REPORT: Musk Plans To End Lifetime Twitter Bans

Twitter CEO Elon Musk intends to end the practice of permanently banning users from the platform, according to a report by Bloomberg.

Musk, whose months long bid to buy Twitter involved several attempts to escape a deal first brokered in April, apparently does not believe in permanently banning users for their speech, Bloomberg reported Friday, citing an anonymous source familiar with the matter. People who had previously been banned, such as former U.S. President Donald Trump, might be allowed to return under this new policy.

“Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with widely diverse viewpoints,” Musk announced Friday afternoon, hours after the report broke. “No major content decisions or account reinstatements will happen before that council convenes.”

The report comes one day after Musk promised advertisers that, despite his commitment to turn Twitter into a “digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner,” that “Twitter obviously cannot become a free-for-all hellscape,” in a Thursday morning tweet. Twitter would attempt to show ads that are as targeted as possible to users, since the more relevant the ad is, the more engaging it becomes, Musk said.

“Fundamentally, Twitter aspires to be the most respected advertising platform in the world,” said Musk Thursday. Some advertisers are reportedly planning to suspend advertising on the platform should Trump’s ban be reversed, according to The Wall Street Journal.

One Twitter user, who has over 853,000 followers at time of writing, alleged in a Thursday evening tweet that they remain “[s]hadowbanned, ghostbanned, searchbanned” on the platform, referring to a variety of alleged moderation techniques that surreptitiously reduce a user’s online presence, and that the platform was removing their followers. Musk promised in a Friday morning tweet that he was “digging in more today.”

Musk became the sole owner of the social media giant following the closure of a $44 billion takeover attempt that concluded on Thursday, with one of Musk’s first actions reportedly being to fire several top Twitter executives. At the moment, Musk has taken over as CEO, but may give the role up in the future, Bloomberg reported.

Twitter did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.





Trump Reveals How He Feels About Twitter Under Elon Musk

Elon Musk Finally Takes Over Twitter, Fires Top Executives

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact

Common Sense Tells Us That There Is No Viable Alternative to Fossil Fuels

The greatest myth ever told. But who is right?

Mankind is faced with the most important question in history: To use fossil fuels or not to use fossil fuels?

Environmentalists want to totally eliminate all petroleum based fuels in order to save the planet from climate change. The question is: At what cost?

Conservationists want to use all types of petroleum based fuels, including nuclear and hydroelectric power, but use them wisely to provide for human flourishing. The question is: At what cost?

History tells us that when nations use their natural resources, including petroleum based fossil fuels, wisely they flourish. History also tells us that when nations are energy poor or energy dependent they become weak and poorer and their people suffer.

Since 2010, more than a billion people have gained access to electricity. As a result, 90 percent of the planet’s population was connected in 2019. Yet 759 million people still live without electricity, with about half of them living in fragile and conflict-affected settings.

Due to Hurricane Ian we went without electricity for five days and it was hell on earth.

A New Age Was Born—The Modern Petroleum Industry

The first oil was discovered by the Chinese in 600 B.C. and transported in pipelines made from bamboo.

But it was Colonel Edwin Drake’s heralded discovery of oil in Pennsylvania in 1859 and his establishing the first oil well in August 27, 1859 that changed U.S. history.

But is wasn’t until the Spindletop discovery in Texas in 1901 which set the stage for the new U.S. petroleum industry. According to Lamar University,

The Spindletop oilfield, discovered on a salt dome formation south of Beaumont in eastern Jefferson County on January 10, 1901, marked the birth of the modern petroleum industry. The Gladys City Oil, Gas, and Manufacturing Company, formed in August 1892 by George W. O’BrienGeorge W. CarrollPattillo Higgins, Emma E. John, and J. F. Lanier, was the first company to drill on Spindletop Hill. Three shallow attempts, beginning in 1893 and using cable-tool drilling equipment were unsuccessful; Lanier and Higgins had left the company by 1895.

[ … ]

A new age was born. The world had never seen such a gusher before. By September 1901, there were at least six successful wells on Gladys City Company lands. Wild speculation drove land prices around Spindletop to incredible heights. One man who had been trying to sell his tract there for $150 for three years sold his land for $20,000; the buyer promptly sold to another investor within fifteen minutes for $50,000. One well, representing an initial investment of under $10,000, was sold for $1,250,000.

Cheap and Reliable Power Is The Life Blood of Modern Man

For the first time in American history we have one political party and its global allies who want to end the use of all petroleum products. But at what cost to the common citizen?

Efforts to stop all petroleum use is being mandated by agencies of the federal government using, among other regulations, corporate ESG Scores.

ESG Scores measure every company’s exposure to long-term environmental, social and governance risks.

A key component of that war against the common man is to eliminate capitalism and replace it with a new “stakeholder” doctrine for businesses globally and in the U.S. This model is based upon the need to attain environmental, social and governance scores that fully supplant capitalism and replace it with a one world governance based on big government, i.e. Socialist, Communist, ideals.

ESG scoring’s goal is to fundamentally transform the role of every company from a shareholder focus (capitalism) to a single stakeholder decree (the government).

According to the Heartland Institute,

Klaus Schwab and a growing list of powerful global economic and political elites, including BlackRock CEO Larry Fink and President Joe Biden, have recently committed to a global “reset” of the prevailing school of economic thought. They seek to supplant the entrenched “shareholder doctrine” of capitalism, which—as Milton Friedman famously espoused over 50 years ago—holds that the only purpose of a corporate executive is to maximize profits on behalf of company shareholders.

This effort to fundamentally transform global economics via the cooperation of major corporations and state legislatures is an existential threat to every American’s Constitutional rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The ESG Score is designed to:

  1. Force companies to “go green” by decreasing their use of petroleum products.
  2. Force companies to hire employees based upon their merit but rather on the color of their skin or sexual identities.
  3. And force companies to comply with government mandates, like Covid lockdowns and mandated vaccinations.

ESG Scores are designed to control businesses small to large to comply or else!

The Bottom Line—Make America Energy Independent, Again!

Countries that are energy independent flourish, those who aren’t suffer. For example, clean and fresh water is a basic need of all societies, to have clean and fresh potable water a country must have the infrastructure to process the water in water purification plants and then provide it to its citizens via a water lines driven by pumps powered predominantly by petroleum products.

Fresh, fluorinated water is not possible without cheap and reliable power.

According to an EIA analysis:

The Virgin Islands use [the] largest amounts of imported petroleum to power the desalination plants that supply their drinking water; many small, simple-cycle generators are used to provide electricity; and there are “operational constraints and power losses on the islands’ isolated electric grids.”

Petroleum driven power is essential for human flourishing and freedom.

On December 28th, 2016 American author, energy theorist, industrial policy pundit and founder and President of the Center for Industrial Progress Alex Epstein shared how to make a transformative contribution to human flourishing and how to create value in the world in his presentation titled “The ‘F’ word“:

Fast forward to October 27, 2022 and watch this discussion by energy philosopher Alex Epstein on how Biden’s  green policies have created an energy crisis in America:

In 2020, U.S. energy intensity reached a low of 5.05 thousand British thermal units (Btu) per chained 2012 dollar, down 4% from the previous year and less than half as energy intensive as the United States was in 1983. This number will go up because of Biden and his green energy policies. Kill the use of petroleum products and you kill the American working class.

Americans can only flourish if they have massive amounts of petroleum products.

It’s the freedom to have access to cheap and reliable power, which drives our economy, stupid!

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.


JOHN STOSSEL: Here Are Even More Inconvenient Facts About Biden’s Magical Thinking On EVs

The Biden administration’s electric vehicle gambit is illegal and costly

Why Are Electric Vehicles So Expensive to Insure?

Poll: Biden Climate Agenda is Making Democrats an Endangered Species

Consumer Reports Has Some Surprising News About Hybrids

RELATED VIDEO: Answer To Electric Vehicles in 58 Seconds


European Union Announces Ban On Gas Cars In The Middle Of Energy Crisis

How Much It Is Going TO Cost One Electric Vehicle Owner To Replace His Taillights?

