America
Here in New South Wales Australia we continue to be in lockdown because the politicians say they are listening to the HEALTH EXPERTS! Well, I wish they would listen to ‘A Stanford University Medical School epidemiologist and public health expert reiterated in a recent interview his conviction that Covid lockdowns have been horrendous for public health and affirmed that they have killed more people than they have saved.
“I say the lockdowns were the single biggest mistake in public health history. I still believe that. I don’t see how anyone can look at lockdown and say there was successful policy,” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya said.
“We have had lockdowns in country after country after country,” he continued. “I don’t think by any measure you can call them a success.”
From the beginning of the pandemic, Bhattacharya has advocated for a public health action plan of “focused protection,” a policy wherein creative measures are enacted by public servants to shield the most vulnerable from infection and the rest of society is allowed to carry on with regular life.
As previously covered by LifeSiteNews, Bhattacharya and numerous other medical professionals formally outlined this idea in the Great Barrington Declaration. In part, it reads:
The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.
Regarding this approach, Bhattacharya said, “The idea was to give people resources to protect themselves as they saw fit, that they could make trade-offs in their lives based on what they valued.” He added, “You have to think differently about what the goal is. If the goal is focused protection, then adopt a different set of policies than if the goal is testing, tracing, identifying, and quarantine.”
Bhattacharya said that many in the medical and public health community have come to think erroneously about herd immunity, which was once identified as the goal for resolving the Covid pandemic.
“Herd immunity is not a synonym for zero Covid. It does not mean the disease has gone away. What it means is that the disease has become endemic,” he said.
“What I do know is that if a government induces fear in a population, if a government formally locks down, that it will take much longer to get to that point where the disease is at a level where we can manage it without having to turn over all of society,” Bhattacharya asserted. “If people are scared to interact with everybody else, it will take longer, even if you don’t have a policy.”
Bhattacharya called the harms caused by lockdowns “extremely multi-dimensional” and traumatic, especially to the poor, children, and those on the margins of society. “It’s not possible to reduce to a single number,” he said. “A child who skips a year of school, the consequences will last a lifetime.”
According to Bhattacharya, dramatic increases of poverty, food insecurity, outright starvation, depression, anxiety, suicide, and death are some of the black fruits of the mitigation measures implemented in lockdowns. Asked directly if “lockdowns have killed more people than they have saved,” he responded, “Yes, I think that is actually true.”
The idea that there are alternatives to lockdowns has not been given minimal space for discussion in the public forum, particularly among the mainstream media, politicians, and public health and medical professionals. Conversely, Bhattacharya asserted that science is, in fact, a “free-wheeling discussion,” one that should be informed by data, not politics. To be against lockdown, Bhattacharya said, was considered “saying something dangerous” and “at the core of this sort of de-platforming effort” by Big Tech companies. Standing against this trend is “something we should resist with all our strength.”
“We have come to think about lockdown as if it were the only possible thing to do,” Bhattacharya said, “But that’s not true. You have to make decisions based on the margins of what is alternatively possible. That requires imagination and requires care about thinking of different people in different parts of society, and the risks they face combined with the values they have and the scientific parameters about disease spread and all of these other things.”
Bhattacharya noted that we have had “enormous Covid deaths despite the lockdowns.” While lockdown proponents may argue that this is because the lockdowns were not strong enough, Bhattacharya insists that reality is a constraint on their model and that in the real world “society could not meet their high standard of what a lockdown ought to look like.”
Bhattacharya concluded his interview with the idea that we have two futures before us: a dystopian one filled with lockdowns where humanity is much impoverished by such efforts, or another in which we recognize that the disease is something that is realistically here to stay and that we will learn to cope with. The bottom line, Bhattacharya hopes, is that “once people realize that we cannot achieve elimination of the disease, they can remember what is important.”’https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/lockdowns-are-the-single-biggest-mistake-in-public-health-history-stanford-medical-professor/?utm_source=featured&utm_campaign=usa
Here in Australia the politicians continue to push fear of the Wuhan virus with lockdowns and threat of mandatory vaccinations! However, ‘Now that we have had 18 months to “slow the spread” it is time to take stock of the pandemic. We have learned many good things that the media and our pandemic managers rarely report. Most fundamentally, we do not need to be afraid of COVID-19 anymore. The media and some government health authorities are still pushing hysteria and fear, but that should not prevail. Let’s look at the good news that can calm our fears about COVID-19. There’ll be time at a later date to look at the bad and the ugly of the resolving pandemic.
