations, including the WHO, UNODA [United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs], and the World Economic Forum, should convene private sector companies to identify gaps and concrete next steps to strengthen the capability of companies to provide assets to assist with international response for deliberate biological attacks and other high-consequence biological events.”

In the NTI scenario — in which a fictional country called Carta is found to have engineered and released a biological weapon into the neighboring country of Vestia — we also see curious parallels to current-day accusations by Russia, which claims biological weapons research was being conducted in Ukraine, necessitating defensive action.

All in all, the NTI tabletop exercise only adds to the evidence pile that suggests the COVID pandemic was premeditated and preplanned for financial and geopolitical purposes. It was a power grab.

The pandemic treaty with the WHO is precisely what the World Economic Forum and its allies now need, as it will put the technocratic cabal firmly in charge of the biosecurity of the whole world, and empower them to implement the rest of The Great Reset agenda.

You can learn more about The Great Reset on the World Economic Forum’s website29,30 and in Klaus Schwab’s book, “COVID-19: The Great Reset”31 (but you might want to review the overwhelmingly negative comments on Amazon first).

As noted in a July 21, 2020, World Economic Forum article,32 the economic devastation caused by COVID-19 pandemic shutdowns “has the potential to hobble global prosperity for generations to come.” The answer, according to the World Economic Forum, is for countries to make sure the economic system is “built back better.”

Make no mistake, this catchy slogan is part and parcel of the Great Reset plan and cannot be separated from it, no matter how altruistic it may sound. Part of the “building back better” is to shift the financial system over to an all-digital centrally controlled currency system that is tied to a vaccine passport and/or digital identity system.

Together, they will form a pervasive system of social control, as desired behaviors can be incentivized and undesired ones discouraged through loss of various “privileges,” including access to your own finances. Digital currency can even be programmed by the issuer so that it can only be used for certain types of purchases or expenses.

While it’s going to be very difficult to stop this runaway train that is The Great Reset, part of our defense is to oppose and prevent the WHO’s pandemic treaty from becoming reality, as we’ll lose our national sovereignty if it does.


SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce reacts to new proposal that public companies disclose climate risks





SEC commissioner: We're putting climate risks on par with other risks

https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2022/33-11042.pdf (The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors

"We are Not the Securities and Environment Commission - At Least Not Yet"

Commissioner Hester Peirce

Commissioner Hester M. Peirce (SEE: https://www.sec.gov/biography/commissioner-hester-m-peirce)

March 21, 2022

Thank you, Chair Gensler.  Many people have awaited this day with eager anticipation.  I am not one of them.  Contrary to the hopes of the eager anticipators, the proposal will not bring consistency, comparability, and reliability to company climate disclosures.  The proposal, however, will undermine the existing regulatory framework that for many decades has undergirded consistent, comparable, and reliable company disclosures.  We cannot make such fundamental changes to our disclosure regime without harming investors, the economy, and this agency.  For that reason, I cannot support the proposal.

The proposal turns the disclosure regime on its head.  Current SEC disclosure mandates are intended to provide investors with an accurate picture of the company’s present and prospective performance through managers’ own eyes.  How are they thinking about the company?  What opportunities and risks do the board and managers see?  What are the material determinants of the company’s financial value?  The proposal, by contrast, tells corporate managers how regulators, doing the bidding of an array of non-investor stakeholders, expect them to run their companies.[1]  It identifies a set of risks and opportunities—some perhaps real, others clearly theoretical—that managers should be considering and even suggests specific ways to mitigate those risks.  It forces investors to view companies through the eyes of a vocal set of stakeholders, for whom a company’s climate reputation is of equal or greater importance than a company’s financial performance.

As you have already heard, the proposal covers a lot of territory.  It establishes a disclosure framework based, in large part, on the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (“TCFD”) Framework and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol.  It requires disclosure of climate-related risks; climate-related effects on strategy, business model, and outlook; board and management oversight of climate-related issues; processes for identifying, assessing, and managing climate risks; plans for transition; financial statement metrics related to climate; greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions; and climate targets and goals.  It establishes a safe harbor for Scope 3 disclosures and an attestation requirement for large companies’ Scope 1 and 2 disclosures. 

Some elements are missing, however, from this action-packed 534 pages:

  • A credible rationale for such a prescriptive framework when our existing disclosure requirements already capture material risks relating to climate change;
  • A materiality limitation;
  • A compelling explanation of how the proposal will generate comparable, consistent, and reliable disclosures;
  • An adequate statutory basis for the proposal;
  • A reasonable estimate of costs to companies; and
  • An honest reckoning with the consequences to investors, the economy, and this agency.  

I will talk about each of these deficiencies in turn.  My statement is rather lengthy, so I will turn my video off as I speak; by one estimate, doing so will reduce the carbon footprint of my presentation on this platform by 96 percent.[2]

I. Existing rules already cover material climate risks.

Existing rules require companies to disclose material risks regardless of the source or cause of the risk.  These existing requirements, like most of our disclosure mandates, are principles-based and thus elicit tailored information from companies.  Rather than simply ticking off a preset checklist based on regulators’ prognostication of what should matter, companies have to think about what is financially material in their unique circumstances and disclose those matters to investors.  Financial statements and their accompanying disclosure documents are intended to present an objective picture of a company’s financial situation.

