MONSTERS: Biden White House Blames American Moms For Baby Formula Shortage, ‘They’re HOARDING’

As if the Biden regime couldn’t be more evil, they are blaming desperate American mothers for the baby formula shortage.

“What we are seeing which is an enormous problem is hoarding….”


Miller: Baby Formula Crisis Alone ‘Justifies’ Biden Impeachment

Photos: Border detention center stocked with baby formula despite shortage

Amid Nationwide Shortage, Biden Regime Makes Sure Illegal Immigrants Get Baby Formula First

Biden White House Laughs About Baby Formula Shortage Crisis

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Democrat County Supervisor Indicted on 82 COUNTS In ELECTION FRAUD Scheme In Virginia

Democrats can’t win. So they cheat. It’s the only way. Without election integrity, the country is over.

Election Fraud Scheme Uncovered In Virginia, County Supervisor Indicted on 82 Counts

By: Gregory Hoyt, Red Voice Media, May 2022:

On May 9th, Russell County Commonwealth’s Attorney Zach Stoots announced that Knox District Supervisor Trey Adkins and his alleged accomplice Sherry Lynn Bailey were collectively hit with 94 various felonies revolving around alleged election and voter fraud.

Adkins was reportedly charged with 34 counts of false statement election fraud, 11 counts of absentee voting procedure violations, eight counts of public embezzlement, 11 counts of forgery of a public record, 15 counts of uttering public record, and 3 counts of conspiracy to make a false statement election fraud.

Bailey, who is apparently Adkins’ aunt, was charged in connection with the same scheme as well, with her being indicted on four counts of false statement election fraud, four counts of conspiracy to make a false statement, and four counts of forgery of public record.

Commonwealth Attorney Stoots didn’t reveal any specifics regarding the case in a released statement, noting that ethics codes forbid his office from going into case specifics prior to a potential trial.

“The Rules of Professional Conduct prevents any lawyer participating in the prosecution of a criminal matter that may be tried to a jury from making an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or should know will have a likelihood of interfering with the fairness of a trial by jury. Based on the Rules of Professional Conduct, my office will not be making any further statements on the pending matters.”

Virginia State Police have been investigating Adkins for approximately two years prior to the charges getting handed down, with the National File reporting that the grand jury’s report detailed “an illegal absentee vote harvesting scheme” that Adkins had been partaking in since first coming into office in 2011 and “repeating the process in his 2015 and 2019 bids for re-election.”

In this scheme, Adkins would allegedly show up at the homes of prospective voters with absentee applications and ballots in tow to help ensure that he secured their vote.


Based on a Thorough Review of Election Regulations, Not a Single Voting System Testing Lab Used in the 2020 Election Was Accredited Based on the Law (Part I)

New Mexico Audit Identifies Feature in Dominion Voting Machines that Allows Ballots to be Filled Out by Machine Itself

Dominion Voting paid Georgia Secretary of State $106M

VIDEO: Judicial Watch Finds 2.5 Million ‘Extra’ Registrants on Voting Rolls

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Follow Pamela Geller on Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social.

Gov. DeSantis Signs Law Requiring Schools To Teach ‘Evils Of Communism’, Establishes ‘Victims of Communism Day’

DeSantis is single-handedly saving this country.

“Today, I established November 7th as Victims of Communism Day to honor those who have suffered under communism and remind people of the destruction communism has caused worldwide, including a death toll exceeding 100 million.”

Gov. DeSantis Signs Law Requiring Schools To Teach ‘Evils Of Communism’

By: Kendall Tietz, Daily Caller, May 5, 2022:

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law Monday that recognizes a statewide “Victims of Communism Day” requiring Florida schools to teach students about “the evils of communism.”

The “Victims of Communism Day” bill, or House Bill (HB) 395, establishes November 7 as a holiday “to honor the hundreds of millions of people who have suffered under communist regimes across the world,” which public schools are required to observe, according to a press release.

“Honoring the people that have fallen victim to communist regimes and teaching our students about those atrocities is the best way to ensure that history does not repeat itself,” DeSantis said in a statement. “Through HB 395 and the funding announced today, we are guaranteeing that the history of those who fled communist regimes and their experiences are preserved and not forgotten by our students.”

“While it’s fashionable in some circles to whitewash the history of communism, Florida will stand for truth and remain as a beachhead for freedom,” he added.

Starting with the 2023-2024 school year, high school students taking the state-mandated U.S. government class must receive at least 45 minutes of instruction on the designated “Victims of Communism Day” covering topics “such as Mao Zedong and the Cultural Revolution, Joseph Stalin and the Soviet System, Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution, Vladimir Lenin and the Russian Revolution, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, and Nicolás Maduro and the Chavismo movement,” according to the bill……..

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.

Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.

Follow Pamela Geller on Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Walgreens: Unvaxxed are testing positive for Covid-19 at the lowest rate, Triple Vaxxed at the highest

And yet the Democrats continue to force this poison on we, the people they serve.

Biden: We Have to Double Down on Our Efforts to Get Shots in People’s Arms

What lengths won’t these destroyers go to to achieve their nefarious goals?

Walgreens – Unvaxxed are testing positive for Covid-19 at the lowest rate, Triple Vaxxed at the highest

Triple vaccinated are testing positive at the highest rate!

By: National Conservative, May 8, 2022 (hat tip Gatway Pundit)

Walgreens publishes data on their Covid-19 tests. When people take the test, they are asked about vaccination status. In both of the last two updates, the unvaccinated tested positive at the lowest rate. People with three doses tested positive at the highest rate.

Rates of COVID Positivity 4/27 – 5/3

Not Vaccinated – 16.3%
1 Dose – 21.5%
2 Dose > 5m ago – 26.7%
2 Dose <= 5m ago – 20.2% 3 Dose > 5m ago – 30.1%
3 Dose <= 5m ago – 20.8%

RELATED VIDEO: Biden: ‘Not a Question of If, It’s a Question of When’ We Will Face a New Pandemic.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Follow Pamela Geller on Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social.

Biden Blames Putin, COVID, and ‘Ultra MAGA’ GOP For Biden Inflation — NOT Himself

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.” ― Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany

Naturally President Biden blamed Trump, Putin, and COVID for inflation. When President Trump was in office inflation was 1.4 percent. Biden came into office and viciously attacked the American energy industry, while spending trillions of dollars to pay people not to work. Once again, the Biden Administration is a dangerous joke. Every decent and rational American must vote the Democrats out of office in 2022 and 2024.