1) Globally, the survival rate for COVID-19 is 99.8%. Under the age of 70, the survival rate for COVID-19 is 99.97%. This is on par with many influenza seasons. Americans younger than 70 do not have to fear COVID-19 any more than influenza and we know how to protect the elderly.
2) Herd immunity for the alpha strain is here. Sixty-seven percent of the American population have had at least one COVID-19 vaccination. The official number of cases is about 10% of the population, but several antibody studies show that the percentage of those with natural immunity is 4-6 times higher. Dr. Marty Makary, a Johns Hopkins professor, estimates that 80-85% of the population is immune from natural immunity and vaccination. Those who deny this must explain how cases and deaths started to decline in January way before there was a significant vaccine effort. COVID-19 will not go away. Instead, we are transitioning now from a pandemic to endemic status and, indeed, some eminent virologists say vaccinating in the middle of a pandemic is making herd immunity more difficult to obtain through the creation of variants.
3) The average age of death from COVID is 78. The average life expectancy in America is 78. This is not to say, “Don’t worry, only old people are dying of COVID-19.” However, this fact should direct and inform our policies to protect the elderly especially. Children and those under age 70 are at much lower risk.
4) Early outpatient treatment should be adopted immediately for COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine works. Ivermectin works. It has been estimated 85% of COVID-19 deaths could have been prevented were these medicines used early. America’s Frontline Doctors have an excellent compilation of research. The cost of these treatments is $1/day. A new IV treatment, REGEN-COV, has been approved for early use in COVID-19. Don’t wait to see if you will get sick. Treat early.
5) Children are safe from COVID-19 and don’t spread the virus either. A study in the UK showed that the survival rate in children is 99.995%. In the U.S. 335 children have died since the start of the pandemic. A study done by Johns Hopkins and FAIR Health showed that all of the children that died from April 2020 to August 2020 had immune problems or were chronically ill. In that period not one healthy child died. Children have more chance of dying in a car wreck, unintentional drug overdose, or influenza than from COVID-19. Vaccination for healthy children is not needed.
6) Sweden did not have a lockdown or mask mandate and did better with cases and deaths than many countries. Lockdown did not work and had serious cultural and economic side effects. There is ample literature now to show that masks, as we are using them, do not work.
7) Persons who have had COVID-19 infection have a robust and long-lasting immunity. This immunity also is likely to protect against variants. As evidence continues to accumulate that the new mRNA vaccines are neither as effective nor safe as advertised, I would advise not getting the vaccine on top of your natural immunity if you had the COVID-19 infection.
8) There is very little, if any, spread of COVID-19 from asymptomatic persons. This lie was spread early to maximize fear of this new virus. COVID-19 is like other respiratory viral infections—you catch it from being around someone who has symptoms. Like other viral infections, if you are sick stay home, quarantine yourself, and treat yourself. We do not need to quarantine the asymptomatic healthy.
9) The death rate nationally for COVID-19 has been going down since January. Breathless “news” reporters talk about cases, hospital occupation, and contagiousness but never mention the death decline. There has been a small uptick in deaths in some areas over the last week, but not anywhere close to last winter. (There will be some variations in the death rate as we transition to endemic status)
10) The Delta variant is acting like a typical historical virus variant. Typically, variants happen all the time and are more contagious but less deadly. Initial reports show that this is likely true with Delta. A UK report states the Delta variant is likely 20 times less deadly than the alpha strain, but that more data needs to be collected. The media constantly mentions that delta is more contagious which is also true. Other Greek variants are likely to behave in the same fashion.
We do not need to be afraid of COVID-19 anymore. Let’s begin to end the hysteria and fear. The worst is over and we are transitioning to endemic status which means a low level of cases and deaths.
