We have lived through a period that went from mankind cannot control the weather to environmental alarmists first warning about global cooling, then global warming and now the “existential threat” of climate change.
Now we learn from Biden’s Secretary of Commerce Gina M. Raimondo that American children having clothes comes second to dealing with the “existential threat” of climate change. Watch and listen:
When the climate cools during the winter children need coats, scarves and other clothes to keep them warm and protect them from the elements. When the climate warms in the summer children need clothes to keep them cool and protect them from sunburn and overheating.
Logic right? Wrong. The climate myth trumps logic.
On February 17th, 2021 USA Today’s Kerry Breen reported:
A winter storm that pummeled the state has set record-low temperatures in cities like San Antonio, Dallas and Corpus Christi, with some areas of the state seeing single-digit and below-zero temperatures. According to NBC News, the unprecedented cold put too much strain on the state’s electrical system, meaning that more than 3 million residents of the state are dealing with rolling power outages or total blackouts.
NBC News also reported that at least 25 people have died in “weather-related fatalities” since the weekend, with the “majority” of the deaths happening in Texas.
Shoppers are ready to restock their closets for the fall and winter. But many are asking, where’s all the clothing?
Kristin Sterling was trying to do some back-to-school shopping at TJ Maxx. “I’ve been looking for baby items, as well as for a teen, a school-age child,” Sterling said. But inside, she found a much smaller selection than she has seen before. “I’m finding that there’s not that much clothing,” Sterling said.
Shoppers across the country are finding half-empty clothing racks, and shoe shelves out of popular sizes at many stores. At a Burlington store, a third of the store is now closed off with a divider. High school sophomore Mia Dressel was looking for a homecoming dress with her grandmother, but… “All the dresses were really, really short, or really long,” Dressel said.
Owing to supply-chain snarls, two-thirds of fashion executives said they are expecting to increase prices in 2022, with an average price increase of 3% across all clothing and apparel, this year’s State of Fashion 2022report by the Business of Fashion and McKinsey & Co. found.
A worrying 15% of executives polled said they planned on increasing prices by more than 10% in 2022.
Inflation in fashion is caused by a combination of material shortages, transportation bottlenecks, and rising shipping costs straining supply and demand, according to the study, which surveyed more than 220 international fashion executives and experts.
All of these things are happening now but worse. Biden’s build back better for Americans nothings built, nothings back and nothings better.
The Bottom Line
America depends on cheap and reliable power. America depends on its supply chain to deliver goods and services. America depends on our economy to provide what we need to live healthy and prosperous lives. That is now all at risk.
Biden’s green policies of eliminating fossil fuels and replacing oil, coal and natural power plants with solar and wind generators to stop the “existential threat” of climate change is destroying foundation of the economy.
From climate change to lockdown mandates we are seeing the long term impact on everything we Americans have come to depend on. Going to the supermarket or store or online and buying what we need and want is gradually going away. It’s becoming more and more common to see shortages and higher prices for essentials.
Biden’s policies are the root cause our supply chain to being disrupted.
Disruptions to the supply chain aren’t over yet. It is predicted that supply chain issues facing the United States will continue into 2022—citing demand as one of the top contributors. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which account for 40% of shipping containers entering the U.S., have already started operating 24/7 to relieve supply chain bottlenecks. But with labor shortages in both warehousing and transportation, are consumers looking at something similar—or more disruptive than—the 2020 toilet paper shortage?
[ … ]
With a quickly shifting marketplace, many companies are finding it increasingly difficult to navigate the intricacies of the supply chain. This has led to many businesses looking to outsource their logistics needs to third-party logistics warehouses and transportation providers. In 2021, users of 3PL services reported that 40% of their total logistics expenditures were related to outsourcing. Much of this growth can be directly correlated to the rise of the ecommerce industry. Considering this push of online sales, expectations for the global third-party logistics market are expected to be valued at $1.1 trillion over the next six years.
Biden and his administration have reset the priorities of America and Americans are now feeling the pinch. From Covid to Climate Change this administration has fundamentally transformed our economy from being robust, our supply chain from being dependable and our store shelves full to the polar opposite.
From baby formula, to clothing, to fuel prices to the cost of living Biden’s policies are NOT making America better, rather it is making America MUCH worse.
What is more important to you? Feeding and clothing your new born baby or climate change?
Bill Nye said,
“The less we do to address climate change now, the more regulation we will have in the future.”
Under Biden we now have more and more regulations and mandates negatively impacting our economy in the name of climate change.
How’s that working out for you now?