Another depraved display of the Democrats’ contempt for the American people.

Biden Blames Putin, COVID, and ‘Ultra MAGA’ GOP Addressing Inflation — NOT Himself

By Todd Starnes, May 10, 2022

President Joe Biden, under pressure to tame high inflation, sought to assure Americans on Tuesday that he understands what they are grappling with and that the Federal Reserve is working to resolve the top issue weighing on his administration.

At the same time, the Democrat went on the offensive, attacking the Republican agenda. He slammed what he called “the ultra-MAGA plan put forward by congressional Republicans to raise taxes on working families, lower the income of American workers, threaten the sacred programs Americans count on like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and give break after break to big corporations and billionaires just like they did the last time they were in power.”


Biden Cancels More Oil And Gas Leases As Fuel Prices Skyrocket

Biden Refers To Inflation As Our ‘Strength’

Green Beret PAC launched to expose ‘how President Biden has failed to defend our interests time and time again.’ 

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.

Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.

Follow Pamela Geller on Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

NYT Explores What Happens When Democrats Have All the Power. The Answer May Surprise You

It turns out voters and lawmakers in progressive states arrive at decisions like everyone else: on self-interest. But that’s not all.

Last week New York Times video journalist Johnny Harris asked a simple question.

“What do Democrats actually do when they have all the power?”

It turns out that 18 states in the US are effectively run by Democrats, who control both the executive and legislative branches. As Harris notes, Democratic leaders tend to blame Republicans for foiling their progressive plans, but that’s hardly the case in these 18 states where Republicans stand well away from the levers of power.

To answer his question—what do Democrats do when they have power?—Harris teamed up with Binyamin Appelbaum, the lead writer on business and economics on the Times editorial board and author of The Economists’ Hour.

What they found may surprise you.

First, Harris and Applebaum drilled into the 2020 Democratic Party Platform to see which values were most important to Democrats. They then focused on a particular state: California, the “quintessential liberal state” where Democrats rule with ironclad majorities and control the government in most major cities. Finally, the journalists decided to look at one specific policy: housing.

As Harris notes, housing policy is not exactly sexy stuff. But Applebaum stresses just how important housing is in battling inequality.

“Looking at California, you have to look at housing,” Applebaum says. “You cannot say you are against income inequality in America unless you are willing to have affordable housing built in your neighborhood….The neighborhood where you are born has a huge influence on the rest of your life.”

Moreover, Harris points out that Democrats overwhelmingly agree on its vital importance, noting that the word housing is mentioned more than 100 times in the Democrats’ platform. Indeed, Democrats are shown repeating a common mantra in the Times video.

“Housing is a human right.”

“Housing is a human right.”

“Housing is a human right.”

Democrats may say housing is a human right, but Applebaum notes their actions say something else, at least in California.

“You know those signs where you drive into a state and it says ‘Welcome to California’?” asks Applebaum. “You might as well replace them with signs that say KEEP OUT. Because in California the cost of housing is so high that for many people it’s simply unaffordable.”

As the Los Angeles Times noted in 2019, California has “an overregulation problem,” which is why nine of the 15 priciest metro areas in the US are in California and the median price of a house in San Diego is $830,000. In some cases, people have had to wait 20 years to build a pair of single family homes. (Applebaum, it’s worth noting, appears to misdiagnose the problem. He complains that “the state has simply for the most part stopped building housing.” Perhaps Applebaum simply misspoke, but it’s worth noting the state doesn’t need to build a single unit of housing; it simply needs to step back and allow the market to function.)

Regulations, however, aren’t the full story. As Harris notes, Californians themselves have fought tooth and nail to keep higher-density affordable housing out of their neighborhoods. Palo Alto is cited as an example, where voters in 2013 overturned a unanimous city council vote to rezone a 2.46-acre site to enable a housing development with 60 units for low-income seniors and 12 single-family homes.

“I think people aren’t living their values,” Applebaum says. “There’s an aspect of sort of greed here.”

Housing isn’t the only area the Times journalists find where progressives fail to “live their values.” Washington state having the most regressive tax rate in the US is cited as another example, as are the “gerrymandered” school districts in states like Illinois and Connecticut that consign low-income families to the least-funded schools because of their zip code.

The journalists are left with a gloomy conclusion.

“For some of these foundational Democratic values of housing equality, progressive taxation, and education equality, Democrats don’t actually embody their values very well,” Harris says.

Applebaum is even more blunt.

“Blue states are the problem,” the economics writer says. “Blue states are where the housing crisis is located. Blue states are where the disparities in education funding are the most dramatic. Blue states are the places where tens of thousands of homeless people are living on the streets. Blue states are the places where economic inequality is increasing most quickly in this country. This is not a problem of not doing well enough; it is a situation where blue states are the problem.”

Harris says affluent liberals “tend to be really good at showing up at the marches” and talking about their concerns over inequality. But when rubber meets the road, they tend to make decisions based on a different calculus: what benefits them personally.

For some, the findings and claims of the Times journalists could be jarring. But they are likely no surprise to FEE readers.

One of the pillars of public choice theory—a school of economics pioneered by Nobel Prize-winning economist James Buchanan—is that people make decisions based primarily on self-interest. (People act out of concern for others, too, but these interests tend to be secondary to self-interest.) Buchanan’s theory rests on the idea that all groups of people tend to reach decisions in this manner, including people acting in the political marketplace such as voters, politicians, and bureaucrats.

Many believe that self interest is part of the human condition, something as natural as hunger, love, and procreation. Harnessing the instinct of self-interest in a healthy way—through free exchange—has long been considered a cornerstone of capitalism and a key to a prosperous society.

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest,” Adam Smith famously observed in The Wealth of Nations. “We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages.”

For many progressives, however, self-interest has become a kind of heresy. The idea that individuals should be motivated by such things as profit and self-interest is anathema; these are values to be found in Ayn Rand novels, not practiced in 21st century America.

But as Applebaum notes, progressives are in fact making decisions based on self-interest—he uses the word “greed”—not altruism. This should come as little surprise, and it would be perfectly fine if progressives were acting on self-interest in a market economy; but they are not. They are using the law in perverse ways to their own benefit—all while maintaining the belief that they’re acting out of altruism.

The Times article makes it clear that voters and politicians in progressive states still arrive at decisions like everyone else: on self-interest. The results are just far worse when those decisions are made in the political space, not the marketplace.


Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times,, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Project Veritas Founder James O’Keefe’s Testimony Before Members of Congress

Project Veritas founder and CEO, James O’Keefe, testified today before Members of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees regarding government overreach and spying on journalists.