We will have many fewer deaths if we start to treat the infection early now with the available outpatient treatments. We should resist further attempts at lockdowns and mask mandates as neither worked. We know exactly whom to protect—the elderly and those with chronic health problems. That’s where we should concentrate our energies.
Thankfully, children have very little risk and do not need masks at school or vaccinations. Variants will come but will not send us back into a situation like last year.
Can our pandemic managers take some of this useful information and transform it into helpful public health policies from this point forward? Or is there another agenda behind unending hysteria, fear, and the constant push for 100% vaccination? That remains to be seen. For now, let’s celebrate the good news.’https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/08/the_good_newsa_covid19_update.html
After the last US Presidential election can there ever be a fair Presidential election in the future?! Personally, I would say NO!
‘Forming an “election commission” to oversee a fair and smooth election process, until recently, used to be something exclusively reserved for nation states, but now Facebook is reported to be meddling in that domain, at least semantics-wise.
The New York Times reported that the “commission” could be coming this fall, just in time to affect the way US midterm election campaigns are carried out on the giant platform.
The way these announcements are interpreted currently is that the “election commission” will play a role similar to that the Oversight Board already has in dealing with content censorship on Facebook, only clearly focused on election related content.
The Board is referred to as independent, brings together a number of academics and experts, and is ultimately seen by critics as another way for Facebook to wash its hand off the responsibility in how diverse politically and ideologically sensitive content is treated and “moderated.” Another notorious way is Facebook’s third party “fact checkers.”
Facebook is not commenting for the moment, but observers say that the Board might be proving useful in letting Facebook breathe more easily on those issues of censorship it is under pressure for, and that the company might hope the “election commission” will pull the same trick on behalf of the juggernaut, and paint its “moderation” rules as a matter of policy rather than politics, reports say.
The New York Times writes that putting together this elections-savvy group is now in the works with no official confirmation, while its official role would be to offer advice on election issues expected to be “thorny.” The scope would not pertain only to the US but be global, anonymous people have shared with the newspaper.
Some of the issues the “election commission” could find itself ruling on have to do with perennial controversies like political ads and political “misinformation” – it’s clear why Facebook might be considering putting these hot potatoes into the hands of what would in effect be a group of third party “experts.”
Another way to say this is that Facebook will look to bypass criticism by outsourcing these decisions, after coming under criticism from both sides of the isle in the US, and in many places worldwide.’ https://reclaimthenet.org/facebook-election-misinformation-censorship-board/
Australian politicians are talking about injecting these vaccines in the arms of those down to the age of twelve! Here ‘Stew Peters talks with former Pfizer employee and biotech analyst, Karen Kingston. Kingston reveals what the FDA approval really means, and why it’s “game over” for the vaccine manufacturer, and for the inoculation.’
‘Monday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a biologics license application for the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine.
The press reported that vaccine mandates are now legal for military, healthcare workers, college students and employees in many industries. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has now required the vaccine for all teachers and school staff. The Pentagon is proceeding with its mandate for all military service members.
But there are several bizarre aspects to the FDA approval that will prove confusing to those not familiar with the pervasiveness of the FDA’s regulatory capture, or the depths of the agency’s cynicism.
First, the FDA acknowledges that while Pfizer has “insufficient stocks” of the newly licensed Comirnaty vaccine available, there is “a significant amount” of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine — produced under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) — still available for use.
The FDA decrees that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine under the EUA should remain unlicensed but can be used “interchangeably” (page 2, footnote 8) with the newly licensed Comirnaty product.
Second, the FDA pointed out that the licensed Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine and the existing, EUA Pfizer vaccine are “legally distinct,” but proclaims that their differences do not “impact safety or effectiveness.”
There is a huge real-world difference between products approved under EUA compared with those the FDA has fully licensed.
EUA products are experimental under U.S. law. Both the Nuremberg Code and federal regulations provide that no one can force a human being to participate in this experiment. Under 21 U.S. Code Sec.360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), “authorization for medical products for use in emergencies,” it is unlawful to deny someone a job or an education because they refuse to be an experimental subject. Instead, potential recipients have an absolute right to refuse EUA vaccines.
