Skip to main content

Fight Back Against Increased Airport Surveillance: Understanding the Risks and Protecting Your Rights

Here’s the deal, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SUBMIT to biometric eye scans to enjoy your unalienable right to travel. You went to the airport recently and were told you have to do a bio-metric eye scan by Department of Homeland Security. (DHS). No one said it was voluntary, so like sheep the the slaughter, you went for it, even though you have passport photos. In a world rapidly resembling George Orwell’s dystopian universe, the surveillance of free citizens rises as an alarming concern. It’s not just eye scanners, facial recognition software is also becoming part of the boarding process. After 9/11, a commission said full implementation of the biometric entry-exit scanning should occur. However, in 2017, President Donald Trump’s executive order pushed to expedite a full roll out.

What is CLEAR?

CLEAR is a private security screening company that’s made its presence felt at more than 50 U.S. airports. It employs biometric technologies as a security measure for quick and easy verification of travelers. (aka entry exit scanning). The company opts for a paid membership model, where members subscribe to the annual CLEAR Plus subscription for a fee. 

Previously, CLEAR utilized iris scanning and fingerprint-checking measures for identity verification. However, in keeping with advancements in technology and aiming to deliver efficient services, it’s resorting to facial recognition. The new screening technology by CLEAR, named NextGen Identity Plus, is being launched in collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security and TSA. 

Here’s How CLEAR Works

Let’s break down the mechanics of facial scanning at airports: The procedure starts off with cameras capturing your image. (facial recognition scanning). Following this, the Traveler Verification Service, run by the Customs and Border Protection (CBP), comes into play. This sophisticated system cross-references your captured image with a photo already in possession of the Department of Homeland Security. These pre-existing photos could be sourced from your passport or any other official travel documentation you’ve provided in the past. The ultimate aim? To supersede traditional manual inspection of passports all across the nation.

A report from the Georgetown Center states current flaws in facial recognition technology claims a false denial occurs for one in every 25 travelers as well. Besides that, the Deep State and its friends in big tech get these great tax funded contracts with your tax dollars, as they fly on private jets, immune from their security processes to a large degree.

“Right now, there is very little federal law that provides any type of protections or limitations with respect to the use of biometrics in general and the use of facial recognition in particular,” – (Source, Jeramie Scott, national security counsel, Electronic Privacy Information Center) This organization filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for additional info about this confusing, cash cow for political party donors program.

The issues of false negations seemingly influenced by race or gender were highlighted in a letter penned by senators to Secretary Nielson. They demanded a copy of any material presented or read to travelers to ensure they are made explicitly aware of their right as American citizens to refuse facial scanning. The American Civil Liberties Union has gone above and beyond in their approach, appealing to airlines to refuse participation in the program until all privacy-related concerns are fully addressed.

As always, the deep state claims sacrificing liberty means you won’t need boarding passes, or some other safety feature, if only you comply and let them compile data on you that can be shared throughout the United States and world. As a society prioritizing liberty, privacy advocates claim we now find ourselves caught in the tenuous balance between personal safety and individual privacy. Privacy advocates argue that we’re trading our basic rights for perceived convenience and safety. One such manifestation of this ‘new normal’ is well-illustrated by the security measures now implemented in airports, specifically, the face scanners of the private security screening company, CLEAR

“As someone who flies constantly, I’m really disturbed to see the transformation of airports into biometric surveillance centers,” Albert Fox Cahn, founder and executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (STOP).

  • Unravel the reasoning: Understand why the state wants to surveil free men and women.
  • Learn to resist: Discover how you can combat oppressive surveillance and protect your basic rights.
  • Use the legal system: Find out the steps to sue TSA for civil rights violations.
  • Prevent a dystopian future: Empower yourself to avert a life akin to a George Orwell Novel

Our privacy is a fundamental right that must be cherished, respected, and above all, protected. Let’s delve into this issue together, demystifying the maze of surveillance and finding the path towards preserving our freedoms.

Why does the state want to surveil free men? 

The crux of the matter is that surveillance and control are inherently linked to power and security. It’s no George Orwell novel; rather, it’s a reality we are experiencing in the digital age. Biometric data, including facial recognition, provides a significantly higher degree of certainty for identity verification. It enhances security, streamlines identification processes, and can even be instrumental in solving crimes. 

What is the legal basis for the state’s increased airport surveillance?

The legal basis for the state’s increased airport surveillance primarily stems from the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) passed by the U.S. Congress in 2001 following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In other words, everytime a criminal breaks the law, law abiding citizens see their freedoms stripped away, here as part of the aircraft boarding process. This Act established the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and mandated the federalization of airport security, transferring the responsibility from private airlines to the federal government to verify travel documents, etc.

The ATSA grants the TSA broad powers to implement security measures, including the use of biometric and facial recognition technologies, to prevent terrorist activities. The Act also allows the TSA aka Department of Homeland Security, to collaborate with private companies like CLEAR to enhance security measures.

Another legal basis is the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, courts have generally upheld airport security measures, including body scans and pat-downs, as ‘administrative searches.’ These are a category of searches for which the government’s need to ensure public safety outweighs individual privacy rights.

Additionally, the Privacy Act of 1974 provides some legal basis for the collection and use of personal data, including biometrics, by federal agencies. However, this Act also requires these agencies to provide notice of their data collection activities and to maintain the security of the collected data.

Lastly, the use of facial recognition technology by private companies like CLEAR is also governed by various state laws and their own privacy policies. These companies must comply with relevant laws and regulations regarding data privacy and consent. However, the legal landscape around the use of facial recognition technology is still evolving, with some cities and states enacting laws to restrict its use due to privacy concerns.

The Trade-off: Security Vs. Privacy 

While there’s an undeniable value in bolstering security, surveillance raises serious concerns when it comes to civil liberties. With companies like CLEAR and TSA implementing facial recognition, it’s legitimate to question – at what cost do these upgrades come? Are we trading our privacy for convenience? 

How Can We Fight Back Against State Surveillance?