The intent of the hearing was to defend Freedom of the Press and Journalists’ First Amendment Rights.

WATCH: James O’Keefe’s opening Statement

James O’Keefe’s Opening StatementCongressman Biggs and members in attendance, thank you for allowing me the opportunity this afternoon to tell my story. I especially want to thank all members of the House Judiciary Committee for the recent unanimous bipartisan support of new legislation, protecting journalists from government overreach. These are important first steps, but we face a government that in May of 2021 promised that the seizure of journalist data is simply wrong and quote, “will not happen” while simultaneously actively seizing journalists’ data…My home was raided by armed FBI agents in the pre-Dawn hours of November 6, 2021…There’s a sign when you walk into our [Project Veritas office] building, it says, “This Organization is Protected by Patriots,” referring to the millions of Americans who support our work and afford us the ability to defend the right of journalists to report on stories critical of even the most powerful people and politicians in the world…What steps you take now as Members of Congress to protect freedom of the press are essential. By the time they [FBI] come to your door with a battering ram, it’s already too late.”

WATCH: Question and answer session.

Q&A Highlights

Congressman Matt Gaetz: What Mr. O’Keefe’s circumstance designates is they [federal government] are willing to rip the Band-Aid off and use the government against journalism directly…Mr. O’Keefe, I learn something more every time I hear you speak about this. I had no idea that the [Justice] Department had tried to do an end run around a Special Master process. Would you mind taking a few moments to explain how?

James O’Keefe: Yes. Congressman, the Article Three Judge in New York, Southern District Judge Torres ordered a Special Master in my case in a two-page directive citing, and I quote, “First Amendment Journalistic Privilege.” After that, they [Justice Department] went around the judge to various magistrate judges in the Southern District to obtain secret warrants against Microsoft, to continue to gag Microsoft Corporation, which houses our emails. They tried to gag Microsoft after the federal judge, the judiciary appointed a Special Master citing the First Amendment. So, why would we trust the FBI and the Department of Justice to define who is, and who is not a journalist? Credit to Microsoft because Microsoft opposed the gag. And when they drafted that opposition, the Department of Justice backed down, and we went public with that in March.”

[ … ]

Congressman Michael Cloud: Mr. O’Keefe, in your case, you mentioned that you feel like you’ve been — you’re guilty until proven innocent in your case, and that you’re having to defend your journalistic practices. One thing that’s very troubling to me throughout this whole situation is the fact that all this is taxpayer funded. So, we have the intelligence agencies going after individuals. We have intelligence agencies going after political opponents. It’s all taxpayer funded to go after tax paying citizens. But there’s a phrase that’s been coined that I’d like you to speak to if you can. I first heard from Matt Gaetz over here, but it says the process is the punishment in the sense of, you could end up going through this whole process, proving your innocence, but the process ends up being the punishment. Could you speak to that? What you’re having to do to defend yourself?

James O’Keefe: Well, the whole idea of journalism is to get sources to trust you. And what do you think sources think when they put this journalist in handcuffs and take all their reporter notebooks? The chilling effect is self-evident. Maybe that’s what they’re trying to do either way. The legislative branch has to make sure that doesn’t happen. And the problem with probable execution of a search warrant, the ACLU lawyers were in my office, which was itself an extraordinary test fact to the principles involved here. And what they informed me is this has never happened before in American history. And I want to make sure that it never happens again to anybody. You don’t show up to a journalist’s home with a battering ram. As soon as they walk into your apartment with the battering ram and guns pointed at you, there’s no remedy. The constitutional violation is already too great. You’ve already passed the Rubicon. So, this can’t ever happen again…So now it’s upon you with your enumerated powers to do something about it so that they don’t do this to Josh Gerstein at Politico, or NBC News, or CBS News. They did it to me. I hope they never do it to anybody ever again.”

[ … ]

James O’Keefe:

1. I’m calling on all of you [members of the legislative branch] to create a Bartnicki hearing — a requirement that before subpoenas, warrants, or orders seeking journalists’ information, the government must first give notice and a hearing to the journalist with the burden of proof resting squarely on the government to clearly and convincingly — the clear and convincing standard above the probable cause standard — prove the journalist, in fact, played a part in committing the crime, rather than requiring the journalist to prove with a negative of innocence. Innocent until proven guilty. That concept is incompatible with probable cause against a journalist. 

2. Codify the right to challenge any subpoena, warrant or order seeking data from a third party where that data includes the journalists’ information. No more secret seizures of journalists’ information, period.

3. Fix the Privacy Protection Act and the 2703(d) process to provide for clear and meaningful damages to reporters who, like Project Veritas, have to spend millions in legal fees and legal bills to defend themselves from such egregious violations of the First Amendment. What steps you take now as Members of Congress to protect freedom of the press are essential. By the time they come to your door with a battering ram, it’s already too late. The violations of the Constitution are already too egregious. The battering ram was already at my door, but your work will save the unknown reporter, so that this never happens again on American soil.

The Project Veritas Team appreciates the concerns expressed by the Members of Congress present in today’s hearing.

Our hope is that REAL justice is served, and those who seek to undermine a journalist’s constitutional rights be held accountable.

EDITORS NOTE: This Project Veritas report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

U.S. Faces Electricity Shortages Heading Into Summer, as Grid Operators Warn of Limits of Green Energy

Evidence shows America’s power grid is increasingly unreliable and struggling to keep up with energy demand.

With more than 25 years of executive experience in the utility industry, people tend to listen when MISO CEO John Bear talks about energy.

And the message he’s sending about electricity shortages as Americans head into summer is clear.

“I am concerned about it,” Bear told The Wall Street Journal in an article exploring why power-grid operators are worried that electricity supplies may struggle to keep up with rising energy demands.

Bear is not some lone prophet foretelling doom.

From California to Texas to the Midwest, the Journal spoke to grid operators warning that conditions are ripe for outages, as plants pivot to new renewable energy sources.

These concerns are not unfounded. Evidence shows America’s power grid is increasingly unreliable and struggling to keep up with demand, and operators are bracing for rolling blackouts that could be arriving as soon as this year during heat waves and cold snaps.

Politicians and policy wonks often speak of “quitting” fossil fuels, as if they are a filthy habit or a narcotic like crack. But the reality is humans could not survive without coal, natural gas, and oil.

Despite their impressive growth, renewable energy sources—solar, wind, hydro and biomass combined—account for just 20 percent of US utility-scale electricity generation.