U.S. laws, however, permit employers and schools to require students and workers to take licensed vaccines.
EUA-approved COVID vaccines have an extraordinary liability shield under the 2005 Public Readiness and Preparedness Act. Vaccine manufacturers, distributors, providers and government planners are immune from liability. The only way an injured party can sue is if he or she can prove willful misconduct, and if the U.S. government has also brought an enforcement action against the party for willful misconduct. No such lawsuit has ever succeeded.
The government has created an extremely stingy compensation program, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, to redress injuries from all EUA products. The program’s parsimonious administrators have compensated under 4% of petitioners to date — and not a single COVID vaccine injury — despite the fact that physicians, families and injured vaccine recipients have reported more than 600,000 COVID vaccine injuries.
At least for the moment, the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine has no liability shield. Vials of the branded product, which say “Comirnaty” on the label, are subject to the same product liability laws as other U.S. products.
When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices places a vaccine on the mandatory schedule, a childhood vaccine benefits from a generous retinue of liability protections.
But licensed adult vaccines, including the new Comirnaty, do not enjoy any liability shield. Just as with Ford’s exploding Pinto, or Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup, people injured by the Comirnaty vaccine could potentially sue for damages.
And because adults injured by the vaccine will be able to show that the manufacturer knew of the problems with the product, jury awards could be astronomical.
Pfizer is therefore unlikely to allow any American to take a Comirnaty vaccine until it can somehow arrange immunity for this product.
Given this background, the FDA’s acknowledgement in its approval letter that there are insufficient stocks of the licensed Comirnaty, but an abundant supply of the EUA Pfizer BioNTech jab, exposes the “approval” as a cynical scheme to encourage businesses and schools to impose illegal jab mandates.
The FDA’s clear motivation is to enable Pfizer to quickly unload inventories of a vaccine that science and the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System have exposed as unreasonably dangerous, and that the Delta variant has rendered obsolete.’https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/mainstream-media-fda-approval-pfizer-vaccine/
‘Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said on Tuesday that, at some point in the future, a strain of COVID-19 that is resistant to vaccines is likely to emerge.
“Every time that the variant appears in the world, our scientists are getting their hands around it,” Bourla told Fox News in an interview. “They are researching to see if this variant can escape the protection of our vaccine. We haven’t identified any yet but we believe that it is likely that one day, one of them will emerge.”
This is not the first time Bourla has made the ominous prediction. He addressed the issue in a wide-ranging interview with Fortune in February, around the time when attention was increasingly turning to new mutations of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, the pathogen that causes COVID-19.
Responding to a question about the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine against emerging variants, Bourla said he was “quite confident” it could neutralize the new mutations and cited encouraging lab results. At the same time, he said that “the fundamental question” is how likely it is that there will eventually emerge a vaccine-resistant strain of coronavirus.
“Theoretically, it’s a very possible scenario. If you protect a very big part of the population, and if there is a strain that emerges that can use this pool of population to replicate while the current strains cannot, obviously this will overtake the original. So it’s not a certainty, but it is now, I believe, a likely scenario,” he said.
At the time, Bourla told Fortune that the mRNA technology used in the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine allows for the rapid development of a new version able to create a different immunogenicity that could cover new mutations. He predicted that such a vaccine could be developed in around two months but noted this would depend on multiple factors including the regulatory framework.
In his interview with Fox News, he expanded on this, saying Pfizer has a process in place allowing the company to develop a variant-specific vaccine within 95 days of identifying a new mutation.
His remarks came on the same day that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported new data shedding more light on vaccine effectiveness against the Delta variant. Based on a study of 4,217 fully vaccinated participants—65 percent of whom received the Pfizer shot, 33 percent took Moderna’s vaccine, and 2 percent got the Johnson&Johnson jab—the CDC report found lower effectiveness (66 percent) during the Delta prominent period compared to the months preceding Delta predominance (91 percent).
