Home Blog Page 3377

Parents Plead With Superior Court To Remove Chants, Prayers To Aztec Deities From California Curriculum

Parents reportedly pleaded with the California Superior Court to remove chants and prayers to Aztec deities from the state’s curriculum.

CBN News reported that the Thomas More Society filed the temporary restraining order in the court in behalf of the parents and of Californians for Equal Rights last September 24 against the Department of Education to end the saying of the said prayers in the classrooms.

Thomas More Society Special Counsel Paul Jonna said there’s a difference between teaching about Aztec practices and from actually mandating to pray to their deities, which is already “offensive,” and which makes it “unconstitutional.”

“Our clients are not opposed to having students learn about different cultures and religions, including the practices of the Aztecs. But the California State Board of Education’s approved Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum goes far beyond that by directing students to pray to Aztec deities. This portion of the Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum is not only offensive but blatantly unconstitutional,” Jonna said in a statement.

As previously reported, plans of the California Department Education to implement the 800-paged “Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum” came out in March. The Department of Education explained that the “Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum” intends to promote America’s “decolonization” through lessons on it, as well as, promote “unity” among the youth through through chants to Aztec Gods.

Parents then in August requested the State Board of Education through Limandri & Jonna LLP to remove Chapter 5 of the said curriculum, which particularly instructs the students to do the chanting and invoke the Aztec deities.

The Thomas More Society then followed-through with the filing of the lawsuit in September being a violation of the Establishment Clauses of the United States and of California’s Constitution. While the Californians for Equal Rights, an organization that advocates against discrimination, joined the lawsuit against the Department thereafter.

The Temporary Restraining Order, entitled “Californians for Equal Rights Foundation, et al. v. State of California, et al.”, raised the “harm’ the invocation of the said prayers and chants will do to the public schools. It also sought a block in the promotion of the said chants and prayers in the public schools of the state.

“Plaintiffs seek an order enjoining and prohibiting Defendants from authorizing, promoting, or permitting the use of Aztec prayers and the ‘Ashe’ chant in California’s public schools and also requiring Defendants to direct those under their authority not to use the Aztec prayer or ‘Ashe’ chant in public schools,” the Temporary Restraining Order said.

“This Application is made on the grounds that use of the prayers and chant violate the Establishment Clauses of both the U.S. and California Constitutions. (U.S. Const., amend. I; Cal. Const., art. I, § 4.) Further, immediate and irreparable harm will occur when the prayers and chant are used in California’s public schools,” it added.

The Thomas More Society disclosed that the California Superior Court agrees that public schools are to make children become aware of their religious neutrality since religious liberty is protected by the Constitution. The court pointed out that such protection given to religious liberty by the Constitution becomes “abridged” when the State itself sponsors a particular religious practice.

Californians For Equal Rights President Frank Xu echoed the said sentiments of the Superior Court in a statement, stating that the “Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum” is “alarming” for it “irresponsibly glorifies” the Aztecs whose religious rituals involved human sacrifice and dismemberment.

“The ESMC’s unequivocal promotion of five Aztec gods and the Yoruba religion through repetitive chanting and affirmation of their symbolic principles constitutes an unlawful government preference toward a particular religious practice. This public endorsement of the Aztec and Yoruba religions fundamentally erodes equal education rights and irresponsibly glorifies anthropomorphic, male deities whose religious rituals involved gruesome human sacrifice and human dismemberment. Alarmingly, this is only the tip of the iceberg with the ESMC being California’s trojan horse of CRT!” Xu stressed.

Further Exoneration is Revealed in New January 6 Footage

JEDI LIVES MATTER Hollywood’s Hypocrisy EXPOSED | Megan Basham

Is Joe Biden’s love for ice cream a sign of dementia?

The Difference Between a Democracy and a Republic

Groundbreaking pro-life bill beginning to gain ground

A new bill has just been introduced which could revolutionize the abortion debate in the United States. The Care for Her Act (H.B. 5163) was introduced by Nebraska Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, and would make caring for pregnant women and their children the “centerpiece of public policy.” By providing for women and families, Fortenberry hopes to change not only how the country views abortion, but how it views unexpected pregnancy as well.

Fortenberry spoke to Live Action News in an exclusive interview about the Care for Her Act — legislation that was initiated after he spoke to people in the community about the idea.

Creating more options for those experiencing unplanned pregnancies
“I sent an e-mail to my constituents with the broad constructs of the Care for Her proposal, which at its heart is a commitment to care for the journey of life: before birth, at birth, after birth, for expectant mothers and their children,” he said. “That’s the broad idea, and I had ruminated and discerned this for a long time, and finally got it to a place where we put legislative constructs around it. And I think it’s honestly transformative, because it creates an imaginative option so that when there is an unexpected pregnancy, a woman or family has the opportunity to be surrounded by a community of care.”

As a result, Fortenberry received a number of supportive replies, particularly from pro-lifers — but one, in particular, stood out.