Covid Vaccines Injure the Heart of ALL Vaccine Recipients and Cause Myocarditis in Up to 1 in 27, Study Finds

And still the Democrats are mandating this poison for our children.

mRNA Vaccines Injure the Heart of ALL Vaccine Recipients and Cause Myocarditis in Up to 1 in 27, Study Finds

By: Daily Sceptic, October 27, 2022:

New evidence has emerged that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are routinely injuring the heart of all vaccine recipients, raising further questions about their safety and their role in the recent elevated levels of heart-related deaths.

The latest evidence comes in a study from Switzerland, which found elevated troponin levels – indicating heart injury – across all vaccinated people, with 2.8% showing levels associated with subclinical myocarditis.

The official line on elevated heart injuries and deaths, where they are acknowledged, is that they are most likely caused by the virus as a post-Covid condition rather than the vaccines.

However, expert group HART (Health Advisory and Recovery Team) has pointed to Australia as a “control group” on this question. HART notes that even though Australia had not had significant Covid (only 30,000 reported infections and 910 deaths) prior to mid-2021, it still saw a trend in excess non-Covid deaths beginning in June 2021 (see below). HART notes that Australia “did not have prior Covid as a reason for seeing this rise in mortality and hospital pressure from spring 2021”. Instead, “the results from this control group indicate that the cause of this rise in deaths, particularly in young people, must be something in common with Australia, Europe and the USA”.

Click here to view All deaths, COVID-19 infections, Australia, 31 May – 29 May 2022 vs baseline benchmarks.

In New Zealand, economist John Gibson found a temporal association between boosters and excess deaths, estimating “16 excess deaths per 100,000 booster doses” (see below). He noted that the age distribution of the deaths corroborated the hypothesis: “The age groups most likely to use boosters show large rises in excess mortality after boosters are rolled out.”

Click here to view B) Cumulative Excess Deaths and COVID-19 Vaccine Rollout: April 2021 to March 2022

Keep reading.




VIDEO: COVID Jab Deadlier Than COVID for Anyone Under 80

Fourth Country Stops All Covid Vaccinations

Science Tests Positive For COVID

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

The Fascists at The New Republic Say Free Speech Will ‘Help Ruin America’

“Why Elon Musk’s Idea of ‘Free Speech’ Will Help Ruin America”

Saying the quiet part out loud.

The New Republic, pre-takeover, was liberal and believed in things like free speech and America.

Post-takeover by a Facebook billionaire and then assorted other leftists, it hates free speech. Literally.

“Why Elon Musk’s Idea of “Free Speech” Will Help Ruin America,” is the hot take headline.

You know this is going to be stunning when the leading argument is…

The pro-Musk arguments are complete nonsense, and there are innumerable historical and modern examples of why social media platforms with nearly unlimited freedom of speech produce horrors. The Supreme Court decided free speech isn’t absolute long ago, when Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes noted that you can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, for obvious reasons.

The “obvious reason” was a Socialist criticizing the WWI draft. That was the actual case in question.

No one at The New Republic predictably knows this. Certainly, the author, Mr. “Brynn” Tannehill, a RAND analyst and transgender advocate, has any idea that the dumb legal meme long ago joined the dustbin of history alongside segregation and slavery.

Tannehill squeals about “disinformation” while spreading it. The New Republic article is vintage hot take disinformation. Had anyone from the right written it, it would be pointed to as evidence that unfettered free speech spreads misinformation. But the Left doesn’t want a better marketplace of ideas, but a monopoly on bad hot takes and idiotic propaganda.

Any suggestion that the sort of “free speech” they envision can have highly undesirable consequences is met with howls of “Libs hate free speech” or other accusations of fascism. Similarly, warnings that unfettered free speech results in dangerous misinformation spreading are derided with “Sunlight is the best disinfectant” and the libertarian belief that in the marketplace of ideas, the best will always win out.

Only fascists want free speech.

Free speech doesn’t necessarily mean that the right ideas or the best ones, good ones or even decent ones will win out. It’s just the alternative to a totalitarian system in which the worst ones will be mandated by the government.

Fascists and other bad guys, including Communists and assorted leftists do exploit free speech (that’s why the ACLU came into being before it decided that it had enough power to get rid of free speech) and they shut it down in a New York minute when they take power.

The whole point of a marketplace of ideas is not that it rewards good speech, but that it prevents any one group from having a monopoly on speech. And that monopoly is exactly what the Left wants. It claims that only fascists benefit from free speech while defining, Soviet style, anyone who disagrees with it as fascists. That’s what progressive fascists do.




The IRS and Stacey Abrams: A Love Story

FBI probing ex-CIA officer’s clandestine spy work for World Cup host Qatar

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

Biden’s Belated Border Numbers Tell a Terrifying Tale

Late on Friday October 21, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) finally released the September numbers for illegal aliens encountered at the Southwest Border: 227,547, an all-time high for any September on record. The numbers themselves make it clear why the Biden administration is so keen on keeping them out of the press and away from public view. In a functioning administration, legally mandated reporting of routine data doesn’t require coaxing or righteous vows. Unfortunately for Americans, the Biden administration’s sole function on the border seems to be allowing as many illegal aliens to cross as possible while trying to obscure that fact from the interested public.

September’s numbers cement the Biden administration as record-breaking: Fiscal Year 2022 (October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022) included 10 of the highest monthly totals of illegal aliens ever recorded, with July and August’s records having been set in 2021 under the same administration. No matter how late the totals are, nor the excuses the administration provides every month, they just confirm the grim reality American communities affected by unprecedented illegal migration have been experiencing under de facto open borders.

The shameful encounter total for Fiscal Year 2022, including both Border Patrol and Office of Field Operations, is 2,766,582. This total doesn’t include an estimated 600,000 “gotaways” in the same period who simply walked across and made it into the United States without ever encountering immigration enforcement. If it wasn’t for former border security officials like Mark Morgan and Tom Homan holding the Department of Homeland Security to account for its failure to release the numbers on time, it would be unsurprising if these figures were obfuscated for months. Just two weeks ahead of a crucial midterm election, they represent a massive increase from the previous administration, and expose what is effectively an open-borders policy.

How can American cities and towns be expected to cope with this never-ending influx? 17,000 aliens, a tiny percentage of the total annual number of migrants, arriving in New York City from overwhelmed border towns was enough to create a state of emergency, and most places do not have the same vast resources or emergency response capabilities that New York can mobilize. According to the monthly encounter data, the Biden administration’s soft immigration policies are drawing the equivalent of a mid-size city to our border every month, many of whom will end up fading away into the interior of the country. This unconscionable failure of security is occurring during a rent and housing crisis that is putting the most basic necessity, shelter, increasingly out of reach for many of the same Americans now competing for jobs with illegal arrivals. Additionally, our natural and built environments are simply not capable of absorbing this unregulated flood of illegal migration.

As the United States enters a winter of recession, Americans have only the cold comfort of knowing the Biden administration is rolling out the red carpet for their competition.


Michael Capuano

Michael Capuano joined FAIR in 2022. As a researcher and staff writer, he contributes to the work behind FAIR’s long-form research publications as well as topical content responding to immigration-related issues as they happen.

Before joining FAIR, Michael worked in the Enforcement and Removal Operations Law Division at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during law school at George Washington University and then as an immigration attorney at a Spanish-speaking law firm. Having grown up in Southern California and with experience on both sides of the issue, he is acutely conscious of the importance of the immigration issue to everyday life and the necessity of FAIR’s vision for reform.

Michael’s background before law school was in Urban Studies/Planning at the University of California, San Diego, informing a deep concern for the environment and good urban design, two issues very relevant to the current immigration crisis.