Fossil fuels, on the other hand, provide 61 percent of utility-scale electricity generation in the country. They heat and cool our homes, run our appliances, and feed the Teslas we drive.

While there is a great deal of excitement around the potential of renewable energy, one cannot simply replace a coal plant with a wind or solar farm and expect things will go just fine. These are intermittent energy sources, for one, but their construction and expansion has also been hit with delays for a variety of reasons, including inflation and supply chain bottlenecks.

“Every market around the world is trying to deal with the same issue,” Brad Jones, interim chief executive of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, told the Journal. “We’re all trying to find ways to utilize as much of our renewable resources as possible…and at the same time make sure that we have enough dispatchable generation to manage reliability.”

The shift from filthy coal to clean energy has not always been smooth.

Last year, for example, Hawaiian officials were stunned to learn the coal plant they had killed had been replaced with a massive battery powered by oil, which one public official described as “going from cigarettes to crack.

It’s true that fossil fuels come with tradeoffs. They can be messy and they emit greenhouse gasses. But the idea that “green” energies do not come with similar environmental tradeoffs is simply not true.

That electric car your neighbor just bought probably isn’t as green as he thinks. It takes tens of thousands of pounds of CO2 emissions to produce those fancy Tesla batteries, research shows.

Jason Hickel, an economic anthropologist, argues that renewable energy has the potential to be just as destructive to the environment as fossil fuels. While the phrase “clean energy” might conjure up images of beaming sunshine, rainbows, and gales of wind, the reality is far different.

Writing in Foreign Policy, Hickel noted the transition to renewable energy sources exacts a serious toll on the environment; it requires massive amounts of energy, not to mention the extraction of minerals and metals at great environmental and social costs.

A little-noticed World Bank study examined just the amount of material it would take to get to a “zero emission” economy.

“[The] results are staggering,” Hicekl noted, extrapolating using some basic arithmetic, “34 million metric tons of copper, 40 million tons of lead, 50 million tons of zinc, 162 million tons of aluminum, and no less than 4.8 billion tons of iron.”

It’s easy, of course, not to think about such matters, just like it’s easy to not think about the fact that there’s a good chance the lithium-ion battery powering your EV was made with cobalt mined by a child in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where the vast majority of the world’s cobalt is mined.

These are unpleasant realities, but they are realities nevertheless, and they remind us of an important economic adage popularized by economist Thomas Sowell: there are no solutions, there are only trade offs. (In economics, this idea is sometimes expressed as opportunity cost. It’s the idea that you must sacrifice something to obtain a product or service or experience, even if it’s simply your time or attention.)

When it comes to fossil fuels, many Americans tend to ignore their benefits and focus on their costs. When it comes to green energy, however, many of the same people do the opposite; they focus on the benefits and ignore the costs.

To be fair, in some ways it’s easy to forget just how fortunate we are to have fossil fuels. They are provided to us on a daily basis through the invisible miracle of the market, which sees them provided in seemingly infinite amounts, often (though not always) at relatively little cost.

If John Bear’s concerns prove founded, however, Americans may soon get a rather rude reminder this summer about the importance of fossil fuels.

“As we move forward, we need to know that when you put a solar panel or a wind turbine up, it’s not the same as a thermal resource,” Bear told the Journal.

This is good advice. Let’s hope the right people hear it.


Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times,, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.


EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

A 75-Year-Old Warning about Those Who Say ‘Listen to the Science’

When people say “follow the science,” often what they’re really saying is “follow our plan.”

On his first day as president, Joe Biden, flanked by a portrait of Ben Franklin, called on the federal government to “advance environmental justice” and “be guided by the best science.”

In many ways, Biden’s words came as no surprise.

Throughout the 2020 campaign and after, Biden had often repeated the phrases “listen to the science” and “I believe in science,” presumably to contrast himself with his opponent.

Biden didn’t stop there, however. He included the mantra in one of the first executive orders he signed, noting that it would be his administration’s official policy to “listen to the science.”

The phrase seems harmless enough. The scientific method is highly trusted, and for good reason. It has been a boon to humanity and helped bring about many of the marvels of our modern world.

Yet distinguished thinkers new and old have warned us to proceed with caution when confronted with pleas to “listen to the science.”

The economist Ludwig von Mises once observed the problem with using scientific claims to shape the modern world. He suggested that in many cases people invoke science simply to tell people what they must do.

“The planners pretend that their plans are scientific and that there cannot be disagreement with regard to them among well-intentioned and decent people,” Mises wrote in his 1947 essay “Planned Chaos.”

Most people agree that science is a useful tool, and Mises was certainly one of them. The problem Mises was getting at was that science can’t actually tell us what we should do, which is the realm of subjective value judgments. Science can only tell us what is.

“[T]here is no such thing as a scientific ought,” Mises wrote, echoing a famous argument by David Hume. “Science is competent to establish what is.” (For a deeper dive on the is-ought problem, read Hume’s celebrated 1729 work, A Treatise on Human Nature.)

The economist continued:

“[Science] can never dictate what ought to be and what ends people should aim at. It is a fact that men disagree in their value judgments. It is insolent to arrogate to oneself the right to overrule the plans of other people and to force them to submit to the plan of the planner.”

As Mises correctly saw, oftentimes when people say “follow the science,” they’re really saying “follow our plan.”

When teen activist Greta Thunberg exhorts us to follow the science on climate change, she’s not saying we should acknowledge that the planet is warming and that humans play a role in the Earth’s climate. She’s saying people should adopt her plan and that of other climate activists, which includes transitioning off meat, giving up flying (something to be achieved either through shame or coercion), taxing fossil fuels, and myriad other proposals.

Billionaire climate activist Bill Gates explained in February why changes like moving off meat should be done, and how.

“I do think all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef,” Gates remarked in an interview with Technology Review, noting that emissions per pound of beef are not quite optimal. “You can get used to the taste difference, and the claim is they’re going to make it taste even better over time. Eventually, that green premium is modest enough that you can sort of change the [behavior of] people or use regulation to totally shift the demand.”

The proposals offered by Thunberg and Gates—who also said government should just listen to the scientists—may be good ones; they may be bad. The key is to understand that their proposals entail value judgments, not just science.

Similarly, in 2020 we repeatedly saw pleas for Americans to “listen to the science.” But the fundamental disagreement over COVID-19 was not over science (though there was certainly some, evidenced by the CDC’s flip-flops, modeling disasters, and widespread confusion over the lethality of COVID-19).