Choose wisely on Tuesday, November 8th, 2022 because you and your family’s long-term health, welfare and well being are at stake.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2022-05-14 05:50:592022-05-14 09:26:51Biden’s Secretary of Commerce: American children ‘having clothes comes second to the existential threat of climate change’
In 1992, researchers published data showing the quality of sperm counts in men had been cut nearly in half over the previous 50 years. A 2017 systematic review confirmed this trend, showing a 50% to 60% drop in total sperm count among men in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand between 1973 and 2011
Testosterone has also declined in tandem with lower sperm counts, while miscarriage rates among women and erectile dysfunction among men have been steadily rising
We can rule out genetics as the cause, because the decline in sperm count is simply too rapid. That leaves us with environmental causes. Environmental causes can be broadly divided into two broad categories: Lifestyle and chemicals
Lifestyle factors that negatively impact fertility include obesity, smoking, binge drinking and stress
A great number of chemicals can impact fertility either directly or indirectly, but the most concerning class are endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) such as phthalates. EDCs disrupt hormones, including sex hormones necessary for reproductive function, such as testosterone
In the After Skool video above, Shanna H. Swan, Ph.D., a leading environmental and reproductive epidemiologist and professor of environmental medicine and public health at the Icahn school of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, examines the role of environmental toxins in reproductive health.
In 1992, researchers published data showing the quality of sperm counts in men had been cut nearly in half over the previous 50 years. According to this study:1
“Linear regression of data weighted by number of men in each study showed a significant decrease in mean sperm count from 113 x 10(6)/ml in 1940 to 66 x 10(6)/ml in 1990 and in seminal volume from 3.40 ml to 2.75 ml, indicating an even more pronounced decrease in sperm production than expressed by the decline in sperm density …
As male fertility is to some extent correlated with sperm count the results may reflect an overall reduction in male fertility. The biological significance of these changes is emphasized by a concomitant increase in the incidence of genitourinary abnormalities such as testicular cancer and possibly also cryptorchidism and hypospadias, suggesting a growing impact of factors with serious effects on male gonadal function.”
Are Humans Going Extinct?
Swan was initially skeptical, but she decided to look into it some more. To her amazement, after reviewing each of the 60 studies included in that 1992 analysis, she could find nothing to indicate that the finding was a fluke. It was the most stable trend she’d ever come across, and she spent the next 20 years investigating why human reproduction is plummeting.
In 2017, she published a systematic review and meta-regression analysis2 showing a 50% to 60% drop in total sperm count among men in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand between 1973 and 2011. Overall, men in these countries had a 52.4% decline in sperm concentration and a 59.3% decline in total sperm count (sperm concentration multiplied by the total volume of an ejaculate).
Swan refers to this shocking 39-year decline as “the 1% effect,” meaning the cumulative effect that an annual change of just 1% has over time. Testosterone has also declined in tandem with lower sperm counts, while miscarriage rates among women and erectile dysfunction among men have been steadily rising.
If these trends continue, and there’s no indication that they won’t, in the not-so-distant future, we’ll be looking at a male population that is completely infertile. At that point, the human population will become extinct. Along the way, however, we’ll be facing a number of other pressing problems.
How Will We Care for Aging Baby Boomers?
Historically, the age distribution of the population has looked like a pyramid. The bottom largest section was children, the middle, slightly smaller section was working adults, and the top of the pyramid was seniors. This worked out well, because the younger population was able to financially support and care for the much smaller older segment.
We no longer have that pyramid. In most countries, the population distribution now looks like a light bulb, with a narrow base of children, a bulbous segment of adults, and a narrowing but still very large segment of older adults.
Part of the equation is the fact that life spans have gotten longer, which is wonderful. But the funds to support this aging population — through social security and Medicare in the U.S., for example — are dwindling, as the payer base is shrinking so dramatically.
Another problem is the fact that we won’t have the labor force required to keep the economy afloat. There aren’t enough children to fill all the jobs after the adult population retires.
What’s the Cause?
According to Swan, there are likely a whole host of factors contributing to this reproductive calamity. We can, however, rule out genetics, because the decline in sperm count is simply too rapid. A 50% decline in just two generations cannot be explained by genetics.
That leaves us with environmental causes. Environmental causes can be broadly divided into two broad categories: Lifestyle and chemicals. Lifestyle factors that negatively impact fertility include:
Obesity
Smoking
Binge drinking
Stress
On the chemical side, we know that a great number of chemicals can impact fertility either directly or indirectly, but the most concerning class are endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).3 EDCs disrupt hormones, including sex hormones necessary for reproductive function.
Many EDCs will mimic hormones, effectively taking their place. But, of course, the chemical doesn’t function the way the natural hormone does, so whatever that hormone controls won’t function well either. As explained in the 2019 report, “Male Infertility and Environmental Factors”:4
“Classically the EDCs bind to the androgen or estrogen receptor triggering an agonist or antagonist action. These in turn lead to increased or decreased gene expression of sex-specific genes.