“One woman wrote to me,” he recalled. “And she said, ‘Congressman, I read your proposal. I had an abortion when I was young; if I had this around, I would have made a different decision.’ That’s what compels me to keep going here.”

The Care for Her Act consists of four provisions:

  • Making preborn children eligible for the child tax credit. Pregnant women would receive $3,600 they currently do not qualify for.
  • Creating a partnership between federal and state governments to streamline support. The effort would catalog all programs for which pregnant women are eligible, so the process of receiving help and support is easier.
  • Providing federal grants for tangible needs. Funds would assist with maternal housing, job training, and other educational opportunities for women.
  • Providing incentives for communities that improve maternal and child mortality rates.

Currently, the bill has received a positive response in Congress, with other lawmakers signing up as co-sponsors.

“We have 10 women members on my side of the political aisle who support it,” Fortenberry said. But he cautioned that due to the novel approach of the bill, the process may not happen quickly.

“This is new. This breaks up a traditional approach that we’ve been taking for 45 years. So it’s going to be a long journey to… get people to understand the intention here, and then move the legislation. We don’t quit in this office, and I just believe in this so deeply, and have received such affirmative response from my community that it compels me to keep going…. [S]o many women we approached were eager to jump on this. They saw it as… potentially transformative, in an imaginative new way, to affirm a woman during an unexpected pregnancy so that she knows, and her family knows, that we care for them.”

Bridging political divides
For now, Fortenberry is also optimistic that the bill can gain bipartisan support. “I’m hopeful that people do see this as another way in which we can bridge some significant divides. I’m pro-life; I believe women deserve better than abortion, and that is my committed principle. The bill is silent on the issue of abortion, but it is not silent in terms of the government creating a marker in support of a preborn child during an unexpected pregnancy. It can appeal to people who don’t hold our position.”

Already, the Care for Her Act has received a positive response in the media, including among outlets like the Washington Post, where it has been praised as a bill that is truly pro-life, able to care for women and families long past birth, and can reach past the tribalism that is inherent with this very fraught issue.

“I think that should tell you a lot,” Fortenberry said of the Washington Post op-ed. “This cuts through a lot of stale paradigms, with new possibilities and can really help people, particularly women and children. I think a lot of Americans would see this as appealing, no matter their position on abortion. It goes to the heart of human dignity, and whether or not we are going to be big enough, and bold enough, to see a woman with an unexpected pregnancy as not her problem, but our opportunity as a society.”

Many women choose abortion not because they want to, but because they feel they have no other option. On a regular basis, pregnant and parenting women still face discrimination at school and in the workplace. When facing unexpected pregnancies, many women experience a lack of support as well as bias and discrimination. Too often, women lack the help they need to give birth and raise a child without losing their opportunities for education, career, and safety. The Care for Her Act is an example of how legislation can give women better options.

“People in government, and in legislatures, are used to doing the same thing, the same way, and having the same battles,” said Fortenberry. “This is different. This is a paradigm shift. I’m hopeful that we can reach a tipping point where it accelerates, and creates a whole new momentum around how to help women who have an unexpected pregnancy.”

Merck’s New ‘Gamechanger’ Pill Against COVID, Molnupiravir, Has ‘Molecular Similarities’ To Ivermectin

On Friday, American pharmaceutical giant Merck announced that new data from clinical trials of its Molnupiravir drug showed a reduced risk of hospitalization or death from COVID by up to 50%. The antiviral treatment, unlike other COVID treatments available today, is groundbreaking as it comes in a pill form that is easy to produce, distribute, and administer.

“You can take it home and it will significantly reduce the risk that you either ultimately are hospitalized or more importantly that you would ever face the unfortunate outcome of death,” Merck’s CEO Rob Davis said, as per CBN News.

According to a statement released on Friday, phase 3 clinical trial results showed that Molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by approximately 50%. There were no deaths reported among patients who received the drug, versus 8 deaths in the patients who received the placebo. Merck already plans to submit an application for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration based on these findings.

Given that Merck’s new “gamechanger” pill against COVID is an anti-viral drug, some cannot help but compare it with Ivermectin, a drug that has been widely used to treat COVID despite the FDA and CDC’s advice against it. In fact, skeptics are wondering why Merck, who also produces Ivermectin, has now dropped it and instead has focused on Molnupravir.

According to The Blaze, a Cochrane-standard (the highest level review) meta-analysis on Ivermectin’s efficacy in treating COVID has been published by Bryant-Lawrie in the American Journal of Therapeutics. The study concluded that “apparent safety and low cost suggest that Ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.” So why isn’t Merck just pushing Ivermectin instead?

The reason is that Molnupiravir is reportedly very similar to Ivermectin. Moreover, the New Jersey-based pharmaceutical company was compelled by a $1.2 billion procurement agreement to supply approximately 1.7 million courses of Molnupiravir to the U.S. government.

The report added that “it appears that Molnupiravir contains some of the same molecular qualities as Ivermectin,” which is why it is questionable how Merck possibly rebranded the cheap drug to make it “more expensive” and could be “marketed as exclusive and new for COVID.”

Merck’s new drug shares molecular similarities to #Ivermectin. And why wouldn’t it? IVM is in a COVID-19 superstar lane all by itself and Merck, who held the patent until 1996, knows this.

It is criminal for the U.S. to pay Merck $1.2B when we already have the GOAT. https://t.co/jmc7pmmvj8

— Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care (@Covid19Critical) June 15, 2021

Fox host Lisa Boothe blasted Merck via Twitter, saying, “This is all such a scam. We could repurpose Ivermectin for so cheap. None of this is about public health, it’s about cashing in or paying in favors for Big Pharma.”

Meanwhile, BlazeTV host Steve Deace took to Facebook to satirically express his thoughts of preferring the “glorious vaccine” over any type of COVID treatment, no matter how inexpensive and accessible it may be.

“I’m absolutely ecstatic to see that after Merck made sure to discredit their own failed drug Ivermectin, they are now coming out with a REAL oral early treatment for COVID,” Deace wrote. “I don’t think Merck should’ve even done that. Glorious vaccine or death!”

‘Fire and brimstone’: Liberals alarmed as Steve Bannon calls for ‘shock troops’ from GOP for ‘sweeping’ victory in 2024

Former Donald Trump advisor Steve Bannon has angered his critics by promising big ‘MAGA’ wins for the Republican Party, and saying “shock troops” needed to be ready to take over and “deconstruct” the state.

Bannon reportedly met with Trump political appointees this week and discussed both the president’s and the party’s future, insisting “shock troops” would be needed to secure conservative victories. 

“If you’re going to take over the administrative state and deconstruct it, then you have to have shock troops prepared to take it over immediately,” the political strategist and podcaster told NBC in an interview on Saturday, following his meeting. “I gave ’em fire and brimstone.” 

In his interview, Bannon dismissed “standard Republican policies” and promised more productive ‘MAGA’ wins in the upcoming midterm and presidential elections, as candidates would now be pre-prepared with teams to take over federal positions. The former White House official claimed that not having filled the approximately 4,000 open positions in the federal government with supporters was partly what had kept Trump from doing more during his four years as president.

Bannon was one of Trump’s closest and most controversial advocates during his 2016 presidential election campaign, and previously worked in both the conservative film and media fields. The political strategist’s latest fiery words trended on Sunday on Twitter, with critics piling on and denouncing his “shock troops” comment as heinous and some even claiming his recent Republican meeting was “seditionist.”

“He hasn’t forgotten January 6,” political pundit David Corn tweeted in reaction.

Bannon, who was pardoned by Trump earlier this year, spoke to approximately 200 members of the newly established Association of Republican Presidential Appointees (ARPA) at the Capitol Hill Club. The ARPA was formed to create a resource for future GOP officials tapped by a Republican president to fill a federal job. 

Bannon was one of multiple Trump associates to be subpoenaed earlier this week to appear before a House committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot. The subpoena cites his alleged insistence that members of Congress should not certify the 2020 presidential election results. 

Reps. Gohmert, Clyde to Newsmax: Milley’s Calls to Chinese General ‘Treason’

Gen. Mark Milley’s admission that he called his counterpart in China while President Donald Trump was in office and told him that he’d warn of any impending attack is equal to treason on his part, Reps. Louie Gohmert and Andrew Clyde said on Newsmax Saturday.

“We have no idea who is running this White House,” Clyde, R-Ga., said on Newsmax’s “Saturday Report.”

“We have no idea how decisions are being made about this country and our interest here at home and abroad. What Milley said was inexcusable. He needs to resign. He has been a dismal failure.” 

Clyde commented Saturday that when Milley, as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Gen. Li Zuocheng, the chief of the Joint Staff Department of the Central Military Commission, that he would warn him of an impending attack from Trump, that would have been like the United States getting a warning from Japan in World War II of the attack on Pearl Harbor. 

“Do you think we would have had ships on Battleship Row?” he said. “Do you think we’d have been caught by surprise on a Sunday morning? Do you think there would have been a different response? Heck yeah, there would have been a different response. “

And for Milley to say he’d give China advance notice, “that is treason. There is no question that is treason,” Clyde said. “He needs to be fired, but we don’t have an administration with the guts to do it. Neither do we have an administration that has any concept of a successful military mission.”

Meanwhile, Gohmert, R-Texas, noted that Milley both admitted under oath and to Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, the writers of the book “Peril,” that he spoke with his Chinese counterpart twice to appease their concerns about Trump. 

“Words have meanings and the meaning of making the enemy comfortable under our constitutional definition of treason is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and that’s exactly what Milley did,” said Gohmert. “

He also said that “words have meaning” and that the generals were not clear on whether the generals warned President Joe Biden of the real dangers of withdrawing all troops when they recommended he leave 2,500 troops there, because he thinks “they were too gutless to do that.”