Even under our current rules, climate-related information could be responsive to a number of existing disclosure requirements.  For example, Item 303 of Regulation S-K, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operations (“MD&A”) requires disclosure of “material events and uncertainties known to management that are reasonably likely to cause reported financial information not to be necessarily indicative of future operating results or of future financial condition.”[3]  Item 101 of Regulation S-K, Description of Business, requires a description of the registrant’s business, including each reportable segment.[4]  It specifically requires disclosure of the material effects that compliance with environmental regulations may have on capital expenditures.[5]  Item 103 of Regulation S-K, Legal Proceedings, requires a description of material pending legal proceedings, as well as administrative or judicial proceedings relating to the environment if certain conditions are met.[6]  Item 105 of Regulation S-K, Risk Factors, also could include climate-related risks under its broad requirement to discuss the “material factors that make an investment in the registrant or offering speculative or risky.”[7]  Securities Act Rule 408 and Exchange Act Rule 12b-20 require companies to disclose, in addition to the information that is subject to specific disclosure mandates, “such further material information, if any, as may be necessary to make the required statements, in light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading.”[8]  Under these existing rules, companies already are disclosing matters such as the risk of wildfires to property, the risk of rising sea levels, the risk of rising temperatures, and the risk of climate-change legislation or regulation, when those risks are material the company’s financial situation.[9]  Similarly, issues like “[c]hanging demands of business partners” and “changing consumer . . . behavior” are certainly things all companies consider and disclose when they rise to the level of material risks. 

In 2010, the Commission issued guidance to help companies think about how to apply existing disclosure rules in the context of climate change.[10]  And, last year, the Division of Corporation Finance, in a sample disclosure review comment letter, among other things, underscored the need for companies to apply existing disclosure requirements to climate risks and opportunities, as set forth in the 2010 guidance.[11]  Since the 2010 guidance was issued, companies routinely disclose climate-related information in SEC filings under the current rules, and the Division of Corporation Finance has regularly evaluated such disclosures in filing reviews and issued comment letters only sparingly.[12]  The Division has taken a more aggressive posture in its review of climate-related disclosures in the past year; it has issued comment letters on the subject at an increased rate; sought enhanced disclosure on a variety of issues, including a number of topics that appear in the proposal; and demanded the underlying materiality analysis.  The companies’ responses are instructive: they generally have stated that the requested disclosures by SEC staff were largely immaterial and inappropriate for inclusion in SEC filings.  These recent exchanges reveal that for many companies—including large manufacturers, retailers, and even insurance companies—issues like climate-related physical damage, so-called transition risks related to conjectural climate regulation and potential legislation, and expenditures related to climate change are not material.[13]  Few of these exchanges resulted in agreements to provide enhanced disclosure, although one company—declaring that it “is providing this additional information not because it believes that such information is material” but out of the altruistic belief that “corporations should be good stewards of the environment”—assented to include more information in its proxy statement.[14] 

Instead of being a one-size-fits-all prescriptive framework, the existing rules are rooted in the materiality principle.  Depending on a company’s own facts and circumstances, existing disclosure requirements may pull in climate-related information.  Over the years, however, many companies, responding to calls from various constituencies, have provided substantial amounts of information outside of their required SEC filings.  For example, a lot of companies prepare sustainability reports and post them on their website.  Rather than being geared toward investors, these sustainability reports have a much larger target audience of non-investor stakeholders, whose primary concern is something other than company financial performance.  Because these reports are not directed toward investors, the information they contain is not limited to information that is material to the company’s financial value.  The Commission proposes today to require companies to pull into Commission filings much of this non-investor-oriented information that is either immaterial or keyed to a distended notion of materiality that seems to turn on an embellished guess at how the company affects the environment.

II. The proposed rule dispenses with materiality in some places and distorts it in others.

Some of the proposed disclosure requirements apply to all companies without a materiality qualifier, and others are governed by an expansive recasting of the materiality standard.  Both of these approaches to determining what information should be disclosed are problematic because they depart from the generally applicable,[15] time-tested materiality constraint on required disclosures.

Justice Thurgood Marshall described our existing materiality standard in TSC Industries v. Northway:[16] an item is material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider the information important in deciding how to vote or make an investment decision.  The “reasonable investor” Justice Marshall referred to in TSC Industries is someone whose interest is in a financial return on an investment in the company making the disclosure.  Thus, there is a clear link between the materiality of information and its relevance to the financial return of an investment.[17] 

The Commission proposes to mandate a set of climate disclosures that will be mandatory for all companies without regard for materiality.  As I mentioned earlier, the comment letters that the Division of Corporation Finance issued over the past year foreshadowed this development.  The staff pressed companies to include in their SEC filings disclosures that they make in their sustainability reports, but many companies responded that the information was immaterial and therefore need not be included.[18]  The proposal would sweep in much of this information without any materiality nexus.  For example, the proposed rules require all companies to disclose all Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions, and the financial metrics do not have a materiality qualifier. 

The Commission justifies its disclosure mandates in part as a response to the needs of investors with diversified portfolios, who “do not necessarily consider risk and return of a particular security in isolation but also in terms of the security’s effect on the portfolio as a whole, which requires comparable data across registrants.”[19]  Not only does this justification depart from the Commission’s traditional company-specific approach to disclosure, but it suggests that it is appropriate for shareholders of the disclosing company to subsidize other investors’ portfolio analysis.  How could a company’s management possibly be expected to prepare disclosure to satisfy the informational demands of all the company’s investors, each with her own idiosyncratic portfolio?  The limiting principle of such an approach is unclear. 

Even where materiality thresholds exist, the proposal tweaks materiality.  The Commission obliquely admits that it is playing a little fast and loose with materiality, but assures us that the “materiality determination that a registrant would be required to make regarding climate-related risks under the proposed rules is similar to what is required when preparing the MD&A section in a registration statement or annual report.”[20]  Similarity is in the eye of the beholder, and so is materiality if it is decoupled from its financial context, as the proposal seeks to do—just try asking an investor in the company and a climate activist what each finds material about a company’s business.  You might not get the same answer.  The proposal, unlike a standard MD&A materiality determination, requires short-, medium-, and long-term assessments of materiality to account for “the dynamic nature of climate-related risks.”[21]  Moreover, the proposal would seek to get behind these materiality determinations by requiring disclosure of how the company “determines the materiality of climate-related risks, including how it assesses the potential size and scope of any identified climate-related risk.”[22]  As the proposal acknowledges, assessing the present materiality of potential consequences of ongoing and future climate change will be difficult but have no fear, “climate consulting firms are available to assist registrants in making this determination.”[23]  Score one for the climate industrial complex!