In addition, EDCs act on steroidogenic enzymes and the metabolism of hormones, for example, inhibit the activity of 5-α reductase, which is the most important enzyme in the production of dihydrotestosterone and hence the regulation of the masculinization of the external genitalia and the prostate.
Furthermore, P450 enzymes in the liver that metabolize steroid hormones may be affected. In animal models EDCs affect hormone receptor levels. In addition to the effect on hormone action, animal experiments suggest that EDCs may also result in epigenetic changes and miRNA levels.”
Shaw suspects EDCs are a primary culprit in infertility, in part because we’re surrounded by them every day of our lives. We’re exposed to them through our food, water, personal care products, furniture, building materials, plastics and much more.
In Utero Exposure to EDCs Can Drive Down Fertility
The most vulnerable time of a person’s life is in utero. This is when the building blocks for your reproductive system are laid down, and exposure to EDCs at this time can wreak havoc with a child’s adult reproductive capacity. Since the fetus shares the mother’s body, everything the mother is exposed to, the fetus is exposed to.
As explained in the video, a boy’s reproductive system is dependent on a certain level of testosterone for proper development. If the testosterone level is too low, his reproductive system will be impaired to some degree. In short, without sufficient testosterone, the boy’s reproductive system will “default” to female. He will be feminized, or as Shaw describes it, “incompletely masculinized.”
Phthalates Are in Everybody
Shaw was tipped off to investigate phthalates by a chemist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who noted that these EDCs have been found in everybody, including pregnant women.
Specifically, phthalates have been shown to disrupt the reproductive development of males, because they lower testosterone levels and incomplete male development in animals has now become so prevalent, there’s even a name for it: phthalate syndrome.
Animal studies have shown that when a pregnant mother is fed phthalates in early pregnancy, her male offspring will have smaller and less developed reproductive organs. His testicles may not be descended, his penis may be smaller, and his anogenital distance (the distance between the anus and the genitals) tends to be shorter.
Shaw was the first to study the anogenital distance in human male infants, and was able to confirm phthalate syndrome is occurring in humans as well. Boys born of women with high levels of phthalic metabolites in their urine — specifically those that lower testosterone — had phthalate syndrome, and the severity was dose-dependent.
Shaw then replicated the study with another set of mothers and their babies, and found the same result. The next question then is, does a shorter anogenital distance result in lower sperm count?
According to Shaw, boys with a short anogenital distance are more likely to have reproductive defects such as undescended testicles and defects of the penis. He’s also more likely to develop testicular cancer at an earlier age than normal, and he’s more likely to be sub-fertile.
So, it is her professional conclusion that phthalate exposure in utero is “undoubtedly part of the explanation of the decrease in sperm count and fertility.” Phthalates and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have also been linked to reduced bone mineral density in male teens,5 which could have significant implications later in life.
Common Sources of Phthalate Exposure
Phthalates are found in plastics. They’re what make the plastic soft and flexible, so wherever you find soft and pliable plastic, you find phthalates. Examples include:
Vinyl clothing, such as raincoats and rubber boots
Plastic shower curtains
Plastic tubing of all kinds
Foods that have been processed through plastic tubing, such as dairy products (the milking machines have plastic tubing)
Phthalates also increase absorption and help retain scent and color, so you’ll find them in:
Cosmetics, perfumes and personal care products
Scented household products such as laundry soap and air fresheners
Pesticides
As noted by Shaw, phthalates are only one class of EDCs. There are several others, including phytoestrogens, dioxins, flame retardants, phenols, PCBs and polyaromatic hydrocarbons. Phthalates, however, are among the most hazardous for male reproductive health due to their ability to block testosterone.
The phenols, such as bisphenol-A (BPA), have the opposite effect in that they make plastic more rigid and hard. In the human body, they increase the female hormone estrogen, resulting in breast development and a flabby midsection. BPA also damages the DNA in sperm.6 Like phthalates, BPA and other bisphenols are extremely pervasive. They’re found in:
Personal care products such as shampoos and lotions
The Good News
The good news here is that many of the chemicals that are most harmful to reproduction are not persistent, and your body can eliminate them in four to six hours.
Sperm production take about 70 days from start to finish, so over time, a man may be able to reverse some of the damage, provided it’s not congenital. The problem, of course, is that most people are exposed to multiple sources 24/7, so successful detox means you have to stop taking them in.
Another piece of good news is that researchers have shown that if you clean up the environment of the offspring from a toxic, unhealthy rat, normal reproductive capacity is restored after three generations of clean living.
While this is a relatively quick fix for rats, the life span of which is only two years, it’s not quite as simple for humans. Three generations in human terms is about 75 years, “but we can start in that direction,” Shaw says, by making sure we a) don’t expose children to EDCs in utero, and b) eliminate further exposure during childhood if the child was exposed in utero.