Why do these powers and companies like Delta Air Lines (e.g., TSA PreCheck® and CBP Global Entry members to the front of the line) and American Airlines wish to monitor free citizens so closely on both domestic and international flights? And what can you do to fight back to assure you can use a traditional boarding pass? In particular, if forced to use eye scanners, can you sue the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for violation of your civil rights? The escalation of surveillance techniques will raise numerous questions about your next travel experience, especially in more leftist areas like Los Angeles, especially when LAX International Airport law enforcement personnel demand your biometric information. 

Enlisting the expertise of the Ehline Law Firm, a warrior in the battle against privacy invasion, we will investigate this impending Orwellian reality, exploring how the firm can aid those caught in the crosshairs of overly-zealous security measures. 

Even if you are at an airport, where security is paramount, it is important to remember you have rights that you can assert. Despite the prevalence of biometric security systems, they are not irreversible – yet. You have the choice to opt-out, and while it may result in some inconvenience, it’s a stand you can take for your privacy. 

“When we choose convenience over privacy, we lose an integral part of our freedom. Therefore, it’s crucial to challenge any violation of our privacy rights.”

Can You Sue TSA For Civil Rights Violations? 

Yes, you can. In circumstances where the TSA forces you to use eye scanners or facial recognition technology, it’s important to consult with experienced lawyers, such as Ehline Law Firm. They specialize in civil rights cases and will help you understand your rights as well as navigate the process of filing a lawsuit in San Jose, San Diego, New York, or even Las Vegas. 

Furthermore, Ehline Law Firm can help you challenge any action that infringes upon your legally protected rights and freedoms. They have a committed team of expert lawyers who can assist you in standing up against civil rights violations, including unlawful surveillance. And remember, taking a stand is not just about defending your rights, but also about preserving the essence of privacy and liberty for the future.

So the next time you find yourself in a situation where your privacy is at stake, remember – your courage and awareness can make a difference! You shouldn’t be forced to balance privacy and technology as part of the check in process.


  • The Washington Post
  • Los Angeles Times

New Covid Vaccines Have Only Been Tested on Mice

The COVID-19 new boosters target BA.5 omicron subvariant and will soon be available to the public.

A Cause for Concern?

Covid vaccine mice testedWhat’s concerning is that the vaccine manufacturers, who have not had the time for human trials, have received a green signal for fall. Let’s explore the details of the news with Ehline Law and our personal injury attorneys.

FDA Taking a Serious Gamble on Early Release of New Covid Boosters

The Biden Administration is pushing for a booster campaign to start in September, putting a lot of heat on mRNA vaccine-makers Pfizer and Moderna. The new COVID vaccines have only been tested on mice without going through human trials. It is a risky bet for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, relying on mice trials and similar vaccine human trial data.

The original vaccines went through human clinical trials at the NIAID’s vaccine research center before being available to the public.

Lack of Clinical Data Could Further Threaten Public Trust

The COVID-19 vaccine campaign in the United States was met with people who accepted the vaccine and the “anti-vaxxers,” who started their own social media campaign against the horrors of vaccination.

A few death cases arising from health complications after receiving vaccines further cemented anti-vaxxers’ narrative and lowered public trust, especially for booster doses. Federal Health officials hope the new boosters will provide more robust protection than the current booster doses while targeting the original strain. However, the lack of human trial data means that the FDA does not know whether the new vaccines will be more effective than the current ones or the health impact they may have on the vaccinated.

Many experts believe the FDA’s decision to proceed without human trials is risky. If the booster doses do not work as intended, it could be a severe dent in public trust. According to Dr. Celine Gounder, an infectious disease specialist, there is no reason to believe that the new vaccines might be unsafe. However, he remains skeptical whether it will be better than the current vaccines.

Barouch, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine maker, reported their boosters only had a marginal improvement in immune response over the original vaccine.

No Time for Human Trials, States FDA Health Advisor

It is important to remember that the FDA authorized the first version of mRNA vaccines after assessing safety and efficacy data based on the thousands of human trials conducted. The new mRNA vaccines target the original strain and BA.4 and BA.5 omicron subvariants.

Supporters of this controversial move believe that vaccine manufacturers have had a lot of experience in the past two years to deem the new vaccines safe without the need for human data.

Dr. Ofer Levy, an infectious disease specialist and an advisor to the FDA, argued that the death rate from coronavirus is more likely to jump during fall and winter. By implementing this approach, the FDA can prevent the severe disease from spreading.

Waning Effectiveness Could Mean Another Wave of Hospitalizations

The urgency of rolling out the new vaccines arises from the concern of the nation’s top health executives. Heather Scobie, a CDC epidemiologist, spoke about how deaths and hospitalizations in the country have risen again. He stated that the omicron variant continues to mutate into more transmissible subvariants capable of avoiding the protection offered by original vaccines.

Because of rapid mutations, concerns arise about the waning effectiveness of the older vaccines, which could lead to an increase in hospitalizations and deaths, especially with how people will spend most of their time indoors during winters, an environment for the virus to spread swiftly.

Mouse Experiments Are Notoriously Unreliable; Critics Say

Not everyone believes that the decision made by the FDA to roll out vaccines after only conducting mice trials would benefit the country. John Moore, an immunologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, finds it bizarre that the FDA is relying on animal studies as these are not predictive of the effects of the vaccine in humans. According to Moore, the FDA is just making guesswork rather than basing its decision on analysis and consultation with experts.

Health Officials Handling Covid Vaccines as Flu Vaccines

Deepta Bhattacharya, an immunobiologist, takes a somewhat logical approach to the argument. Speaking with NPR, he stated that health officials now understand vaccine development and how to work with them. Bhattacharya further said that flu vaccine manufacturers change their vaccine each year to match the latest strain but do not conduct yearly trials; the same is the case with Covid vaccines now. Researchers are handling it just like they would any flu vaccine.

Dr. Peter Marks, responsible for heading the FDA department that reviews vaccines, backed the organization, stating it is confident and has the experience to predict the effectiveness of the vaccines from available data using animal testing and without clinical trials.