Nearly everyone understood the overarching science: a new and deadly virus had emerged from Asia and was spreading across continents. The primary disagreement arose over what actions should be taken to limit the spread, who should execute them (individuals or the state), and whether people should be coerced into action.

Many of the questions Americans faced were complicated.

If social distancing saves lives, should businesses be ordered closed? If so, which ones? What should be done if people aren’t social distancing in public? Should sick people be physically confined in their homes? What about healthy people? Assuming that face coverings limit the spread, should they be recommended or forced? What happens when people refuse?

These are important questions. But again, they are ethical ones, not scientific ones. Sound science is merely a tool that can help us reach decisions on these matters. The point is that Americans should heed Mises’s warning and beware planners who say we must listen to them because their plans are scientific.

Complex ethical problems demand solutions, and, as journalist H.L. Mencken pointed out, “for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

Outsourcing our complex ethical problems to people with prestigious degrees may be simple, but it’s also wrong. Ethical questions are about what we ought to do, and, as Mises saw, there is no ought in science.


Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times,, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

RELATED ARTICLE: Reuters Director of Data Science: I Was FIRED For Showing Police Do Not Kill More Black Suspects

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

WATCH NOW ‘2,000 MULES’: Election Fraud 2020

Watch this film by Dinesh D’Souza, 2,000 Mules, which analyzes data obtained by True the Vote, showing how ballot harvesting manipulated the 2020 election.

“America needs to wake up” and take the malfeasance that occurred in the 2020 election — most notably through ballot traffickers — seriously, or it could happen again in future elections, True the Vote president and founder Catherine Engelbrecht.

The film details how paid operatives, or “mules,” trafficked ballots, “typically in the middle of the night,” to mail-in drop boxes.

Filmmaker Dinesh ‘Souza explains, “True the Vote bought geo tracking data in the five key states. We’re talking here about Arizona, we’re talking about Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania,” he said, noting they “only bought the data in the urban cities.”

“And so this is a coordinated illegal operation. Now for me as a moviemaker, what made this so thrilling is that you don’t just have the geo tracking data, but you have, at least in some states, video surveillance,” he explained, adding that there is no good explanation for the actions revealed in the movie.

“I think this is really why this movie poses such a problem, because we’re not just talking about anomalies,” he said, adding that in the film you can see the ballot trafficking “with your naked eyes again and again and again,” he said, noting they traced the money trail.

“Remember these mules aren’t coming up with their own ballots. They’re picking up their ballots at left-wing organizations that we call vote stash houses. That’s where they get the ballots and then they go dump them in the mail-in drop boxes,” D’Souza said.

These are all connected, he said. “They’re going, by and large to a group — they’re going to NGOs, or ‘nonprofit organizations.’ These are deeply nested in these inner cities. These are the people that are sort of cultivating the ballots. They’re the ones that hire the mules,” he said, adding that True the Vote has a list of the organizations, and also the cell phone IDs of the 2,000 mules.

“The idea is that the illegal ballots are curated at these left-wing organizations and then delivered by the mules in a coordinated … operation,” he said.

D’Souza added that this revelation, in his opinion, is a “smoking gun.”

“True the Vote has filed an official complaint with the state of Georgia and the Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, has opened up an investigation and said publicly it’s specifically in response to the geo tracking data and reports filed by True the Vote. Now this is a very tricky situation because of course Raffensperger is the exact same guy who was on TV right after the election [saying], ‘This is a very secure election,’ he continued. D’Souza clarified that ballot harvesting is legal, to some extent, in some states. However, that does not change the revelations found in the movie.

“Now the most liberal laws are in places like California and Hawaii where you can literally give anyone your ballot and say, hey, you go drop it off for me. In Georgia, by contrast, you can only give your ballot to a family member, or if you’re sick or confined, to a caregiver, that’s it,” he said.

“But here’s the point: In no state is it legal to pay a mule or anyone else to deliver a ballot. Once money changes hands, once money appears in the process, the ballot is contaminated,” he continued.

“And so even if it were — these aren’t legal ballots — but let’s say they were, [that] there was a legal ballot. Once you pay a mule, by and large, that ballot is rendered invalid,” he said, making it clear that “everything we’re covering in this movie is illegal.”

Breitbart News:

The election integrity organization obtained the data through cellphone patterns, and the device patterns indicated that people were routinely going on routes to drop boxes. The data, she explained, is the same kind of data law enforcement uses “all day every day to solve crimes.”

“Just on the face of the geospatial data alone, there are investigatory expectations,” she said, as a “logical thinking person” would naturally find people “going to far-left nonprofits and then directly the drop boxes day after day, over and over” problematic. And in Georgia, she explained, they have video surveillance to compare, which is shown in the film.

“We want to know more about the money, the following of the money because we know that people were paid — at least we’ve been told they were paid. We want to know more about how, how all of the ways we know many of the ways, but all of the ways that those ballots arrived at those organizations. There’s a lot of investigation left to be done,” Engelbrecht said.

She said the lack of motivation from certain officials to pursue these leads is, in many ways, stunning. She explained that they first presented these claims in Georgia one year ago. At the time, they really thought officials would “jump in” and launch broad-scale state-level investigations, but she said “it’s been anything but,” calling it “confounding.”

“That feels more along the lines of a coverup than it does a willingness to really review the video, frankly,” she said, adding that they “should have been looking” at this all along.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.

Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.

Follow Pamela Geller on Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

What is at stake in Roe vs. Wade goes far beyond a squabble between left and right

What about the personhood of the unborn child?

A few days ago, a draft opinion of the United States Supreme Court was leaked to Politico, suggesting that the majority was inclined to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision enshrining a connotational right to abortion. The court has confirmed that the draft is authentic.

Although the draft is not final, it does strongly suggest that the court has already voted on the case and that a majority of justices is in favour of overturning Roe vWade. If that happens, it will bring an end to the notion that there is a right to abortion protected by the American constitution, and effectively leave the definition of abortion policy back in the hands of the individual States.

The extraordinary leaking of such an important draft opinion predictably opened a firestorm of political controversy.

It was insinuated by a report in The New York Times, for example, that the court had become unduly politicised or had become an instrument of conservative ideology rather than law. Apart from the fact that the original 1973 ruling was hardly an orthodox piece of constitutional interpretation, this sort of charge fails to engage the questions before the Court on their legal merits. As such, it looks more like a rhetorical deflection than a serious argument.