The World at 8 Billion: Immigration and America’s Population Growth

Border Incompetence Leaves Over 60,000 Aliens in Limbo, Drawing Fire from All Sides

More than 100,000 New York City Kids are Homeless, While Migrants are Put Up in Swank Hotels

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

The Economic Disaster of the Pandemic Response

The following is adapted from a talk delivered at Hillsdale College on October 20, 2022, sponsored by the student group Praxis.

On April 15, 2020—a full month after President Trump’s fateful news conference that greenlighted lockdowns to be enacted by the states for “15 Days to Flatten the Curve”—the President had a revealing White House conversation with Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. 

“I’m not going to preside over the funeral of the greatest country in the world,” Trump wisely said, as reported in Jared Kushner’s book Breaking History. The promised Easter reopening of the economy had not happened, and Trump was angry. He also suspected that he had been misled and was no longer speaking to coronavirus coordinator Deborah Birx. 

“I understand,” Fauci responded meekly. “I just do medical advice. I don’t think about things like the economy and the secondary impacts. I’m just an infectious diseases doctor. Your job as president is to take everything else into consideration.”

That conversation reflected the tone of the debate, then and later, over the lockdowns and vaccine mandates. The economy—viewed as mechanistic, money-centered, mostly about the stock market, and detached from anything truly important—was pitted against public health and the preservation of life. The assumption seemed to be that you had to choose one or the other—that you could not have both.

It also seemed to be widely believed in 2020 that the best approach to pandemics was to institute massive human coercion—a belief based on the novel theory that if you make humans behave like non-player characters in computer models, you can keep them from infecting one another until a vaccine arrives to wipe out the pathogen. 

The lockdown approach in 2020 stood in stark contrast to a century of public health experience in dealing with pandemics. During the great influenza crisis of 1918, only a few cities tried coercion and quarantine—mostly San Francisco, also the home at the time of the first Anti-Mask League—whereas most locations took a person-by-person therapeutic approach. Given the failure of quarantines in 1918, they were not employed again during the disease scares—some real, some exaggerated—of 1929, 1940-44, 1957-58, 1967-68, 2003, 2005, and 2009. In all of those years, even the national media acted responsibly in urging calm. 

But not in 2020, when policymakers—whether due to intellectual error, political calculations, or some combination of the two—launched an experiment without precedent. The sick and well alike were quarantined through the use of stay-at-home orders, domestic capacity limits, and business, school, and church shutdowns. This occurred not only in the U.S., but worldwide—with the notable exception of perhaps five nations and the state of South Dakota. 

Needless to say, the consequences were profound. Coercion can be used to turn off an economy. But given the resulting trauma, turning an economy back on is not so easy. That is why, 30 months later, we are experiencing the longest period of declining real income since the end of World War II, a health crisis, an education crisis, an exploding national debt, 40-year high inflation, continued and seemingly random shortages, dysfunction in labor markets, a breakdown of international trade, a dramatic collapse in consumer confidence, and a dangerous level of political division. 

Meanwhile, what happened to COVID? It came anyway, just as the best epidemiologists predicted it would. It had a highly stratified impact, consistent with the information we had from the very early days: the at-risk population was largely the elderly and infirm. To be sure, almost everyone eventually came down with COVID with varying degrees of severity: some people shook it off in a couple of days, others suffered for weeks, and many died—although, even now, there is grave uncertainty about the true number of COVID deaths, due both to faulty PCR testing and to financial incentives given to hospitals to attribute non-COVID deaths to COVID. 


Even if the lockdowns had saved lives over the long term—and the literature on this overwhelmingly suggests they did not—it would be proper to ask the question: at what cost? What are the tradeoffs? 

Because economic considerations were shelved for the emergency, policymakers failed to consider tradeoffs. Thus did the White House on March 16, 2020, send out the most dreaded imaginable directive from an economic point of view: “bars, restaurants, food courts, gyms, and other indoor and outdoor venues where groups of people congregate should be closed.” And the results were legion. 

For one thing, the lockdowns kicked off an epic bout of government spending. COVID-response spending amounted to at least $6 trillion above normal operations, running the national debt up to 121 percent of GDP. For comparison, our national debt in 1981 amounted to 35 percent of GDP—and Ronald Reagan correctly declared that a crisis.

The Federal Reserve purchased this new debt with newly created money nearly dollar for dollar. From February to May 2020, the total money supply (what economists call M2) increased by an average of $814.3 billion per month. The peak came early the following year: on February 22, 2021, the annual rate of increase of M2 reached a staggering 27.5 percent. 

At the same time, as one would expect in a crisis of this sort, spending plummeted. Since a severe decrease in spending puts deflationary pressure on prices regardless of what happens with the money supply, the bad effects of printing all this new money were pushed off into the future. 

That future is now. The explosion in M2 has resulted in the highest inflation in 40 years. And this inflation is accelerating, at least according to the October 12, 2022, Producer Price Index, which is more volatile than it has been in months and is running ahead of the Consumer Price Index—a reversal from earlier in the lockdown period. This new pressure on producers has heavily impacted the business environment and created recessionary conditions. 

Moreover, this has not just been a U.S. problem. Most nations in the world followed the same lockdown strategy while attempting to substitute government spending and printing money for real economic activity. The Federal Reserve is being called on daily to step up its lending to foreign central banks through the discount window for emergency loans. It is now at the highest level since spring 2020. The Fed lent $6.5 billion to two foreign central banks in just one week this October. The numbers are scary and foreshadow a possible international financial crisis. 

The Great Head Fake 

Back in the spring and summer of 2020, we seemed to be experiencing a miracle. State governments around the country had crushed social activity and free enterprise, and yet real income was soaring. Between February 2020 and March 2021, a time of low inflation, real personal income was up by $4.2 trillion. It felt like magic. But it was actually the result of government stimulus checks.

Initially, people used their new-found riches to pay off credit card debt and boost savings. In the month after the first stimulus, the personal savings rate went from 9.6 to 33 percent. Also, since people were being coerced into living an all-digital existence, there was lots of spare time and a need for new equipment. So companies like Netflix and Amazon benefited enormously.

After the summer of 2020, people started to get the hang of having “free money” dropped into their bank accounts. So by November, the savings rate had dropped back down to 13.3 percent. When the Biden administration unleashed another round of stimulus in 2021, the savings rate at first nearly doubled. But fast forward to the present and people are saving only 3.5 percent—half the historical norm dating back to 1960—and credit card debt is soaring, even though interest rates are 17 percent and higher. 

In other words, all the curves inverted once inflation came along to eat out the value of the stimulus. In reality, all that “free money” turned out to be very expensive. The dollar of January 2020 is now worth only $0.87, which is to say that the stimulus spending covered by the Federal Reserve printing money stole $0.13 of every American dollar in the course of only 2.5 years. 

This was one of the biggest head fakes in the history of modern economics. The pandemic planners created paper prosperity to cover up the grim reality they had brought about. But paper prosperity is false prosperity. It could not and did not last. Between January 2021 and September 2022, prices increased 13.5 percent across the board, costing the average American family $728 in September alone. 

Even if inflation were to stop today, the inflation already in the bag will cost the average American family $8,739 over the next twelve months. 

Lingering Carnage

While Big Tech moguls and urban information workers thrived during the pandemic lockdowns, Main Street suffered. The look of most of America in those days was post-apocalyptic, with vast numbers of people huddled at home either alone or with immediate families, fully convinced that a universally deadly virus was lurking outdoors. Meanwhile, the CDC was recommending that “essential businesses” install countless Plexiglass barriers and place social distancing stickers everywhere people would walk.

This sounds ridiculous now, but for many it wasn’t then. I recall being yelled at for walking only a few feet into a grocery aisle that had been designated by stickers to be one-way in the other direction. There were reports of people using drones to identify and report neighbors who were holding prohibited parties, weddings, or funerals. Parents masked up their kids even though kids were at near-zero risk, and nearly all schools were closed. A friend of mine arrived home from a visit out of town and his mother demanded that he leave his “COVID-infested” bags on the porch for three days. 

Those were the days when people believed the virus was outdoors and we should stay in. Oddly, this changed over time to where people believed that the virus was indoors and we should go out. It eventually became clear that we had moved from government-mandated mania to a popular delusion for the ages. 

The resulting damage to small business has yet to be thoroughly documented. At least 100,000 restaurants and stores closed in Manhattan alone. Commercial real estate prices crashed, and big business moved in to scoop up bargains. Hotels, bars, restaurants, malls, theaters, and anyone without home delivery suffered terribly. The arts were devastated. During the deadly Hong Kong flu of 1968-69, we had Woodstock. This time around we had to settle for YouTube. 

It may seem odd, but the health care industry suffered as well. The CDC strongly urged the closing of hospitals to anyone not facing a non-elective surgery or suffering with COVID. This turned out to exclude nearly everyone who would routinely show up for diagnostics or other normal treatments. As a result, health care sector employment fell 1.6 million in early 2020. Even stranger is the fact that total health care spending fell off a cliff. From March to May 2020, health care spending collapsed by $500 billion or 16.5 percent. This created an enormous financial problem for hospitals in general.

This is not to mention dentistry. I know from personal experience that in Massachusetts, you couldn’t get a much-needed root canal. Why? Because a root canal required a preliminary cleaning and examination, and those were prohibited as “nonessential.” I looked into traveling to Texas for a root canal, but the dentists there were required by law to force out-of-state patients to quarantine in the state for two weeks. 

This virtual abolition of dentistry for a time was in keeping with the injunction of a headline in The New York Times on February 28, 2020: “To Take on the Coronavirus, Go Medieval on It.” What better way to describe the institution of a feudal system of dividing work and workers across the nation in terms of “essential” and “nonessential”? 

The New York Times wasn’t affected by the lockdowns, of course, because media centers were deemed essential. Thus for two years, it was able to keep its presses running and instruct its Manhattan readers to stay home and have their groceries delivered. Delivered by whom, The New York Times neither said nor cared. It was apparently unimportant if the working classes were exposed to COVID in service to the elites. And then afterwards, when the working classes had natural immunity that was superior to the immunity offered by the so-called COVID vaccines, they were subjected to vaccine mandates. 

Millions across the nation eventually quit or were fired due to those vaccine mandates. Highly qualified members of the U.S. military are still being discharged for noncompliance. 

We are told that unemployment today is very low and that many new jobs are being filled, but most of those are existing workers getting second and third jobs. Because families are struggling to pay the bills, moonlighting and side-gigging are now a way of life. The full truth about labor markets requires that we look at the labor-participation and worker-population rates, both of which are low. Millions have gone missing. Most are working women who still cannot find child care because that industry has yet to recover from the lockdowns. Labor participation among women is back at 1988 levels. There are also large numbers of 20-somethings who moved home and went on unemployment benefits. Many more have simply lost the will to achieve and build a future. 

The supply chain breakages we are seeing today are also a lingering result of the stoppage of economic activity in early 2020. By the time the lockdown regime was relaxed and manufacturers started reordering parts, they found that many factories overseas had already retooled for other kinds of demand. This particularly affected the semiconductor industry for automotive manufacturing. Overseas chip makers had turned their attention to personal computers, cellphones, and other devices. This was the beginning of the car shortage that sent prices through the roof. It also created a political demand for U.S.-based chip production, which has in turn resulted in another round of export and import controls. 

These sorts of problems have affected every industry without exception. Why, for example, do we have a paper shortage? Because so many of the paper factories shifted to plywood and cardboard after prices sky-rocketed in response to the housing and mail delivery demand created by the lockdowns and stimulus checks. 


We could write books listing all the economic calamities directly caused by the disastrous pandemic response. We will be suffering the results for years. Yet even today, too few people grasp the relationship between our current economic hardships—extending even to growing international tensions and the breakdown of trade and travel—and the brutality of the pandemic response.

Anthony Fauci said at the outset: “I don’t think about things like the economy and the secondary impacts.” Melinda Gates admitted in a December 4, 2020, interview with The New York Times: “What did surprise us is we hadn’t really thought through the economic impacts.”

There is no wall of separation between economics and public health. A healthy economy is indispensable for healthy people. Shutting down economic life was a singularly bad idea for taking on a pandemic. 

Economics is about people making choices and institutions enabling them to thrive. Public health is about the same thing. Driving a wedge between the two, as happened in 2020, ranks among the most catastrophic public policy decisions of our lifetimes. 

Health and economics both require the nonnegotiable called freedom. May we never again experiment with the near abolition of freedom in the cause of mitigating disease. 


Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey A. Tucker is founder and president of the Brownstone Institute and a daily columnist on economics for The Epoch Times. From 2017-2021, he served as editorial director of the American Institute for Economic Research. He has written for several publications, including The Wall Street JournalNational ReviewThe Freeman, and Chronicles. He is the author of 20 books, including Liberty or Lockdown.

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

Our Battered Bill of Rights

The French Revolution of 1789 and the Russian Revolution of 1917 aimed to free the masses of oppressive regimes (think Deep State). But the American Revolution of 1776 was very different. Had the Colonists been afforded the same freedoms and fair treatment enjoyed by their English cousins, 1776 might be just another date on the calendar.

The trouble began when King George III and Parliament attempted to balance their budget by taxing the unrepresented Colonists. The Stamp Act taxed every document — public or private — even playing cards and newspapers. American lawyers and newspapers threw such a fit, the Stamp Act lasted only one year. Next, came the Townsend Acts taxing glass, lead, paint, tea, and, once again, paper. Taxing paper got the lawyers and the newspapers literally up in arms. Apparently, about paper, the Brits were slow learners. Tea was another no-no. You know the rest of that story.

Once rid of the Red Coats (until the War of 1812), Americans got serious about being a real nation. By March 9, 1789, the United States was under its new constitution. Still angered by the brutish treatment they suffered under the Red Coats, on December 15, 1791, they tacked on a Bill of Rights: Ten constitutional amendments designed to make sure such outrages would never happen again. Good luck with that.

Let’s look at the Bill of Rights after the eight years of Obama and two years of Biden:

First Amendment: Freedom of speech and religion are on life support. Allied together to protect the Deep State, the MSM and Social Media have run roughshod over freedom of speech and religion, (trying to force Nuns to buy condoms). Censorship of conservative speech and assembly on college campuses is routine. Selected individuals are banned from Social Media.

Second Amendment: Every act of gun violence is met with attempts to take guns away from the people who don’t shoot other people.

Third Amendment: While we aren’t forced to quarter soldiers in our homes, open borders means our nation is being forced to quarter illegal aliens in enclaves selected to alter the outcome of future elections.

Fourth Amendment: Searches and seizures, often unreasonable, are an FBI specialty. Even the home of a former U.S. President was ransacked. Personal items were taken.
Combining Amendments 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9: Many January 6th detainees were denied the process of law, held incommunicado, denied the rights of accused persons, denied the right to a speedy public trial, denied bail outright or even reasonable bail, and imprisoned under cruel and inhuman conditions.

Tenth Amendment: The rights reserved to the States are often ignored, sometimes by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Constitution decrees the conduct of elections to be the province of the States. Some States do it fair and square. Other States allow political partisans to stuff ballot boxes, and shower residents, legal and illegal, with ballots to harvest and cast. Still, by and large, our elections have a way of shaping up and restoring our representative republic to be the envy of the world. Very soon, that assertion will be put to the test.

Suggested reading: Paper: Paging Through History by Mark Kurlansky, 2016. Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow, 2004.

©2022. William Hamilton. All rights reserved.

Hear from Key Conservatives on the Importance of Your Vote

There is no doubt that we are facing the most monumental Midterm Election of our lifetime.  If Republicans do not succeed in winning control of both houses of Congress, the obituary for these United States of America will be dated November 8, 2022.

Yet in the face of this imminent danger, many Conservatives, even Defend Florida members, have expressed concern over the suitability of Republican candidates on the ballot to represent us.  I have even heard that some Conservatives, frustrated  with the results of the Primary Election are even considering casting their vote for Democrats.  I certainly appreciate this concern especially given the hard work from so many Floridians during the primaries. 

We took the best thinking on how to vote on November 8th from leaders (below) who we value and respect.  

Please share this video and encourage others to vote on November 8th. 

Beginning with President Trump, our individual obligation and duty to protect our Constitutional Republic is clear. 

All Patriots must realize that we do indeed have a country worth saving.  So I urge you to take action now.  On November 8th help defend our Union, defend Florida, and vote based on the guidance from Pres Trump, Jack, Kimberly, Jeremy, Patrick and Micki.
One more point:  Many of you are members of vibrant organizations.  In my location, I have spoken at the Manatee Patriots, where many of our Sarasota and Manatee Defend members meet.  Formerly known as Tea Party Manatee, this group has been hyperactive in Conservative politics for over 13 years.  They meet just about every Tuesday at Mixon Farms in Bradenton and are known for publishing a newsletter twice(!) weekly.  Their website contains a rich library of resources to help voters make the best choice on Election Day.  So check them out!  Just click on the logo below to be redirected to their website now. And if you have a group that you would like highlighted, please let me know.

©Raj Doraisamy-Defend Florida. All rights reserved.

U.S. Government Funding Killer Covid Research—Again

Just in case you thought Covid wasn’t bad or dangerous enough, Boston University is working to increase its lethality. In its latest defense of gain of function research, the university claims it is not that dangerous.

Oh, really? The work is summarized in the research paper:

The recently identified, globally predominant SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (BA.1) is highly transmissible, even in fully vaccinated individuals, and causes attenuated disease compared with other major viral variants recognized to date. The Omicron spike (S) protein, with an unusually large number of mutations, is considered the major driver of these phenotypes. We generated chimeric recombinant SARS-CoV-2 encoding the S gene of Omicron in the backbone of an ancestral SARS-CoV-2 isolate and compared this virus with the naturally circulating Omicron variant. The Omicron S-bearing virus robustly escapes vaccine-induced humoral immunity, mainly due to mutations in the receptor binding motif (RBM), yet unlike naturally occurring Omicron, efficiently replicates in cell lines and primary-like distal lung cells. In K18-hACE2 mice, while Omicron causes mild, non-fatal infection, the Omicron S-carrying virus inflicts severe disease with a mortality rate of 80%. This indicates that while the vaccine escape of Omicron is defined by mutations in S, major determinants of viral pathogenicity reside outside of S.

In plain language, they took the Omicron variant of Covid-19, which is highly transmissible and can infect even fully vaccinated individuals and modified one of the genes in the virus so that it became much more dangerous. The subjects of the experiment were mice. Mice infected with regular Omicron had nonfatal infections.

The paper worked with the Spike protein of Omicron and the key finding was that pathogenicity (the ability to kill) occurs outside of the S or Spike protein. The new variant infected targets that had been vaccinated against Omicron and it caused serious disease mortality at a rate of 80%.

Unlike other scientific research papers that depend on outside funding, the published Boston University paper never mentions how the work was financed. And the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which in fact funded the work, says it did not know that the research was aimed at modifying the coronavirus.

If you were hoping the scientific community had learned something about lab security from the coronavirus outbreak in 2019, it appears not. The paper, entitled “Role of spike in the pathogenic and antigenic behavior of SARS-CoV-2 BA.1 2 Omicron,” included participation from 23 senior scientists and, no doubt, countless lab assistants.

Some of the scientists are concentrated in the Boston areas (including at Harvard University), one is at the University Hospital in Erlangen, Germany, one at a branch of the Cleveland Clinic in Florida, one from the University of Wisconsin and one from a medical center in Mainz, Germany.

NIAID plus the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and two agencies in the Department of Defense are the same organizations that funded coronavirus research in China, primarily at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, an institute organized under China’s Academy of Sciences.

The Wuhan Institute previously collaborated with the Galveston National Laboratory in the United States, the Centre International de Recherche en Infectiologie in France, and the National Microbiology Laboratory in Canada.

In 2021, two Chinese scientists at the Microbiology Laboratory in Canada were fired. At least one of these scientists had visited the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), the government’s most sensitive biological laboratory which includes highly classified research work.

All these institutes, including Wuhan’s, carry out classified research on bioweapons. USAMRIID and Wuhan are known as Level 4 (BSL-4 or Biosafety Level 4) labs, the most secure for carrying out dangerous research, especially gain of function. The National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories at Boston University is also a Level 4 (BSL-4) laboratory complex.

How dangerous is this work?  In the case of China, the US government was so concerned about the Wuhan Institute of Virology that it sent representatives there on two occasions in 2018 and interviewed the chief “bat” scientist, She Zhengli.

In 2019, the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC)  inspected and failed the USAMRIID laboratory in Fort Detrick, Maryland.  The lab there was closed for months so that a cleanup could take place and identified risks remediated.

Read more.

Originally published by Asia Times


Stephen Bryen and Shoshana Bryen

Senior Fellows

RELATED ARTICLE: Bodybuilder Doug Brignole died less than 1 week after he got the new bivalent booster shot

EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Can Israel emerge as a geostrategic gas player despite itself?

Israeli discoveries of natural gas over the last 13 years are enough to allow not only self-sufficiency but also the potential for enough export to emerge as a geostrategic player in the hydrocarbons sector. If done properly and aggressively, Israel has the opportunity to establish itself as the main natural gas export hub in the eastern Mediterranean, servicing not only eastern Mediterranean gas suppliers, but Persian Gulf ones too, and become the conduit to supply Europe as much as a third of its import needs. And yet, Israel’s policies over the last year have undermined expanding its reserves, retarded and limited the development of its transmission structures, and all but sabotaged its ability to become a hub for gas regionally. Indeed, it seems as if Israel prefers regional plans to make Egypt rather than Israel such a major hub, including subordinating the export structure of its own gas to dependency on Egypt.1 If Israel, thus, seeks to establish itself a strategic player in the natural gas sector – let alone insulate its gas export structure from regional geopolitical instability — it will need to change not only its policies, but its assumptions and attitude.

Over the last decade, Israel has discovered roughly 200-250 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas. Israel only consumes about 10-15 bcm of gas per annum. There are also other fields that suggest still more finds are possible,  such as the Zeus fields, which taken altogether could indicate Israel has still between 50% to 100% more gas than has hitherto been discovered. This means Israel has a hefty quantity that can be earmarked for export, even under the regulatory export restrictions imposed by the Sheshinski Committee framework.

Until now, Israeli export has largely been confined to its neighbors.  Currently, Israel exports up to 7 bcm of gas to Egypt per annum and 3 bcm to Jordan. But the quantity of gas discovered is clearly enough to contemplate export to Europe. Two recent developments, moreover, have further focused attention on the potential supply of Israeli gas to Europe. First, the invasion of Ukraine which has resulted in despair in Europe over supply. Israeli gas was seen as an attractive alternative, at least to some extent. Second, Energean, the company exploring and developing the latest fields in Israel announced on October 6 that it discovered another 12-17 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas off its coast in the Hermes field and there is another field that might hold as much as 20 bcm more.

On top of Israeli gas, there is also the possibility, already suggested by the UAE, of pumping gas from several Persian Gulf lands via Saudi Arabia to the southern terminus of Israel’s Eilat-Ashqelon Pipeline Company (EAPC) in Ramat Yotam in Eilat, and then using the company’s right-of-way to build a gas pipeline (the current pipes carry oil) to transport the gas to the Mediterranean for transmission to Europe via Israel’s emerging export structure.  A potential collapse of Iran’s regime, which partnered with Israel decades ago before the Islamic Revolution to build this pipeline, could as well open up Iran’s vast natural gas deposits for Europe in addition to its natural Asian market.

In short, Israel has every possibility of becoming a major international hub of export of Persian Gulf and eastern Mediterranean gas, especially when considering the likelihood of more gas being discovered in Cypriot waters.

These facts and projections of reserves are relatively clear.  But the picture becomes more complex after that, especially concerning the transmission structures.  There are currently no direct transmission structures of gas from Israel to Europe.  The only physical way to export Israeli gas to Europe – which imports from all sources between 150-200 bcm per annum before the Ukraine war– would be through the existing Egyptian-Israeli pipeline structure, which then connects to either the Idku or Damietta gas liquefaction plants for loading onto liquefied natural gas (LNG) ships bound for Europe.  The combined liquefaction capacity of the two LNG plants in Egypt is about 30 bcm. The pipe from Israel to Egypt, however, only holds about 7 bcm per annum, and all the molecules flowing through it are already booked by Egypt for domestic consumption. Although Egypt found a very large reservoir of gas offshore in ENI’s Zohr field, bringing that field to full capacity has proven to fall short of originally expected timelines at this stage. Simply put, Zohr cannot flood Egypt’s market enough at this point to generate export surplus. At this point, it suffices only to offset the increase in Egypt’s domestic demand. And thus, Egypt will need to continue relying on all the gas Israel sends for its domestic use.

A second gas pipeline to Egypt is being built that will hold up to 11 bcm of gas, but it will take roughly three to four years to complete, and when it does, it is not clear how much of that gas will be consumed by Egypt and how much will be surplus to send to Europe via the two Egyptian LNG terminals.  Egypt’ domestic consumption is growing at a rapid pace, so clearly far less than the 11 bcm capacity of the pipeline will flow to the Idku or Damietta LNG plants for export.

Moreover, Egypt is politically problematic. It gets along with Israel well enough, but its economy is showing signs of grave danger – even potential bankruptcy. Indeed, JP Morgan estimated that:

“Egypt’s debt-to-GDP ratio is around 95%. The country is also experiencing one of the most significant foreign exchange outflows this year, estimated at around $11 billion. FIM Partners estimated that Egypt will have $100 billion in hard currency debt over the next five years, including a massive $3.3 billion bond due in 2024.”2

At the same time, the United States last month announced that it will deduct USD 130 million from Egypt’s annual aid amount as pressure on human rights concerns, which represents a material economic but a much larger psychological hit.3  And thus all coincides with dramatic cost increases in grain and other foodstuffs – price increases over which have led in the past to great upheaval and revolution in Egypt. To survive, it is likely that Egypt will not only face internal pressure to sell its own gas for foreign currency rather than use its export infrastructure for Israel’s, but it will also continue the drift it began under the Obama administration toward Russia’s and China’s orbits.  The pressures that led it in that direction a half decade ago now are exacerbated by the urgency of the current quest to obtain aid, cheap food and regional strategic support (such as in Libya).  Once further driven to seek support from Russia, one can only wonder how long it will be before the phone rings from Moscow telling Cairo that Moscow views with great disfavor Egypt’s being a conduit for exporting Israeli gas to Europe to replace Russia’s.  In short, if Israel’s current export structure to Egypt and possibly Europe emerges and survives then great, but Egypt is is not a structure upon which a fifth of Israel’s economy should depend.

A small amount of gas could also be compressed at the Hadera terminal (currently used for offloading, not onloading gas) in Israel to load gas onto compressed natural gas (CNG) ships for Europe, but there are very few of these CNG ships left in the world since their transport-capacity-to-cost ration is lower and the amount of gas they can load is quite a bit more limited than LNG ships, although at the ranges that Israel is from Europe (under 2500 km), there may be some cost offsets.4  With current technologies, Israel could only export about 0.5 bcm per year this way to Europe (with about 14 million m3 per ship).

Combined, under the most optimistic circumstances and assumptions, one can imagine up to 5-10 bcm per annum, about one third of Austria’s annual consumption, being transmitted to Europe. This does not amount to a globally and strategically critical production structure.

The only way Israel will emerge as either a major or reliable source or even hub for gas is by building direct transmission structures from Israel to Europe. One structure is already in process.  An offshore floating LNG platform is already being constructed to service Israel’s Leviathan field. It could theoretically service a capacity of approximately 15 bcm per annum of export.  Under current plans, however, this will take roughly another four years to build.

Second, there were plans by the EU and Israel to build a direct pipeline from Israel to Europe at a cost of about Euro 6 billion. Since it is still under planning, it is uncertain how much gas it would transport, but comparable pipelines in the Mediterranean carry about 30 bcm of gas. There could always also be an additional such terminal constructed if deemed economically viable.

Third, Israel could add a pipeline to Cyprus, and connect to a reinvigorated Vassilikos LNG terminal which like other land-based liquefaction plants could be imagined to reach 15-20 bcm capacity per annum.  This option has been considered but given the lack of urgent interest in Israeli gas internationally until the Ukraine war, this option was shelved for the time being.

Finally, returning for a moment to compressed natural gas, there is a new generation of CNG ships under design that may work effectively to service medium range routes under 2500 km, which is about Israel’s distance to Europe’s Mediterranean ports.5 Indeed, the EU has given Italian project developer, Naval Progetti SRL, a grant of Euro 12 million to develop such a ship.  These ships may be able to carry as much as 7 bcm per annum per train, roughly half that of an LNG terminal, but with less prohibitive up-front infrastructure costs (potentially using Israel’s already existing Hadera terminal). These ships, however, are not operational yet.

But for all this to happen, both Europe and Israel need to adjust their current attitude toward their gas sectors. If Europe considers its need for gas from the eastern Mediterranean to be urgent under wartime conditions and Israel appreciates the unique, acute strategic opportunity it has been handed, then the two could conceive of Israel’s gas hub not in terms of peace-time commercial timelines but as a Manhattan-project level effort. With such prioritization, it is conceivable that Israel could become within a few years a hub (with initial levels of robust export already in two to three years) for Israeli, Cypriot and Gulf Gas to a capacity of about 70-80 bcm per annum, which is about half of Europe’s import.

But therein lies the problem. Europe is shocked, but still coming to terms with what it means and what will be entailed in truly weaning itself off of Russian gas. Moreover, in Israel’s government, there appears to be a complete absence of any sense of urgency to match the magnitude of the commercial and strategic opportunity.

The spirit animating Israel’s left is alignment with Europe, and the spirit of Europe until Ukraine was toward moving away from hydrocarbons altogether and toward alternate energy sources.  Ironically, while Europe has been jolted into greater sobriety and began to take interest in diversifying its natural gas suppliers, Israel’s center-left government over the last year bought into more deeply the previously failed European concept and discouraged the development of its own hydrocarbons sector. This outdated and originally questionable attitude has led over the last 18 months to the following deeply flawed policies that suggest its new center-left government elected in 2021 was uninterested in developing the natural gas sector beyond what had already been developed:

In December 2021, the new Israeli government placed a moratorium on all further exploration of Israeli waters for natural gas.6  Israel’s prime minister had said beforehand that he was eager to join the new international climate consensus in pushing for alternatives instead of hydrocarbons. Moreover, his government which relied on leftist parties, who held the energy, science and transport ministries portfolios, with a strong environmental program.  Afflicted by reality, when Russia invaded Ukraine, the Israeli government reversed its decision yet again and reopened its waters for further license tenders and exploration.7

First, Israel signed a deal in October 2020 to bring UAE gas to the Mediterranean.8 But then a year later in November 2021, only one month before it imposed the moratorium on licensing and exploring further prospects,  the new Israeli government reversed the previous government’s agreement and, citing environmental concerns, canceled the UAE’s deal to use Israel as a major transmissions structure for its gas and that of its neighbors.9 This reversal not only undermined Israel’s credibility, but also limits greatly, if it is not reversed soon, the amount of gas that could ultimately be sent to Europe. If Israel alone must fill the transmission structure with only its gas, then it holds in its entirety about three years of the sort of capacity (assuming it sends every molecule it has to Europe beyond annual domestic consumption) such a robust transmission structure could export to Europe. And that would mean that after three years, neither Israel nor Europe have any Israeli gas left. Even if Israel finds more gas than it has already found, that only extends the inevitable to a total of five to six years. On the other hand, export of gas from the Gulf would transform this niche “bump” of Israeli gas into an ongoing export structure for regional gas for decades, and thus raise Israel to the level of a major global strategic interest. Otherwise, Israel will remain a niche, boutique and transitory asterisk in the history of Europe’s energy mix.

Read more.

Originally published by The Foundation for American Security and Freedom


David Wurmser

RELATED VIDEO: Alex Epstein: Biden’s Policies Created An Energy Crisis

Director of the Project on Global anti-Semitism and the US-Israel Relationship

EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Florida Votes To Ban Sex Change Procedures For Minors After Volatile Testimony

The Florida Board of Medicine has voted to ban sex change surgeries and hormone therapy for children under the age of 18 after hours of deliberation and testimony Friday.

The guidelines, first released April 20, 2022, state that anyone under 18 cannot receive hormone therapy or puberty blockers. It also bans “gender reassignment” surgery for children and adolescents.

The state surgeon general endorsed the move in June and called on the medical board to, “review the Agency’s findings and the Department’s guidance to establish a standard of care for these complex and irreversible procedures.”

The vote came after the board heard testimony from individuals who had detransitioned. One such individual, Chloe Cole, said she decided to transition after being “introduced to inappropriate content, and an echo chamber of far-Left ideology, such as that sex and gender are separate, women are inherently victims, men are inherently superior, and that dysphoric children need hormones and surgery in order to live.”

Chaos erupted as board members announced an end to speaker testimony, and gave attendees an email to submit testimony into the public record. As board members filed out before returning to vote, protestors screamed “Let them speak! Let them speak!”



Staff writer.

RELATED ARTICLE: Parents Mobilize as Culture War Rages

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

An Introduction to Politics for the Politically Clueless

If you have always felt somewhat lost on the political landscape, this primer is for you.

With midterm elections around the corner, many are undoubtedly trying to brush up on their knowledge of politics, having mostly ignored the topic since the last election. Maybe you know some of these people. Maybe you are one of these people.

For those trying to get a crash course in politics before they vote, the process can be a little daunting. You might try reaching out to a politically-knowledgeable friend, but chances are you’ll end up getting more of a rant than answers to your simple questions.

So, in an attempt to provide less of a rant and more of an introduction, here are some basic ideas that will help you get oriented on the political landscape. Note, this isn’t about specific platforms or candidates, nor is it a civics lesson—there are plenty of other places to get that information. Instead, this is more of an introduction to political philosophy. It’s about the principles and big ideas that motivate the various positions.

The starting point of politics is a very simple question: What should the government do? How you answer this question basically determines where you fall in the political realm.

Whether you’re a Republican or Democrat or somewhere in between (or somewhere else, or completely lost), there are certain things almost everyone thinks the government should do. For example, most people think the government should provide things like police, courts, roads, and national defense.

There are other government initiatives, however, that are more contentious. This would include issues like gun regulation, drug prohibition, public schooling, and business regulations like the minimum wage.

Another way of thinking about the fundamental question of politics is to ask “what decisions should the government make for us, and what decisions should individuals be allowed to make for themselves?” As Thomas Sowell said, “The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best.”

Should the government have the final say as to whether people use cocaine, or should that decision be in the hands of the individual? Should the government raise taxes, meaning they decide what to do with a certain sum of money, or should they lower them, meaning the individual decides what to do with that money?

When framed this way, it becomes clear that the more the government does—that is, the more the government makes decisions on our behalf—the less we are free to make our own decisions. Every decision the government makes for us is a decision we can’t make for ourselves. In the words of Ronald Reagan, “As government expands, liberty contracts.”

This insight can be used to develop a very basic political spectrum. At one extreme you have the government making virtually all decisions for its citizens, to the point where the government has “total” control over its people. That would be totalitarianism. At the other extreme you have the government making absolutely no decisions, at which point you have no government, that is, anarchism.

Each political philosophy fits somewhere on that spectrum, and where it fits depends on how much it says the government should control our decisions.

The spectrum above has the advantage of being simple, but it doesn’t always do a good job of representing where people stand. For example, if someone wants lots of government involvement in the economy (regulating businesses, minimum wage laws, high taxation, lots of government programs etc.) but also desires strong social freedoms (free speech, drug legalization, etc.) it can be hard to represent that position on a 1-dimensional axis. Thus, to make these distinctions somewhat clearer, political philosophers have come up with a 2-dimensional political compass that splits economic and social views into their own categories. Economic views are represented by the horizontal axis and social views are represented by the vertical axis.


Though there are two axes instead of one now, the premise is very much the same. At one extreme you have total freedom and no government interference (the far right economically and far down socially). At the other extreme you have lots of government and virtually no freedom (the far left economically and far up socially).

It’s worth noting that “socially liberal” views are sometimes called “libertarian” in contrast to “authoritarian” as in the graphic above. But this is different from the philosophy of libertarianism, which favors both economic and “personal” liberty.

It’s also important to clarify “socially liberal” in this context. The term is often taken to mean libertinism. In the political context, however, “socially liberal” does not mean condoning any particular set of lifestyle choices. It just means rejecting the criminalization of lifestyle choices that do not violate anyone else’s rights.

With some artistic license, the previous 1-dimensional spectrum could be overlaid on the political compass. It would essentially be a line running diagonally from the top left corner (totalitarianism) to the bottom right corner (anarchism).

Republicans (aka conservatives) and Democrats (aka liberals) are both near the middle of this compass. The main difference between them is that Democrats generally lean toward more social freedom and less economic freedom (bottom left quadrant) whereas Republicans lean toward less social freedom and more economic freedom (top right quadrant). So Democrats might push for higher taxes and looser drugs laws, whereas Republicans will push for lower taxes and more stringent drug laws.

Libertarians (bottom right quadrant) are often seen as a weird mix of some Republican and some Democrat positions (“socially liberal, fiscally conservative”), but the above framing hopefully makes it clear why this isn’t the case. Libertarians are simply for freedom in all its forms, and it is the liberals and conservatives who have the strange mixes, championing freedom in some areas while trying to restrict it in others.

Where you fall on the political spectrum ultimately comes down to what you value. If you want the government to provide lots of services but stay out of people’s personal lives, you’ll probably fit best with progressives/liberals. If, on the other hand, you believe there should be stricter social rules but that the government should largely leave the market alone, chances are you’re more of a conservative. And if you just want the government to leave people alone in every domain, you’re probably a libertarian.

These are only generalizations, of course. Every side has its nuances, and as you talk to people from different perspectives you’ll probably start to pick up on them. In fact, the best way to learn is to talk with people who disagree with you. Even if they are the ranting type, asking questions of political nerds can really help you understand where they’re coming from. You might still disagree, of course, but you will at least have a better grasp of the political landscape.

And who knows? They might actually change your mind.

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.

Democrats: The Only Way To Save Democracy Is One-Party Rule

“Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy.” — John Adams to John Taylor in a letter dated 17 December 1814.

Spoken like every evil regime ever.

‘Save Our Democracy’ is the new ‘arbeit macht frei.’

Democrats: The Only Way To Save Democracy Is One-Party Rule

‘Save Our Democracy’ is the new ‘Russia Collusion.’

By: David Harsanyi, The Federalist, October 25, 2022:

t this point, it would save everyone time if Democrats could simply point to a policy agenda item that isn’t going to save democracy — if such a thing exists.

If Republicans vote, they are killing democracy. If they don’t vote, they are killing democracy. The only way to “save democracy,” writes The Washington Post’s Max Boot, is to empower one-party rule — a position that probably sounds counterintuitive to anyone with a middle-school education. “Now you need to vote to literally save democracy again,” contends President Joe Biden, or we will lose our “fundamental rights and freedoms like the right to choose, the right to privacy, the right to vote — our very democracy.”