Why Didn’t mRNA Vaccine Manufacturers Have Enough Time for Clinical Trials?

The two mRNA vaccine manufacturers, Pfizer and Moderna, initially focused on developing a vaccine with original spike protein targeting the omicron variant BA.1, responsible for many hospitalizations and deaths in the winter of 2021.

The rapid evolution of the COVID-19 virus has made it challenging for manufacturers to keep up with it. By the time the mRNA vaccine manufacturers decided to ready the vaccines, more transmissible subvariants had driven the BA.1 booster out of prevalence. The FDA requested the manufacturers to focus on targeting omicron BA.5, the latest dominant subvariant.

Such a decision did not allow mRNA vaccine manufacturers enough time to carry out clinical trials for their bivalent vaccines if they were to roll out the vaccines by fall to help prevent hospitalizations and deaths.

Immunity under PREP Act – Can You Sue for COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects?

In 2005, the president of the United States signed the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act or PREP Act, which provides legal protection to manufacturers and distributors of vaccines in the country, unless in the event of willful misconduct. It was a way to expedite vaccine development for infectious diseases.

Under the PREP Act, there is no party you can blame in the US court of law. You cannot sue the manufacturer or distributor for your vaccine side effects. What about the government? Can you sue them then, as many are also concerned about whether or not they can sue the Food and Drug Administration for side effects as they authorized the release of the vaccine without human clinical trials?

Because of sovereign immunity, you cannot sue the FDA as well! Many businesses are making it mandatory for all their employees to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Employers legally have the right to impose such a requirement on their employees, which means you cannot pursue legal action against your employers for any side effects of the vaccine you were “forced” into taking.

Workers can seek protection under anti-discrimination laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, which exempts workers from getting a vaccine if it violates their “sincerely held” religious beliefs.

In cases where an employee suffers severe side effects from a work-mandated COVID-19 vaccine, they may be able to apply through the workers’ compensation program, treating the side effects as a work-related injury. Still, there are significant limits on the FDA authorization of damages one can recover.

Recovering Damage for Immune Response Disinfo?

That said, governments have provided a way to recover some damages if anything were to go wrong following immunization to both the original strain and Omicron BA.1. Under the PERP Act, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program allows eligible individuals to recover benefits up to a specific limit based upon their human data and how it affected their human cells. After all, it’s all mouse data!

However, it can be challenging to recover under the program as the bar for evidence is relatively high, which can be an obstacle for those affected by COVID-19 vaccine side effects as compelling evidence of how it will infect cells is not available early on.

Recovering compensation under the workers’ compensation program may be easier if you contract side effects. To know more about your rights, you can go to the Ehline Law Firm website for a free consultation with legal experts there.

Exodus: Parental Rights vs Leftist Policies: CA’s New Gender-Neutral Law

Anyone watching TV or posting on X knows parents and small business owners can’t flee California fast enough. California and the National Education Association (NEA) had been pushing anti-white Critical Race Theory in schools while claiming all along they weren’t.

Then, democrats passed a law (SB 145) lowering the penalties for criminals who like to have sex with underaged boys.

After that, democrats tried to pass a law allowing public school teachers (many of whom are already far-left LGBTQ activists) to SECRETLY transition kids without telling parents. Newsom wanted to sign it into law but came under too much political heat from people like Max Bonilla and Elon Musk.

“California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have pushed parents to “affirm” the gender identities of trans children — bowing to statewide pressure from parents and high-powered critics such as Elon Musk, who called it “utter madness.” (Source.)

California district pays $100K to settle suit over support for secret transitioning conspiracy with teachers.

And good luck with school choice. You can’t even opt out of injecting your children with mRNA in CA, despite the fact zero scientific consensus exists to this day that it is safe and effective. Many military vets and parents in Southern California, in particular, see this as an erosion of their civil rights. To them, this is part of some woke gender ideology that has no place in supermarkets or retail stores, let alone in public schools.

A few days ago, Gavin Newsom argued straight-faced to the Florida Gov that more people are fleeing Florida than California. Of course, he used two sets of numbers (ignoring raw and choosing per capita), and, as usual, the fact check (aka Blackrock subsidiaries) glossed over this cheap parlor trick. 

“In raw numbers, close to 13,000 more Californians moved to Florida than the other way around.” (Source: Politifact.)

However, the Florida numbers alone are not what matters. What matters is that traditional families and small businesses are fleeing California for other states faster than any state in the history of the union. The few Californians returning voted to raise taxes and create a California welfare state where they moved (Austin, Texas, Denver, Colorado.) What did they think would happen?

With the recent signing of Assembly Bill No. 1084 by California Governor Gavin Newsom, certain retailers in California will be mandated to implement a gender-neutral section for children confused about their gender identity. Many doctors, fearful of speaking in fear of having Newsom take their medical licenses, assert that will further ingrain to single moms with Munchhausen’s Syndrome by Proxy that plenty of free money is there to gender affirm your “they, their, them.”

Student/Parental Rights Actvist Max Bonilla (@outragedteen_)Summed it Up on Twitter.

BREAKING: California law that will charge retailers hundreds for not having “gender-neutral” section will go into effect next year. Non-compliance with the legislation will result in companies facing a $250 fine for their first violation, and penalties for more… (Source: X)

ANTIFA Bused in To Scare Parents at School Board Meetings?

Many of us have seen ANTIFA bused to school board meetings, attacking parents and siding with the public school administrators. 

Biden’s FBI Sent to Intimidate CA Parents Over Trans Rights Disagreement?

The escalation of trans rights disputes in California has allegedly led to federal law enforcement intimidation of families. Parents say the FBI and other federal agencies have been weaponized to suppress dissenting viewpoints that infringe on parental rights and freedom of speech. A federal court ruling that the Biden Administration illegally colluded with social media and news agencies to suppress free speech seems to verify this operation. Many parents and doctors have been arguing that California and the Biden Administration are suppressing free speech to create the false impression of a consensus.

Critics say the government overstepped its role. Many injury lawyers agree this was an intrusion into personal liberties and family choices, similar to what happened under the Obama Administration (ala Lois Lerner of the IRS). They argue that this intimidates those who hold traditional values and sets a dangerous precedent for using government agencies to silence political opposition. 

Alleged Run-ins with the FBI: A Closer Look 

Local news outlets have highlighted instances where parents received unexpected visits from the FBI. These parents had reportedly opposed proposed gender-neutral legislation at school board meetings or through social media platforms. While details are sparse and confirmation is yet pending, the incidents seem to align with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s pro-LGBTQ+ initiatives, prompting questions about the extent to which state political agendas can influence federal action. 

Concerns Over Federal Overreach 

The possibility that the FBI is being used to coerce parents into compliance sparks unease and reinvigorates conversations around federal overreach. Is it fair for the government to force policy adherence? Does this infringe the First Amendment rights of parents? These are questions that have been swirling in the public discourse. 

The Administration’s Response 

Yet, California’s government and federal agencies have remained largely silent on these allegations. Despite fervent demands for transparency and clarification, the agenda continues to be pushed forward, leading many to speculate about the blurred lines between political ideology and the enforcement of law and order. 

Left Wing School Boards, Middle School Students, and Gender Identity

Some of us have heard allegations that far-left school nurses are trying to force gender-affirming care on kindergartners, in particular kids with single moms. Just yesterday, non for profit media reported a story about school teachers allowing a boy with a penis to share a bed with little girls since the teachers union thinks that is “inclusive.” So it’s not just minor children in kindergarten; democratic lawmakers are also targeting middle school students at local public schools to explore and even alter their sexual orientation. 

Why the Sudden Push for Gender Affirming Care?

Why do you think that is, and why, out of the blue, this push for gender-affirming “health care,” aka child body part mutilation and endocrine system destruction? How does affirming mental illness protect children? Why are so many school teachers secretly pushing gender transition without seeking parental consent? This development might nudge you toward a fine line of contemplation in an age where tradition and progressive ideas often stand at odds. Most lawyers who have done the research won’t deny this is about nursing and doctors’ unions who donate large sums of cash to Democrats.

This move, although intended to promote inclusivity, sparked polarizing reactions by diverging two sides: 

  1. Parents Protecting Children: On one hand, concerned parents argue that the bill further enables an agenda driven by what they perceive as “woke” – an ideology that weakens traditional family values and imposes what they see as a faith-based dogma. It enforces affirmation of mental illnesses, they argue. They also say it infringes on parent’s and children’s rights. They champion protecting children from perceived threats, including child groomers (people who want to separate kids from parents and brainwash them into sexual ideologies). They fear corporations and major players with strange sexual proclivities are setting public policy. They argue that perverts have turned this into a profit mill with low-information voters.
  2. The Administrative State: On the contrary, advocates for the legislation, including LGBTQ+ activists, public school teachers, and left-wing college professors, insist that such measures are about inclusivity and acceptance rather than an imposition of any ideology. Many state-[taxpayer]funded experts assert the bill is an effort to counter harmful gender stereotypes that limit children’s potential and can lead to mental distress. Supporters argue that creating gender-neutral spaces and stores will create environments that allow children to be children, free of societal expectations and norms.

“We need to stop stigmatizing what’s acceptable for certain genders and just let kids be kids,” said California Democratic Congressman Evan Low, in his statement to the Associated Press, expressing the intent behind Assembly Bill No. 1084.

Gender identity detractors claim this bill has far-reaching implications. They claim it’s not just the toy sections in retail stores. They declare it sets a precedent to destroy future societal norms. 

Here’s a look at this clash of perspectives. We also look at the gender identity retail TOY SECTION bill itself.

Text of Assembly Bill No. 1084?

AB 1084, Gender-neutral retail departments.

Existing law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, specifies that all persons within the jurisdiction of the state are free and equal, and no matter their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status, are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind.

This bill would require a retail department store that is physically located in California that has a total of 500 or more employees across all California retail department store locations that sells childcare items or toys to maintain a gender-neutral section or area to be labeled at the discretion of the retailer, in which a reasonable selection of the items and toys for children that it sells shall be displayed, regardless of whether they have been traditionally marketed for either girl or for boys.

Beginning on January 1, 2024, the bill would make a retail department store that fails to comply with these provisions liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $250 for a first violation or $500 for a subsequent violation, as provided.

The bill dismantles traditional constructs around gender norms. While it is appreciated by some who think it promotes inclusion by eradicating gender biases, others say its potential implications on parental authority and the perception of children’s mental health are dangerous. For them, such a law could potentially infringe upon parental rights and freedom of choice. 

Woke public education teachers’ unions, pro-pedophile organizations, and other gender affirmation organizations stand to gain a lot of political power and campaign funding from the likes of people like Klaus Schwab and Larry Fink of Blackrock.

Klaus of the WEF

The Concerns of the Parents v. Purported Far-Left Child Groomers

On one side of the argument, parents are voicing their concerns about recent legislative changes, asserting that these movements seek to undermine traditional family values and infringe upon their parental rights. They are concerned about other billionaire elites who regularly flew to Epstein Island to write public policy. Parents argue Newsom/Weiner’s societal shifts are less about children’s best interests and safety and more about endorsing an ideology they perceive as harmful.

They argue that billionaire perverts got caught red-handed at Epstein Island, and now they are trying to legalize pedophilia before Obama judge Alison J. Nathan allows full public access to Ghislane Maxwell’s address book.

Judge Nathan

“Judge Alison Nathan is now the only the second openly LGBTQ+ woman to serve on a federal appellate court after Judge Beth Robinson” (Source.)

Wokism as a faith-based religion, as its critics sometimes refer to it, can be a contrast to traditional family values. Traditional family values typically uphold so-called “heteronormative roles” The left calls these “gender constructs.” These social justice crusaders claim that marriage, child-rearing, and religious beliefs are basically “backward thinking.” 

Critics of wokism argue it promotes an acceptance and affirmative approach to morally or ethically questionable behaviors. On the other hand, proponents of wokism want to overturn outdated and harmful societal norms. They argue that affirming an individual’s perceived sexuality and choices leads to healthier communities.

These zealots think this leads to better mental health outcomes among marginalized groups. They believe it is violent to let parents choose whether girls can share the boy’s bathroom with boys across the country and vice versa. They argue no government overreach can be large enough when it comes to forcing the trans community belief system on non-LGGTQ people. With their de facto control over the school curriculum, state senate, and state assembly bills, population control advocates like Planned Parenthood are moving into the grift of LGBTQ issues.

Here’s the conflict: parents worry that laws like the gender-neutrality requirement in California constitute an overreach by an ‘administrative state’ – entities such as public schools, left-wing college professors, and gay and trans activists—into their private lives and choices. They view these rulings as disregarding their parental rights, where instead, these institutions decide what is best for their children. 

Fanning the Flames: The Role of Corporations and Individuals 

What deepens this ideological conflict are organizations and individuals that parents perceive to be advancing the cause of wokism. For instance, these parents see World Economic Forum (WEF), BlackRock, and Larry Fink as powerful entities leveraging their influence to further policies and narratives that they find disturbing. 

Moreover, individuals such as California Governor Gavin Newsom have drawn criticism for their support of legislation like Assembly Bill No. 1084. Parents argue Newsom and Weiner are championing laws that harm their children and empower pedophiles. Parents say promoting the idea of sexual self-determination at an age when children are incapable of forming consent is CHILD ABUSE.

Indeed, these ideological conflicts between works and traditional family values underpin a more extensive debate going on today and are unlikely to be resolved any t

The Role of Mental Health Classification in Gender-Neutral Legislation

The issue of mental health classification is central to the debate around gender-neutral legislation. Critics assert that it often places undue stress on children, who are compelled to make complex and irrevocable decisions about their sexual identity (by LGBTQ authority figures at school) at a young age. Parents argue that gender dysphoria is a mental illness. They claim it is absurd for a tax-subsidized doctor who went to a new medical school to put a confused child through hormone replacement therapy or surgery. They argue that common sense leads to grievous bodily harm and irreversible consequences.

In contrast, gender-neutral legislation supporters say acknowledging and addressing gender dysphoria is a matter of human rights. They think little kids should be (with SECRET help from their school teachers) free to explore their gender identities. These far-left zealots call this a crucial step to self-discovery and self-affirmation by your 2-year-old and up.

The Intersection of Politics, Medicine and Profit 

With the advent of government-sponsored healthcare, medical professionals are sometimes cast as profiteers who potentially exploit the vulnerability of individuals grappling with gender dysphoria for financial gain. Critics voice concerns over the possibility of children being swayed or pressured into hormone therapy or surgeries at a tender age – possibly even without the full informed consent or understanding of their parents. If woke teachers get their way, parents say this new trans-humanism religion will permanently damage the family structure, all by design.

Classifying mental health conditions to serve economic structures raises fresh questions about politics, medicine, and profit. This leads to exploring the role of large organizations, corporations, and individuals who stand to gain financially or politically from the legislation. 

Psychiatrists and Psychologists: The Bedrock of Classification 

Traditionally, mental health disorders are classified by psychiatrists and psychologists in frameworks such as the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) and ICD (International Classification of Diseases).

While advocacy for greater inclusivity is generally laudable, dissent to AB 108 concerns eroding parental rights and financial burdens on businesses. 

The Battle for Business and Parental Rights 

Amidst these allegations, many parents and conservative groups remain adamant in their refusal to consent. They will not be silenced by intimidation when protecting their offspring. Their belief in preserving traditional family values drives their fight against what they perceive as an aggressive push towards radical wokism. 

These apprehensive parents are battling a strong tide. Powerful institutions are pushing for inclusivity and acceptance, with major organizations such as Lego committing to creating gender-neutral toys and stores like Target providing ‘gender-friendly’ clothing. Despite the backlash, these entities maintain their stands, citing a continuing commitment to the so-called LGBTQIA+ community (less than 1% of the entire US population, by some accounts. 

Conclusion: For Now It’s Large Stores Forced to Bow To Gender Affirming Care or Flee

As we close the lid on this contentious issue, it becomes apparent that society is at a crossroads. On the one hand, corporations and politicians push for greater inclusivity and diversity, advocating for measures like gender-neutral sections in large retail stores. On the other hand, they claim such policies infringe on their rights and expose their children to unnecessary gender confusion. Caught in the crossfire are retail giants – now forced to toe the line or risk facing hefty penalties. 

At the heart of the issue is not just the matter of childhood innocence, parental rights, and individual freedom. Still, societal norms and our collective future. Parents worry about their children being caught up in these new, arguably radical ideologies, which, to their mind, play fast and loose with biology and mental health. From kindergarten to the university system, gender crusaders are leading the way to normalize gender transition procedures and hormones. Becoming a trans child is as simple as choosing toys or clothes in a shop at Target by its very nature. 

So a clear line is drawn, and the struggle continues, first with children’s education and now with retail giants as the battleground over custody of trans kids. These non-Blackrock corporations must bow to the new norms of gender-affirming care or flee the state and its heavy-handed legislation. Whichever path they choose, they are bound to face criticism from one faction or the other. In the meantime, the exodus of what many call the Sodom and Gomorrah of America continues. Either way, any attempt to protect parental rights will be viewed as anti-LGBTQ legislation by Democrats and the California gov.

China Feminizing US Military Aged Males Using Public Schools?

Welcome, dear reader! Note that we did not say “Dear Leader.” Today, we will tackle an intriguing topic explored in the public sphere: the political ideologies of US public school teachers and the speculations surrounding the influence of foreign funds, particularly from Communist China, in US public schools. Do you think we have a masculinity crisis in the United States? Chinese boys are not taught that men can be women. What is surprising to many Chinese is the overwhelming number of male teachers in the US pushing effeminate lifestyles on kids. That is only done in Western countries and not by the Communist Chinese government. Indeed, these are complex and pertinent matters that deserve our undivided attention.

Many parents in California assume that most school teachers are far-left Pride activists who support Critical Race Theory and other types of cultural Marxism. For years, people in the United States have complained that China owns male celebrities like Lebron James, who kneels for our flag and obviously hates America and supports CRT. But why would our teachers support ideas that go against the very ideas of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Could it be our Communist Chinese enemies have wrestled control over our politicians and education system?

At the outset, we all recall when teacher’s unions and their accomplices in the press, like CNN, said it was a conspiracy theory that teachers wanted to teach anti-white racism in the classroom. (also known as CRT) Several months ago, the far-left head of the NEA announced that the union had voted to force anti-white CRT on all US public schools. Telling one segment of kids that they are oppressors and the other side that they are “marginalized” groups who can only be saved by a liberal politician would help China divide our nation and lead to a civil war. (remember the Marxist-run BLM burning cities after news reporters, with zero evidence a lawyer would consider, claimed the death of George Floyd was due to “systemic racism.”)

One thing is sure: China’s education ministry cranks out kids with far higher educational rankings and teaches patriotism and love of the country. Our teachers more and more teach that our founders were oppressors and that we need to flood our country with illegals to make things “fair.” China is the beneficiary of this push to eliminate gender roles and break down the rule of law by invalidating our founding lawmakers.

In China, their pop culture doesn’t focus on breaking down society; US culture apparently does. Xi Jinping will not allow male celebrities to denigrate his country. Chinese boys are expected to be tough and smart and to obey orders unflinchingly, as we are told all “white people are racist.” And that America is a “racist country” 24/7 by lapdog media, often receiving ad spend from CCP-run corporations.

Investigation: China Injected $17M into ‘Little Red Classrooms’ in US Schools

  • An alarming report discloses China’s hefty $17M investment in US schools.
  • A previous intelligence officer expressed apprehension over potential national security implications.
  • Education Department urged to intervene by Rep. Jim Banks

There’s a new investigation on Capitol Hill sparked by recent findings that public schools throughout the US have been the recipients of over $17 million in contributions from the Chinese Communist Party. This unexpected generosity comes in the form of cultural and language learning programs. 

These programs, referred to as “little red classrooms” by Parents Defending Education, are said to be receiving their finances from “Confucius Institutes” for the past 14 years. 

Although these institutes’ mission statement emphasizes teaching “language and culture,” Parents Defending Education asserts a hidden agenda, suggesting the primary aim is the spread of global communist ideologies. 

The former intelligence officer, Matt Shoemaker, suspicions that anti-Christian atheists in “China will exert its influence and ideologies on American civilians unopposed.” He further added it offers a chance to identify and shape potential future candidates sympathetic to their cause. 

While many of these programs have been closed in recent years, Shoemaker believes there’s been a shift in strategy, with the Communist Party now targeting secondary education. 

Per Shoemaker’s statements, “The new focus on primary schools indicates China’s remarkable resourcefulness in advancing their objectives. Their intense interest in penetrating school systems stems from a desire to mold the forthcoming generation of Americans.”

Now, US Republican Representative Jim Banks from Indiana is calling for an urgent intervention by the Department of Education. In a letter sent to Secretary Miguel Cardona, Banks appends, “These programs do not belong in America, especially not in our classrooms.”

Banks’ letter demands a comprehensive audit of the national K-12 funding. He suggests time is of the essence, stating, “This is a campaign for information that requires concerted efforts from top Washington officials. Otherwise, without our counteroffensive, China will continue to advance.”

CCP’s efforts to invest in schools are just one example of initiatives raising red flags for lawmakers, who are also investigating China’s efforts to buy American farmland near military bases.

For years, Republicans have complained that CCP General Charlie Trie compromised the US under the Clintons, and their money supply to the left has moved full steam ahead right into our far-left universities and public schools. Now, let’s delve into the claim that Communist China is funding US public schools to influence American culture and politics. Again, this tends to be an oversimplification. However, discussions around foreign influence, specifically regarding funding and resources, merit serious consideration for transparency and the preservation of educational integrity. 

How China Benefits from Efiminized US Military?

China thinks the whole Pride thing is a joke that weakens American society. Xintian Wang, a 23-year-old college graduate, speaking via Zoom from Shanghai, China, used homophobic language, telling a gal-dem that “men like him are not welcomed in his country.” “Society expects men to be warriors” and accuses effeminate boys of being “perverts.” So yeah, at least in China’s eyes, it seems pretty clear they think ladyboys in the military will weaken us.

Lastly, regarding the assertion that canonical trends such as the push for trans rights and critical race theory in schools are being directed by Chinese influences to weaken the US, we need to approach these claims with a measured, critical perspective. Similarly, the rhetoric surrounding the alleged hatred of China towards white people, or Gweilo, (“Ghost People”), requires cautious examination, given its potentially contentious nature. 

In the subsequent sections, we will delve into these complex issues of dispelling myths, unveiling truths, and providing a balanced perspective. So, strap in for an enlightening ride!

Most PublicSchool Teachers are Democrat – True

Let’s start by shedding some light on the common assumption that US public school teachers are predominantly radical left-wing Democrats. Statistics show that teachers, as well as most government employees, donate overwhelmingly to Democrats.

No broad spectrum of political preferences exists among teachers in the United States. It’s solidly, far left, Democrat. Lately, parents have focused on this supposition, perhaps to explain trends in the school system, such as pushing to affirm mental illness of gender-confused kids and pushing LGBTQ propaganda K-12. 

Political affiliations among other citizens are far more diverse and complex than those of public school teachers. (Read more here.) Likewise, it is an oversimplification to claim that all their support comes from any one source – in this case, “communist China.”

  Let’s break this down piece by piece. 

Claims of China Funding US Schools

First, it’s essential to unpack the claim about China funding US schools. While it’s true that China invests in educational initiatives worldwide, it’s misleading to suggest that this funding is shaping US public education across the board. Most school funding in the US originates from state and local tax revenues. Schools may also receive federal funding or private donations, such as from philanthropic organizations, but direct control and spending decisions rest mainly in the hands of local authorities. 

The GOP’s Stance 

It is not accurate to say that the GOP is universally attempting to end the practice of accepting overseas funding for public schools. It is a multifaceted issue with variances based on individual situations and ideologies within the party. It is more accurate to assert that the GOP, like all political entities, is focused on the best ways to serve and advance American education. 

China, Trans Rights & Anti-Americanism 

It is also incorrect to suggest we have enough direct evidence that China is promoting trans rights (at least THEY don’t support them) and anti-Americanism through schools. Clearly, they think it would hurt our society and strengthen theirs if our boys suddenly started thinking they were girls. It is imperative to understand that the advocacy for trans rights and attempts to engage students in discussions about race and cultural history – often termed Critical Race Theory – is driven by evolving societal norms and perceptions inside the US. 

It’s crucial to avoid conflating unrelated issues and recognize the diverse influences shaping the American education system. 

Race Relations 

As for the question, ‘Does China hate white people too?’ it’s inappropriate to make such assumptions. China is a diverse nation with millions of people holding a wide range of views about race and ethnicity. But it is clear their government wants to weaken us, and it is equally clear they see teachers as our weakest link. If they can secretly separate kids from their parents and confuse them enough, America will fall apart. Whether by design or not, breaking down the family structure using activist school teachers is an obvious benefit to our enemies. It’s essential to approach race relations with sensitivity and nuance, recognizing that individual attitudes can vary greatly.

In conclusion, it is necessary to question, investigate, and critically analyze any claims or conspiracies that might seem straightforward at first glance. It may be that the GOP can prove China is feminizing US military-aged males using public schools. In a world where information is readily available, avoiding misinformation and striving for accuracy is more important than ever.


Pfizer Allowed Dangerous Components in Its Vaccines – Is FDA Asleep?

Did you know that many NIH scientists promoting mRNA receive a royalty kickback from the pharmaceutical industry? In law, we call this a conflict of interest. To this day, Doctor Anthony Fauci refuses to tell the American people how much he received in royalty payments to push two years of economic lockdowns on the American people. Although he claims to donate them to charity, almost every celebrity donates to their OWN charities.


So why all the hush-hush? Sadly, investigative journalism appears to be dead. Only so-called “conspiracy theorists” seem to be covering the truth about the multiple convicted criminal felon pharma company Pfizer and others. Did you also know that several directors of the CDC are aligned with Bill Gates and other population control advocates? Did you know that many CDC and FDA heads worked for or got cushy jobs with BIG PHARMA after leaving their government positions? Do you think this is a problem?

I am attorney Michael Ehline. I am not “anti-vax.” In fact, mRNA does not inoculate as the Polio Vaccine did. In fact, the government changed the legal definition of vaccine once this fact came to light, and the lapdog press said it’s totally normal to change the definition. My mother-in-law died of Thrombosis (a known side effect of the emergency use “vaccines”) after being injected with the Moderna “vaccine.”

For-profit media and Silicon Valley receive billions in advertising money in ad spend from Pfizer and other billion-dollar medical corporations; the current US Administration (FDA, CDC pharma Axis) appears to be a revolving door for Big Pharma heads. Our personal injury attorneys have done extensive research so as to present both sides of the mRNA story.

A recent investigation into the mRNA vaccine quality issues revealed that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine contains Truncated mRNA, and their negligence could have far greater repercussions than we are led to believe. Let’s explore the details of the investigation with Ehline Law and our personal injury attorneys.

What Is Truncated mRNA?

Between the genetic code in our DNA that consists of nucleotides and the protein it produces that consists of amino acids, there is a bridge molecule referred to as translator or the “messenger” ribonucleic acid (mRNA).

The mRNA is a single-stranded RNA produced from the DNA template during transcription. A truncated mRNA occurs when there is a partial degradation of full-length mRNAs or when there is a premature termination of transcription, a process of copying a segment of DNA into RNA. However, many scientists say this is dishonest as well. They claim this is “modified” RNA.

What Impact Does the Truncated mRNA in Pfizer’s Covid-19 Vaccines Have on Humans?

The Pfizer mRNA sequence is 4,284 nucleotides in length, consisting of a 5′ CAP structure. To understand how the truncated mRNA can impact a human, we must first understand the basics of genetic code, such as a codon and open reading frame.

A codon is a sequence of three nucleotides that together form a unit of genetic code in a DNA or RNA. An open reading frame is a DNA sequence between the start and stop codons, with the stop codon at the end of a translatable region.

Just like brakes are essential to a vehicle to prevent accidents, the stop codon works similarly. When there are premature stop codons in an mRNA, the protein of interest is incomplete and, therefore, not produced, leading to a truncated mRNA. 

However, if the truncated mRNA does not have a stop codon, it can be lethal to humans as the DNA may start producing highly toxic proteins.

Investigations Reveal Truncated mRNA in Pfizer Covid-19 Vaccine

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is a European agency in charge of evaluating and supervising pharmaceutical products in Europe. In its report titled “EMA/CHMP/448917/2021”, the agency requested Pfizer to address specific issues about their COVID-19 vaccine, including the impurities in the product described by the agency as “truncated and modified mRNA.”

According to the assessment report, Pfizer had a deadline of July 2021 to meet to address the concerns raised by EMA and provide the agency with monthly data on the potential of autoimmune conditions arising from truncated spike protein.

It is important to note that the EMA did not simply raise the concern, but in the report, it marked the Truncated mRNA as a major objection, which is a formal regulatory red flag. These biological agents deployed by the pharmaceutical company targeted the entire globe without any explanation for the truncated mRNA.

By June 2022, a leaked photo of a meeting between the Pfizer officials and the EMA discussing the major concern surfaced on Trial Site News. According to the EMA, there was a need for sufficiently characterizing the truncated mRNA, describing it, and investigating whether it was the same across all batches of the mRNA vaccines.

Pfizer Acknowledges Truncated mRNA and Responds to EMA in an Official Meeting

During the meeting, as evident from the leaked presentation slide, Pfizer and their officials acknowledged truncated mRNA in their mRNA vaccines. The officials responded that most of the truncated mRNA in Pfizer’s mRNA vaccines are 1,500 to 3,500 nucleotides long, consisting of a 5′ CAP structure without a Poly(A) tail and the stop codon.

Since the DNA does not have a stop codon, there is no stop signal meaning that the amino acid chain continues prolongation, which prolongs the mRNA spike protein. In the DNA sequence, if the spike protein takes over, it will lead to further spike protein with multiple repeats since there is no stop codon. During this process, a different mRNA can take over; if that happens, the DNA sequence will create unknown proteins.

What’s fishy about all this is that when you download the EMA report titled “Type II group of the variations assessment report,” on page 17, table 2 Poly(A) content, it is completely blacked out.

Researchers use the “western blot” method, an analytical technique to detect specific proteins in a tissue homogenate or extract sample. It can help researchers analyze the size and count of the protein. 

The EMA requested Pfizer-BioNTech to submit experimental findings of their mRNA vaccines to show that they would not lead to fragmented protein. This requirement by the EMA is a basic requirement that pharmaceutical vaccine manufacturers must address before humans can use the vaccines.

However, since this is the first time using mRNA vaccines across a large population, the quality issue is the first of its kind. There is uncertainty over any previous quality standard to help manage truncated mRNA.

To fulfill the bare minimum requirements of EMA, in December 2020, Pfizer provided them with digitized western blot figures that showed the levels of spike protein in their Covid-19 COVID-19 vaccines and suggested that no other proteins were produced. In a report published by FDA, Pfizer stated that their COVID-19 vaccine protein is consistent with the expected size and comparable across all batches.

In 2021, Pfizer provided another digitized western blot figure that showed that their COVID-19 vaccine did not produce proteins in vitro.

However, all the western plots provided are entirely digitized, raising further concerns over their experimental findings’ results.

Did Pfizer Provide Fake Western Blots?

Pfizer submitted many sets of western blots which could be fake. The proteins have different sizes, and they separate at various locations. There are certain factors that affect the appearance of western blots, including protein transfer speed, incubation duration, and antibody concentration. All of these suggest that western blots cannot be perfect, and there will always be distortions.

Many western blots provided by Pfizer seem too perfect, and they appear spotlessly clean and perfectly rectangular. All the Western blots are noiseless and appear to be fake.

Why Did the EMA Approve the Pfizer Covid-19 Vaccines Despite Dangerous Components?

According to the EMA, there is a need for further categorization, but the lack of experimental data on truncated mRNA should not lead to any conclusions. 

At the end of the report, the EMA states that there are no longer any issues with the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines, and by December 12, 2020, the EMA gave Pfizer marketing authorization.

Several questions arise from the EMA’s conclusion over Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines. How did Pfizer resolve the issues raised by the EMA? Did the pharmaceutical company provide them with fake Western blots and receive an approval nod? Did the counterfeit reports manage to get the support of the regulatory body? Does the EMA know the reports are fake yet give the vaccine manufacturer the approval nod? How did this get under FDA’s Radar, or do they not care?

Are All Covid-19 Approved Vaccines mRNA?

Although researchers have studied mRNA for decades, during the pandemic, it was the first time they ever got to use it to create a vaccine. Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are mRNA vaccines, while others use different technologies, with Novavax creating their vaccine using a process similar to developing a flu vaccine.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved using the only mRNA vaccines, Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, in the United States.

Pfizer Covid-19 Vaccine Ingredients

The following is the breakdown of the ingredients used in the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine:

  • Messenger ribonucleic acid: mRNA provides instructions to the body to create a form of protein from the Covid-19 virus. Although the Johnson vaccine is not mRNA, it also instructs the body to form protein from the COVID-19 virus by entering the human cells using the DNA stored inside a modified vector virus.
  • Lipids: are a broad group of organic compounds that are fatty acids. The following are some of the lipids used to create Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines: 2[(polyethylene glycol (PEG))-2000]-N, N-di tetradecyl acetamide
  • 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine
  • Cholesterol (plant-derived)
  • ((4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate)
  • Salt: Sodium chloride, a form of salt, and other salts are essential to the human body as it helps maintain fluid levels. It also aids in the stability of the Covid-19 vaccine. The following are the different types of salt used in the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines: Potassium chloride
  • Monobasic potassium phosphate
  • Sodium chloride
  • Dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate
  • Other ingredients, including sugar, help maintain the vaccine’s stability and keep the molecule in shape.

Other brand vaccines also use citric acid monohydrate (Johnson & Johnson), acetic acid (Moderna vaccines), and ethanol.

Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine Triggers a Severe Allergic Reaction

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 20 cases of severe allergic reactions were recovered or discharged home. Many scientists believe that the compound polyethylene glycol in the messenger RNA is causing a rare form of allergic reaction in some people who have taken the Pfizer vaccine.

Although polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a component in some drugs, it was never used to create a vaccine. The compound has occasionally resulted in anaphylaxis, an allergic reaction of the immune system, the body’s natural defense system, overreacting to a trigger. Scientists believe that people with high levels of PEG have an increased risk of anaphylactic reaction to the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine.

Could Pfizer End up in Trouble with Their Covid-19 Vaccines?

Vaccine manufacturers have immunity against legal actions for any injuries caused by their vaccine. It is important to note that pandemics like COVID-19 arrive unexpectedly, and vaccine manufacturers do not have much time to experiment and carry out human trials, so they receive immunity against legal action if their vaccines cause injuries.

However, the immunity does not extend to the negligence carried out by vaccine manufacturers. If Pfizer knows their COVID-19 vaccines are impure and intentionally provides fake reports to receive market authorization, it could put them in hot waters.

Further investigation can help reveal the depth of the situation and the damage the pharmaceutical company has done with their truncated mRNA COVID-19 vaccines on a global scale. The problem is that Pfizer seems to control the messaging with billions in ad money. Why would a journalist who wants to keep their job report anything negative, even if it’s true?