A day earlier, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted full regulatory approval for Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for people 16 and older, making it the first such shot to make it beyond the emergency-use-only stage.’https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/pfizer-ceo-predicts-vaccine-resistant-covid-19-variant-likely-to-emerge_3963263.html?utm_source=morningbriefnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-08-25&mktids=eaa8fdcff4f0407d01ee4d202f3a7e63&est=2p%2FQE9kO6HazVCAkZZqv7i7C1sUxBjti4dXWGCZIsohzKTmU4KIVz%2BDjlep%2F4PuuVA%3D%3D
Personally, I cannot believe Sleepy Joe’s approval was ever over 25% but it is said ‘Joe Biden’s approval rating among American voters continues to drop like a rock. American’s no longer think he is competent, especially in the face of the Afghanistan debacle, and now just 41% of Americans approve of the job the abortion activist is doing in the White House.’https://www.lifenews.com/2021/08/24/joe-bidens-approval-rating-drops-to-new-low-americans-dont-think-hes-competent/
Oh, and I do not believe his mishandling the withdrawal from Afghanistan was any surprise to any competent thinking person! Someone else is pulling the strings of this fake President.
It seems since the Wuhan virus has come upon us we have looked to our elected officials who are being run by the bureaucrats! One of these over paid people is Dr. Anthony Fauci who definitely ‘…has had himself a year (or two).
As 2020 began, he was a senior federal bureaucrat best-known for helping defang the AIDS crisis. A week before, he had turned 79, well past the standard retirement age for government employees – though he controlled a multi-billion research budget and no one was publicly suggesting he step down.
The novel coronavirus changed everything for him.
Within months, practically every American knew his name. People worldwide viewed him as their best hope to defeat Covid. As President Trump fumbled, Fauci’s authority grew.
“How Anthony Fauci Became America’s Doctor,” the New Yorker wrote in April 2020. The nickname stuck.
Once Joe Biden replaced Donald Trump, the title essentially became official. Fauci is now “Chief Medical Advisor to the President” in addition to his day job as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
He is probably the world’s best-known scientist.
He earned that title the hard way, by giving too many interviews to count. As the Washington Post explained in a glowing July 2020 profile:
At first, as soon as Fauci was anywhere, he was everywhere. The New York Times dubbed him the explainer-in-chief for all things coronavirus, and he did his explaining to Laura Ingraham and Chris Cuomo, in the largest papers and the littlest websites, on the early morning rundowns and the noontime Sunday shows. He showed up to chat with Trevor Noah and Stephen Curry.
The schedule would have been grueling for a person half Fauci’s age – especially since he had to find time between those interviews to, you know, actually track the science around Sars-Cov-2 and vaccine and drug development.
But he managed!
“With all due modesty, I think I’m pretty effective,” Fauci told InStyle. “I certainly am energetic. And I think everybody thinks I’m doing more than an outstanding job.”
With all due modesty… everybody thinks I’m doing more than outstanding job.
As the United States faces the biggest decisions yet of the epidemic – whether to force mRNA vaccines on unwilling Americans, whether to encourage booster shots for the already vaccinated – the way Fauci views himself and his critics deserves a look.
To be clear, I’m not writing today about the substance of the choices we and Fauci face.
Nor will I examine the evidence that weeks after Sars-Cov-2 emerged, Fauci appeared worried the virus had leaked from a lab in Wuhan performing the “gain-of-function” research he championed. Those are crucial topics worthy of a deep dive. For now I simply want to look at Fauci’s attitude.
Fauci has always been a skilled courtier. He said as much in a 2014 interview with the Journal of Clinical Investigation:
I think one of the best things I did was realize this is the terrain, so get used to it and get good at it. And I learned some fundamental principles. One of the first things is to understand the relationships between people in power: the Congressmen and -women, the Senators, the chairs of committees, and importantly, the Presidents of the United States. I never in my wildest dreams would have thought that I would become adviser to five separate Presidents.
Sometimes, that means making sure powerful people know how much you care about and respect them – and even love them!
But Fauci made sure that those powerful people – and everyone else – understood he was a scientist first. Sometimes he would even offer a visual aid, as the Post’s 2020 profile explained:
“Shalala [Donna Shalala, Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Health and Human Services] often sent Fauci to the Oval Office when Clinton’s aides told her she had an hour with the commander in chief to do with what she wished. When Shalala asked Fauci to speak to the country, she had a special request: ‘Put on your white coat … because people trust the doc.’”
Who was Tony Fauci to argue?
Along the way, though, Fauci developed a healthy self-regard. Maybe he always had it. When President George H.W. Bush asked him to run the entire National Institutes of Health in 1989, Fauci said no. “This is not the time for the general to leave the battlefield to go back to the Pentagon,” he told Science magazine.
Woe to anyone who disagreed with him, though.
In August 2020, President Trump named Dr. Scott Atlas as a special adviser on coronavirus. Like Fauci, Atlas is a physician, although he comes from outside the public health establishment. Unlike Fauci, Atlas did not support lockdowns.
Within weeks, Fauci attacked Atlas, telling CNN that Atlas was giving Trump information that was “either taken out of context or actually incorrect.” But Fauci hoped he and Atlas could find common scientific ground, he said:
If I have an issue with someone, I’ll try and sit down with them and let them know why I differ with them and see if we can come to some sort of resolution. I mean my differences with Dr. Atlas, I’m always willing to sit down and talk with him.
Which made an interview Fauci gave to Politico in January 2021, after Biden took over, particularly interesting. Asked about Atlas, Fauci responded, “He didn’t undermine me, because I didn’t give a sh.. about him. I didn’t really care what he said.”
I didn’t give a sh.. about him.
So much for a sitting down and talking. Or a reasoned conversation about the pros and cons of lockdowns. With the public health establishment and the media on his side, Fauci was untouchable, and he knew it.
Occasionally, if Fauci were challenged hard, his mask would slip even in public. Kentucky senator Rand Paul found this out when he pushed Fauci on whether the NIH had funded “gain-of-function” research in China – research designed to make viruses more dangerous.
“Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about, quite frankly,” Fauci answered.
Quite frankly became a Fauci catchphrase of sorts.
Asked in October 2020 about the possibility of reaching widespread immunity against the coronavirus without waiting for a vaccine, he answered, “Quite frankly that is nonsense, and anybody who knows anything about epidemiology will tell you that that is nonsense and very dangerous.”
Anybody who knows anything about epidemiology apparently did not include the epidemiologists who had suggested the possibility.
But Fauci’s most stunning comment came two months ago, in an interview with MSNBC.
“Quite frankly, the attacks on me are attacks on science,” he said. “If you are trying to, you know, get at me as a public health official and a scientist, you’re really attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci, you’re attacking science…”
This level of arrogance would seem almost absurd if the stakes were not so high.
But they are.
The United States desperately needs a full and independent investigation into what Fauci and other officials knew about the risks of gain of function research and whether they worked to steer scientists and reporters away from examining the origins of the virus in 2020. Such an inquiry may turn out to be embarrassing for Fauci, but it should have happened already.
Even more importantly, data from Israel and increasingly the United States show that the mRNA vaccines Fauci championed are far less effective than they seemed months ago.
A rational response to their plunging effectiveness would be – at the least – to stop encouraging their use while scientists investigate why they have stopped working so quickly. Instead Fauci is pressing Americans to take a third mRNA dose in the hope it will work better and longer than the original two.
But no clinical trial data shows a third dose will reduce infections, much less hospitalizations or deaths. And a research preprint released Monday (Aug. 23) in Japan suggests the Delta variant could evolve in a way that could produce vaccine antibody-dependent enhancement, a nightmare scenario.
Figuring out whether this risk is real – and what to do if it is – will require open debate that may include uncomfortable moments for the public health advocates who have pressed these vaccines.
Instead, Tony Fauci has taken the position that questioning him is attacking science.
Unless he changes – or is forced to change – his attitude – we may have a hard time finding the answers we need.’https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/quite-frankly
Psalm 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? This is a description of today’s society seeking to nullify the Creator!
Of all places, Portland, I would not have thought this crazy idea would be controversial! These people who go along with this gender neutral bathroom are spiritually lost and mentally deficient.
whatyareckon 