<ul style="list-style-type:circle;"><li>Two new studies* suggest “Omicron-specific” booster shots are less effective against Omicron than the original “vaccines”,</li><li>Mainstream <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/10/25/1131449380/two-new-research-papers-cast-doubt-on-the-new-covid-booster" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">media</a> are starting to acknowlege this without drawing the logical conclusion that the entire “vaccination” program should be rethought,</li><li>Instead, some suggest waiting longer between shots in order to overcome one issue that is seen as problematic (immune complexes), even though there is no evidence that waiting will help,</li><li>Immune imprinting (i.e. original antigenic sin) is increasingly being recognized as a problem, years after skeptical scientists first raised the issue,</li><li>CDC is still promoting bivalent boosters, and several top-line universities are still requiring their students take them.</li></ul>&nbsp;Mere weeks after bivalent vaccines based on both Omicron and the original Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2 were introduced, two new studies* have been published suggesting that the original pure Wuhan shot does a better job all-round – and that includes combating Omicron. According to one preprint study published in bioRxiv,<blockquote>Monovalent COVID vaccines produced similar, and in some cases better, neutralizing activity than the new bivalent shots against multiple SARS-CoV-2 strains including BA.4/5.</blockquote>For those who have been following the story of the combined Wuhan-Omicron booster shot, from the eight mice it was tested on all the way through to the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention contracting COVID within a month of getting her own bivalent shot, this was not surprising news, even though on the face of it, it doesn't make all that much sense that a “vaccine” designed to combat Omicron as well as the original Wuhan strain is actually worse at doing so than a pure “Wuhan” shot.What was surprising was finding this item on the daily bulletin of MedPage Today, which is a classic mainstream publication. MedPage linked to one of the studies and left it at that. There was no mention whatsoever of the fact that just a day before, on October 25, one of MedPage's own articles was headlined: “<a href="https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19vaccine/101421" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Biden Urges All Americans to Get Their COVID Booster</a>" (referring to the bivalent booster, as the pure Wuhan booster has been outlawed, having been superseded by the bivalent version).Biden's urging occurred during a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kZZqfcUlm8" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">speech</a> he made at a White House event while flanked by members of his COVID taskforce, and just prior to receiving his own bivalent shot. He made no mention whatsoever of the fact that just three days previously, it had been announced that CDC head Dr. Rochelle Walensky had tested positive for COVID after getting her bivalent shot just a month earlier.Instead, Biden stressed the vital importance of getting a Wuhan-Omicron booster because “if you get it, you're protected. And if you don't, you're putting yourself and other people at unnecessary risk” (italics added), even though it is now known that the vaccines were never tested <a href="https://americasfrontlinenews.com/post/pfizer-exec-admits-no-data-on-preventing-transmission-before-vaccine-went-to-market" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">against transmission</a> and multiple real-world studies have confirmed that it provides no protection, or even negative protection against contagion (that is to say, a person is more likely to contract COVID after having been jabbed).MedPageToday's comments section is restricted to healthcare professionals and this section has, of late, become increasingly restive on the topic of COVID, with robust debate on the science. As of this writing, there were no comments on the daily bulletin featuring the brief note on the latest study of the bivalent shots, yet one cannot help wondering what kind of editorial response prompted, just a few hours later, the appearance of a new article on the site titled, “<a href="https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/101432" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Updated COVID Boosters Could Have Been Better.</a>”Although the piece is authored by a specialist in infectious diseases and a professor of immunology, it is still curious to see two individuals seemingly condemning decisions taken by the government, the CDC and the FDA. They point out that European agencies as well as the WHO were opposed to the promotion of a bivalent shot based on the BA.4/5 Omicron variants, and then suggest a few reasons why the shots have failed to deliver on their promise.One reason is the timing – people should be waiting longer between shots or infection, they suggest. The reasoning they provide seems somewhat worrying in its implications, given what we know about how mRNA shots work (which has been partially admitted in official circles after initially being denied). They write:<blockquote>One reason is the presence of pre-existing antibodies in the blood, which can form complexes with the spike proteins produced by the vaccine and thus impair how the immune system responds to the vaccine.</blockquote>Apparently, waiting longer after a previous shot will eliminate, or at least minimize this issue – as evidenced by the CDCs previous recommendations to postpone a booster by at least 3 months following a suspected COVID-19 infection.However, we really have no idea whether this is the case, and there are plenty of indications that this assumption may be unfounded. For how long after the shots are our bodies prompted to keep churning out spike antigens? Originally, we were assured that the spike-churning mechanism was extremely short-lived. The CDC stated in <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210305022237/https:/www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">March 2021</a>:<blockquote>After the protein piece is made, the cell breaks down the instructions and gets rid of them.</blockquote>By<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220716011916/https:/www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> July of 2022</a> the CDC had changed its tune and its website, instead writing:&nbsp;<blockquote><ul><li>Our cells break down mRNA from these vaccines and get rid of it within a few days after vaccination.</li><li>Scientists estimate that the spike protein, like other proteins our bodies create, may stay in the body up to a few weeks.</li></ul></blockquote>On the current site (<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/how-they-work.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fvaccines%2Fdifferent-vaccines%2Fmrna.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">here</a>), all that's gone. No more reassurances. Either they don't know the real answer to the question, or they do and they know people won't like it. &nbsp;Either way, it could go a long way to explaining why people are “suddenly dying” months after their shots of an inexplicable disease called SADS (Sudden Adult Death Syndrome).SADS is one side of the coin. The flip-side is something called “original antigenic sin” (also known as immunological imprinting). It was cited by both studies on the puzzling inefficacy of the bivalent shots as something of interest that warrants investigation. Scientists skeptical of the COVID shots have been warning about original antigenic sin virtually since the shots were rolled out, to no effect.&nbsp;In a nutshell, immunological imprinting means that the shots prime the body to respond to the antigen presented to it. In the case of the Wuhan-variant shot the body is taught to respond to the form of SARS-CoV-2 containing the Wuhan-variant specific spike protein, the spike protein of the original version of the virus. When a different type of coronavirus-2019 comes along with a mutated spike protein, the body is not as quick, or entirely fails, to recognize the intruder as a threat. In other words, the body becomes overly specialized at fighting a single, specific enemy, forgoing a generalized defense plan to fight off other invaders, leaving the host vulnerable to variants or other illness.This goes a long way to explaining why “vaccinated” people succumb to Omicron, whose spike protein is substantially different from the original Wuhan version. However, the degree to which the immune system can be re-educated to recognize subsequent mutations and learn to adapt to them as well, is an open question. The results of these new studies suggest that the answer is, “only to a very limited degree," and this is borne out by what the Barouch trial's authors themselves note:<blockquote>Our data demonstrate that both monovalent and bivalent mRNA boosters markedly increased antibody responses but did not substantially augment T cell responses.</blockquote>That is to say, the memory T cells responsible for “remembering” prior infection and mobilizing cell-mediated immune defenses following re-infection did NOT increase significantly following boosting with the bivalent shots (or the original version of the booster).By contrast, immunity or resilience conferred by actual COVID infection is far broader, given that the antigen is not limited to the specific form of spike protein but rather is the entire virus containing all kinds of pointers to the immune system signifying, “Here's a threat – deal with it.” Even when confronted with a new type of spike protein, there are multiple other pointers that remain unchanged from the basic template.If immunological imprinting is now being recognized in official circles as a real issue, this has broad implications for the future of COVID shots and for the best way to tackle the “pandemic.” It could very well mean that going forward, we will see much more stress placed on anti-virals (such as Paxlovid) and far less on “vaccines.”&nbsp;It also explains why, even after the bivalent shots have been rolled out, they are only being made available to those who have undergone primary series vaccination with the pure Wuhan shots. This is otherwise difficult to explain, given that the Wuhan variant is no longer circulating whereas Omicron (in various mutations) is. It also suggests that even prior to the results of these latest studies, scientists within official circles had good reason to suspect that immunological imprinting was a factor that had to be taken into account.Meanwhile, around 20 million people have been injected with bivalent booster doses, and the CDC <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/stay-up-to-date.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">continues to promote</a> the bivalent shot as preferable to monovalent versions (boldface in the original):<blockquote>The updated (bivalent) boosters are called “bivalent” because they protect against both the original virus that causes COVID-19 and the Omicron variant BA.4 and BA.5.Previous boosters are called “monovalent” because they were designed to protect against the original virus that causes COVID-19. They also provide some protection against Omicron, but not as much as the updated (bivalent) boosters.</blockquote>This is despite the fact that the studies mentioned above are based on the only publicly available human data relating to the bivalent shots. If there were additional data supportive of the bivalent shots, one can safely assume that it would have been released by now.A Frontline News inquiry to the CDC regarding their policy on promoting the bivalent booster shots was unanswered at the time of this publication.Based on the new CDC guidance, at least three top-line U.S. universities are requiring students to be injected with a bivalent booster dose in order to study at their institutions – <a href="https://www.harvard.edu/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccine-information/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Harvard</a>, <a href="https://covid19.yale.edu/covid-19-vaccination-policy" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Yale</a>, and <a href="https://covid19.columbia.edu/content/vaccine-mandate-compliance" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Columbia</a>. Readers will doubtless be aware of additional educational institutions, as well as workplaces that are requiring these shots and Frontline News welcomes reader input, clarification, and comment.&nbsp;* The two studies are: <a href="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.22.513349v1">https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.22.513349v1</a> and &nbsp;<a href="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.24.513619v1.full.pdf?utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email">https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.24.513619v1.full.pdf?utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email</a>&nbsp;

iStock-1411395488.jpg

Medical

Why are the original shots more effective against later mutations?

New bivalent (Wuhan + Omicron) boosters less effective against Omicron

Raisman.jpg

US News

More than 100 claims that DOJ grossly mishandled allegations of sexual assault but aggressively prosecuted J6 trespassers

Taxpayers foot $138.7 million bill for DOJ's failure to stop sexual assaults; hush money silenced victim

By Alex NewmanFlush with taxpayer cash from the federal government, state and local officials are rapidly transforming public schools into “full-service community schools” that will address far more than just “education.”&nbsp;<div class="raw-html-embed"><div style="position:relative;width:100%;height:0;padding-top:56.25%;"><iframe src="https://subsplash.com/+78fw/embed/mi/+5j2py6v?audio&amp;video&amp;shareable&amp;embeddable" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreenallowfullscreen="" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></div></div>In fact, under the guise of caring for the “whole child,” these “community schools” are increasingly taking over the few remaining duties left over to parents — mental health, dental health, vision, nutrition, healthcare, social and emotional wellbeing, and more.&nbsp;The plan is to get children into government hands earlier and earlier, too. The U.S. Department of Education boasted last year in a&nbsp;<a href="https://blog.ed.gov/2023/06/community-schools-fostering-innovation-and-transformation/">blog post</a>&nbsp;that community schools will “support” students “from cradle to career,” something long considered the exclusive domain of parents.&nbsp; &nbsp;The Biden administration, led by a man who notoriously sniffs and touches children while claiming they “are all our children,” has been showering federal funds on the scheme since taking office, as The Newman Report&nbsp;<a href="https://www.freedomproject.com/2022/08/02/newman-report-42/">documented</a>&nbsp;in 2022. Congress has been fully complicit, even under&nbsp;<a href="https://thenewamerican.com/us/education/obama-and-gop-unleash-community-schools-to-replace-parents/">GOP control</a>. &nbsp;Just last year, the Biden Department of Education&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/biden-harris-administration-announces-nearly-74-million-expand-full-service-community-schools">announced</a>&nbsp;yet another $150 million in additional “community school” grants to 30 education agencies — many of them in conservative states where lawmakers would be unlikely to participate if not for the federal tax money. Responding to the federal funding, states have already spent billions on the scheme. &nbsp;Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, who famously denied that parents were the “primary stakeholders” in their children’s education, could barely contain his glee as he announced the new funds.“We know that comprehensive, wrap-around approaches—including nutrition assistance; mental health services; early childhood education; and access to high-quality afterschool summer learning, and enrichment programs—all are crucial for accelerating our students’ academic success and their recovery from the pandemic by helping them thrive both inside and outside of school,” said Cardona.&nbsp;“I am proud that the Biden-Harris Administration is expanding the number of community schools across the country as an evidence-based strategy to Raise the Bar in education and to deliver on our commitment to support students, families, and whole communities,” added the education boss, calling the latest round of taxpayer funding “vital” for supporting the “holistic needs” of children.&nbsp;Already, an estimated 10,000 “community schools” exist across the United States thanks to such grants, launched in the waning months of the Obama administration with&nbsp;<a href="https://thenewamerican.com/us/education/obama-and-gop-unleash-community-schools-to-replace-parents/">RINO support in Congress</a>. And with the federal government funding them and the teachers’ unions pushing them hard, that number is expected to keep ballooning quickly. &nbsp;The far-left National Education Association (NEA), the nation’s largest union with more than 3 million members, touts “community schools” all over its website as essential for all children.&nbsp;It describes them as institutions offering “services and supports like free healthy meals, health care, and tutoring, or systemic changes like shifts in school culture, policies, and approaches to teaching and learning.”&nbsp;On its&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/ts-communityschools.asp">website</a>, the California Department of Education, which is working hard to get community schools all across the state, highlights some of the differences between them and traditional government schools.“A community school is a public school … has community partnerships that support improved academic outcomes, whole-child engagement, and family development,” the radical leftwing agency declares, listing “integrated supports services” and “extended learning time” as key features.“Community schools support the needs of the whole child,” it continues, with “approaches that sustain mental and behavioral health through healing-centered practices, social–emotional learning, and restorative justice.”The California Department of Education also boasts that the new model increases access to social workers and counselors. These tax-funded experts in the schools can help children transition to new made-up genders, access abortion, and get dangerous psychotropic drugs to enrich Big Pharma.&nbsp;In addition to sidelining parents, community schools also seek to marginalize and ultimately replace institutions such as churches that for centuries have served as “community hubs.”&nbsp; &nbsp;Illinois is one of many states that, using federal funding, have unleashed the “community school” model on the population. Despite junk taxpayer-funded “studies” claiming the model “helps” children, the results suggest just the opposite is true.&nbsp;The prominent “sustainable community school” known as Richards Academy in Chicago, for instance, graduated about two thirds of its victims in four years — yet it did not have one single student proficient in either reading or math on standardized tests, Illinois State Board of Education data show. Almost 80 percent of student are chronically absent. And the school costs taxpayers some $4,000 more per victim.&nbsp;Unsurprisingly, though, the Chicago Teachers Union wants to replicate that “success” across the district.&nbsp;“We have committed as an entire union to using our contract to create more sustainable community schools like Richards Academy,” said CTU boss Stacy Davis Gates at a press conference, calling it the “type of school community that is necessary to nurture, to educate, to reimagine, to ameliorate injustice and disparity.”Using the notorious “Delphi” tactics for manipulating a group of people into a particular outcome while making them think they came up with the ideas, governments across the country are&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wkdzradio.com/2024/03/25/first-of-3-meetings-about-community-schools-grant/news-edge/">holding meetings</a>&nbsp;with taxpayers and parents on the issue. They all end up at the same: Government schools must tax more, spend more, and usurp more control over the lives of children.&nbsp;Ultimately, the goal of these government-controlled community schools is total government. They seek to become the center of the community and life — a replacement for family, church, and genuine community. Universal mental-health screening and government intervention in everything are already being deployed as part of the process.&nbsp;<img class="image_resized" style="width:374px;" src="https://i0.wp.com/www.freedomproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/3364780_1225x377_2500.jpg?resize=696%2C214&amp;ssl=1" alt="">Rather than fight back against the latest outrage from government schools and the Biden administration, parents should do something far more effective: opt out altogether. Parents, children, families, and communities would all be better off leaving the whole system.Families, voluntary associations, and churches — not “community schools” — should be placed back in their central role in the lives of children. Government must be stopped from encroaching any further. Civilization and liberty depend on it.<a href="https://libertysentinel.org/author/admin/">Alex Newman</a>&nbsp;Alex Newman is an award-winning international journalist, educator, author, and consultant who co-wrote the book “Crimes of the Educators: How Utopians Are Using Government Schools to Destroy America’s Children.” He writes for diverse publications in the United States and abroad.Originally published at <a href="https://www.freedomproject.com/2024/04/24/tnr20240424/">FreedomProject Media</a>.

school bus.jpg

Education

Public schools transforming into 'full-service community schools' that address far more than 'education'

White House funding 'community schools' that aim to replace parents 

<h2>Technology harms children's development</h2><h3>Technology not a substitute for in-person teachers&nbsp;</h3>Anna Brambila, a therapist and parent, recently expressed concern that the use of Chromebooks by children during COVID-19 school closures has led to their developing ADHD and autism-like symptoms. She had hoped that when they went back to school the use of Chromebooks would be discontinued. &nbsp;She soon found, however, that they were here to stay.&nbsp;Brambila made the below TikTok clip to explain the tremendous disservice this is to children who, from elementary through middle school, as research has shown, do not learn nearly as well through a screen as they do from an in-person teacher. Children who are using screens too much, she said, &nbsp;develop ADHD and autism-like symptoms:<blockquote>&nbsp;. . . so much research . . &nbsp;shows that kids, so like elementary schoolup through about half of middle school just do not learn through a screen anywhere close to the same way that they do with an in person teacher. . . .There's so much research that shows that kids who spend more time in front of portable devices with things like ipads and Chromebooks, there are impacts to the way that their brains are developing. So things like ADHD and autism and symptoms that look like ADHD and autism, those things can be incredibly exacerbated with too much screen time. &nbsp;. .&nbsp;</blockquote><div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="tiktok-embed" cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@brambila_bits/video/7342227288425106734" data-video-id="7342227288425106734" style="max-width: 605px;min-width: 325px;"> <section> <a target="_blank" title="@brambila_bits" href="https://www.tiktok.com/@brambila_bits?refer=embed">@brambila_bits</a> Anyone else finding themselves tempted to start using the school issued portable devices as frisbees? Just me? <a title="motherhood" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/motherhood?refer=embed">#motherhood</a> <a title="momlife" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/momlife?refer=embed">#momlife</a> <a title="millenialmom" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/millenialmom?refer=embed">#millenialmom</a> <a title="technology" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/technology?refer=embed">#technology</a> <a target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Andrea Brambila" href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7342227437553552170?refer=embed">♬ original sound - Andrea Brambila</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async="" src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script></div><h3>“Impoverished stimulation of the developing brain”</h3>Before COVID-19 hit, research was already being compiled about the effects of technology use on children.&nbsp;“Screen time and the brain,” a June 2019 article by Harvard Medical School researcher Debra Bradley Ruder, <a href="https://hms.harvard.edu/news/screen-time-brain" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">quotes</a> Pediatrician Dr. Michael Rich who is concerned with the negative effect of technology on the developing brain referring to the stimulation provided on the screen as “impoverished.”&nbsp;<blockquote>The growing human brain is constantly building neural connections while pruning away less-used ones, and digital media use plays an active role in that process, according to Rich. Much of what happens on screen provides “impoverished” stimulation of the developing brain compared to reality, he says. Children need a diverse menu of online and offline experiences, including the chance to let their minds wander.“Boredom is the space in which creativity and imagination happen,” he says.&nbsp;</blockquote><h3>Cleveland Clinic — too much screen time elicits ADHD-like behaviors</h3>The Cleveland Clinic <a href="https://health.clevelandclinic.org/screen-time-and-adhd" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">raised</a> similar concerns about ADHD-like symptoms as Brambila did. In an article entitled: “Does Heightened Screen Time Cause Attention-Deficit Disorder (ADHD) In Children?” the Clinic referred to a 2018 study of 2,587 high school children who had not been diagnosed with ADHD and found that those who had more screen time exhibited behaviors similar to ADHD:<blockquote><ul><li>Inattention, such as difficulty organizing and completing tasks.</li><li>Hyperactivity-impulsivity, such as having trouble sitting still.</li></ul>. . . “Does this mean that too much time gaming or commenting on Facebook can give kids ADHD? Absolutely not. But these activities may cause symptoms that are similar to ADHD, even though they can’t cause ADHD itself,” [pediatric behavioral health specialist Michael Manos, PhD] says.</blockquote>Attention span and development were affected as well:&nbsp;<blockquote>So, while social media and device use may not directly cause ADHD, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have an effect on your child’s attention span and overall development. And, as Dr. Manos points out, our attention span is greatly tied to how we relate and socialize with others.</blockquote>The technology was also found to inhibit the development of social skills:<blockquote>“As children increasingly relate to each other through digital media, including social media and video games, it calls into question how we communicate on a human level,” he adds.He also notes that while things like video games do help with team building and problem-solving, they shouldn’t be the only kind of interaction kids are having. Too much time on devices means less time having real face-to-face communication, where facial expression, voice and body language all come into play.“These are the nuances of understanding relationships,” Dr. Manos says.</blockquote><figure class="image image_resized" style="width:75%;"><img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1714059797/three_teenagers_on_smarthphones_d657f7996a.jpg"></figure>&nbsp;<h3>“Students need explicit instruction on how to interact with others in person”</h3>A June 2020 EdWeek article <a href="https://www.edweek.org/technology/why-principals-worry-about-how-mobile-devices-affect-students-social-skills-attention-spans/2020/06" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reviewed</a> the results of the EdWeek Research Center's February 2020 survey of principals regarding students and technology. They found that students had a hard time interacting personally with others - they did not know how:<blockquote>Prior to the pandemic, in February, the EdWeek Research Center surveyed 965 principals and teachers on a host of questions related to the use of digital devices by K-12 students in, and outside of, school. The nationally representative survey shows, for instance, that more than half of educators said their students are less skilled at in-person interactions than they and their peers were at the same age, because they are so accustomed to interacting via devices. And about 40 percent said students need explicit instruction on how to interact with others in person because so much of their experience with human interaction comes from devices.</blockquote>Interviews with several principals further revealed that children were no longer conversing and can't deal with emotions:<blockquote>[The principal of Riley Elementary School in Gold Beach, Ore.,Tom] Denning recalled when he used to have to tell students to stop talking so loud on the bus ride to a field trip. Now the ride is quiet: All the students have their earbuds in or are on their cellphones.“They’ll send a text and not deal with anything face to face,” Denning said. “There’s a concern that they are not learning how to deal with people. They don’t know how to deal with emotions, and it’s not a good situation.”</blockquote><h2>Don't raise “iPad kids”</h2>The situation with Gen-Alpha kids, born from 2010 to date, is so bad, that even Gen-Z'ers, those born between 1997 and 2012, are complaining about Gen-Alpha's inability to read and bad behavior. Today author Rosie Colosi <a href="https://www.today.com/parents/family/ipad-kids-rcna142059" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">shared</a> Gen-Z's frustration, linking to the TikTok video below, in which 20-year-old Gen-Z'er Gabe Escobar exhorts his fellow Gen-Z'ers not to raise “iPad kids.” &nbsp;<blockquote>As a result of staring at screens, Gen Alpha's "iPad kids" have developed unwanted, unhealthy and downright strange behavior, say Gen Z critics (born between the late 1990s and 2010), who have been posting their thoughts about the younger generation on TikTok.Gabe Escobar (<a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@gabesco/video/7298870719755111722?q=gabe%20escobar%20ipad%20&amp;t=1710179207478">@gabesco</a>) shared a rant about "iPad kids" in November 2023. The video has 23 million views to date. He said, "I need everyone else in my generation to promise that we are not going to raise 'iPad children.' ... You've been shoving media and screens in these kids' faces since birth."Escobar said that these kids likely "can't read" and "have no imagination." Horrified by seeing kids using screens in restaurants, he asked parents, “Can you not make your child behave for more than five seconds?”</blockquote><div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="tiktok-embed" cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@gabesco/video/7298870719755111722" data-video-id="7298870719755111722" style="max-width: 605px;min-width: 325px;"> <section> <a target="_blank" title="@gabesco" href="https://www.tiktok.com/@gabesco?refer=embed">@gabesco</a> seriously pls we cant let it happen <a title="genz" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/genz?refer=embed">#genz</a> <a title="genalpha" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/genalpha?refer=embed">#genalpha</a> <a title="ipadkid" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/ipadkid?refer=embed">#ipadkid</a> <a target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Gabe Escobar" href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7298870761563917098?refer=embed">♬ original sound - Gabe Escobar</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async="" src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script></div>Colosi also linked to TikTok'er Andra's video (below), in which she agreed with Escobar and included her own observations of Gen-Alpha kids as a nanny of eight years. Andra found that the kids who were easiest to handle were those whose parents limited screen time.<blockquote>A Gen Z creator named Andra (@hopeyoufindyourdad), who worked as a nanny for eight years, commented on Escobar's video saying that "the families that were the easiest to manage were the families that extremely controlled screen time for their kids."She added that in her experience, "if you try to take an iPad out of an iPad kid's hand, not only will they throw a tantrum so large, but they will start physically hitting you."</blockquote><div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="tiktok-embed" cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@hopeyoufindyourdad/video/7299966592438488366" data-video-id="7299966592438488366" style="max-width: 605px;min-width: 325px;"> <section> <a target="_blank" title="@hopeyoufindyourdad" href="https://www.tiktok.com/@hopeyoufindyourdad?refer=embed">@hopeyoufindyourdad</a> @gabesco I am fully on board with what this creator is saying although kids having ipads is a bit inevitable at this point the real issue is regulation and parenting styles <a title="genz" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/genz?refer=embed">#genz</a> <a title="genalpha" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/genalpha?refer=embed">#genalpha</a> <a title="millennial" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/millennial?refer=embed">#millennial</a> <a title="parenting" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/parenting?refer=embed">#parenting</a> <a title="ipadkid" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/ipadkid?refer=embed">#ipadkid</a> <a title="greenscreenvideo" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/greenscreenvideo?refer=embed">#greenscreenvideo</a> <a title="greenscreen" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/greenscreen?refer=embed">#greenscreen</a> <a target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Andra" href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7299966669533891374?refer=embed">♬ original sound - Andra</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async="" src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script></div>As Frontline News <a href="https://frontline.news/post/mental-illness-and-suicide-in-children-and-adolescents-linked-to-smartphones" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reported</a>, the effects of excessive screen time on the social and emotional development of Gen-Z'ers are profoundly negative:&nbsp;<blockquote>It's well known that Gen Z adults have much higher rates of mental illness than other generations, and [NYU social psychologist Jonathan] Haidt pointed to data showing they are also more shy and risk-averse, more socially isolated, especially with respect to dating, less confident, less successful — the list goes on and on.&nbsp;</blockquote><h2 style="margin-left:0px;">What does the future hold?</h2>Gen-Z'ers were born before iPads were developed. The effect of technology on Gen-Alpha, who have grown up with iPads, may already be profoundly worse than the effect technology has had on Gen-Z. How will society continue to function if its children, soon-to-be adults, can't?&nbsp;Related articles:&nbsp;<ul><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/mental-illness-and-suicide-in-children-and-adolescents-linked-to-smartphones" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mental illness and suicide in children and adolescents linked to smartphones</a></li></ul>

children learning via technology.jpg

Technology

'There’s a concern that they are not learning how to deal with people; they don’t know how to deal with emotions'

IPads and Chromebooks linked to ADHD and Autism-like symptoms in children

The Supreme Court has requested a response from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to a petition from a peaceful J6 protestor who is appealing his conviction for disorderly conduct.&nbsp;&nbsp;<h3>99% rejected</h3>The High Court only agrees to grant certiorari, i.e., review a request for appeal, in about <a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2020/11/24/how-the-supreme-court-decides-which-cases-to-hear" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">eighty out of seven to eight thousand </a>petitions for “a writ of certiorari” each year. Normally, the justices do not give an indication of whether they are inclined to include a particular case in the one percent that get to the next stage, which includes additional briefs and oral arguments, until after receiving a response to the petition and the petitioner's reply to the response.&nbsp;<h3>Confident feds</h3>In the case of J6 protestor Russell Alford, however, the justices may have already signaled that they are inclined to grant certiorari, a decision which would require the agreement of four of the nine justices. Alford filed his petition to cancel his conviction with SCOTUS in early April and the government had 30 days to respond. Instead of responding, however, the DOJ penned a single <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-7158/307520/20240412164019362_Waiver%20Letter%20-%2023-7158.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">sentence</a> to the High Court:<blockquote>The Government hereby waives its right to file a response to the petition in this case, unless requested to do so by the Court.</blockquote>The justices then announced that they do indeed <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-7158.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">want the DOJ to respond</a>, giving it a May 23, 2024 deadline, indicating their interest in the matter.<div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">As Josh Gerstein just reported at Politico, SCOTUS requested a response from DOJ in petition for writ of cert filed by Russell Alford, convicted by a DC jury of 4 misdemeanors for J6. This doesn't mean SCOTUS will take up the case but it does mean they want some answers. The… <a href="https://t.co/esI7QgEbam">pic.twitter.com/esI7QgEbam</a>— Julie Kelly (@julie_kelly2) <a href="https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1782798939562905608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 23, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </div><h2>&nbsp;</h2><h2>1 act, 13 minutes, 4 convictions</h2>Most J6 defendants, facing multiple charges for the one act of trespassing, waived their right to argue that their entrance into the Capital was an unknowing trespass, <a href="https://frontline.news/post/feds-pressure-jan-6-defendants-to-falsely-confess-to-knowingly-trespassing" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">fearing the potential for multiple prison sentences</a>. Alford, like America's Frontline Doctors' (AFLDS) Creative Director <a href="https://frontline.news/post/bureau-of-prisons-overrides-own-scoring-system-to-incarcerate-j6-defendants-in-more-dangerous-locations" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">John Strand</a>, was one of the few J6 defendants to refuse a plea deal.Alford's trespass was <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/23-3023/23-3023-2024-01-05.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">described</a> by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.<blockquote>Alford remained inside the Capitol for approximately thirteen minutes…&nbsp;While inside, he mostly stood to the side and observed. He filmed protestors chanting “stop the steal” and pounding on a door that led to the floor of the House, behind which sheltered dozens of Congress members. [Emphasis added.]</blockquote>The court added that Alford left within three minutes of police telling the crowd to leave:<blockquote>Police arrived within about ten minutes of Alford’s entry and began physically and verbally directing the crowd back out through the Upper House Door. Alford initially moved further down the hallway before turning and making for the exit … He left once someone managed to open the second double door.&nbsp;</blockquote>For this, the trial court convicted Alford on four separate counts, all stemming from that 13-minute walk during which he did <a href="https://www.conservativenewszone.com/articles/big-supreme-court-signals-it-may-throw-out-1000-january-6-convictions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">not so much as yell</a>. He was given the maximum sentence for each charge, to be served concurrently, resulting in a 12-month sentence for:<ol style="list-style-type:decimal;"><li>Remaining in a restricted building</li><li>Disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted building</li><li>Disorderly or disruptive conduct in the Capitol Building and parading</li><li>Demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol Building [Emphasis added.]</li></ol><h3>&nbsp;</h3><h3>Overcharging banned; not banned</h3>The DOJ is actually <a href="https://frontline.news/post/feds-coerce-jan-6-defendants-to-waive-right-to-appeal-jail-time" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">prohibited</a> from engaging in so-called overcharging, particularly in the the District of Columbia Circuit, in which Alford's trial court sits, where the circuit's appellate court has, for more than 50 years,&nbsp;explicitly <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4792425287924462607&amp;q=Scott+v+United+States,+135+US+App+DC+377&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2003">banned the practice of overcharging defendants</a> where the intent is to coerce a guilty plea on a lesser charge:<blockquote>. . . the prosecutor&nbsp;clearly cannot have carte blanche to apply whatever&nbsp;tactics he wishes&nbsp;to induce a guilty plea.&nbsp;A policy of&nbsp;deliberately&nbsp;overcharging defendants with no intention of prosecuting on all counts simply in order to have chips at the bargaining table would, for example,&nbsp;constitute&nbsp;improper harassment&nbsp;of the defendant. [Emphasis added.]&nbsp;</blockquote>Nonetheless, J6 protestors have been uniformly subjected to multiple charges in the absence of separate actions. Technically, though, Alford's case does not fit this classic definition of overcharging, since the DOJ, perhaps sensing a jury pool antagonistic to J6 protestors, did in fact prosecute Alford on multiple charges. But it is not, in any case, overcharging that is at issue in the petition to the Supreme Court.&nbsp;<h3>Not disorderly; disorderly</h3>Alford appealed his convictions on the two charges requiring the government to prove “disorderly or disruptive conduct.” The trial court refused Alford's motion to acquit on those charges, despite the lack of any evidence of such conduct, arguing that he should be held guilty on account of the actions of (a small minority) the other protestors:<blockquote>Mr. Alford’s mere presence inside the Capitol disturbed the public peace or undermined public safety” and that “his presence was an aspect of the disorder and disruption of the Capitol.” [Emphasis added].</blockquote><h2>&nbsp;</h2><h2>“Even passive, quiet and nonviolent conduct can be disorderly”</h2>The appellate court <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/federal-court-rules-even-passive-jan-6-protestors-who-were-inside-capitol-can-be-convicted/ar-AA1my8bN" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">agreed</a> with prosecutors and the lower court:<blockquote>The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that trespassers in the Capitol during the riot did not need to be acting "disorderly" or "disruptive" to be found guilty of disorderly conduct, because such definitions “are nebulous but time has given them concrete contours in two ways important here.”"First, it is well-established that whether conduct qualifies as disorderly depends on the surrounding circumstances," the court wrote …"Second, it is equally clear from caselaw that even passive, quiet and nonviolent conduct can be disorderly," the ruling continued. [Emphases added].</blockquote><div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">JUST IN: <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SCOTUS?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SCOTUS</a> signals it may undermine more common <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Jan6?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Jan6</a> charges as justices ask DOJ to respond to petition challenging 'disorderly or disruptive' charges v. Russell Alford. DC Cir ruled charges valid even for nonviolent protesters. Earlier: <a href="https://t.co/QMDbF9UM7z">https://t.co/QMDbF9UM7z</a>— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) <a href="https://twitter.com/joshgerstein/status/1782793703788077417?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 23, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </div>It is this ruling, that "passive, quiet and nonviolent conduct can be disorderly,” that is at issue in Alford's appeal to the Supreme Court.&nbsp;&nbsp;<h4>High Court may help … others</h4>Should the nation's highest court rule that such peaceful behavior as Alford's cannot be the basis for a disorderly conduct conviction, it may not actually benefit Alford, as his two convictions for “remaining” and “demonstrating” in the Capital would still stand and for each he was sentenced to the maximum prison time, as mentioned above, to run concurrently.&nbsp;Since the maximum sentence for the charge of merely remaining in a restricted building is <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">one year</a>, even vacating the two disorderly charges would still leave Alford facing a year in prison, though he could argue that, without the disorderly charges, one year is excessive for trespassing.Alford is far from the only peaceful J6 protestor to be charged with disorderly conduct, however. <a href="https://www.conservativenewszone.com/articles/big-supreme-court-signals-it-may-throw-out-1000-january-6-convictions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">According</a> to Conservative Zone, 1,156 of those protestors were charged with disorderly conduct despite their peaceful conduct.<blockquote>1,156 peaceful January 6 protesters have been charged with engaging in disorderly or disruptive conduct. 1,021 have been charged with disorderly or disruptive conduct in a Capitol building. About 1,000 of them have been hit with both misdemeanor charges. These are the most common charges that the 1,300+ total January 6 peaceful protesters have been hit with.None of the people facing these charges did anything violent or caused any property damage. They were welcomed into the building by police officers who were high-fiving them and holding doors open for them, they wandered around for a while, and they peacefully left when asked to do so.</blockquote>&nbsp;<h4>See our other coverage of Jan 6 defendants:</h4><ol><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/mr-biden-wheres-dr-golds-pardon-for-peaceful-capitol-speech">Mr Biden - Where is Dr Gold's pardon for peaceful medical speech at Capitol?</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/feds-coerce-jan-6-defendants-to-waive-right-to-appeal-jail-time">Feds coerce Jan 6 defendants into waiving right to appeal jail time</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/feds-pressure-jan-6-defendants-to-falsely-confess-to-knowingly-trespassing">Feds pressure Jan 6 defendants to falsely confess to ‘knowingly’ trespassing</a></li><li><a href="https://www.frontline.news/post/judge-in-dr-gold-case-applauded-anti-free-speech-socialists-disrupting-scotus">Judge in Dr Gold case applauded anti-free speech socialists disrupting SCOTUS</a></li><li><a href="https://www.frontline.news/post/fbidojcourt-jail-dr-simone-gold-for-trespass-politicizing-medicine">Politicizing medicine: FBI/DOJ/Court jail Dr Simone Gold for trespass</a></li><li><a href="http://frontline.news/post/fbi-no-time-to-interview-rape-victims-plenty-for-jan-6-trespass">FBI - No time to interview rape victims; plenty for Jan 6 trespass</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/aflds-founder-waives-selective-prosecution-defense-accepts-misdemeanor-plea-deal-for-delivering-medical-talk-on-govt-property">AFLDS founder waives ‘selective prosecution’ defense; accepts misdemeanor plea deal for delivering medical talk on gov’t property</a></li><li><a href="https://www.frontline.news/post/congressman-introduces-j6-bill-to-counter-political-prosecutions">Congressman introduces ‘J6 Bill to Counter Political Prosecutions’</a>&nbsp;</li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/judge-allows-doj-to-hide-exculpatory-evidence-from-january-6-defendants">Judge allows DOJ to withhold exculpatory evidence from J6 defendants</a></li><li><a href="https://www.frontline.news/post/j-6-prisoner-of-conscience-punished-with-isolation-after-jailhouse-interview-analysis">J6 prisoner of conscience punished with isolation after jailhouse interview - analysis</a></li></ol>

SCOTUS.jpg

High Court could vacate more than one thousand sentences 

SCOTUS asks DOJ to defend disorderly conduct convictions of J6 protestors who were not disorderly

New bivalent (Wuhan + Omicron) boosters less effective against Omicron

Why are the original shots more effective against later mutations?

Related Articles

Mental illness and suicide in children and adolescents linked to smartphones

Constitutional sheriffs event offers solutions

Student suspended for asking whether 'alien' on vocabulary list means 'space aliens' or 'illegal aliens'

White House chooses Khamenei over Iranian people, again

Latest Articles

Taxpayers foot $138.7 million bill for DOJ's failure to stop sexual assaults; hush money silenced victim

White House funding 'community schools' that aim to replace parents

IPads and Chromebooks linked to ADHD and Autism-like symptoms in children

SCOTUS asks DOJ to defend disorderly conduct convictions of J6 protestors who were not disorderly