How Free Stuff Is Used To Addict The Urban Poor To Welfare

Lifeline is a federal program originally intended to provide low-income people with a free landline phone. Sensing a chance to get more poor people to vote for them, Democrats expanded the program to include free cell phones. To maximize the number of subsidized cell phone recipients, “free phone” vans patrol low-income areas of every Democrat-run city in America, a practice that has resulted in massive fraud.

The “free phones” van pictured above set up shop on a street in a predominately African American area of Baltimore. As revealed in this must-see report by the city’s Fox45 TV, within just three years of Barack Obama’s election, fraud exploded the number of subsidized phones in Baltimore from 6,000 in 2008 to 231,000 in 2011.

Baltimore isn’t the only place where Democrats have used free phones to addict the urban poor to government dependency. In a viral video that illustrates how readily poor people will vote for politicians who promise them free stuff, a welfare recipient in Cleveland, Ohio screamed at a TV reporter that minorities would be voting for Obama because he gives them free phones.

HOW DEMOCRATS DISINCENTIVIZED WORK

Prior to 1995, the federal government gave more money to states that increased their welfare rolls. The following year, President Bill Clinton signed into law major bi-partisan welfare reform that required those receiving public assistance to work in exchange for taxpayer-provided benefits.

Known as “The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996,” the new law changed the rules by instead rewarding states that decreased welfare rolls. The encouraging result was a sharp drop in both welfare dependency and child poverty.

Thirteen years later, Democrats eviscerated the 1996 welfare reform law. Written behind closed doors with zero bi-partisan support, the 2009 stimulus bill passed into law by President Obama and a Democrat Congress effectively ended the requirement that able-bodied adults perform work in exchange for government benefits.

As allowed by the stimulus bill, the Obama administration replaced actual work requirements with the following “work” requirements: Bed rest, personal journaling, motivational reading, smoking cessation classes, weight loss classed, personal care and helping others with household tasks.

Proving that these activities were actually performed was done through the honor system. Defining leisure activities as work enabled Democrats to mislead voters to think that welfare recipients still had to earn their government benefits.

Under the new rules, welfare recipients were disincentivized to transition toward self-reliance, resulting in a return to record levels of welfare dependency and child poverty. The Democrat message to the urban poor: Keep voting for us and we’ll see that you keep getting welfare, this time with no strings attached.

HOW OBAMA EXPLODED FOOD STAMP ROLLS TO RECORD LEVELS

No one minds helping the needy, but Democrats have turned food stamps into a way of life for millions of able-bodied people—under President Obama, 13 million more recipients were added to food stamp rolls. In a move that helped explode food stamp usage to all-time record levels, the Obama administration ran ads designed to lure more people to apply for federal food assistance:

● Obama USDA pamphlet suggested holding food stamp parties to increase participation

“Host a social event. Make it fun by having activities, games and food, and provide information about signing up for food stamps!”

● To expand food stamp rolls in rural areas, the Obama USDA ran ads that denigrated and discouraged self-sufficiency

A 2011 USDA pamphlet revealed that local food assistance offices were rewarded for “counteracting” the pride that many rural Americans have in being self-reliant.

● Obama USDA’s “outreach” used Spanish-language ads to boost food stamp use among legal & illegal immigrants

To prevent taxpayers who do not speak Spanish from discovering the content of the ads, the USDA website did not provide English translations. When the ads were exposed in conservative media, the USDA removed them from its website.

According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, food stamp usage among able-bodied adults doubled after the Obama administration suspended work requirements.

THE PLIGHT OF URBAN AMERICANS IS WORSE THAN EVER

Over the last half-century, trillions of dollars have been spent to help lift the black underclass, with a mother lode of anti-poverty funding having gone to blue state governors and blue city mayors. According to Bob Woodson, a former executive of the National Urban League, 70% of the $22 trillion in anti-poverty funding never reached the disadvantaged people it was intended to help. Instead, the lion’s share was siphoned off by high level elected Democrats, who perpetuated inexcusably wasteful bureaucracies that devoured massive sums of anti-poverty funding in ways that did virtually nothing to improve the plight of the inner city poor.

For six consecutive decades, residents of our inner cities have been economically consigned to communities ravaged by urban decay, rampant crime, rat-infested government housing, sorry schools, generational poverty and chronic hopelessness, with each election bringing a new round of empty promises from the party that that uses welfare addiction and the race card to win elections. While the black underclass faces a daily struggle just to survive, the Democrats they helped elect live in new homes, drive new cars and dine at exclusive restaurants.

WELFARE KILLS THE HUMAN SPIRIT

By the mid-1980s, it was apparent that giving on-going welfare to able-bodied people was a counterproductive policy that inflicted lasting harm on the urban poor. Using government benefits to help impoverished people get on their feet is one thing; knowingly habituating them to welfare as a means of securing their vote is a cruel and cynical thing to do.

By continually pushing welfare on those already addicted to the demeaning lifestyle of government dependency, the Democratic Party is guilty of an unconscionable crime against the most vulnerable people in our society.

Except on Election Day, Democrats couldn’t care less about the urban poor. One day, white liberals will be filled with shame when will realize the unmitigated carnage their vote has foisted on generations of impoverished black Americans.

©John Edison. All rights reserved.

COVID-19: Science-Based Information

Before explaining why they happened, let’s briefly look at some of the horrific  — and entirely preventable — US consequences of our mishandling of COVID-19:

  • Hundreds of thousands of Americans are needlessly dying,
  • Our economy is being undermined, with Trillions of dollars being wasted, and
  • We are lurching towards Communism, as dozens of hard fought for liberties and civil rights are being extracted.

But haven’t we been dealing with a disease of unprecedented historical proportions? NO! See this visual comparison of prior pandemics — and be aware that this shows an inflated death toll for COVID-19. (For example, the majority of COVID-19 deaths were preventable!)

The question now is: have we learned our lesson here, or does it have to get even worse before we wake up? The lesson to be learned comes from understanding how this tragedy came about…


The term “Science” is bandied about continuously. The obvious reason why is that when a product or agenda is officially endorsed by “Science,” it’s like getting the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

The problem is that 95%+ of the public (including legislators), have almost no idea what “Science” actually is. This leaves the stage open to a wide-variety of bad actors to step in and make false Science claims — knowing that very few will be aware of the deceit. Fewer yet will have the knowledge, time and commitment to publicly challenge these inaccurate Science assertions.

As a professional scientist for 50+ years, let me try to clarify some of the confusion. The best definition for Science is: Science is a Process, and the most recognized Science process is the Scientific Method.

Once we’ve grasped that, part two is the understanding that Science exists for one reason: to give us objective, competent assistance in solving our technical problems (e.g., like COVID-19).

Because of this powerful influence, there is a wide range of Science wanna-be’s. However, if we are paying careful attention, we can discard the pretenders when we see that they do NOT follow scientific protocol. Today, the biggest threat to real Science is political science. (Of course, having the word “Science” in the phrase is the first part of the deception.) Political science is actually just politics — but with a fancy name to make it sound more legitimate. Don’t be fooled.

We are being bombarded with numerous “politically correct” products (industrial wind energy) and agendas (climate change), parading about as if they are proven by Science. They are not!

So, it’s no surprise that COVID-19 policies have fallen prey to this anti-science (and anti-American) scourge. The bottom line is that self-serving parties will continue to use a strategy as long as it works. We need to expose the deviations from real Science in ALL of our technical policies — but here our focus is on COVID-19.

Below are some reports that should help you to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. The first group are my small efforts at trying to educate the public about the charade we’ve found ourselves in. The second collection are some of the better materials I’ve come across from other parties. This isn’t an exhaustive list, but if you absorb what is here, you’ll be very knowledgeable about the unscientificness of COVID-19 policies.

One would think that as the guardians of their profession, that the Medical Establishment (FDA, CDC, WHO, AMA, NIH) would aggressively be defending their field from science pretenders. Unfortunately, regarding COVID-19, the Medical Establishment has become more a part of the problem, rather than a part of the solution. That’s what my first report outlines.

The second report spells out the most egregious failing of the Medical Establishment regarding COVID-19: that they failed to advocate any science-based therapies, when there were several reasonable options — any of which were superior to doing nothing.

Feel free to pass on any suggestions for improvements of any of my documents (additions, deletions or modifications). Please provide the scientific basis for any corrections. Email physicist John Droz: here.

Report #1: Some Scientific Observations about the Medical Establishment’s Handling of COVID-19 (with 100+ studies)

Report #2: The FDA COVID-19 Drug Approval Process: Remdesivir vs Ivermectin (referencing 100+ studies)

Re COVID-19 Injections —

Table: COVID-19 “Vaccine” — Some Pros and Cons

COVID-19 Vaccine: Safe & Effective?

We Would Get a COVID-19 Vaccine, If…

Responses to Some Mandate Promoter’s Positions

Outline of Some Lawsuit Options for COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Objectors

Misc Re COVID-19 —

COVID-19: Prevention & Treatment Suggestions

What Schools Should Do For COVID-19

Food For Thought: Comparing Climate Change to COVID-19

The Russian/Chinese Plan to Bring Us Down

Some other worthwhile COVID-19 Reports, Documents and Commentaries:

Re COVID-19 Therapies —

Thorough list of scientific studies on 28 potential COVID-19 treatments

Ivermectin is effective for COVID-19 when used early. Analysis of 63 studies

Directories of Physicians who may prescribe Ivermectin: herehere and here

Overcoming Barriers — Getting Ivermectin Prescriptions Filled

I-MASK Early Outpatient Treatment for COVID-19

The FDA’s War Against the Truth on Ivermectin

Report: India’s Ivermectin Blackout – The Secret Revealed

Short Video: Dr. John Campbell discusses COVID-19 response by India

Short Video: Dr. John Campbell: Ivermectin or Molnupiravir

An extensive collection: COVID-19 Preventions and Treatments

Re COVID-19 Injections —

Summary: Moderna Short-Term mRNA Injection Efficacy & Safety Data

Summary: Pfizer Short-Term mRNA Injection Efficacy & Safety Data

Summary: Johnson & Johnson Short-Term mRNA Injection Efficacy & Safety Data

A site collecting data for adverse vaccine reactions: React-19

List of State laws, pending and enacted, regarding vaccination

John Hopkins: Immunocompromised People — Fully Vaccinated and Not Protected

Study: No Relationship Between Vaccinated People and New COVID-19 Cases

Study: COVID-19 Vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals have similar viral loads

Study: Some effects of mRNA vaccine on immune system

80 of the most common adverse events reported after Covid-19 vaccination

Exclusive Summary: COVID-19 Vaccine Concerns

Safe & Effective? – 78% of COVID-19 deaths among Vaccinated

Short Video: Israel’s Alarming Data

Short Video: COVID-19 Vaccine Data From Singapore

Short Video: Use common sense to do a COVID Data Comparison in 3 countries

The Spartacus Letter

Re COVID-19 Injection Mandates —

Members of Congress and Their Staff Are Exempt From Biden’s Vaccine Mandate

The Totalitarian Roots of Vaccine Mandates

Some Resources to Stop Mandatory Vaccinations

Study: Vaccinated healthcare workers carry 251x viral load of unvaccinated

Individual Choice and Bodily Autonomy vs. Vaccine Mandates

COVID-19 Mandates Will Not Work for the Delta Variant

When Employers Practice Government Tyranny

Misc Re COVID-19 —

Study: Durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection

15 Studies: Acquired immunity from COVID infection is more robust than vaccines

Excellent: Six COVID-19 facts we’re in danger of forgetting

Open Letter from Healthcare Professionals

COVID has Replaced Climate Change as the Religion of the Left

COVID was a dress rehearsal for global climate change

Short video: Have You Heard the Buffalo Paradox?

Looking for a rapid COVID-19 test? A few things to know before you buy one

How the Pandemic Is Changing the Norms of Science

Fox guarding the henhouse? Yes, indeed!

The smear campaign against the Great Barrington Declaration

Report: The Masked Ball of Cowardice

Video: Special Investigation — What Really Happened in Wuhan

 

For more COVID-19 reports, etc, please search over the Media Balance Newsletter 2020 Archives & 2021 Archives.

 


Note that nothing in this webpage should be misconstrued as giving medical advice.

We recommend that for all medical issues that citizens consult with a licensed physician. 

For all medical decisions patients should become well-educated — including getting information from different perspectives — so that (with their physician) they can then make informed health decisions.

This is essentially what is spelled out in the Nuremberg Code.

Mayorkas Plans to Shield Immigration Fraudsters – After DHS Officer Arrested for Naturalization Fraud

I recently wrote an article titled, “Biden Administration Plans to Protect Immigration Fraudsters,” which was predicated on a Washington Times article published nearly two weeks prior.

In point of fact, the 9/11 Commission, to which I provided testimony, identified immigration fraud as a key method of entry and embedding for foreign terrorists and was the prediction for an article I wrote on the topic in 2017.

Given the dangers such immigration fraud poses to national security and public safety, the Trump administration created a special unit to seek out aliens who committed fraud to acquire U.S. citizenship.

It is immensely disturbing that the Biden administration and Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) Alejandro Mayorkas would seek to not only apparently dismantle the fraud unit created by the Trump administration, but actually shield immigration fraudsters from detection.

My previous article provided specific examples of terrorists and spies who sought U.S. citizenship to facilitate their nefarious goals. One of those examples related to a Department of Justice (DOJ) press release from April, 2021, about a federal immigration official from Nigeria who was charged with illegally obtaining U.S. citizenship under a false identity.

The information contained in the DOJ press release provides, what I believe is, the likely motivation Mayorkas had for seeking to shield immigration fraudsters from detection. However, we must remember the defendant Ifemembi still enjoys the presumption of innocence until the prosecution is completed.

Here is how the DOJ press release began:

An immigration services officer with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services was arrested this morning in Maryland on a federal charge that alleges he obtained U.S. citizenship under a false name.

The defendant is charged under the false name of “Karl Nwabugwu Odike Ifemembi,” but the criminal complaint in this case notes that his real name is Modestus Nwagubwu Ifemembi, originally of Nigeria. Ifemembi, 48, who previously resided in Aliso Viejo, but relocated to Rockville, Maryland, last year, has worked for USCIS for seven years. Ifemembi is charged in the complaint with one count of unlawfully procuring U.S. citizenship.

Ifemembi made false statements on various government forms to obtain U.S. citizenship, as well as employment with USCIS, according to the affidavit in support of the complaint, which was unsealed this morning.

The press release went on to explain:

After being granted asylum, Ifemembi attended the University of California, Berkeley, which granted him a bachelor’s degree in 2004, and then obtained J.D. from the University of Oregon, School of Law. Then, in late 2010, “Karlos Mourfy” applied for U.S. citizenship and asked to change his name to Ifemembi – requests that were granted in May 2011. Two years later, in 2013, Ifemembi was hired by USCIS, according to the affidavit.

During the investigation into Ifemembi, federal investigators traveled to Africa – including his hometown of Akuma, Nigeria – and searched his Orange County residence in 2019, obtaining evidence about his true identity, including baptism, school and financial records, the affidavit states.

Mayorkas’ checkered past was the focus of an article I wrote in 2020 which documented how he had been investigated by the Office of Inspector General when he was director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) during the Obama administration. Mayorkas was found to have acted improperly by demanding USCIS employees “get to yes” and approve applications, even when such approval would have been inappropriate.

Now let’s connect the dots and examine the potential link between the arrest of Mr. Ifemembi and Mayorkas’ ongoing effort to shield immigration fraudsters from detection and consequences for their crimes. (Make no mistake, naturalization fraud is a felony under 18 U.S. Code § 1425).

Additionally, providing false documents and making false statements in conjunction with immigration applications are also felonies.

18 U.S. Code § 1546: Fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents

18 U.S. Code § 1001: Statements or entries generally

It was during Mayorkas’ tenure in the Obama administration that Mr. Ifemembi was granted political asylum, lawful immigrant status, and ultimately, U.S. citizenship. It was during Mr. Mayorkas’ tenure at USCIS that Mr. Ifemembi was hired as an employee of that agency.

Mr. Ifemembi worked at USCIS for seven years.

According to the DOJ press release, the investigation that disclosed the allegations of fraud were conducted in 2019, during the Trump administration.

If Mr. Mayorkas takes his responsibilities and oath of office seriously, an audit must be conducted to determine who approved the defendant’s application each step of the way. The process by which he was granted a security clearance to perform his duties must also be reviewed.

Finally, a serious audit must be conducted into every case that Mr. Ifemembi handled to make certain he did not improperly approve applications — especially given the connection between immigration fraud and national security.

Remember — Ifemembi had a law degree. He probably could have earned more money practicing immigration law or other forms of law than he could earn as an employee of USCIS. Working for USCIS also exposed him to the possibility of having his alleged fraud being discovered. The obvious question is why he would assume that risk for less money than he might have earned by not working for the government. This suggests a serious possibility that he “earned” money by acting in a corrupt manner. The other — and even more disturbing — possibility which must be explored is that he could have used his position at USCIS to enable terrorists or criminals to game the immigration system to acquire lawful status in the U.S.

Consider that a 2011 report was issued by the House Intelligence and Counterterrorism Subcommittee on the growing presence of terrorist group Boko Haram in Nigeria, Ifemembi’s country of birth.

Just months ago, the Brookings Institution published a report on rising jihadi terrorism in Africa in the 20 years since 9/11.

In law enforcement there is a saying that if you find a coincidence, keep looking because you are probably on to something. That Mayorkas would seek to protect fraudsters just months after one of his former employees at USCIS was arrested for naturalization fraud is one hell of a coincidence!

©Michael Cutler Senior Special Agent, INS (Ret.). All rights reserved.

Control Is The Biggest Illusion, Right Behind The Theory That The Devil Doesn’t Exist.

The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.” – John‬ ‭10:10‬ ‭NKJV‬‬


The federal government’s control of our lives has increased exponentially over the last two decades.

It started after 9/11 when President Bush vastly increased the ability of the government to spy on we the people in the name of “national security.” Warrantless searches became available to federal law enforcement agencies with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the secret FISA courts.

Following Bush was Obama who took control of our nation’s healthcare system via the “Affordable Care Act” (a.k.a. Obamacare). This was the largest takeover of our freedom to choose how, and from whom, we may get our healthcare. Our freedom of healthcare choice was taken away by the passage of Obamacare, with no Republicans voting for it. My body my choice no longer applies.

Then came a brief respite when Donald J. Trump was elected in 2016. Trump, during his inauguration speech, promised to transfer control from Washington, D.C. and return it back to we the people. He kept his promises and reduced regulation, taxes and the governments control over we the people. While his efforts were successful in making America great again, it was short lived.

Since the November 2020 election we now have Biden and his administration undoing everything that President Trump did to empower the people over government bureaucrats. Now we have “control via mandates” from the Biden White House.

Control by Crisis

Former Senior Advisor to President Clinton Rahm Emanuel said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.

Crisis’ are means to a variety of political ends. The crisis in many cases is truly an illusion which inexplicably leads to governments taking more and more individual freedoms away until we see ourselves in a mess with no way out.

Here’s a short list of the most recent big “C” crisis’ which have fundamentally changed our freedom to choose:

  1. Climate Change (a.k.a. global warming, global cooling). Via the Green New Deal politicians have used changes in the climate to institute policies that have impacted the cost of fossil fuels, how we produce electricity (e.g. wind farms and solar power), how government regulates the energy, transportation and food sectors and much much more. The government wants to pick the kind of car, truck or SUV we drive (e.g. the push for all electric vehicles). All of this in the name of saving the planet from total destruction, which hasn’t happened and never will. There’s no government policy that can ever control the weather. All these climate policies do is reduce our freedom of choice. Click here to learn more about the Green New Deal.
  2. Cost of Biden’s Build Back Better agenda. Biden has made it a priority to expand government spending and control via the Build Back Better agenda. Currently the cost, according to Biden to we the people, is zero dollars. However, the bill before Congress has a price tag of $3.5 trillion. Click here to learn more about the Build Back Better agenda.
  3. COVID. Covid has become the goto crisis in the making by Biden, his handlers and the media. The idea is to “mandate” getting vaxxed. The weapon of choice is “the vaccination”, get jabbed or lose your job. It doesn’t matter if you have natural immunity, or that you don’t want to take the vaccine, for medical or religious reasons, you must obey or else. Doctor patient privilege be damned. Click here to learn more about getting jabbed.

Conclusion

The devil is in the details of each and everyone of the policies of our federal, state and local governments. And there are many devils out there.

From our public schools forcing Critical Race Theory on our children, and if parents object they are deemed enemies of the state. To embracing the LGBTQ+ agenda, the Black Lives Matter campaign to defund our police, to the idea that just because you were born white you are automatically considered to be “privileged “, “racist” and a “white supremacist.”

The uncontested absurdities of yesterday have now become public policy.

Ayn Rand wrote, “A ‘right’…means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.”

Such as the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Today we the people have no rights, more and more it’s only the government bureaucrats who have rights and they are using them to make we the people slaves to the state.

As we approach the 2022 mid-term elections we are collectively holding our breaths to see if enough conservatives can take back one or both houses of Congress. If we don’t then Build Back Better will become the law of the land and with it the loss of our individual freedoms and right to choose our futures.

Ayn Rand wrote, “Freedom…comes down to a single question: do you consider it moral to treat men as sacrificial animals and to rule them by physical force?”

This is the question on the ballot this month in Virginia and in 2022.

Please think about Ayn Rand’s question when you go to the polls on Tuesday, November 8th, 2022.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Study finds fully vaccinated individuals 27 times more likely to develop Covid.

The New York Times Reveals the Horrors of Capitalism—By Showing China’s State-Run Hospitals

If the Times had visited one of China’s many private hospitals, they would have found something quite different from the chaos depicted in China’s public health care facilities.


The New York Times released a 10-minute video last month entitled “How Capitalism Ruined China’s Health Care System.” The video attempts to blame capitalism for the many problems in China’s health care system.

“Under Mao Zedong the Communist state provided free health care for all,” the narrator tells us. “Decades later China adopted a unique brand of capitalism that transformed the country from a poor farming nation into an economic superpower. Life expectancy soared. But the introduction of capitalism and the retreat of the state meant that health care was no longer free.”

As a resident of China and a recipient of outstanding private health care here, I was confused as to why the Times would show us the horrors of a capitalist system without actually visiting a private health care facility.

All of the horrors depicted in the high-quality video—the long lines, the scalping, and the hospital fights—occurred at government-run health care facilities. If the Times had visited one of China’s many private health care facilities, they would have found something quite different.

I know first-hand how outstanding the care at private facilities is in China. Last year I had my appendix removed here. I accidentally walked into the public hospital directly across from the private hospital. The emergency room was filled with at least 100 Chinese patients.

Upon seeing my white European face, hospital staff directed me to the private hospital across the street, Shanghai United. I was welcomed by friendly staff who were fluent in English. The ER doctor was American. I had an ultrasound and CT scan performed within the first two hours. Eight hours after that, my appendix was removed, and I was high on morphine.

China’s private hospitals are the opposite of the chaos depicted in the Times’ video. Wait times are practically non-existent. You don’t have to bribe anyone to be seen.

The exceptional care that I enjoy here along with wealthier residents of China is, sadly, only a dream for most Chinese today. Why? Because it is precisely where you find the profit incentive restored and government regulation absent that you also find superlative health care.

In the video, the Times praises Chairman Mao’s introduction of “free” health care and claims that when capitalism was introduced into the country, the state retreated and care was no longer free.

Neither statement is true. First, health care was never free; it was paid for by tax revenues. Second, the state never retreated; rather, its regulatory apparatus became vaster and even more invasive. Out of sheer necessity, China allowed for the creation of private hospitals to ease the burden of the country’s heavily bureaucratic and deteriorating health care system.

The fact that the Times refused to visit even one private hospital or mention the higher cancer survival rates of patients receiving private care raises serious questions. At the very least, failing to feature a single private medical facility while blaming capitalism for the dysfunction of China’s public health system is intellectually dishonest.

The Times video begins with a man making drugs in his home for his elderly, cancer-stricken mother, a common practice among poor Chinese. He states that there are three kinds of drugs in China: expensive drugs from the West, smuggled drugs from India, and DIY drugs. However, there is a fourth category of drugs never mentioned: Chinese-developed medicine.

These domestic options aren’t sparse, either. China actually has the world’s second-largest prescription drug market. So why isn’t this man taking advantage of the cheaper, domestic option? The Times declines to investigate, but those of us who live here know exactly why he’s refusing Chinese medicine: the quality of the drugs is very poor.

Chinese doctors actually advise against taking Chinese prescriptions due to the lack of transparency on their ingredients, instead suggesting patients rely almost exclusively on Western medicine. (A Chinese pediatrician once warned me not to give my children a simple cough syrup developed in China.) So, while the Times contends that capitalism is killing the Chinese, it is the presence of capitalist-created drugs that allows the Chinese to survive.

The mystery ingredients of Chinese drugs don’t tell the full story, however. The entire pharmaceutical industry operates under contradictory procedures and policies, including price fixing.

In the 1980s, the government began divesting in public hospitals and relocated those funds to subsidize prescription drugs for the poor. Simultaneously, however, the government put price controls on the drugs, making it impossible to turn a profit selling them, which destroyed the incentive for developers. With a paltry investment and a near-zero profit policy, the drug industry is at a stalemate, producing garbage drugs that are unable to yield returns.

The Times video depicts the ungodly long line most Chinese face to see a physician.

“It’s about 5 a.m. and about 100 people have gathered in line in downtown Shangai,” the narrator says softly. “This isn’t the line to the movies or a holiday sale. It’s the entrance to the Shanghai Cancer Center at Fudong University. Those who are willing to lose a night’s sleep trying to try to get in line have one question in their mind: will I get to see a doctor today?”

It’s an appalling scene. We see sick people waiting in massive lines to receive medical attention. Scalpers are selling places in line to those most desperate. Some people are unceremoniously pulled out of line by security right before entering the hospital (presumably for cutting).

There’s just one problem. The Shanghai Cancer Center is a public hospital, not a private one.

The long lines, scalpers, bribes, and physical fights with hospital staff—all of these exclusively happen in the public, communist, government-run hospitals. These things do not happen at China’s private hospitals.

In an egregious bit of sleight-of-hand, the Grey Lady asserts that capitalism is ruining Chinese health care while presenting us with a hospital where capitalism is not practiced. What viewers are watching is the medical system created by central planners.

Along with income from the municipal medical schemes that citizens must pay into, the state hospitals depend on foreign-made drug sales and testing for their revenues. This makes hospitals fertile ground for bribes from pharmaceutical companies, unnecessary drug prescriptions, and excessive testing. The excessive testing is not only a giant waste of money, but in hospitals where doctors get less than three minutes with patients, it is a massive waste of time.

The government also heavily regulates reproduction programs due to the two-child policy, forcing hospitals to obtain a license from China’s Ministry of Health to perform fertility testing and treatments. Almost all of the licenses are only authorized for the state-run hospitals. Simply offloading the initial fertility testing to the private sector would take enormous pressure off the public system.

Market efficiencies are missing from China’s system because they were destroyed long ago by the tenets of communism. Private property and profit motive were replaced by a government-run system designed by central planners.

Sadly, the Times video ends with a quote from the now deceased elderly mother. She repeats what her doctor told her: “Your cancer is not yet severe, take some medicine and go home. You will be fine.”

That’s not the standard response one would expect after being diagnosed with a terminal illness, and viewers see why. The woman was denied treatment. Weeks later she was dead. There is a name for this: rationing.

Rationing can come in many forms, one being a dearth of primary care physicians (PCPs). In China, the government sets fixed salaries for PCPs, which are much lower than what one could earn in the private sector. Naturally, this attracts fewer professionals into primary care. In fact, less than 30 percent of medical school graduates choose primary care. Additionally, to ensure access to basic medical services for all, fees for services are set lower than costs at government-run facilities.

For the poor, this makes public hospitals appealing. Their inpatient treatment is usually fully or mostly covered by the government. And getting in isn’t always a problem. Chinese public hospitals often boast about the number of beds available — ranging from 1,000 up to 10,000 — in comparison to private hospitals, which usually have fewer than 500. The quality of the care is another story.

The absence of normal market forces creates a glaring problem: few doctors and many patients (particularly poor ones whose costs are fully covered). Hospitals simply can’t keep supply up with demand. Staffs are overwhelmed by the sheer number of patients, creating more stress in a high-pressure environment. Inevitably, people are denied care, hence the violence directed toward staff featured in the Times video. (In fact, stabbings and mob-style attacks have risen 23 percent a year on average since 2002, according to the China Hospital Management Association.)

The government also rations prescription medicine by simply excluding certain drugs from coverage, making prescriptions the largest out-of-pocket expense for patients. Even public emergency transport services are completely unreliable in China. Public ambulances simply don’t show up or are too busy, so patients often must take taxis.

The widespread dysfunction of China’s health care system depicted by the Times is not particularly unique.

The United Kingdom’s National Health Service is currently “imploding” as record numbers of patients are waiting 12 hours to get into emergency rooms. Last year, the BBC reported patients were literally dying in hospital corridors.

China’s experience is what inevitably results, sooner or later, from government-run medicine. The Times is correct to label it tragic. But it takes some real chutzpah to blame the tragedy on capitalists.

If the Times had wished to see capitalism in action, they had only to visit one of China’s private hospitals. I have been to the ER no fewer than six times in Shanghai at various hospitals. Each time I have been registered immediately and sent to a consultation room within 10 minutes of arrival.

And I even have the appendix scar to approve it.

COLUMN BY

Sarah Lilly

Sarah Lilly is an American expat and political writer living abroad in Switzerland. She blogs at Red State Abroad.

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

The Case for Vaccine Mandates—Refuted

Vaccination status doesn’t actually tell us whether a person poses a threat to others.


Early in the pandemic, before vaccines were available, my uncle got COVID-19 and unknowingly passed it to my aunt. She was at high risk, trailing a small oxygen tank behind her wherever she went, and the disease quickly took its toll. She died within days.

I got vaccinated as soon as I could, not only to protect myself but primarily to protect my at-risk family members and friends. I have encouraged several friends and family members to get vaccinated. Doctors I know say it’s only a matter of time before every person encounters COVID-19. So the question is: When you do, do you want the best protection available or not?

I understand the appeal of government vaccine mandates. But even if getting vaccinated is a no-brainer for most of us, does government have any legitimate authority to mandate COVID vaccination—or to force private companies to require their employees to get vaccinated?

The question is not whether businesses may choose to require their employees to get vaccinated. They certainly have the right to stipulate the conditions under which they’ll employ people, as does the government insofar as it acts as an employer. Further, businesses ought to carefully consider the nature of their work, the risks to their employees and customers, their customers’ demands, and more to decide on proper safety measures—especially businesses in the health care sector.

But the real question is: Can our elected officials legitimately force people to get vaccinated—or force employers to mandate vaccination? Many say yes.

David Leonhardt writes in the New York Times, “Even in a country that prioritizes individual freedom as much as the U.S. does, citizens do not have the right to harm their colleagues or their colleagues’ families, friends and communities. One person’s right to a healthy life is greater than another person’s right to a specific job.”

Of course, there is no such thing as a “right to a healthy life” or a “right to a specific job” (rights sanction a person’s pursuit of such values, but they don’t entitle people to jobs, health, or anything else). But NPR nicely summarizes the essential point of this line of reasoning: Vaccine mandates supposedly are necessary to “protect vaccinated workers from their unvaccinated co-workers.” (Some ask, “Isn’t this why people get vaccinated to begin with—to protect themselves from the unvaccinated?” It is, but as I discuss, breakthrough infections are a significant problem.)

Even the purportedly pro-freedom American Civil Liberties Union says, “Vaccines are a justifiable intrusion on autonomy and bodily integrity. That may sound ominous, because we all have the fundamental right to bodily integrity and to make our own health care decisions. But these rights are not absolute. They do not include the right to inflict harm on others.”

But what about the potential harms on those forced to take the vaccine?

Set aside the flu-like symptoms many experience after getting a COVID vaccine. Although statistics tell us that the vaccines available only rarely cause serious adverse reactions, these are not trivial. They include anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reactionmyocarditis and pericarditis, which are inflammatory reactions of the heart with results ranging from stabbing chest pains to heart failure and death; and Guillain-Barré syndrome, which the CDC describes as “a rare disorder where the body’s immune system damages nerve cells, causing muscle weakness and sometimes paralysis.” The CDC also says, “recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths.” Those include, for instance, the 38-year-old Washington woman who died on September 7.

Of course, we can’t weigh the risks of vaccination in a vacuum. We must compare them to the risks of contracting COVID-19 without vaccination. And when we do, we see that, statistically, people are far safer with the vaccination than without.

But nonetheless, does the government have legitimate authority to force those odds on anyone? Would it be moral for bureaucrats to force people to play Russian roulette with a million-chamber gun, even if only a few of those chambers were loaded?

According to the ACLU, doing so is moral because, to repeat the argument: “fundamental right[s] to bodily integrity and to make our own health care decisions” are “not absolute” and “do not include the right to inflict harm on others.” I’ve talked to scores of people on this topic, including doctors, infectious disease experts, and constitutional lawyers, and most (and the strongest) pro-mandate arguments I’ve heard boil down to this same point: There is a conflict between two types of rights, and a person’s right not to be infected outweighs others’ rights to choose not to get vaccinated.

One big problem with this argument, however, is that it conflates “unvaccinated” with “infectious.” Of course, to be infectious, one must actually have the disease. An unvaccinated person who doesn’t have COVID simply cannot transmit it.

On the other hand, a vaccinated person who gets COVID can transmit it to others, including those who have been vaccinated. Such breakthrough infections became national news in July when hundreds of people in one Massachusetts town—almost 75 percent of whom were vaccinated—came down with COVID. The CDC reported of this event, “Among five COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized, four were fully vaccinated.”

Although, as my colleague Jon Miltimore reports, many scientists agree that COVID vaccination reduces the likelihood of developing severe symptoms requiring hospitalization, it’s still unclear whether vaccination reduces transmission of the disease. Some say it does because it decreases symptoms and reduces the length of infection. However, the pre-symptomatic period may be the highest-risk time frame for transmission because those infected don’t yet know they’re contagious. The CDC’s investigation of the July outbreak revealed that vaccinated individuals still contract and transmit COVID and, when infected, they carry just as many infectious particles in their throat and nasal passages as do unvaccinated people who have the virus.

The moral of this story? Vaccination status doesn’t tell us whether a person poses a threat to others. The only way to know if a person poses an active threat is to know if he is currently carrying an infectious disease. This is why, as countries reopen their borders, some (including the United States) are requiring not merely proof of vaccination, but proof of a recent, negative COVID test. A vaccinated person may (or may not) be statistically less likely to infect others. But, as economist Milton Friedman said, statistics do not speak for themselves. In this context, they tell us only about aggregates, not about the actual threat posed by any particular person. “I abhor averages,” said Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. “I like the individual case. A man may have six meals one day and none the next, making an average of three per day, but that is not a good way to live.”

Similarly, statistics might tell us that twenty-two-year-old girls are most likely to get into car accidents or that black men in Brooklyn are likelier than most to burglarize homes. But we all recognize that government action against individuals on the basis of statistics is prejudicial and properly illegal. The same goes for vaccination status. It doesn’t tell us whether a person poses a threat to others.

Is this really a sound basis for government violating our “fundamental right to bodily integrity and to make our own health care decisions”?

It’s true, of course, that no one has a “right to inflict harm on others.” But that’s a two-way street. Fear of unvaccinated people (and remember, “unvaccinated” does not mean “infectious”) does not give government grounds to launch a preemptive strike forcing people to get vaccinated—or to force employers to do their dirty work for them.

Both sides of this debate call on government to protect our rights. However, when assessing whether an individual poses an active threat, thereby requiring a government response, we can’t rely on statistics, as the pro-mandate argument does—we need evidence.

Unfortunately, our government hampered early efforts to develop COVID testing, the best source of such evidence. So, although it’s good that President Biden’s vaccine mandate at least allows people to opt for testing instead of vaccination, high prices and shortages have largely rendered this a hollow gesture. Many have already had to choose between keeping their jobs and getting vaccinated—an alternative that government has no legitimate authority to impose.

The CDC says, “the known and potential benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the known and potential risks,” but the weighing of risks and benefits is not something others can do for us irrespective of our own context. The point is not that people shouldn’t get vaccinated. The COVID vaccines currently available are marvels of human ingenuity. But the decision to get vaccinated or not is one every individual morally must be left free to make for himself.

COLUMN BY

Jon Hersey

Jon Hersey is managing editor of The Objective Standard, fellow and instructor at Objective Standard Institute, and Hazlitt fellow at Foundation for Economic Education.

RELATED TWEET:

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

VIDEO: Florida Governor DeSantis Offers Jobs to Police Officers Fired or Defunded in Other States

Governor DeSantis said:

“In Florida, not only are we going to want to protect the law enforcement, and all the jobs, we’re actually actively working to recruit out-of-state law enforcement because we do have needs in our police and our sheriffs’ departments.”

Governor DeSantis also said:

“So, in the next legislative session, I’m going to hopefully sign legislation that gives a $5,000 bonus to any out-of-state law enforcement that relocates in Florida. So, NYPD, Minneapolis, Seattle — if you’re not being treated well, we’ll treat you better here. You can fill important needs for us, and we’ll compensate you as a result.”

“What Biden’s doing is unconstitutional; he does not have the authority to do this, but what it will do on a practical level — in addition to being unconstitutional, in addition to taking away people’s personal choices — is it will wreak havoc in the economy because even if a small percentage of these folks end up losing their jobs or voluntarily walking away, you’re gonna have huge disruptions in medical, in logistics, in law enforcement. And so in Florida, our policy is very clear: we’re gonna have a special session and we’re gonna say, nobody should lose their job based off these injections. It’s a choice you can make, but we want to make sure we’re protecting your jobs and your livelihoods.”

Freedom Headlines in a column titled “Ron DeSantis Offers Terminated Out-of-State Police Officers an Offer They Can’t Refuse” reported, “Everybody should know by now that several people have been laid off or quit jobs recently. Just recently we saw one of the highest numbers that we’ve ever seen and people quitting their jobs at over 4,000,000.”

RELATED TWEET:

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO:

RELATED ARTICLES:

SUPER SANTIS: DeSantis offers police $5,000 bonus to relocate to Florida amid vaccine mandates

San Francisco residents don’t ‘feel safe,’ turn to private security amid crime spree

JetBlue Jihad: The Great Press Cover-up

Under Islamic law (sharia), any criticism of Islam of Muhammad is punishable by death. Anyone who questions the violent and genocidal Islamic texts and teachings that exhort and incite to jihad (holy war) are targeted for death. These sharia speech restrictions are now very much part of the media/ Associated Press Stylebook, the media usage guide created by American journalists .

A JetBlue Jihadist? The Great Press Cover-up

By Chris Farrell, October 23, 2021:

  • If we are trying to ascertain motive in a situation like this, shouting “Allah” would seem to be a key detail. That potentially moves the incident from “disturbed passenger freaks out over failed phone connection” to “jihadist tries to commit suicide attack.” It does not prove the latter case of course, but it does make it part of the conversation.
  • However, you would have to go to the FBI affidavit to get that detail. The Washington Post write up of the incident, clearly based on the affidavit, went so far as noting that El Dahr “yelled in Spanish and Arabic” but omitted that he was shouting about Allah — despite the obvious news value in that detail.
  • Granted there could be a variety of reasons why El Dahr was invoking his supreme being. But there is only one reason for not reporting it — deliberately to obscure a possible tie to Islamic radicalism.

If a radical Islamist hijacked an airplane, we might never know it was an act of terrorism. That is, if we rely only on the mainstream media. Case in point: On September 22, Khalil El Dahr, a passenger on JetBlue Flight 261 from Boston to Puerto Rico, suddenly rushed to the front of the aircraft, choked and kicked a flight attendant, and tried to break into the flight deck. (Image source: Anna Zvereva/Wikimedia Commons)

If a radical Islamist hijacked an airplane, we might never know it was an act of terrorism. That is, if we rely only on the mainstream media.

Case in point: On September 22, Khalil El Dahr, a passenger on JetBlue Flight 261 from Boston to Puerto Rico, suddenly rushed to the front of the aircraft, choked and kicked a flight attendant, tried to break into the flight deck, and urged crew members to shoot him. It took a half-dozen flight attendants to restrain El Dahr, tying him down with flex cuffs, seat belt extenders and a necktie. On landing in Puerto Rico, El Dahr was arrested and charged with interference with flight crew members and attendants, a federal crime.

What was El Dahr’s motive? Authorities have not released their findings yet, but we know some facts from an affidavit filed by FBI Special Agent William Lopez. El Dahr had attempted an in-flight phone call and “became angry about the call’s unsuccess.” About twenty-five minutes later he rushed the cockpit, struggled with flight attendants, speaking in “Spanish and Arabic,” and “one point during the incident, they were able to understand EL DAHR say Allah in a raised tone.”

If we are trying to ascertain motive in a situation like this, shouting “Allah” would seem to be a key detail. That potentially moves the incident from “disturbed passenger freaks out over failed phone connection” to “jihadist tries to commit suicide attack.” It does not prove the latter case of course, but it does make it part of the conversation.

However, you would have to go to the FBI affidavit to get that detail. The Washington Post write up of the incident, clearly based on the affidavit, went so far as noting that El Dahr “yelled in Spanish and Arabic” but omitted that he was shouting about Allah — despite the obvious news value in that detail.

Granted there could be a variety of reasons why El Dahr was invoking his supreme being. But there is only one reason for not reporting it – deliberately to obscure a possible tie to Islamic radicalism.

This is hardly the first time that the media and even the government have downplayed evidence of a motivation related to Muslim extremism. Take the “workplace violence” narrative that was pitched about US Army Major Nidal Hasan’s terrorist attack at Ft. Hood in 2009 in which he shot and killed 14 people and wounded 33 others. Despite describing himself as a “Soldier of Allah” and with copious evidence of the motivation and intent of his murderous plan, the official Defense Department review was silent on any factors related to his radicalization.

Earlier, when 2002 Washington, D.C. sniper John Allen Muhammad left a cryptic note to police saying “I am God … Allah” only the “I am God” part was reported. When married couple Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik shot up a San Bernardino Christmas party, killing 14 people and seriously wounding 22, headlines told us the motive was “unclear“– until it came out that they had spent a year planning the attack as a part of a commitment to “jihad and martyrdom.”

Again, we cannot jump to the conclusion that El Dahr was a terrorist motivated by radical Islamist ideology, even though his actions fit exactly the M.O. that Al Qaeda pioneered two decades ago. What is at issue here is the propensity for news organizations to conceal possible terroristic motivations — but only of a certain type. Naturally if El Dahr had been a white guy raving about election fraud, COVID vaccinations or Trump 2024, there would be 24-hour coverage of the threat posed by “white rage” and “domestic terrorism,” and calls for tight travel restrictions against real or suspected members of the opposition party.

Freedom of Information Act requests with the relevant government agencies will hopefully uncover more about this incident, including what the government knows about El Dahr, his background, his motives, and who he was trying to call while on JetBlue Flight 261. In other words, true investigative journalists will work to uncover facts that the Washington Post‘s “mainstream journalists” should be uncovering but do not, because they are apparently afraid of what they might find.

RELATED ARTICLE:  Muslim Screaming “ALLAH” Tries to Storm Cockpit On Jetblue Flight, Hero Attendants Block Jihadi

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

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

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

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. It’s open and free.

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

PURE EVIL: Fauci Under Fire For Puppy Experiments Using Disease-Causing Parasites

This isn’t medicine. This is Mengele.

Never forget that Fauci he is the highest-paid govt official, plus he has received several bonuses in addition to his almost $half a million salary.

‘Cruel’ Fauci is condemned for ‘paying Tunisian research lab $375,800 in taxpayer funds to clamp heads of de-barked beagle puppies in cages filled with flesh-eating flies that ate them alive’

  • A group of 24 bi-partisan lawmakers are demanding answers from Dr. Anthony Fauci after a nonprofit claims he permitted experimental drug testing on dogs
  • The White Coat Waste Project alleges that Fauci sent $375,800 to a Tunisian research lab where beagle puppies were force-fed a new drug
  • The report claims they were also locked in cages with sand flies that ate them alive and underwent a de-barking procedure to keep them quiet
  • The nonprofit has also revealed three other experiments involving beagles that were allegedly funded by Fauci
  • The lawmakers have called the experiments ‘cruel’ and a ‘reprehensible misuse of taxpayer funds’
  • They expect Fauci to answer to the alleged misdeeds by November 19

By Natasha Anderson, Daily Mail, 24 October 2021

Dr. Anthony Fauci is under fire over after the White Coat Waste Project exposed that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has spent millions of taxpayer dollars on four experiments involving beagle puppies.

One of the alleged experiments involved a painful and ‘unnecessary’ de-barking procedure called a cordectomy, while others used the dogs as bait for flesh-eating sand flies.

In response, a group of 24 lawmakers, led by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), are now demanding Fauci provide answers about the experiments they believe to be ‘cruel’ and a ‘reprehensible misuse of taxpayer funds.’
‘According to documents obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request by taxpayer watchdog group White Coat Waste Project, and subsequent media coverage, from October 2018 until February 2019, NIAID spent $1.68million in taxpayer funds on drug tests involving 44 beagle puppies,’ the letter from lawmakers reads.

That larger amount encompasses a wider experiment which saw the beagles force-fed drugs before they were killed and dissected.

‘While documents state that the ostensible purpose of this study was to ‘provide data of suitable quality and integrity to support application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other regulatory agencies,’ the FDA itself has recently stated that it ‘does not mandate that human drugs be studied in dogs.”

The experiments were done with funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, of which Fauci has been director since 1984.

The White Coat Waste Project claims the NIAID provided a $375,800 grant to a lab in Tunisia to drug beagle puppies and locked their heads in mesh cages so sand flies could eat the dogs filled with hundreds of infected sand flies

The sand flies would gnaw on the dogs’ ears, eating them alive

Two weeks ago, the White Coat Waste Project revealed that close to $1.68million was spent on experiments on a total of 44 beagles at Sri International in Menlo Park, California, in which the puppies received cordectomies and were force-fed drugs before being killed and dissected.

Another $375,800 was provided as a grant to a lab in Tunisia to drug beagle puppies and locked their heads in mesh cages so sand flies could eat the dogs filled with hundreds of infected sand flies, the group revealed in August.

Fauci’s team had previously, in 2016, strapped the infectious sand flies to beagles at the NIAID lab in Bethesda, Maryland, allowing them to feed on the dogs for 22 months.

The White Coat Waste Project alleges that the dogs developed infectious legions before researchers killed and dissected them.

This procedure cost $18,430,917.

The White Coat Waste Project also revealed that close to $1.68million was spent on experiments on a total of 44 beagles at Sri International in Menlo Park, California, in which the puppies received cordectomies and were force-fed drugs before being killed and dissected +11
The White Coat Waste Project also revealed that close to $1.68million was spent on experiments on a total of 44 beagles at Sri International in Menlo Park, California, in which the puppies received cordectomies and were force-fed drugs before being killed and dissected

In 2016, Fauci’s strapped sand flies to beagles at the NIAID lab in Bethesda, Maryland, allowing them to feed on the dogs for 22 months

The White Coat Waste Project alleges that the 2016 experiment caused the dogs to develop infectious legions before researchers killed and dissected them +11

In September 2020, Fauci’s agency reportedly authorized a $424,000 grant for animal experiments at the University of Georgia, where healthy beagles were drugged and then intentionally infested with parasite-carrying flies +11

Rep. Nancy Mace demands answers from Fauci on animal experiments

In September 2020, Fauci’s agency reportedly authorized a $424,000 grant for animal experiments at the University of Georgia, where healthy beagles were drugged and then intentionally infested with parasite-carrying flies.

Records show the dogs were ‘vocalizing in pain’ during the experiments, before being killed.

The group of legislators has asked Fauci and his researchers to answer the following by November 19:

How many drug tests involving dogs have been funded by NIAID since January 2018? How much taxpayer money has been spent on this testing?

Since the Food and Drug Administration has clearly stated that it does not require dog testing for new drugs, why has NIAID continued to commission testing on dogs?

What has NIAID done to explore the use of non-canine and non-animal alternatives to meet FDA data requirements?

Has NIAID ever made any dogs available for adoption after the conclusion of an experiment or testing? If so, how many? if so, why not?

‘De-barking beagles and poisoning puppies in experiments with our tax dollars is a national disgrace that’s uniting Republicans and Democrats, and we applaud Rep. Nancy Mace and her colleagues on both sides of the aisle for holding the NIH accountable for this government waste and animal abuse,’ Justin Goodman, Vice President of Advocacy and Public Policy at taxpayer watchdog group White Coat Waste Project, said in a statement provided to DailyMail.com.

Neither Fauci nor the NIAID immediately responded to our request for comment.

The animal testing allegations come after Fauci was accused of lying to Congress by claiming the US did not fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab blamed for creating COVID.

RELATED TWEET:

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

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

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

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. It’s open and free.

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

Israel: Police open criminal investigation against Facebook for jihad terror incitement

Shut it down! Not just in Israel, but everywhere!

Following PMW’s complaint, Police open criminal investigation against Facebook Israel for terror incitement

by Itamar Marcus, Palestinian Media Watch, October 21, 2021:

Palestinian Media Watch submitted a complaint on May 23, 2021 to Israeli police against Facebook Israel and its CEO for aiding and abetting Fatah incitement to terror, under clause 24(b)(1) of the Anti-Terror Law.

  • PMW has now been informed by Israeli police that it has opened an official investigation pursuant to our complaint. Conviction for someone who “publishes direct calls to commit acts of terror” is up to 5 years of imprisonment.

  • Background: In April and early May, Mahmoud Abbas’ PA and Fatah were actively inciting violence and terror. The Palestinian population was furious that Abbas had cancelled elections to prevent a Hamas victory, and Abbas was trying to distract them with a terror wave in defense of Jerusalem. With over a quarter of a million followers, the avenue of choice for the PA and Fatah to promote violence and terror was Fatah’s Facebook pages.

  • On May 9, 2021, PMW alerted Facebook, writing to the CEO of Facebook Israel Adi Soffer Teeni, that Fatah was using its many Facebook pages to publish calls to commit acts of terror. PMW demanded that Facebook close Fatah’s Facebook pages.

  • PMW warned Facebook: “If you fail to act as the violence [in Jerusalem] rages and as Fatah and its leaders continue to abuse the Facebook platform to spread violence, we will have no choice but to submit an official complaint to the Israeli police against Facebook in general and key personnel in particular, for the aiding and abetting the violence. We expect your quick and decisive response.”  [PMW letter, May 9, 2021]

  • However, Facebook continued its policy of allowing Fatah to post incitement to hate and terror, and to publish direct calls to commit acts of terror, thus fanning the terror in Jerusalem and the rest of Israel throughout the Gaza war with Hamas.

  • PMW submitted the complaint to Israeli police against Facebook Israel and its CEO for incitement to terror on May 23 and recently was notified by the police that a formal investigation of PMW’s complaint was opened. Given the clear evidence (see below), we hope that the police will act swiftly against Facebook to determine if prosecution is warranted against the Israeli Facebook staff who made the decision to enable Fatah to use Facebook to promote terror. In addition, we hope the police will demand the closure of the Fatah’s Facebook pages that, as PMW has shown, have been actively fanning the flames of terror for many years.

Palestinian Media Watch submitted a complaint to Israeli police against Facebook Israel and its CEO Adi Soffer Teeni on May 23, 2021 for incitement to terror under clause 24(b)(1) of the Anti-Terror Law. PMW has been warning Facebook for years that it is a fundamental part of Fatah’s terror promotion, and has supplied Facebook with hundreds of examples of hate and terror promotion on Fatah’s Facebook platform as documented in numerous PMW reports. Facebook claims to be very strict about eliminating hate speech and promoting violence and closing other hate disseminating Facebook accounts. However, Facebook has made a decision to keep open the official Fatah page, thus allowing Fatah to disseminate hate speech against Israel, glorify terrorists who murder Israelis and even be a platform for Fatah’s calls to violence and terror. Given the importance of social media as a disseminator of incitement to violence, Facebook’s behavior has been life-threatening and places them as a central cog in Fatah’s terror infrastructure.

In PMW’s complaint to the police against Facebook Israel, we noted that on May 8, with Arab violence raging in Jerusalem including attacks on police and on Jews walking in the streets of Jerusalem, Fatah used 9 different Facebook pages, including its official Facebook page with 234,305 followers, to disseminate its call for violence, including…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Germany: Muslim migrant who murdered three while screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ is not guilty, not an ‘Islamist’

Spain: Muslims gang-rape woman after telling her to take off her t-shirt with emblem of anti-immigration party

France: ‘F*** the Islamophobes,’ ‘To all teachers, I’ll behead you’

Islamic scholar hits Taliban for focusing on Afghanistan alone, compromising on goal of global Islamic caliphate

France: Imams told to feign support for the French after beheading of teacher for showing Muhammad cartoon

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

Vaccination Rates Not Linked to Lower COVID Rates, Epidemiology Paper Finds

A new paper in the European Journal of Epidemiology that analyzed 168 countries and 2,947 US counties found that higher vaccination rates were not associated with fewer COVID-19 cases.


On Friday, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article noting that California has some of the lowest COVID-19 case rates in the US, even though the Golden State’s vaccination rate lags many states that are currently struggling with the delta variant.

“One clear example is the New England states of Vermont and Maine,” the Chronicle reported. “Relatively shielded from the worst of the nation’s previous surges, they have struggled against the delta variant, which has sent their case rates soaring.”

In fact, Vermont has the highest vaccination rate in the country. Among those 65 years and older, 99.9 percent are fully vaccinated, and 74 percent of those 18-64 are fully vaccinated, according to data from the Mayo Clinic.

Yet, as the Chronicle points out, despite its high vaccination rate, Vermont recently set its single-day case record for the entire pandemic. And as of Oct. 1, Vermont’s seven-day average case rate per 100k people was 30—triple that of the Bay Area.

There is widespread agreement among scientists that COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective at reducing the risk of developing severe COVID symptoms, which can result in hospitalization and death.

Their effectiveness at reducing transmission of the virus, however, remains a subject of debate, particularly since the CDC released findings in July* that show vaccinated individuals still contract the virus, transmit it, and carry just as many virus particles in their throat and nasal passages as unvaccinated individuals do when they contract the virus.

While scientists concede that the vaccines cannot stop transmission, many contend they still reduce transmission of the virus.

“We are confident vaccination against COVID-19 reduces the chances of transmitting the virus,” Johns Hopkins epidemiologists M. Kate Grabowski and Justin Lessler argued in The Daily Beast.

Other scientists are less sure, and new study suggests their skepticism may be warranted. The study, published last month in the European Journal of Epidemiology, a monthly peer-reviewed medical journal, examined 168 countries and 2,947 counties in the United States and concluded that higher vaccination rates are not associated with fewer COVID cases.

“At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days,” the researchers concluded. “In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people.” (emphasis added)

At the county level, the researchers said, there “also appears to be no significant signaling of COVID-19 cases decreasing with higher percentages of population fully vaccinated.”

The findings do not suggest people shouldn’t get vaccinated. Again, there’s robust evidence showing vaccines reduce the risk of severe symptomatic COVID-19 reaction. What the research does suggest, however, is that vaccines are primarily a matter of personal health, not public health.

This is precisely what Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine who studies epidemiology at Stanford, recently suggested. Bhattacharya noted that research indicates that the mRNA vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna offer abundant individual protection—Bhattacharya credits his own speedy recovery from COVID-19 to the vaccines—but don’t contribute to herd immunity or improve public health.

The findings published in the European Journal of Epidemiology help explain why US states such as Vermont and Maine are suffering massive case outbreaks despite their high vaccination rates. (Public health experts also point out that California has much higher levels of natural immunity than its eastern counterparts, the Chronicle reports.)

But it doesn’t explain why so many continue to maintain that the vaccines reduce transmission of the virus as well as offer protection to individuals—despite an abundance of evidence (both empirical and anecdotal) to the contrary.

One explanation may be found in an observation from economist Ludwig von Mises.

Mises famously observed that much of the strife in the modern world is a struggle over who designs the world, authorities or individuals. As Mises put it, we can either have “the democratic process of the market, in which every individual has his share, [or] the exclusive rule of a dictatorial body.”

If getting vaccinated is simply a matter of individual health, there is little reason for “the planners” (as Mises called them) to exercise control over the public. It would be akin to requiring individuals to have cancerous tumors removed in the name of “public health”.

But if not getting vaccinated is a threat to public health, or “society,” then central planners have their reason (if not a valid justification) to exercise control over society.

In other words, evidence that shows COVID vaccination is primarily about individual health runs counter to the raison d’etre of the planners, which is to exercise their plan over society.

“What those calling themselves planners advocate is not the substitution of planned action for letting things go. It is the substitution of the planner’s own plan for the plans of his fellow-men,” Mises argued in Planned Chaos. “The planner is a potential dictator who wants to deprive all other people of the power to plan and act according to their own plans. He aims at one thing only: the exclusive absolute pre-eminence of his own plan.”

For people trying to understand why for the first time in modern history public health officials are trying to combat a respiratory virus by coercing healthy individuals to take their desired actions—and in many cases lose their job and basic freedoms if they do not—Ludwig von Mises is required reading.

*Correction: The CDC’s findings were released in July, not June. We regret the error.

RELATED ARTICLE: States Spent At Least $90 Million on Vaccine Lotteries. Studies Show They Accomplished Nothing

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

Clyburn: There’s ‘No Way to Pay’ for Biden’s ‘Zero Cost’ Spending Plan

Friday on MSNBC’s Craig Melvin Reports, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn confessed that “there’s no way to pay” for President Joe Biden’s $3.5 trillion “Build Back Better” spending package, which the Biden administration ludicrously claims will come with “zero cost” to the American people.

“I don’t think that anyone ever thought that after doing the rescue plan of over a trillion dollars, that we would come back with a $6 trillion program,” Clyburn stated. “The question is, how do you pay for that? Because we’re committed, Democrats are committed to paying for what we do. We saw the Republicans do a nearly $2 trillion tax cut and pass it onto our children and grandchildren to pay for it sometime in the future. That’s not our philosophy. Our philosophy is, let’s do what we need to do, but let’s pay for it. And so, there’s no way to pay for a $6 trillion program.”

He continued, “And you may recall, I questioned as to whether or not $3.5 trillion could be paid for. In fact, I said at the time that I thought that somewhere between $1.5 and $3.5, we’ll be able to find a sweet spot. And that, it seems to be what’s taking place now. We are close to finding the sweet spot. And it will be between those two numbers.”

Regardless of the final number, the Democrat spending agenda will be disastrous for the country, because it will be oriented toward a far-left, social justice agenda, including the environmentalist boondoggle, the “Great Reset.”


James Clyburn

39 Known Connections

Contempt for President Trump

In an August 16, 2017 interview on CNN, Clyburn said that the United States was becoming more like Nazi Germany with a Hitler-like Donald Trump as president. “We are approaching a place that we’ve been before,” he stated. “We remember from our studies what happened in the 1930s in Germany. I told a business group down at Hilton Head several weeks before the election, that what I saw coming was a replay of what happened in Nazi Germany.” Clyburn then asserted that both Trump and Hitler were elected by the people: “The fact of the matter is Hitler was elected as chancellor of Germany. He did not become a dictator until later when people began to be influenced by his foolishness. We just elected a president and he’s got a lot of foolishness going on, and I’m afraid that too many people are being influenced by that foolishness.”

To learn more about James Clyburn, click here.

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

New Study Finds Electric Cars Cost More To Refuel Than Gasoline Powered Cars

Anderson Economic Group EV Transition Series: Report Comparison: Real World Cost of Fueling EVs and ICE Vehicles compared the actual costs of fueling normally asperated cars and trucks versus all electric vehicles. Read the full study here.

The Anderson study noted that Electronic Vehicles (EVs) are, “often presumed to be less expensive to fuel than their ICE counterparts. There is a rationale in physics for this: due to greater thermal efficiency, electric motors convert energy more efficiently than combustion engines. However, this cost is only one of five.”

For a complete picture, Anderson notes that we consumers must consider:

  1. Commercial and residential electric power/fuel costs.
  2. Registration taxes.
  3. Equipment (e.g., chargers) and installation costs.
  4. Deadhead miles incurred driving to a charger or fueling station.
  5. The cost of time spent refueling

The study found:

  • There are four additional costs to powering EVs beyond electricity: cost of a home charger, commercial charging, the EV tax and “deadhead” miles.
  • For now, EVs cost more to power than gasoline costs to fuel an internal combustion car that gets reasonable gas mileage.
  • Charging costs vary more widely than gasoline prices.
  • There are significant time costs to finding reliable public chargers – even then a charger could take 30 minutes to go from 20% to an 80% charge.

In the Anderson Economic Group’s October 21, 2021 column “Real-World Electric Vehicle Fueling Costs May Surprise New EV Drivers” they wrote:

6 months of independent research finds fueling costs for electric vehicles (EV) are often higher than for internal combustion engines (ICE)

East Lansing, MI–October 21, 2021: Anderson Economic Group released today the first in a series of analyses examining the transition from ICE vehicles to EVs.

This initial 36-page study is the culmination of comprehensive research comparing the “apples-to-apples” costs involved in fueling both EVs and ICE vehicles. AEG undertook this study after noting that many commonly cited figures did not account for the true costs associated with EV charging.

AEG calculated the cost of chargers, additional road taxes, commercial charging fees, and “deadhead” miles for three different EV driving scenarios and compared these with 3 analogous ICE vehicle scenarios. The research found that fueling an EV is often more expensive than fueling an ICE vehicle. It further found that fueling costs are far more variable for EVs. The authors go on to note the significant time costs imposed on EV drivers as a result of both inadequate infrastructure and wait times associated with fueling, which can be five to ten times the cost for ICE drivers.

According to study author Patrick Anderson, “These numbers may be surprising to those who haven’t relied upon an electric vehicle, but it’s important we safeguard the public from ‘charger shock.’ Before consumers can feel comfortable buying EVs in large numbers, they need to understand the true costs involved.”

Read the full article.

About the Authors

Mr. Patrick Anderson is Anderson Economic Group’s principal and CEO. His company is one of the most recognized boutique consulting firms in the United States, with years of expertise in the US automotive industry. The company has consulted for manufacturers that include General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Honda, and others, along with nearly 200 automobile dealerships representing virtually every brand in the market.

Mr. Alston D’Souza works in Anderson Economic Group’s strategy and business valuation practice area, where he serves as senior analyst and data scientist. While at AEG, Mr. D’Souza’s work has focused on damages and market analysis. He holds a master’s degree in econometrics and quantitative economics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and a Bachelor of Technology degree from the National Institute of Technology Karnataka (India).

ABOUT THE ANDERSON ECONOMIC GROUP

Founded in 1996, Anderson Economic Group (AEG) is one of the most recognized boutique consulting firms in the United States. The company has offices in East Lansing, Michigan and Chicago, Illinois. The automobile industry is a primary area of specialization for the experts at AEG, who approach this critical automotive transition from a perspective that recognizes the role everyday consumer choices will play in driving EV market trends.

AEG’s automotive clients include manufacturers, suppliers, trade associations, and dealers and dealership groups.

©All rights reserved.

Biden’s ‘Jabs Not Jobs’ Policies.

“If getting vaccinated is simply a matter of individual health, there is little reason for planners to exercise control over the public.” – Jon Miltimore


QUESTION: Are Personal Heath Decisions Yours or the Biden Administrations?

Biden and his administration are all in to force you to get jabbed, even our military. If you don’t then, well, you can lose your job. In the military you could be court marshalled and/or dishonorably discharged. Watch Tucker Carlson’s exposé of a propaganda PowerPoint used by U.S. Army to justify mandatory vaccines.

There is growing evidence that clearly shows deaths are increasing worldwide after COVID-19 shots. Fox News’ Tucker Carlson reported, through June 11, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), a US Health and Human Services Department division, recorded 358,379 adverse events after vaccinations, including 5,993 deaths and 29,871 serious illnesses.

Dr. Robert Wachter, chairman of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, stated in a New York Times column, “Remember when the early vaccine studies came out, it was like nobody gets hospitalized, nobody dies. That clearly is not true.”

Some Governors are having none of these vaccine mandates. Governor Ron DeSantis has called for a special session of the Florida legislature to address this issue of personal health decisions. Watch:

Business Insider reported the following about the side effects of getting jabbed:

Dose 2 usually comes with more severe side effects

The most common side effect for all three authorized US vaccines is pain or swelling at the injection site: Nearly 92% of participants in Moderna’s clinical trial developed this side effect. in Pfizer’s trial, 84% of participants reported that, as did 49% in Johnson & Johnson’s.

Other common side effects include fatigue, headache, and body or muscle aches. About 65% of vaccine recipients in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s trials, and 38% in Johnson & Johnson’s, developed fatigue.

For those who haven’t had COVID-19 before, side effects tend to be more numerous and severe after the second dose.

How many Americans have lost their jobs due to Biden’s jabs mandate?

The GOP Times reported:

  • According to the Associated Press, “Advocate Aurora Health has fired about 440 employees for not abiding by the company’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.”
  • A total of 1,887 Washington state employees have either quit their jobs or been fired for failing to comply with Gov. Jay Inslee’s (D) coronavirus vaccine mandate amounting to approximately 3% of the workforce of the state as reported by The Hill.
  • GOP Newsfeed reported that 117 nurses of the Houston Methodist Hospital system filed a wrongful termination suit against the hospital due to their vaccine mandate, however, a total of 153 employees were terminated.
  • According to Reuters, “New York State’s largest healthcare provider, Northwell Health, has fired 1,400 employees who refused to get COVID-19 vaccinations, according to a spokesman, Joe Kemp.”
  • The Intelligencer reported that the impact is being felt keenly in New York City where about 10% of approximately 5,000 of the city’s public hospital workforce “remained unvaccinated and were not allowed to work.”’

Matthew Holloway in his article This is How Many Americans Have Been Forced Out of Work Because of Jab Mandates notes:

Conservatively speaking 8,880 Americans are without work today as a direct result of the Biden-Harris vaccine mandate. However, many thousands still are conducting work actions such as Boeing employees such as in Everett, Washington where hundreds of employees walked off the job in protest of the mandate. And in New York City and Chicago where anywhere up to 31% of New York’s Police officers and up to 40% of FDNY employees could find themselves unemployed. Or similarly in Chicago where so far 21 officers have been suspended without pay, a number that could grow to almost 2,000 officers

Read the full article.

These numbers will only increase as more government entities enforce Biden’s jab mandates. We are beginning to see more and more Americans not going to work in protest against being forced against their wills to get jabbed. The most recent example was when Southwest Airlines pilots stayed home after their CEO announced a policy that they get jabbed or get fired.

Civil disobedience is on the rise and Biden’s approval ratings are falling like a rock.

As Bill Clinton said, “It’s the economy stupid.”

To Get Jabbed or Not To Get Jabbed

A new paper in the European Journal of Epidemiology that analyzed 168 countries and 2,947 US counties found that higher vaccination rates were not associated with fewer COVID-19 cases.

I have been through four pandemics. The most recent were SARS and H1N1 under the Obama administration. This is the first time that anyone has “mandated” that individuals be jabbed, i.e. take the Covid vaccines.

Here’s an October 19, 2021 video from The Olympian showing how jabbed tyranny is being implemented by the governor of Wisconson:

Conclusion

Watch Tucker Carlson discuss the ramifications of vaccine mandates.

Healthcare is strictly a doctor and patient issue. Government intervention “literally hurts” and does not help patients, healthcare workers and employers. You and your doctor know best what is good for you and your long term health.

Once  you government can mandate that you must get jabbed or else, then what other powers will they take from you?

Many American’s are asking what’s next?

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

1 Horrifying Discovery Forced the Swedes to Bar Their Young People from Taking Moderna’s Vaccine

Kerry Promises to Create Auto Jobs IN MEXICO as Part of Biden’s Green New Deal

COVID-19: The Weaponization Of Fear

NIH Confirms It Funded Wuhan Gain-of-Function Research, Now Fauci Could Spend 5 Years in Jail

Afghan refugees: Do we know what we’re getting into?

Today at the Young America’s Foundation conference at the Reagan Ranch Center.

RELATED VIDEO: The Afghan Refugee Crisis

RELATED ARTICLES:

Immigration provision in reconciliation bill will ‘set back’ American workers 

Ilhan Omar Wants State Department to Fight ‘Islamophobia’

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