Forever Chemicals in Our Food and Water
While phthalates and bisphenols are nonpersistent, PFAS — a class of chemicals that are pervasive in soil, water, and human bodies — are so persistent they’re known as “forever chemicals.” In Maine, farmers are now blowing the whistle, warning that PFAS on farmland are a “slow-motion disaster.”7
How do the chemicals get there? While spills and seepage from industrial sites are part of the problem in some areas, the most prevalent source of the contamination is biosolids — toxic human waste sludge — which is being marketed as an affordable fertilizer.
In 2019, I wrote about how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has failed to adequately regulate the biosolids industry, thereby allowing massive quantities of toxic materials to be introduced into our food supply.
You can learn more about this in the Natural News documentary “Biosludged,” above. PFAS accumulate in the soil and is transferred into your food. Proof of this can be seen in food testing, which in 2017 found PFAS chemicals in 10 of the 91 foods tested.
Chocolate cake had the highest amount — 250 times above the advisory limit for drinking water. (There’s currently no limit for food.) Nearly half of the meat and fish tested also contained double the advisory limit for water. Leafy greens grown within 10 miles of a PFAS plant also contained very high amounts. As you might expect, PFAS also accumulate in your body.
Maine Takes Action
In Maine, PFAS contaminated water wells have sparked both outrage and action. A March 2022 article in The Maine Monitor spells out the game plan:8
“Maine is the first state to comprehensively test for the impacts of forever chemicals from sludge spreading on farmland, a practice occurring nationwide where fully half of wastewater sludge is land-applied. Consequently, Maine has had to pioneer policy actions, moving to implement recommendations of a year-long PFAS task force.
The next policy step must be passage of LD 1911, which would ban land application of sludge and the land application or sale of compost derived from sludge. Two dozen companies and municipalities are licensed to convert sludge into compost, despite the state’s own finding that 89% of finished compost samples exceeded the screening level for PFOA, a common PFAS compound.
Adam Nordell, co-owner of Songbird Farm in Unity — another site of high PFAS contamination — summarized the importance of LD 1911 this way: ‘No one can undo the historic contamination of our land. But we know enough now to turn off the tap.’
A second bill before the Legislature, LD 1639, would prevent the state-owned Juniper Ridge landfill, managed by Casella Waste Systems, from accepting construction and demolition debris that originated out of state and is laden with PFAS and other toxics, increasing the contaminated leachate entering the Penobscot River.”
Toxic Pesticides
Communities in Maryland and Massachusetts have also confirmed that pesticides used against mosquitoes were contaminated with PFAS, even though they’re not supposed to contain such chemicals. In April 2022, the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) reported:9
“EPA claimed that there were no PFAS chemicals used in this way, but independent testing10 revealed that there was PFAS contamination in pesticides being used by mosquito control districts — of 14 mosquito control products tested, half were found to contain PFAS. These products are heavily applied across communities, often weekly, from Spring through Fall.
In response to these concerns, EPA claimed that the PFAS contamination was due to leaching from fluorinated plastic HDPE storage containers. While this explanation has been touted by many as proof that PFAS contamination of pesticides is not a serious concern, the testing in Maryland and Massachusetts revealed that three products were contaminated from another source than the containers.
Beyond this kind of contamination, PFAS are active ingredients in at least 40 pesticide products used worldwide. And this only accounts for pesticides that include PFAS as an active ingredient.
PFAS products are a popular surfactant (helps spray more easily) so PFAS may also be used as inert ingredients in pesticides, which unfortunately don’t have to be reported since chemical composition falls under ‘trade secret’ jurisdiction.
It is clear that PFAS are present in a variety of commonly-used pesticide products, regardless of storage conditions. No research has been done on the synergistic effects of PFAS and pesticides — which we know pose their own set of human and environmental health risks.”
Again and again, the EPA has failed in its duty to protect public health from chemicals that wreak havoc on human health, fetal development and fertility. As noted by PAN, “EPA has engaged in a regulatory stalling tactic — changing the definition of what is considered to be a PFAS to shirk responsibility.”
The new “working definition” of PFAS has been considerably narrowed from what it was, thereby excluding many chemicals used in drugs and pesticides. To counter the EPA’s deliberate shortcomings, the U.S. Congress has also introduced a bill (HR.5987 — the PFAS Definition Improvement Act11) that would require the EPA to use the widest and most comprehensive definition of PFAS.
I join PAN in urging you to call on your representatives to co-sponsor this bill. Maine and Maryland have also proposed bills to prevent PFAS contamination in pesticides specifically.