With respect to Scope 3 greenhouse gas emission[24] disclosures, the Commission also maintains the fiction that it is not departing from the materiality standard.  Under the proposal, a company, unless it is a smaller reporting company, would have to disclose Scope 3 emissions, but only if the company has set an emissions reduction target that includes Scope 3 emissions or if those emissions are material.  The materiality limitation is not especially helpful because the Commission suggests that such emissions generally are material[25] and admonishes companies that materiality doubts should “‘be resolved in favor of those the statute is designed to protect,’ namely investors.”[26]  That admonition does not work as the Supreme Court intended it when “investors” are redefined to mean “stakeholders,” for whom the cost of collecting and disclosing information is irrelevant.  The release offers without explicitly endorsing a possible quantitative metric (40% of a company’s total GHG emissions) at which Scope 3 emissions might well be material,[27] but then layers on a hazy qualitative test: “where Scope 3 represents a significant risk, is subject to significant regulatory focus, or ‘if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable [investor] would consider it important.’”[28]  The Commission also reminds companies that “[e]ven if the probability of an adverse consequence is relatively low, if the magnitude of loss or liability is high, then the information in question may still be material.”[29]  Further deterring omission of Scope 3 data, the release says, “it may be useful [for investors of companies that do omit Scope 3 emissions for lack of materiality] to understand the basis for that determination.”[30]  Likewise, if a company “determines that certain categories of Scope 3 emissions are material, [it] should consider disclosing why other categories are not material.”[31]  In sum, the Commission seems to presume materiality for Scope 3 emissions.

The Scope 3 materiality confusion stems in part from the fact that Scope 3 emissions reflect not the direct activities of the company making the disclosure, but the actions of the company’s suppliers and consumers.  As the proposal recognizes, “a registrant’s material Scope 3 emissions is a relatively new type of metric, based largely on third-party data, that we have not previously required.”[32]  A company’s Scope 3 emissions are based on what third parties do either in contributing to the company’s creation, processing, or transport of its products or when using and disposing of the company’s products.[33]  Admittedly, a company’s choices about things like what products to produce and which suppliers and distributors to use affect its Scope 3 numbers, but Scope 3 data is really about what other people do.  The reporting company’s long-term financial value is only tenuously at best connected to such third-party emissions.  Hence, the Commission’s distorted materiality analysis for Scope 3 disclosures departs significantly from the “reasonable investor” contemplated by Justice Marshall.

III. The proposal will not lead to comparable, consistent, and reliable disclosures.

The proposal optimistically posits that mandatory disclosure of reams of climate information will ensure that all companies disclose comparable, consistent, and reliable climate information in their SEC filings.  The proposal does not just demand information about the company making the disclosures; it also directs companies to speculate about the habits of their suppliers, customers, and employees; changing climate policies, regulations, and legislation; technological innovations and adaptations; and changing weather patterns.  Wanting to bring clarity in an area where there has been a lot of confusion and greenwashing is understandable, but the release mistakenly assumes that quantification can generate clarity even when the required data are, in large part, highly unreliable.  Requiring companies to put these faulty quantitative analyses in an official filing will further enhance their apparent reliability, while in fact leaving investors worse off, as Commission-mandated disclosures will lull them into thinking that they understand companies’ emissions better than they actually do.  

Another area where the proposal will mandate disclosure of information that appears useful but that likely will be entirely unreliable involves physical risks tied to climate change.  Establishing a causal link between physical phenomena occurring at a particular time and place and climate change is, at best, an exceedingly difficult task.  Disclosures on the physical risk side will require companies to select a climate model and adapt it to assess the effects of climate change on the specific physical locations of their operations, as well as on the locations of their suppliers and customers.  This undertaking is enormous.[34]  It will entail stacking speculation on assumptions.  It will require reliance on third parties and an array of experts who will employ their own assumptions, speculations, and models.  How could the results of such an exercise be reliable, let alone comparable across companies or even consistent over time within the same company?  Nevertheless, they will appear so to investors and stakeholders.

Required disclosures of so-called transition risks also present these challenges.  The proposal defines “transition risks” broadly as:

the actual or potential negative impacts on a registrant’s consolidated financial statements, business operations, or value chains attributable to regulatory, technological, and market changes to address the mitigation of, or adaptation to, climate-related risks, such as increased costs attributable to changes in law or policy, reduced market demand for carbon-intensive products leading to decreased prices or profits for such products, the devaluation or abandonment of assets, risk of legal liability and litigation defense costs, competitive pressures associated with the adoption of new technologies, reputational impacts (including those stemming from a registrant’s customers or business counterparties) that might trigger changes to market behavior, consumer preferences or behavior, and registrant behavior.[35]

Transition risk can derive from potential changes in markets, technology, law, or the more nebulous “policy,” which companies will have to analyze across multiple jurisdictions and all across their “value chains.”  These transition assessments are rooted in prophecies of coming governmental and market action, but experience teaches us that such prophecies often do not come to fruition.  Markets and technology are inherently unpredictable.  Domestic legislative efforts in this context have failed for decades,[36] and international agreements, like the Paris Accords, have seen the United States in and out and back in again.[37]  How could this proposal thus elicit comparable, consistent, and reliable disclosure on these topics?

IV. The Commission lacks authority to propose this rule.

This proposal exceeds the Commission’s statutory limits.  Congress gave us an important mission—protecting investors, facilitating capital formation, and fostering fair, orderly, and efficient markets—and granted us sufficient regulatory authority to achieve that mission.  Effective execution of that mission forms the basis for healthy capital markets and, in turn, a healthy economy.  Congress, however, did not give us plenary authority over the economy and did not authorize us to adopt rules that are not consistent with applicable constitutional limitations.  This proposal steps outside our statutory limits by using the disclosure framework to achieve objectives that are not ours to pursue and by pursuing those objectives by means of disclosure mandates that may not comport with First Amendment limitations on compelled speech.