Chilling stuff. But it doesn’t end there. You will remember that by failing to “reform” the filibuster, which would entail authorizing the thinnest of fleeting majorities to shove through massive generational “reforms” without any national consensus or debate, we are also killing democracy. This has been the position not only of left-wing pundits and the New York Times editorial board, but also senators tasked with defending their institution. I wonder if they will support this democracy-saving fix next session, as well?

Then again, if we don’t nationalize the economy to avert a climate crisis, we are also killing democracy. “We’ve got to save democracy in order to save our species,” Jamie Raskin explains. And if we don’t empty the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to temporarily keep gas prices low to help Democrats win in 2022, we are killing democracy. “We find ourselves in a situation, where keeping gas prices low is key to preserving and strengthening the future of our democracy,” MSNBC’s Chris Hayes says.

We must allow the president to unilaterally create trillion-dollar spending bills and break existing private sector contracts by fiat. For democracy. We must pack the court to “save democracy.” We must create a Ministry of Truth to help with “strengthening democratic institutions.” We must vote for a Pennsylvania candidate who can’t cobble two consecutive coherent sentences together because the “fate of our democracy” is at stake, says our former president.

If you don’t support a partisan congressional investigation that’s circumvented basic due process norms, you probably hate democracy. If you aren’t self-flagellating and holding yourself accountable for the actions of Jan. 6 rioters, you are also bolstering the coming autocracy.

If the Supreme Court empowers the public to vote on an issue like abortion, unmentioned anywhere in the Constitution, it is “degrading” our “democracy.” If the court protects rights that are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution from the vagaries of the political process, it is also undermining democracy. Which is convenient.

The only way to save democracy is to allow one party (guess which one?) to federalize elections, so they can compel states to count mail-in votes that arrive 10 days late, legalize ballot harvesting, force the overturning of dozens of existing voter ID laws, allow felons to vote, create onerous burdens to chill speech, and empower bureaucrats to redraw congressional districts. Otherwise … well, you know.

You’ll remember last year, when left-wingers were arguing that Mike Pence’s support for basic voting ID — backed by around 80 percent of the American public and implemented in virtually every free nation — heralded a “Permanent Authoritarian Rule.” The president called Georgia’s moderate voter law, “odious,” “pernicious,” “vicious,” “unconscionable,” a “subversion” and “suppression,” the “21st-century Jim Crow” and the sure sign of an emerging “autocracy.” In 2022 early voting in Georgia is “shattering records.”

Then, of course, there are the nefarious “election deniers.” You know, “The Big Lie?” If Democrats believed “election denial” was an existential threat to American “democracy,” they probably wouldn’t be perennially engaging in it. The American left hasn’t accepted the legitimacy of a Republican presidential election win since 1988. Democrats “save democracy” by pumping millions into the primary campaigns of “election-denying” Republicans to try and set up a more favorable general election.

Keep reading.



Latina Republican blocked from joining Congressional Hispanic Caucus

Putin declares Taiwan is China’s, bashes ‘OLD WOMAN’ PELOSI’S visit

New PA Secretary of State Is Already Warning of ‘Delays’ in Counting Midterm votes

Hochul’s Criminals: Bus Hijacked in NYC

75 Referred for PROSECUTION For Voter Fraud in Ohio: Report

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

I’m leaving PayPal now, and you should, too

There has been a bit of confusion surrounding just how woke and fascist PayPal has become. They banned us back in 2018 for wrongthink, but backed down after a popular outcry and reinstated us. Recently, however, it came to light that they planned to charge users $2,500 per infraction for “the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance,” and since the Left routinely smears opposition to jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women as “hate” and “racism,” it’s easy to see what’s coming.

After that policy came to light, PayPal announced that it was all a mistake, but this is still in their User Agreement as of this writing, Thursday, October 27, noon Pacific time:

If you are a seller and receive funds for transactions that violate the Acceptable Use Policy, then in addition to being subject to the above actions you will be liable to PayPal for the amount of PayPal’s damages caused by your violation of the Acceptable Use Policy. You acknowledge and agree that $2,500.00 U.S. dollars per violation of the Acceptable Use Policy is presently a reasonable minimum estimate of PayPal’s actual damages – including, but not limited to, internal administrative costs incurred by PayPal to monitor and track violations, damage to PayPal’s brand and reputation, and penalties imposed upon PayPal by its business partners resulting from a user’s violation – considering all currently existing circumstances, including the relationship of the sum to the range of harm to PayPal that reasonably could be anticipated because, due to the nature of the violations of the Acceptable Use Policy, actual damages would be impractical or extremely difficult to calculate. PayPal may deduct such damages directly from any existing balance in any PayPal account you control.

And the Acceptable Use Policy still says you cannot use PayPal for “the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance,” which is, once again, Leftist code for “speech that contradicts our agenda and our fantasies about how the world works.”

So it’s time to go. If you have supported us through PayPal and still do so, we’re immensely grateful for your help in keeping us going, and if you have a regular monthly donation set up, we hope you will transfer it to Anedot here (click the “Monthly” option). That’s a tax-deductible donation. Please also consider supporting my Patreon page here; we want to keep going as long as possible, and every day the fascist Left finds more obstacles to throw at us to prevent people from seeing the truths we present. Once again, I’m immensely grateful for your help.

The fascists have us in a tough spot. They have worked hard to make their services indispensable, and are now increasingly moving toward making access to them based on political and social conformity. If they succeed, they will of course destroy America as a free society; that’s what they want to do. So we have to fight back in every way we can, and be willing to accept inconvenience in doing so. If PayPal is threatening to fine users who don’t conform politically, we must leave PayPal. I’m going to do so now. I hope you will do so as well.


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

‘The Nation’ Laments Need to Care for ‘Miserable White People’

A Tuesday essay in the left-wing magazine The Nation laments the need to “care about miserable white people” simply due to their “disproportionate political power.”

The Nation national affairs correspondent Joan Walsh’s piece “Do We Really Have to Care About Miserable White People?” bears the subheading “Sadly, yes, because they wield disproportionate political power.”

It begins by describing the “endless stories about the white voters who elected Donald Trump dying ‘deaths of despair,’” with rising rates of suicide, drug overdose, alcohol-related liver failure, and COVID deaths in their voting districts.

According to Walsh, “when you perceive yourself as outnumbered, and somehow unfairly so, I guess it’s easier to give up on the promise of democracy—especially when your leaders are telling you to.”

She declared that “disabling racism afflict[s] so much of the white working class,” when in fact the white working class is the only demographic in the country that it is socially acceptable to target with racism.

She also went on to claim that “there are political and material conditions that are making the white working class more miserable, and more extremist,” Walsh wrote. “But there’s a feedback loop with its Republican leadership designed to stoke that extremism, and to make them see Americans who disagree with them as not merely wrong but evil.”

In response, some Twitter users slammed Walsh’s racism.

“What on earth is wrong with you? Would this be ok if you substituted any other race in your racist title, or is just anti-White racism acceptable these days?” asked one Twitter user.

“Tell me you’re racist without telling me you’re racist,” wrote another.

“While Kanye is swiftly condemned & contracts canceled for his comments, anti-white racism is unique in America in that it is 100% culturally acceptable, institutionally-backed and heartily applauded,” another user wrote.

The Nation (TN)

130 Known Connections

Founded in 1865 by politically radical abolitionists, The Nation is the oldest weekly magazine in the United States and the farthest Left of all popular American magazines.

According to David HorowitzThe Nation “supported every Communist dictator in their heyday — Stalin, Mao, Fidel, Ho, even Pol Pot – and on every issue involving conflict between the United States and any of its sworn enemies during the Cold War, invariably tilted towards (and often actively sided with) the enemy side.”

To learn more about The Nation, click here.


Stewart Admits Hunter B. Being on Burisma Board ‘is Corruption’

Sen. Bob Menendez Under Federal Investigation — Again

Conservative Super PAC Expands Map: Targets Blumenthal in CT

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.