It’s hard to be optimistic when faced with such dire statistics as a 1% reduction in male fertility per year. But if we care about life, we must at least try to turn things around. One step in the right direction would be to eliminate EDCs from common use. In the meantime, men and women of childbearing age would be wise to take precautions and clear out anything that might expose them to these chemicals in their day-to-day lives, before they try to conceive.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MERCOLA Take Control of Your Healthhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMERCOLA Take Control of Your Health2022-05-14 04:46:472022-05-14 04:47:28U.S. Sperm Count Drops 50%: Are These Chemicals Part of a Depopulation Agenda?
“Whoever…with the intent of influencing any judge…in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades…in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned.” – 18 US Code §1507
When Black Lives Matter race rioters burned cities and wounded thousands, Biden’s people and their media allies claimed that these were “mostly peaceful” protests.
A thug could be beheading a conservative and the media and the Biden administration would claim that the head was still mostly on. So their definition of peaceful can’t be trusted. And, there’s no such thing as a peaceful protest at a public official’s home. That’s harassment and intimidation meant to change a judicial ruling.
If conservatives were doing this to D.C. Federal judges who are engaging in blatantly partisan conduct the FBI would be called in and they’d be in jail.
But the Biden administration defends the intimidation of Supreme Court justices because it supports it.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Tuesday defended protests outside the suburban homes of conservative Supreme Court justices as “peaceful to date” — despite the fact that more of the potentially illegal rallies are planned Wednesday to pressure the judges to abandon a draft anti-abortion rights ruling.
“The president’s longstanding view has been that violent threats and intimidation of any kind have no place in political discourse. And we believe of course in peaceful protests,” Psaki said at her daily press briefing.
“So I know that there’s an outrage right now, I guess, about protests that have been peaceful to date,” Psaki later added. “And we certainly continue to encourage that outside of judges’ homes and that’s the president’s position.”
Would Psaki consider protests outside her home peaceful? I suspect she would not. But as we already know, there’s a double standard.
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%
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2022-05-12 16:13:212022-05-14 06:58:18Walgreens: Unvaxxed are testing positive for Covid-19 at the lowest rate, Triple Vaxxed at the highest
Is it true that the AR-15, a popular firearm owned by millions of Americans, is a unique threat to public safety?
From Parkland, Florida, to San Bernardino, California, the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle and its variants have seemingly become the weapons of choice for mass shooters in the United States.
Many people simply cannot believe that regular civilians should be able to legally own so-called “weapons of war,” which they believe should only be in the hands of the military.
According to Pew Research, for example, 81 percent of Democrats and even 50 percent of Republicans believe the federal government should ban “assault-style rifles” like the AR-15. Given the massive amount of carnage AR-15s and similar rifles have caused, it makes sense that the civilian population simply cannot be trusted to own such weapons, right?
Perhaps, but is it really true that the AR-15, a popular firearm owned by millions of Americans, is a unique threat to public safety, so dangerous that it deserves to be banned or even confiscated by the federal government?
It cannot be emphasized enough that any homicide is a tragedy, but in order to get a sense of how dangerous to public safety “assault-style” rifles are, it’s useful to compare their usage in homicide to other methods.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the CDC reports “produce more accurate homicide trends at the national level” because they capture less under-reporting than the FBI statistics.
However, the homicide data recorded by the CDC includes all homicides committed by civilians regardless of criminal intent. The FBI data instead focuses on intentional homicides (i.e murder) known to law enforcement and excludes non-negligent homicide (i.e. manslaughter.)
According to the BJS, the FBI data is “better suited for understanding the circumstances surrounding homicide incidents.” This is especially true given that the FBI, but not the CDC, records the type of firearm used in a given homicide. For the purposes of this analysis, the data from the FBI will be used.
There are two further limitations of FBI data worth noting.
Firstly, the FBI reports do not look at “assault-style” rifles specifically, but rather, murders involving all types of rifles, whether they are committed with an AR-15 or a hunting rifle.
Secondly, each year there are a few thousand homicide cases where the type of firearm used goes unreported to the FBI. This means that some murders listed under “unknown firearm” may, in fact, be rifle murders.
To account for this under-reporting, we will extrapolate from rifles’ share of firearm murders where the type of weapon is known in order to estimate the number of “unknown” firearms that were in actuality rifle homicides.
How many murders involve rifles like the AR-15?
If we take the time to look at the raw data provided by the FBI, we find that all rifles, not just “assault-style rifles,” constitute on average 340 homicides per year from 2007 through 2017 (see Figure 1.). When we adjust these numbers to take under-reporting into account, that number rises to an average of 439 per year.
Figure 2 compares rifle homicides to homicides with other non-firearm weapons. Believe it or not, between 2007 and 2017, nearly 1,700 people were murdered with a knife or sharp object per year. That’s almost four times the number of people murdered by an assailant with any sort of rifle.