Fundamental issues

Even someone who is an ardent supporter of abortion rights should be more than capable of recognising that Roe v. Wade touches upon ethical and constitutional matters of fundamental importance that go far beyond the question of one’s political affiliations, or of whether this or that ideology, be it conservative or liberal, holds sway on the court.

The original majority opinion of Roe v. Wade in 1973 assumed that the unborn human being inside the mother is not deserving of the same fundamental protection of the law as that afforded born infants. It essentially contended that the mother’s choice to abort was indeed protected by the Constitution, whereas the Court has never, to my knowledge, suggested that anyone had a constitutional right to end the life of an infant after birth. In other words, it was unwilling to authorise infanticide.

In Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court found that the Constitution contained an implicit right to privacy, and that this right prevented governments from unduly restricting a woman’s access to abortion services. Many of those alarmed by the leak suggesting Roe v. Wade was about to be overturned have focused on this aspect of the decision.

But it also set down another important principle. The majority opinion deemed that the unborn foetus was not to be considered a “person” protected by the law, in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing “equal protection of the laws” and the rights to “life, liberty, and property” to all persons.

Finally, the court attempted to sidestep the question of when human life begins, on the grounds that this question was medically and philosophically unsettled:

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, in this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Yet even if some medics and philosophers dispute the exact moment when human life begins, the unborn foetus is biologically and genetically identical and continuous with the human being after birth. Under these circumstances, a strong case could also be made for treating the unborn as a person rather than a non-person under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment. For surely we should err on the side of protecting rather than stripping away fundamental rights from beings who are indisputably human from a biological and genetic perspective.


Many important ethical and constitutional questions have the potential to be politicised. And abortion is perhaps as clear an example of this as any. For example, currently, in the United States (according to this Pew Research Center poll conducted in April 2021), a majority of self-identifying “conservative Republicans” tend to oppose widely available legal abortion, while a majority of self-identifying “liberal Democrats” tend to favour the “right to choose” affirmed in Roe v. Wade.

The politically charged nature of the abortion debate tends to lead people to reduce all arguments for and against essentially as ornamentation for a predefined political posture. But just as the political explosiveness of the slavery question did not automatically invalidate argumentation about the moral and legal standing of slaves in the US before the Civil War, the political explosiveness of abortion does not automatically invalidate thoughtful argumentation about the moral and legal standing of the unborn or reduce it to a form of political cheer-leading.

The personhood of the unborn

The two questions touched on in Roe v. Wade — the constitutional standing of the choice to abort and the moral and legal standing of the unborn — are intimately connected.

If, for example, one takes the view that the unborn is a full member of the human family and as such, is deserving of full legal protection in virtue of his or her humanity, then it would be very strange indeed if one also took the view that the choice to abort were protected from interference by third parties by the federal constitution of the United States. For that would amount to saying that the choice to take an innocent human life was not only permitted by the federal constitution but protected by it from third-party interference.

If one concedes that unborn human life is in fact deserving of legal protection in virtue of the humanity of the unborn (or that humans should be considered as “persons” under the Fourteenth Amendment), one cannot coherently argue that the Constitution prohibits a State government from protecting unborn human life.

Indeed, if we assume that unborn human beings deserve full legal protection, it would seem strange if a Constitution that protects other fundamental human rights, such as the right to a fair trial, or the right to property, did not extend a similar protection to the bodily integrity of the unborn.

In order to endorse the mother’s right to abortion established by Roe v. Wade, one would have to take the view that unborn human life was not in fact deserving of full legal protection in virtue of its humanity, and that whatever potential interests the unborn may have in living and in thriving, may be overridden by the prerogatives of his or her mother, or her own interest in not being burdened with a child, or not carrying a child to term.

That  puts the supporter of Roe v. Wade in a difficult position. For having rejected humanity as a sufficient basis for full legal protection, it is difficult to see a principled reason for ruling out infanticide if that is what the parents want. Indeed, the plausibility of “after-birth abortion” has been defended by some bioethicists.

Supporters of Roe v. Wade who would not go so far as advocating infanticide need to find a basis for legal protection of newborn infants that does not entail a similar level of protection for unborn infants. They need to point to characteristics of newborn infants that place them squarely within the rights-bearing community, which are not morally arbitrary and which are not shared by their unborn counterparts.

That seems like a rather tall order to me.

This is a slightly edited version of a post on the author’s Substack, The Freedom Blog.


David Thunder

David Thunder is a researcher and lecturer at the University of Navarra’s Institute for Culture and Society. More by David Thunder


Jake Tapper Calls Potentially Disabled Children ‘Tragedy’ During Abortion Debate

SNL Claims SCOTUS Draft Opinion Argues ‘Abortion Is A Crime,’ Compares Court To Medieval Idiots

‘I told you so’ – the dissenters in Roe predicted its collapse

The problems of putting off children

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Pro-abortion group encourages supporters to storm churches nationwide on Mother’s Day

The Left’s war against civility and the peacefulness of the nation in general looks as if it’s about to escalate.

Abortion Groups Imply They’re Planning To Storm Catholic Churches On Sunday Over Roe V. Wade

by Christine Sellers, Daily Caller, May 6, 2022:

The pro-choice group, Ruth Sent Us implied that they’re planning to storm Catholic and Evangelical churches on Sunday in protest of the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade, according to a social media post Tuesday.

The group, whose name honors the late Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, shared a video to their Twitter feed showing women wearing red cloaks protesting about abortion rights inside a Catholic church. The group also called for a “Mother’s Day Strike” on Sunday alongside fellow pro-choice group, Strike For Choice.

“This is what Mother’s Day should look like,” the group wrote in their tweet, encouraging supporters to protest at Catholic and Evangelical churches “nationwide.”…

The group, Ruth Sent Us previously posted a video of pro-choice activists storming a Catholic church in the Archdiocese of San Francisco via their Instagram.


RELATED VIDEO: Democrat Rep. Jason Crow Wants the Defense Department to Perform Abortions on Military Bases



Democrats Warn Of Right-Wing Violence After Supreme Court Leak

With Roe v. Wade on the Ropes, the Left Has Women Exactly Where It Wants Them

Conflict of interest: Biden’s new press secretary in relationship with CNN reporter

Harvard president refuses to condemn string of anti-Semitic incidents on campus

Pakistan: Muslim murders his sister for choosing dancing and modeling as a career

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Durham Builds Case On Clinton Disinformation Factory As Biden Launches ‘Disinformation Governance Board’

Just as the Biden administration was gearing up to announce the head of its new “Disinformation Governance Board,” Special Counsel John Durham was busily working toward one of many clear conclusions: the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign was central to the spread of harmful disinformation throughout the media.