All the disclosure mandates we adopt under authority granted to us by Congress are at the bottom compelled speech, and this one, in particular, prescribes specific content for the speech that it mandates.  The Supreme Court has made clear that corporations do enjoy protections under the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause, but also has concluded that the government is subject to lesser scrutiny—and therefore has greater leeway—when requiring companies to disclose “purely factual and uncontroversial information.”[38]  For this reason, our disclosure mandates are at their strongest when there is a clear and indisputable connection between the factual information to be disclosed and our three-part mission.

Attempting to establish that essential connection, the Commission points to “significant investor demand for information about how climate conditions may impact their investments.”[39]  Large asset managers—who are paid to invest other people’s money[40]—some institutional investors, and some retail investors have been vocal proponents of climate change disclosures.  But why are they asking?  If they are asking for information to help them assess the financial value of companies in which they are considering investing, this information may be material and is likely covered by existing disclosure rules.  But many calls for enhanced climate disclosure are motivated not by an interest in financial returns from an investment in a particular company, but by deep concerns about the climate or, sometimes, superficial concerns expressed to garner goodwill.[41] 

The fact that retail and institutional investors and asset managers have myriad motivations when making investment decisions and by extension therefore might want different categories of information necessarily means that we cannot adopt a disclosure regime that provides all information desired by all investors and asset managers.  Indeed, we have been cautioned against disclosure requirements so sweeping that they “simply . . . bury the shareholders in an avalanche of trivial information.”[42]  We have in the past achieved the necessary balance between mandating enough but not too much information by focusing on what information is material to an objectively reasonable investor in her capacity as an investor in the company supplying the information seeking a financial return on her investment in the company.

Focusing on information that is material to a company’s value proposition not only serves as a key mechanism to winnow out needless volumes of information but also keeps us from exceeding the bounds of our statutory authorization.  The further afield we are from financial materiality, the more probable it is that we have exceeded our statutory authority.  One commentator argues that the rationales relied on by the Commission here—that the “Commission has broad authority to promulgate disclosure requirements that are ‘necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors’”[43] or that “promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation”[44]—cannot justify disclosure mandates that lie outside the “subject-matter boundaries” Congress imposed on it.[45]  Indeed, in the rare instances when Congress has wanted us to go beyond those subject-matter boundaries, it has told us to do so.[46]  We do not have a clear directive from Congress, and we ought not wade blithely into decisions of such vast economic and political significance as those touched on by today’s proposal.

Other scholars similarly have raised serious and fundamental questions regarding our authority to mandate climate-related disclosures in the manner proposed here.  A proper understanding and application of our materiality standard is essential.  Professor Sean Griffith contends that First Amendment jurisprudence suggests that the SEC cannot compel disclosures of the type proposed today.  He proposes that to determine whether a particular mandated disclosure is uncontroversial, one should look to the degree that it is consistent with the language and objectives of the statute authorizing the mandate.  If there is a clear and logical connection between disclosing the information and achieving the objectives of the statute, then it likely is uncontroversial; however, if disclosing the information is unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the statutory objectives, then it likely is controversial.[47]  The objective of Congress’s instruction for us to regulate in the public interest and for the protection of investors is to protect investors in their pursuit of returns on their investments, not in other capacities.  For this reason, to qualify as uncontroversial and thereby stay within First Amendment bounds, our disclosure mandates must be limited to information that is material to the prospect of financial returns.  In Professor Griffith’s view, disclosures of information material to financial returns are uncontroversial because the quest for financial returns is the common goal that unites all investors.  Their other individualized goals—whether ameliorating climate change, encouraging better labor relations, pursuing better treatment of animals, protecting abortion rights or any other number of issues—are material for purposes of our disclosure regime only to the extent they relate to the financial value of the company. 

The Commission today proposes to require companies to disclose information that may not be material to them and recasts materiality to encompass information that investors want based on interests other than their financial interest in the company doing the disclosing.  We would do well to heed the admonition of the Supreme Court in a case involving the agency Congress charged with regulating the environment:

When an agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate “a significant portion of the American economy,” we typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism.  We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast “economic and political significance.”[48]

V. The Commission underestimates the costs of the proposal.

Even if it were within our statutory authority, the proposal is expensive.  The Commission is sanguine about the costs of this endeavor because some companies are already making climate-related disclosures.  I look forward to seeing whether commenters agree with the Commission’s cost assessments.  Several aspects of the proposal could make implementation costlier than the Commission anticipates.

First, although the proposal is based in part on popular voluntary frameworks, those frameworks are neither universally used nor precisely followed.  For example, the proposal looks extensively to the framework developed by the TCFD because its popularity “may facilitate achieving this balance between eliciting better disclosure and limiting compliance costs.”[49]  Yet, a survey cited in the release suggests that U.S. companies pick and choose elements of the TCFD framework to follow and the majority do not adhere to key parts of the framework.[50]  These results suggest that using the TCFD framework as a basis for this rulemaking will not reduce costs substantially.  Moreover, for many companies, the TCFD-based disclosures will be new.  For these reasons, neither the data regarding predicted costs of complying with the TCFD as it was originally designed nor the data regarding costs to companies using bespoke versions of the TCFD are particularly instructive on the potential costs of complying with this proposal.

The Commission also ignores the distinction between voluntary disclosure in a sustainability report of selected items outlined in the TCFD and mandatory disclosure in SEC filings.  The former disclosure is subject neither to mandatory assurance[51] nor to the level of liability[52] or scrutiny that attaches to SEC filings.  I liken it to cooking.  When I “follow” a recipe, I pick and choose which aspects to follow based on how much time I have, how ambitious I am feeling, and which ingredients I have on hand.  If I were told that I had to prepare the same recipe in a Michelin-starred restaurant for a table of eminent food critics, my stress level would rise considerably, and I would have to outsource the job to a high-priced chef.  A similar rude awakening is in store for companies that have been asking for disclosure mandates, perhaps thinking that these mandates would simply require a little more than what they are already doing voluntarily (and, as importantly, make their competitors do the same): Under these proposals, they are going to be playing an entirely different game, at far higher stakes.  It is difficult to sympathize with the self-inflicted pain they are going to feel, but unfortunately, their shareholders, who, unlike corporate leadership, have not been clamoring for such disclosures, will foot the bill. 

Second, as hard as it will be for a company to be confident in its own climate-related information, a company may not even be able to get the information it needs to calculate Scope 3 emissions.  The company’s customers and suppliers may not track this information.  Even if its suppliers disclose their emissions information, a reporting company may not feel sufficiently confident in the information to include it in its SEC filings.  Many companies, therefore, will have to turn to third-party consultants to help them determine Scope 3 emissions.[53] 

The proposal recognizes the unprecedented nature of the Scope 3 disclosure framework in a couple of ways.  First, it exempts smaller reporting companies.[54]  Second, it provides a safe harbor for Scope 3 disclosures.[55]  The efficacy of this safe harbor turns on its terms, which, in the spirit of the rest of the proposal, are nebulous.  Specifically, the safe harbor covers Scope 3 statements unless they were “made or reaffirmed without a reasonable basis or [were] disclosed other than in good faith.”[56]  “Reasonable basis” seems clear enough in most cases, but is it in this case?  How is a company to determine which particular climate model or set of estimates constitutes a “reasonable basis” when different models and estimations lead to substantially different results?  And what catapults a statement that was made with a reasonable basis into the category of “other than in good faith”?  Is it bad faith if a company that gets wildly different numbers from two suppliers that appear to use similar processes for producing and transporting raw materials chooses to use the numbers that produce the lowest Scope 3 emissions?  Third, the proposal also recognizes the unreliability of Scope 3 data by excluding those data from the assurance requirement.  Realistically, nobody could credibly provide assurance for numbers that are inherently unreliable, and if nobody can credibly provide assurance, no investor is likely to find that these data provide a reasonable basis for making any investment decisions.  

Third, the assurance that companies do have to get likely will be expensive.  Accelerated filers and large accelerated filers will be required to include an attestation report on their Scope 1 and 2 emissions signed by an independent GHG emissions attestation provider, which will be required to provide limited assurance for the second fiscal year after the Scopes 1 and 2 emissions disclosure compliance date, and reasonable assurance starting for the fourth fiscal year after the relevant compliance date.[57]  Audit firms are likely to be the biggest winners, as they already have established assurance infrastructures and are familiar with SEC reporting and the proposed independence framework.  The attestation mandate could be a new sinecure for the biggest audit firms, reminiscent of the one given them by Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.[58] 

Companies also will incur audit costs in connection with a number of metrics proposed to be included in the notes to the financial statements.  The mandated financial statement metrics “would consist of disaggregated climate-related impacts on existing financial statement line items.”[59]  Requiring all companies[60] to include disaggregated, subject-specific metrics within the financial statements is unusual, fails to accommodate the diversity across companies, and reflects a disproportionate emphasis on climate.  Embedding a risk-specific disclosure requirement in the financial statements erodes the important status of financial statements as objective, economically sound representations of a company’s financial situation.  These numbers and the assumptions that underlie them will be invaluable for stakeholder groups looking to force companies to pour more money into climate-related expenditures, but their value to investors is unclear. 

VI. The proposed rule would hurt investors, the economy, and this agency.

Many have called for today’s proposal out of a deep concern about a warming climate and its effects on the planet, people, and the financial system.  It is important to remember, though, that noble intentions, once baked into complex regulatory plans, often have ignoble results.  This risk is considerably heightened when the regulatory complexity is designed to push capital allocation toward politically and socially favored ends,[61] and when the regulators designing the framework have no expertise in capital allocation, political and social insight, or the science used to justify these favored ends.  This proposal, developed under these circumstances, will hurt investors, the economy, and this agency. 

The proposal, if adopted, will have substantive effects on companies’ activities.  We are not only asking companies to tell us what they do but suggesting how they might do it.  The proposal uses disclosure mandates to direct board and managerial attention to climate issues.[62]  Other parts of the proposal offer even more direct substantive suggestions to companies about how they should run their businesses.  For example, the Commission suggests that a company could “mitigate the challenges of collecting the data required for Scope 3 disclosure” by “choosing to purchase from more GHG efficient producers,” or “producing products that are more energy-efficient or involve less GHG emissions when consumers use them, or by contracting with distributors that use shorter transportation routes.”[63]  And the proposal suggests options for companies pursuing climate-related opportunities as part of a transition plan, including low emission modes of transportation, renewable power, producing or using recycled products, setting goals to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and providing services related to the transition to a lower-carbon economy.[64]  Similarly, the proposal suggests ways companies can meet climate-related targets, including “a strategy to increase energy efficiency, transition to lower carbon products, purchase carbon offsets or [renewable energy credits], or engage in carbon removal and carbon storage.”[65]  With all due respect to my colleagues, society is in big trouble if we are looking to SEC lawyers, accountants, and economists to dictate how companies should address climate change. 

Executives, for their part, might not mind the new regime that elevates squishy climate metrics.  After all, how wonderful it will be for an executive who has failed to produce solid financial returns to be able to counter critics with a glowing report on climate transition—“Dear Shareholders, we fell far short of our earnings target this year, but you will be pleased to know that all in all it was a fantastic year since we made great progress on our climate transition plan.”  If the CEO’s compensation is tied to lower greenhouse gas emissions, she can forgo the focus on company financial value—so 20th century!—and spend her time following the proposal’s urging to convince suppliers to shift to electric transport fleets and customers to freeze their jeans instead of washing them.[66]

Who then might mind?  Investors.  And by investors, I mean real people who are saving for retirement and need to earn real financial—not psychic—returns on their money.  When executives focus less on financial metrics and more on other things, the financial performance of companies is likely to suffer.  Moreover, the proposal does not grapple with the potential that retail investors, who are essentially confined to the public markets, should expect to see lower returns over the long term.  The logical result of using the financial system as a tool in combatting climate change is to drive down returns on green investments.[67]  Companies that cannot get funding in the public markets will retreat to the private markets, where they will have to pay investors more for capital.  Higher returns will be reserved for the wealthy, to who the Commission has granted access to private markets.[68] 

Investors will not be the only ones to suffer from the diversion of attention from financial to climate objectives.  The whole economy, and all of the consumers and producers it sustains, could also be hurt.  First, the proposal is likely counterproductive to the important concerns around climate change.  Attempting to drive long-term capital flows to the right companies ex-ante is a fool’s errand because we simply do not know what effective climate solutions will emerge or from where.  Markets, if we let them work, are remarkably deft at solving problems of all sorts, even big problems like climate change,[69] but they do so in incremental and surprising ways that are driven by a combination of chance, opportunity, necessity, and human ingenuity.  The climate-change mitigating invention which right now may be rattling around in the head of a young girl in Cleveland, Ohio—the intellectual descendant of great Cleveland inventors like Garrett Morgan and Rollin Henry White[70]—is something of which we regulators cannot even dream.  Our limited job as securities regulators is to make sure that enterprising young women can get matched up with the funds necessary to bring their idea to life.  We make that match less likely if we write rules that implicitly prefer the technology we have identified as promising today over the technology of the future germinating in our young inventor’s dreams.  Second, the diversion of capital also will make the economy less effective at serving people’s other needs.  Insufficient capital will go to solving other important problems.  Third, contrary to the Commission’s reasoning,[71] driving more capital toward green investments as defined uniformly by financial regulators could fuel an asset bubble that could make the financial system more vulnerable rather than more resilient. 

Finally, our meddling with the incentives for capital allocation will harm this agency, which plays such an important role in the capital markets.  As discussed above, the proposal takes us outside of our statutory jurisdiction and expertise, which harms the agency’s integrity.  In addition, filling SEC filings with information that is inherently unreliable undercuts the credibility of the rest of the information in these important filings.[72]  Moreover, while the existence of anthropogenic climate change itself is not particularly contentious, how best to measure and solve the problem remains in dispute.  The Commission, which is not an expert in these matters, will be drawn into these disputes as it reviews, for example, the climate models and assumptions underlying companies’ metrics and disclosures about progress toward meeting climate targets.  This proposal could inspire future more socially and politically contentious disclosures, which would undermine the SEC’s reputation as an independent regulator.[73]  Meanwhile, we have other important work to do, and the climate initiative distracts us from it.[74]     

VII. Conclusion

We are here laying the cornerstone of a new disclosure framework that will eventually rival our existing securities disclosure framework in magnitude and cost and probably outpace it in complexity.  The building project upon which we are embarking will consume our attention and enrich many, as any massive building project does.  The placard at the door of this hulking green structure will trumpet our revised mission: “protection of stakeholders, facilitating the growth of the climate-industrial complex, and fostering unfair, disorderly, and inefficient markets.”  This new edifice will cast a long shadow on investors, the economy, and this agency.  Accordingly, I will vote no on laying the cornerstone.

If I were voting based on how hard the staff has worked to get this proposal out the door, however, I would support it.  I appreciate the long hours, extensive thought, and intense work that staff from all over the Commission—the Division of Corporation Finance, the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, the Office of General Counsel, and the Office of Chief Accountant, among others—poured into this rulemaking.  I also am grateful to the many commenters who responded to Commissioner Lee’s request for comment and for the even greater number of comments I expect we will receive in response to this proposal.  Your comments will inform my thinking about whether we should adopt climate disclosure rules and, if so, what they should look like.  In particular, I am interested in hearing if there are types of universally material climate information that are not being disclosed under our existing rules. 


Ketanji Brown Jackson Puts the Moral Poverty of Identity Politics on Display


SEE: https://robertspencer.org/2022/03/ketanji-brown-jackson-puts-the-moral-poverty-of-identity-politics-on-display;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

“I actually don’t know the answer to that question — I’m sorry — I don’t.”

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Joe Biden had promised black voters in South Carolina that he would put a black woman on the Supreme Court if they voted for him. After a pressure campaign aimed at the Supreme Court’s lone liberal justice who agreed to step down and make way for a black woman, Biden picked between two candidates, one backed by moderates and one backed by radical leftists.

Even while leftists wished that Justice Clarence Thomas, the court’s lone black justice, would die after reports that he was hospitalized, they cheered the incredible breakthrough of the first black female, and more importantly leftist, being nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court.

The long contentious hearings had plenty of awkward moments, but the most definitive clash came from a simple question that highlighted the vast moral gap between identity politics and natural rights.

“When does equal protection of the laws attach to a human being?” Senator Kennedy asked Jackson.

“Well Senator, um… I believe that the Supreme Court… um… actually I, I actually don’t know the answer to that question — I’m sorry — I don’t,” she awkwardly replied.

The postmodern leftist notion of human rights revolves around pursuing equity for discriminated groups. Leftists like Jackson have thorough notions about what equal protection looks like for black or transgender people, but no notion of a grander principle that protects all human life.

Jackson obviously found the question uncomfortable because it addresses abortion. And yet even a militant abortion supporter like Jackson ought to be able to tackle the basic moral question of when life begins and when human rights come into play. The Framers are often attacked for refusing to grapple with the moral questions of slavery, yet they did. That they narrowly chose not to break up the country over a monstrous evil did not change the fact that they struggled to reconcile their ideals and the compromises they believed they had to make.

Leftists, like the most hard-boiled defenders of slavery, refuse to even admit that there’s an issue. Jackson’s smirking response would have befitted a Buchanan Democrat pretending not to understand that human slavery might have moral, not just economic, legal implications.

Identity politics reduces every issue to victimhood. The same worldview that makes it all too easy to blame highways and obesity on systemic racism makes it equally impossible for leftist jurists like Jackson to even conceive of life and liberty as natural rights bestowed on everyone. And yet it was this conviction that eventually overturned slavery and segregation.

“Do you have a personal belief though about when life begins?” Senator Kennedy asked Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“I have a religious view that I set aside when I am ruling on cases,” she replied.

Judges shouldn’t rule from theology, but the idea that their religious moral convictions should play no role in basic notions of rights is alien to the words of the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.

If religious views of human rights are things to be set aside, then what is the basis for anyone’s rights? Judicial precedent, a “living constitution” that incorporates current academic doctrines, the pursuit of equity? Those are where leftists derive their moral authority and notions of rights.

And yet without that grand conviction that human equality and rights proceed from a higher power, they remain at the mercy of judges like Jackson who can decide when to take them away. And Jackson is unable to even articulate when those rights actually begin which will make it that much more morally and intellectually easier for her to take them away, from babies and from anyone else whose existence obstructs her political ideology and personal biases.

Jackson can’t comprehend rights except in terms of equity. If a group isn’t sufficiently wealthy, healthy, or otherwise successful, the government has to step in and alter the equation. But if a group is all of the above, then the government needs to examine how it oppressed others.

This Procrustean Bed in which the government stretches some and shrinks others in pursuit of the impossible mission of making everyone equal is the only kind of rights leftists understand. And they have no notion of the origin of rights except as a mindless pursuit of leveling everyone, and an atonement for the social sins that resulted in everyone not being equally successful.

Rather than looking back to an origin point, they look forward to a secular utopian “right side of history”, a transcendentalist conviction that one day we will all be made equal, to justify everything they believe and everything they do. And so you can’t ask Ketanji Brown Jackson when rights begin, because they haven’t ended yet. The present is just an unfinished future.

Rights don’t begin with God or with our founding documents, they run backward in time from some inchoate socialist future that they intend to achieve by forcibly “equalizing” all of us.

Jackson couldn’t process the question of when universal human rights come into being, because she doesn’t view rights as universal except in the sense that everyone has the right to be made equal. To assess whether someone has rights, leftists have to know their race, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic background, and other details that indicate where they stand on the equity spectrum. Asking them to articulate rights without reference to equity is like asking Thomas Jefferson where rights come from if there was no Creator or guiding natural order.

What rights does a baby have? According to leftists, the right to be made equal. The only real right in leftist judicial doctrine is the right to have what others have. And the amplification of whatever privileges and benefits are necessary to cut in line in order to achieve equity.

But does a baby have the right to live? That simple question whose parameters the Founders and Framers would have had no trouble understanding frustrates and infuriates leftist jurists to whom rights are not natural, but relative, and not individual, but collective. While they can amply expound on the plight of transgender Navajo Indians, they can’t offer a decision on the life of a single infant of unknown race and sex because they don’t believe in rights apart from identity.

Leftists can’t affirm natural universal rights, only compare rights relative to someone else.

Ask a leftist to compare my rights to your rights and they can easily do it. A baby can’t have innate natural rights but must have her rights compared to her mother and to society at large. Stakeholders must be consulted, and papers must be reviewed on the status of women in Colonial America to derive who is the greater victim and who is entitled to more rights.

The question of when human rights are conferred is baffling and annoying to Jackson. In her legalistic worldview, the question “when” is almost entirely irrelevant. It’s like asking “when is racism” or “when is sexism”. The dividing lines in leftist jurisprudence are not based on time or other rational metrics, but on the subjective and relative ones of who loses and who gains.

That’s why asking for firm rational metrics for anything is routinely derided as white western masculine thinking in academic circles. Leftists prefer to make decisions based on lived experience which is another way of saying anecdotal subjectivity which leaves plenty of room for personal bias, but none for any meaningful guarantee of rights beyond momentary feelings.

The Founders and Framers were certainly flawed, but they proceeded from an understanding of rights that expanded them, while leftists like Jackson can only contract and reduce them. Where our nation’s founders universalized rights, leftists use equity to de-universalize them, replacing general guarantees of human rights with situational activism through academic lenses.

They claim that they are expanding rights when all they’re doing is taking away our universal natural rights and replacing them with a ranked caste system of identity politics privileges that can bestow a “right” to a house, a car, or fat-free yogurt, but not the absolute right to live.

Where the Bill of Rights could define free speech as a universal right, leftists have dismantled the ACLU and insist that only the people who agree with them should have free speech. And so it goes for everything from the right to assemble to freedom of the press. Conservatives rightly see this as an unconstitutional double standard because it transgresses universal rights. But leftists only see universal rights as a leveling mechanism that only applies to the extent that it makes people more equal, but not when it does not. And so it’s natural for them to reject the idea that their opponents, who they argue make people less equal, should have free speech.

This is the totalitarian logic of civil rights which has slowly taken away rights from everyone.

Cancel culture is the inevitable result of the impulse to make people equal by destroying those who are perceived to stand in the way of the social activism that is the only source of equality.

Is it any wonder that Jackson can’t articulate or even grasp the concept that universal human rights exist and that they have some origin point in the process of human development?

Jackson’s incomprehension of the question reveals the moral bankruptcy of identity politics.

Identity politics is not making us a better society, more concerned with rights, it’s transforming us from a society that believed everyone had rights to a society that has no concept of rights.

Dan Ball With Chelle Brown: Taking Back Parental Rights Over Our Children


SEE: https://www.cherokee.k12.ga.us/districtBoardEd.aspx

school board members and superintendent

Blood of COVID-vaccinated people found to contain strange artifacts (graphene oxide?)

The real pandemic – Covid-19 or Graphene Oxide? Poisonous Nano-Material found in Covid Vaccines ...

CONFIRMED! Graphene Oxide Main Ingredient In Covid Shots | The Liberty Beacon


SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-03-29-covid-vaccinated-peoples-blood-contains-strange-artifacts.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) There is a strange and disturbing phenomenon occurring that suggests covid-“vaccinated” people now have tainted blood.

Strange “artifacts” are being reported by doctors who are using a darkfield microscope to analyze blood samples from people who have been jabbed. Steve Kirsch is calling these artifacts “land masses” because of how they appear on slides.

Only vaccinated patients have these land masses, which appear as foreign objects amid normal blood cells.

Kirsch spoke with Dr. Ryan Cole, whom we have written about before. The duo is unsure what these artifacts truly are, though there is speculation that they might be graphene oxide particles.

‘There are people who think the sheets are graphene oxide, but they haven’t proved [sic] it,” Kirsch writes.

“Some people think you can do the identification using mass spectroscopy, but other experts say that graphene oxide is just carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen so it isn’t going to be easily detectable.”

There are “clever ways,” Kirsch says, to look for graphene oxide in the vials themselves, but obtaining one without its contents having to get injected into someone’s body first is difficult.

If the artifacts are graphene oxide, then they could be creating nano-level tracking and control bio circuits in people’s bodies

Someone named Phil Walsh who spent several decades as a microscopist and tissue culture specialist says that these artifacts were never seen pre-covid. They are an entirely new phenomenon, he contends.

“My best guess is that these are, indeed, atom-thick layers of graphene oxide/hydroxide which will easily fold multiple times into one ‘land mass’ structure,” Walsh writes.

“I believe the reason for keeping the vials at such low temperatures before use is because the tiny nanometer-sized graphene flakes will begin to self-aggregate into larger and larger hexagonal honeycomb-like sheets at room temperature and above.”

If true, this would explain the micro-coagulation observed in the delicate capillary vessels, as well as the concomitant rise in troponin levels observed in the “fully vaccinated.”

“I’d suggest repeating the blood examination and viewing immediately before desiccation occurs,” Walsh suggests to anyone trying to figure out the situation scientifically. “You also might want to bring a magnet close to the slide to see if any movement can be detected.”

Graphene oxide possesses what Walsh describes as “interesting paramagnetic properties.” If the artifacts are, indeed, graphene oxide, then these sheets could be present for the purpose of constructing nano-level bio circuits and sensors to be used by the world’s overlords for tracking and control of the “vaccinated” herd.

“The state-of-art of this type of tech is thoroughly mind-blowing,” Walsh warns.

“Accessible information in the public sector is alarming enough. What DARPA and other entities have come up with over many decades is probably beyond what any of us can even imagine.”

Drs. Carrie Madej and Robin Wakeling are also investigating covid “vaccine” vial contents, speculating as to how the potential inclusion of graphene oxide could be for the purpose of triggering the creation of self-assembling foreign structures inside people’s bodies.

“I can’t figure out why people aren’t up in arms over being poisoned almost daily,” wrote one perplexed reader at Kirsch’s Substack blog in response to the revelation.

“I feel cheated, lied to, and my life is over because I took the vax,” expressed another in distress. “Biggest mistake of my life. I don’t want to die and leave behind my wife and kids.”

Others suggested remedies for possibly detoxifying the body of these chemical poisons. Among the recommendations were NAC (n-acetyl-l-cysteine), black seed oil (nigella sativa), turmeric, and pine needle tea.

More related news about the damage being caused by Fauci Flu shots can be found at ChemicalViolence.com.

Sources include:






Calls to REMOVE Biden from Office SURGE as Cognitive Decline Worsens!!!

EXCERPTS FROM: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10524543/66-voters-43-Dems-believe-Biden-release-results-cognitive-test.html:

66% of all voters - including 43% of Democrats - believe Biden should take and publicly release the results of a cognitive test and the majority think he is not fit for office, a new poll shows

  • A new poll shows that 66% of likely voters want to see President Joe Biden take a cognitive test and release the results to prove he is mentally fit for office
  • 43% of Democrats feel the same and 86% of Republicans 
  • Same poll shows that 56% of Americans are 'not very confident' or 'not at all confident' that Biden is fit for office – only 27% are 'very confident'
  • New poll comes as a group of 38 House Republicans sent a letter to Biden urging him to take cognitive tests
  • Also emerges as the president's approval ratings continue to dip 

The international media are openly talking about Biden’s shocking state of cognitive decline, and now there are growing calls for invoking the 25th Amendment against him! In this video we’re going to take a look at some of the international headlines reporting on Biden’s obvious senility, we’re going to take a look at Tucker Carlson’s call for Biden to be removed from office via the 25th Amendment, and stick with me to the very end of this video when I’ll reveal that a growing consensus is forming that it is most certainly time for Sleepy Joe to finally go! You are NOT going to want to miss this!

Biden called out for 'cheat sheet' to avoid gaffes

How RUSSIAGATE Caused the UKRAINE WAR! The Answer Will SHOCK You!!!

Did the Russian Collusion Hoax Cause the War in Ukraine? That’s what we’re going to be looking at in today’s video! We’re going to explore the intriguing work of some brave journalists who’ve been exploring the relationship between Russiagate and the Ukrainian War, and we’re going to see for ourselves what they’ve uncovered! You’re not going to want to miss this!

Tucker: Biden can't regulate his emotions~Time To Invoke 25th Amendment

"For God's Sake, This Man Can Not Remain In Power"

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/tucker-with-nuclear-threat-nigh-unstable-biden-should-be-removed-via-the-25th-amendment/


Presidential Disability and Succession

Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967. The 25th Amendment changed a portion of Article II, Section 1

Section 1

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Ted Cruz slams Biden’s $5.8 trillion budget proposal

Brighteon: Prepare for a Recession: Biden Proposes $5.8 Trillion Dollar Plan as Fed Raises Rates

The Biden Regime pitched a $5.8 trillion plan loaded with taxations and compensations that are bound to hurt America. Carlos Cortez Jr. joined the Stew Peters Show Tuesday to discuss the possibility of a recession, massive inflation, and more. Cortez detailed the importance of financial planning, the chaotic state of the economy, shifts in the housing market, and his powerful Christian testimony.

Visit Cortez Wealth Management to request a consultation: https://cortezwm.com/.

1 2 3 12