In any given year, for every person murdered with a rifle, there are 15 murdered with handguns, 1.7 with hands or fists, and 1.2 with blunt instruments. In fact, homicides with any sort of rifle represent a mere 3.2 percent of all homicides on average over the past decade.
Given that the FBI statistics pertain to all rifles, the homicide frequency of “assault-style” rifles like the AR-15 is necessarily lesser still, as such firearms compose a fraction of all the rifles used in crime.
According to a New York Timesanalysis, since 2007, at least “173 people have been killed in mass shootings in the United States involving AR-15s.”
That’s 173 over a span of a decade, with an average of 17 homicides per year. To put this in perspective, consider that at this rate it would take almost one-hundred years of mass shootings with AR-15s to produce the same number of homicide victims that knives and sharp objects produce in one year.
With an average of 13,657 homicides per year during the 2007-2017 timeframe, about one-tenth of one percent of homicides were produced by mass shootings involving AR-15s.
Conclusion
Mass shootings involving rifles like the AR-15 can produce dozens of victims at one time, and combined with extensive media coverage of these events, many people have been led to believe that such rifles pose a significant threat to public safety.
However, such shootings are extremely rare, and a look at the FBI data informs us that homicide with these types of rifles represents an extremely small fraction of overall homicide violence. Banning or confiscating such firearms from the civilian population would likely produce little to no reduction in violent crime rates in America.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2022-05-11 15:28:272022-05-12 15:57:42Are AR-15 Rifles a Public Safety Threat? Here’s What the Data Say
Friday on MSNBC’s Deadline, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) fear-mongered that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito‘s legal reasoning in a leaked draft opinion overturn Roe v. Wade is a “severe danger to the Constitution of the United States.”
Pelosi said, “We have to have clarity in what this draft decision means so that the final decision doesn’t go that far. The chief justice has said this is authentic, but it is not final. I don’t want to use the word authentic. It’s real but not final. Again, Lincoln said public sentiment is everything, and with it, you can accomplish almost anything, and without it, nothing. Women just have to weigh in. I don’t think there’s a good outcome here, but I think there’s a better outcome than what we have seen in the first draft, which is radical. It dispenses with precedent even though some of these candidates for when they were candidates for confirmation said they support it as what you’ve seen over and over and they support the precedent and what it means especially the precedent that has repeatedly been reinforced.”
She added, “We’re talking about your life, the life of women in our country, and how we have again, a calibration of all of this in Roe v. Wade and how we must have it be enshrined as the law of the land. They will make charges about it, and we have to stay very clear and very focused about what it is and what it means in people’s lives. This is a severe danger to women. It is a severe danger to the Constitution of the United States. It’s a severe danger to other rights of privacy that are in the Constitution, but again, it’s the here and now. The here and now and the focus that we must have.”
Fact checks: overturning Roe v. Wade will not ban abortion. It will simply kick the decision back to the states, many of which will vote to keep abortion legal. The decision is not a severe danger to women, the Constitution, or other rights of privacy, but that is the narrative Pelosi and her fellow radicals must hype in order to stoke panic across America.
Outraged by Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade
On May 2, 2022, Politicoreported that an unidentified individual had leaked an initial draft majority opinion, written by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, in which the Court had decided to strike down the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. “No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending,” said Politico. Whereas Roe had guaranteed federal constitutional protections for abortion rights, the new ruling would return responsibility for those rights to each individual state. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito wrote in his opinion, adding: “We hold that Roe and Casey [a 1992 decision that largely reaffirmed the rights set forth in Roe] must be overruled. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” In response to the Court’s decision, an outraged Pelosi joined with Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer in issuing the following statement:
“If the report [in the leak] is accurate, the Supreme Court is poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past fifty years – not just on women but on all Americans.
“The Republican-appointed Justices’ reported votes to overturn Roe v. Wade would go down as an abomination, one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Graham Ledgerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngGraham Ledger2022-05-10 07:07:092022-05-10 07:13:59Patriots: Time to Hit the Oregon Trail!
Dan Gainor, Vice President for Business and Culture for the Media Research Center and a veteran editor whose work has been published or cited many of the nation’s leading publications and radio and television news programs.
TOPIC: Chaos in the the Capitol! Media quickly condemns Conservatives and Trump
HANS VON SPAKOVSKY
Hans von Spakovsky, former member of the Federal Election Commission. He is the manager of the Heritage Foundation’s Election Law Reform Initiative and a senior legal fellow in Heritage’s Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. President Donald J. Trump named him to be a member of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.
TOPIC: Voter integrity and voter fraud!