To truly gauge the level of harm the Clinton disinformation factory caused would be a difficult task, but it did contribute in some ways to locking the FBI up in a costly and lengthy investigation that ultimately found no Trump/Russia conspiracy. It also resulted in a series of corrections and reckonings at media outlets already struggling with national trust.

As it happens, the new head of Biden’s disinfo board – dedicated to tackling misinformation and disinformation as the 2022 midterm elections loom – Nina Jankowicz herself promoted a piece of disinformation Durham recently concluded to be an outright fabrication by Clinton-hired researchers. Jankowicz, a self-styled “globally recognized” expert on disinformation, also propped up former British spy Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier that one former CIA Moscow station chief described as likely “a part of a Russian espionage disinformation plot.”

“Listened to this last night — Chris Steele (yes THAT Chris Steele) provides some great historical context about the evolution of disinfo. Worth a listen,” Jankowicz wrote in one 2020 tweet.

Russian-born Igor Danchenko – allegedly Steele’s top source for the dossier, according to the Washington Examiner – was charged in 2021 as part of Durham’s inquiry for “making false statements to the FBI.”

On other occasions, Jankowicz pushed misleading claims surrounding the dossier. In one instance, she claimed that the Republican Party “funded the dossier first.” Her tweet was in response to Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s question of whether there was “collusion between DOJ and Fusion GPS to use Democratic funding dossier for political and legal purposes.”

“You’re probably aware that [the Steele dossier] began as a Republican opposition research project,” Jankowicz wrote in a separate tweet in 2020, according to The Washington Examiner.

The conservative Washington Free Beacon, which initially hired Fusion GPS, said in 2017 it “had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier.”

“The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele,” the Beacon’s editor-in-chief Matthew Continetti and chairman Michael Goldfarb wrote in a statement at the time, according to NPR.

In fact, the Steele dossier came about after he was hired by an opposition firm in 2016. That firm, Fusion GPS, was hired in part by the general counsel for Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, the Examiner noted.

With Jankowicz prepping to lead the administration’s “disinformation” board, Durham’s court filings have served as insight into another apparent disinformation push.

Durham noted in one April 2022 court filing that the CIA determined data from former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann surrounding Russia-Trump organization links was “user created” and not “technically plausible.”

Sussmann was charged by Durham last year with lying to the FBI during a 2016 meeting.

Durham more recently alleged that Fusion GPS sent hundreds of unverified claims regarding Trump to journalists, The Washington Times reported. The hundreds of emails, according to Durham, resulted in various news articles tying together Trump and Russia.

Individuals tied to Clinton’s presidential campaign have argued that research from Fusion GPS should be protected, citing attorney-client privilege. They’ve also claimed the opposition firm’s work was to supply legal services, The Washington Times reported.

Durham responded in court filings by noting that, if true, Fusion GPS would have taken more care with its unverified allegations prior to spreading them around to journalists.

“If rendering such advice was truly the intended purpose of Fusion GPS’s retention, one would also expect the investigative firm to seek permission and/or guidance from [the Clinton campaign] or its counsel before sharing such derogatory materials with the media or otherwise placing them into the public domain,” Durham wrote, according to The Washington Times.

On Wednesday, Durham saw his latest small win when the judge presiding over Sussmann’s case agreed to do a review of records being withheld by Clintons’ presidential campaign, the Washington Examiner reported.



Senior White House correspondent. Follow Shelby on Twitter


Disinformation And Wizard Rock: Meet Biden’s New ‘Minister Of Truth’ At DHS

The List Gets Longer: All The Ways Hillary & The Government Spied On Trump

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The VA Bought 10,000 Smartphones during the Pandemic. 85% Were Never Used


There’s a right way and a wrong way to help homeless veterans.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs wasted $1.8 million in data plan costs for unused phones, according to an inspector general’s report released on Wednesday. The Veterans Health Administration had spent $7 million to purchase 10,000 phones with unlimited prepaid calling plans for homeless veterans, but 85% of the phones went unused. The report also found that $571,000 was wasted on data plans for iPads sitting in storage due to poor oversight.

“The smartphones and iPads were purchased as part of the efforts to increase homeless veterans’ access to telehealth,” the Associate Press explains. “The veterans were enrolled in a Department of Housing and Urban Development VA Supportive housing program.”

The report called for the VA to “establish a realistic goal for days in storage along with a process for closely monitoring days in storage for each data plan provider and taking corrective actions when the goal is not being met.” It also called on the VA to create a process that starts the data plan charges only after the device has been issued to a veteran.

Regrettably, government waste and mismanagement like this is nothing new. From $2 million bathrooms to $400,000 camel statues, governments have managed to throw mad amounts of money down the drain over the years. In fact, government waste is so common that Senator Rand Paul prepares an annual “Festivus” report detailing the most egregious examples of wasted resources from the year.

But while government waste is nothing new, what’s intriguing about this particular case is the reason that was given for the problem.

“The inspector general concluded that Veterans Health Administration officials…made a good faith effort to help veterans get smartphones,” the Associated Press notes. “But they found there was a ‘lack of information for officials to be able to determine the quantity needed for the targeted veteran population.’”

If this assessment sounds familiar, well, it should. As the Nobel-prize-winning economist F. A. Hayek famously asserted, the “lack of information” possessed by government bureaucrats regarding the “quantity needed” of various resources is in fact the key problem with central planning. Waste is inevitable in these systems precisely because they can never accumulate, let alone manage, the knowledge that is required for determining the best allocation of resources.

Hayek spells out the knowledge problem in his famous essay, The Use of Knowledge in Society.

“The peculiar character of the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess. The economic problem of society is thus not merely a problem of how to allocate “given” resources—if “given” is taken to mean given to a single mind which deliberately solves the problem set by these “data.” It is rather a problem of how to secure the best use of resources known to any of the members of society, for ends whose relative importance only these individuals know. Or, to put it briefly, it is a problem of the utilization of knowledge which is not given to anyone in its totality.”

The solution to this problem, says Hayek, is decentralization and market prices. With market prices, we can learn what people find valuable and direct production to those ends. But without market prices, we are “groping in the dark,” as Mises says. This is why Veterans Affairs wasted over a million dollars on these data plans. They had no way of knowing the demand for these phones, so they ended up buying way more than were needed.

Of course, none of this is to say we shouldn’t help homeless veterans. The question here is what’s the most effective way to help them. The government approach, or the market approach?