TOM DONELSON
Tom Donelson, Host of the Donelson Files radio program and he’s the president of America’s PAC – an organization that works to election conservatives to public office. To give you some idea of how effective they must be, Google has banned them.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Conservative Commandos Radio Showhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngConservative Commandos Radio Show2022-05-10 06:58:142022-05-10 06:58:14PODCAST: Chaos in the the Capitol! Media quickly condemns Conservatives and Trump.
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 v. Wade. 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.
Politicization
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.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexitieshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexities2022-05-09 05:09:552022-05-09 05:17:31What is at stake in Roe vs. Wade goes far beyond a squabble between left and right
Please use social media, etc. to pass on this Newsletter to other open-minded citizens…If at any time you’d like to be added to (or taken off) the distribution of our popular, free Media Balance Newsletter, simply send me an email saying that.
Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone, as some documents (e.g. PDFs) are much easier to read on a large computer screen… We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize display issues.
Note 2: For recent past Newsletter issues see 2020 Archives & 2021 Archives & 2022 Archives. To accommodate numerous requests received about prior articles over the twelve plus years of the Newsletter, we’ve put together since the beginning of the Newsletter — where you can search by year. For a detailed background about the Newsletter, please read this.
Note 3: See this extensive list of reasonable books on climate change. As a parallel effort, we have also put together a list of some good books related to industrial wind energy. Both topics are also extensively covered on my website: WiseEnergy.org.
Note 4: I am not an attorney or a physician, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or any of my websites) should be construed as giving legal or medical advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent, licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues, and consult a competent physician regarding medical matters.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00John Droz, Jr.http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJohn Droz, Jr.2022-05-08 16:38:152022-05-08 16:38:15AWED NEWLETTER: We cover COVID to Climate, as well as Energy to Elections.
Below is a tweet of a video done by Nina Jankowicz when she was a professor at Penn State University School of Law. Jankowicz states, “Gender disinformation is a threat to national security.” We agree with her. Please continue reading to understand why.
Nina Jankowicz – "Gender disinformation is a threat to national security."
In this short video Jankowicz defends Kamala Harris, Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She also defends herself for being childless. So she is defending politicians and they all happen to be Democrats. She seems to be upset that some point out that Ilhan Omar married her brother in order to obtain U.S. citizenship. Then she states that its racist to point out that Kamal Harris is not black even though her father is Jamaican and mother is from India. It appears that what Jankowicz is against is any criticism of women who are Democrats.
Where I disagree is with her use of “gender disinformation.”
It’s not about defending political figures. It’s not about defending women who are political leaders. It is not about defending one political party against those who report on its members and the party’s policies.
It’s all about science. Females have an XX pair of sex chromosomes, and males, an XY pair. A baby’s gender is determined by the sperm cell that fertilizes a woman’s egg. Sperm carries one sex chromosome, either a Y (male) or X (female).
For me gender disinformation is denying that gender is binary, i.e. male is XX and female is XY.
Anything else is pure propaganda.
I agree with Jankowicz that the gender narrative has now become a threat to our culture, society and national security. It has become a threat because of the simple but powerful point that gender is binary.
Science is very clear on this biological fact and has been since times immemorial. All other positions are personal choice myths, not science.
Jankowicz confuses gender, female (XX), with telling true stories about politicians, their families and their policies. Something that is allowed under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
We are now at a point in our cultural history where children are being taught in public schools that gender is fluid. Here are a few examples of how gender disinformation has become the weapon of choice and threatens our cultural, social and ultimately national security.
A transgender teacher in Massachusetts told kindergartners and first- and second graders that doctors only guess whether new-born babies are boys or girls and, sometimes, they’re wrong.
The Maryland Department of Education is telling schools to teach alternative LGBT family structures and gender fluidity to preschoolers.
A suburban school official in Kansas City claimed kindergartners are identifying as transgender and should be taught all about it.
Schools in Evanston, Illinois are teaching preschoolers to break the ‘gender binary’ established by ‘white colonizers’, to celebrate the transgender flag, and to experiment with made-up pronouns like ‘ze’ and ‘zir’.
Today parents are challenging books in school libraries and classrooms in record numbers. They’re objecting to sexually explicit content, profanity, anti-police messaging, and other left-wing indoctrination found in schoolbooks. The most-challenged books are “Gender Queer” and “Lawn Boy”, the latter a gay story normalizing sex acts between 4th-graders which has been criticized for encouraging pedophilia.
Mis, dis and mal-information about gender is propaganda writ large. Propaganda is the great threat to our national security.
Those teaching, promoting or ignoring this gender disinformation political pogrom do so at the risk of harming children. It is child abuse!
It is also a direct assault on the traditional family, all religions that declare sodomy to be a sin (Muslim, Jew and Christian) and those who are labeled by people like Jankowicz as racists.
Under this administration gender disinformation has come to the White House and her name is Karine Jean-Pierre.
Karine Jean-Pierre is a perfect fit to push gender dis, mis and mal-information (propaganda).
Jean-Pierre is Jew hating lesbian married to a female CNN correspondent. This latest appointment appeases the Islamic militants, the LGBTQ+ community and Marxists all with just one key appointment.
Brilliant! It’s by design.
The Democrats and Biden don’t care if everyone knows how radical they are because they hold the strings of power. This appointment shows that the Biden administration’s gender disinformation is in fact a clear and present danger to the United States of America.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2022-05-08 06:54:082022-05-08 16:53:21I Agree with Nina Jankowicz that Gender Disinformation is a Threat to National Security. Let me explain.
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.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2022-05-08 05:16:092022-05-08 05:28:25Pro-abortion group encourages supporters to storm churches nationwide on Mother’s Day
Still waiting for an authoritative analysis of the most recent massive data dump from Pfizer. But lets have a look at what the last batch of 55,000 pages had. Naomi breaks some of it down.
And yes, we have posted this before. But to get a sense of scale of how much and easily these agencies tell massive lies, its good to be reminded. Especially when you hear people say, “They never said the vaccines would stop the spread or stop you from getting sick! They always said it would reduce the number of hospitalizations!”
UPDATE: There IS some analysis on the newest data dump. Please check this link. A small fraction is below.
Happy Cinco de Mayo kids! You might wanna grab a margarita or a Corona with a lime before you read this one.
This drop had 80,000 pages of data. So I had to prioritize what needed to be read first. Interesting findings.
OK first. Remember how we discussed the vaccine likes to congregate in the liver? Like, within HOURS of getting vaccinated? I thought those poor Wistar Rats probably met their fate at the 48 hour mark. But here we find a crumb of data that says nope, they now produced 300 hour post vaccine data comparing the lipid nano particles from the vaccine in the blood plasma versus in the liver. THIS IS HORRID. Plasma levels peaked and dropped. The liver? Not so much. It is still SEVERELY ELEVATED with mass nano particles at the 300 hour mark hanging out in the liver. What does the liver do? Metabolizes and excretes body waste. Metabolizes medications. Wonder if THIS is why we are seeing autoimmune hepatitis happening in kids right now? You don’t suppose breastfeeding babies with moms full of lipid nano particles and spike proteins could possibly cause baby to have issues with THIER liver now, do you?
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Vlad Tepes Bloghttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngVlad Tepes Blog2022-05-08 04:59:162022-05-08 05:01:56VIDEO: Dr. Naomi Wolf on Pfizer Documents from April 5th, ‘They hid, they concealed, they redacted.’ Its bad
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 Pressexplains. “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 Pressnotes. “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.
“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 has a degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Waterloo and is an Editorial Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2022-05-07 04:19:502022-05-07 04:21:04The VA Bought 10,000 Smartphones during the Pandemic. 85% Were Never Used
“Could you explain what irreversible top and bottom sex-change surgeries are and why that is on the portal as well?” Braun asked.
“Senator there as you’ve just indicated, there are many different types of procedures that can be deployed,” Becerra said. “What I will say to you is again, in any case, no individual, no patient, will proceed forward unless his or her doctor has advised of the procedure. And it is considered by the FDA and others who have to go ahead and certify a medicine or procedure to be safe and effective.”
“So, I’ll try to distill it into a more simple form. In what case would it be appropriate to perform irreversible sex-change surgery on kids?” Braun said.
“Those decisions are made by that individual in consultation with physician and caregivers, and no decision would be made without having consulted appropriately,” Becerra said.
“You know, I think the government shouldn’t be pushing or have an out there on a portal that moves you towards irreversible sex change therapy, and I think we just need to think about it carefully,” Braun, who called the surgeries “almost grotesque.” “Because we’re navigating into territory that we’ve never done before as a government.”
Becerra Identifies “Health Equity” As Top HHS Priority
During a March 18, 2022 address marking his first year in office as HHS Secretary, Becerra said: “Health equity has to be part of everything we do. You will see health equity pervades everything we do.”
On March 19, Breccan Thies of Breitbart.com provided the following context for Becerra’s remarks: “For the left, ‘equity’ means rationing and redistributing resources based on perceived oppression, privilege, and social status — typically based on race or gender identity. Becerra’s commitment to the ideology marks an important milestone for a movement that has been proliferating among medical schools and professionals.” (Click here for details about this movement and the ideology that drives it.)
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Discover The Networkshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDiscover The Networks2022-05-07 04:05:422022-05-07 04:05:42GOP Sen. Braun to Becerra: Govt Shouldn’t Push Gender Surgery for Kids