The government approach, as this story illustrates, is to assume that we know what homeless veterans need, buy a bunch of it, and then realize that we actually misjudged the need and wasted a bunch of money.

The market approach, on the other hand, begins with the assumption that we don’t know what’s best for other people or what their specific needs are. Following from that, we realize that it makes little sense to have central planners spending money on their behalf. Thus, rather than trying to guess what they need, we focus our efforts on getting out of their way. We get rid of minimum wage laws and occupational licensing requirements that might be keeping them out of jobs. We cut taxes so they can save money, and we tear down crony regulations that make everyday goods more expensive than they need to be. In other words, we let the market work.

To be sure, the market approach is radically different from what we’ve been doing. But given how things have turned out, perhaps radically different is exactly what we need.

This article was adapted from an issue of the FEE Daily email newsletter. Click here to sign up and get free-market news and analysis like this in your inbox every weekday.


Patrick Carroll

Patrick Carroll has a degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Waterloo and is an Editorial Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

A Cloud Hangs Over Trans Medicine + Video Documentary ‘Transbarnen’ [Trans Kids]

“For almost forty years, I’ve considered it an honor to be a doctor. I believe in our role as healers, and I believe in our role as truth-tellers. The truth we need to confront right now is that medicine and science are being politically perverted around the country in ways that destroy human lives.”

That’s Assistant Secretary for Health Admiral Rachel Levine, a USA Today Woman of the Year, and the Biden Administration’s most prominent transgender bureaucrat.

Speaking a few days ago at Texas Christian University, Levine declared: “Gender-affirming care is medical care. It is mental health care. It is suicide prevention care. It improves quality of life, and it saves lives. It is based on decades of study. It is a well-established medical practice.”

However, transgender care is far from being “well-established”, as Admiral Levine must surely know. In recent months, health authorities in one country after another in Europe have expressed their alarm, citing serious medical and psychological problems amongst people who have received “gender-affirming care”.

  • In France, the National Academy of Medicine declared on February 25: “great medical caution must be taken in children and adolescents, given the vulnerability, particularly psychological, of this population and the many undesirable effects and even serious complications that can be caused by some of the therapies available”.
  • In Sweden, the National Board of Health and Welfare issued new guidelines for gender-affirming care in February. It said, based on current knowledge: “the risks of puberty suppressing treatment with GnRH-analogues and gender-affirming hormonal treatment currently outweigh the possible benefits, and that the treatments should be offered only in exceptional cases.”
  • In the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published two systematic reviews of puberty blockers in March 2021. It found that they “lead to little or no change in gender dysphoria, mental health, body image and psychosocial functioning. In the few studies that did report change, the results could be attributable to bias or chance, or were deemed unreliable.”
  • In Finland, the Finnish Health Authority (PALKO/COHERE) reversed course in 2020. Its new guidance stated that “psychotherapy, rather than puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, should be the first-line treatment for gender-dysphoric youth”.

Admiral Levine would benefit from viewing the last of four programs produced by the Swedish national broadcaster SVT about transgender medicine. Transbarnen (The Trans Children) examines the case of “Leo”, a ten-year-old girl who decided that she was really a boy. It is an appalling tale of abysmal medical care – at one of the world best hospitals, the Karolinska. The searing revelations from the SVT’s investigative reporters were one factor in the new guidelines in Sweden.

Here’s what Uppdrag Granskning (Mission Investigation) found.

At the age of 11, Leo embarked upon puberty blockers. The child and her mother were told that this was standard treatment and reversible.

“Leo was little when she wanted to become a he,’ her mother Natalie told the reporter, Carolina Jemsby. “I thought if this was his wish, I should agree with it. Everyone said Leo was brave to come out and I should be proud of him.”

The puberty blockers were meant to stop Leo from developing breasts, wider hips and menstruating. Their use is based on the so-called Dutch Protocol, developed in the Netherlands in 2011. But, as Jemsby points out, some experts have grave misgivings about this repeatedly-cited research. “The worry comes from the lack of long-term studies and that the Dutch study alone is not sufficient evidence. It has too few subjects, no control group and was done at only one clinic.”

Since a well-known side-effect of puberty blockers is a serious decrease in bone density, patients are supposed to be checked regularly. They should receive the powerful drugs for no longer than two years.

Leo was on the medication for four years and his bone density was never checked.

The effects were little short of catastrophic. Leo now suffers from severe osteoporosis, a weaking of bones which is normally seen in people in their 60s and 70s. It is almost irreversible. His mother says that he was in pain from skeletal damage; he was constantly depressed; and he attempted to commit suicide several times.

“But information about the potential risks and lack of evidence never reaches Leo and his family,” says Jemsby.

In fact, one of the most dismaying features of the Swedish journalists’ report is mismanagement in the medical bureaucracy. One group diagnosed children’s gender dysphoria; another administered the medications. They didn’t appear to communicate with each other. If this is one of the world’s best hospitals, what happens elsewhere?

Jemsby showed doctors incident reports not only on Leo, but on several children who had serious complications after embarking upon puberty blockers. The response? A lot of creased brows and finger-pointing and no answers. No one, it appears, was responsible.

“I think everyone involved in this case had good intentions,” Dr Ola Nilsson, a paediatric endocrinologist, says. “But now it’s time to take a step back and try to get really good data regarding what’s best – how best to diagnose and treat this group so we do more good than harm. Much more good than harm. Minimal harm and a lot of benefit is the goal of all healthcare.”

Unfortunately, the picture painted by the Swedish journalists is one of minimal benefit for children and a lot of buck-passing by doctors.

Leo’s back, shoulder and hips are constantly aching. His distraught mother says: “A 15-year-old shouldn’t have to deal with that. His bones shouldn’t look that way. A healthy skeleton that’s been destroyed by this medicine.”

Gender-affirming care “improves quality of life, and it saves lives,” says Admiral Levine. But it didn’t for Leo and for many other children. So many, that European healthcare regulators are slamming on the brakes for transgender care – while the Americans are turbo-charging it.

To cite Rachel Levine’s ill-chosen words, medicine and science are being “politically perverted”, but not by trans sceptics, but by the Biden Administration.


Michael Cook

Michael Cook is the editor of MercatorNet. He lives in Sydney, Australia. More by Michael Cook

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2021 LLC. A Florida Cooperation. All rights reserved. The is a not-for-profit news forum for intelligent Conservative commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. Republishing of columns on this website requires the permission of both the author and editor. For more information contact: