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

/in , , , , , , /by

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.

/in , , , , , , /by

“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

/in , , , , , , /by

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.

35 of Ayn Rand’s Most Insightful Quotes on Rights, Individualism, and Government

/in , , , /by

Some insightful words from one of the greatest minds of the 20th century.

Alisa Rosenbaum was one of the most controversial writers in America’s history. Why, then, have few people heard of her? Because both people’s plaudits and their intemperate attacks have been aimed at the new name she adopted after leaving Russia for America—Ayn Rand.

Her influence is beyond question. She sold more than 30 million books, and decades after her 1982 death, hundreds of thousands more sell each year. Atlas Shrugged has been ranked behind only the Bible as a book that influenced readers’ lives.

Some are devoted enough that Randian has become a descriptive term. Others use her name only to disparage opponents. Still others disagree with some of her ideas (e.g., while Rand was an often-strident atheist, capitalism is clearly defensible on Christian principles, and most historical defenses of liberty employed Christian rationales which conflict with Rand’s reasoning), yet find a great deal of insight in her analysis of liberty, rights and government.

As we mark the anniversary of Rand’s February 2 birth, consider some of her most insightful words:

  1. “Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.”
  2. “The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships.”
  3. “The moral justification of capitalism is man’s right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.”
  4. “Man—every man—is an end in himself.”
  5. “No man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others.”
  6. “The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights.”
  7. “A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force…government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one…reverses its only moral purpose.”
  8. “When the framers of the American republic spoke of “the people”…they meant a sum of individuals, each of whom…retains his inviolate guarantee of individual rights.”
  9. “Under a proper social system…a private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted…This is the American concept of ‘a government of laws and not of men.’”
  10. “A ‘right’…means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.”
  11. “Rights impose no obligations on [neighbors] except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.”
  12. “The right to property…does not mean that others must provide him with property.”
  13. “The right to property…is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it.”
  14. “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible.”
  15. “The collective cannot decide what is to be the purpose of a man’s existence nor prescribe his choice of happiness.”
  16. “Man holds…rights, not from the Collective nor for the Collective, but against the Collective…man’s protection against all other men.”
  17. “Any alleged ‘right’ of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.”
  18. “If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights.”
  19. “America’s abundance was created not by public sacrifices to ‘the common good,’ but by the productive genius of free men.”
  20. “Since only an individual man can possess rights…’individual rights’ is a redundancy. But…“collective rights” is a contradiction in terms.”
  21. “Since the only proper function of a government is to protect man’s rights, it cannot claim title to his life in exchange for that protection.”
  22. “An individualist…says: ‘I will not run anyone’s life—nor let anyone run mine. I will not rule nor be ruled. I will not be a master nor a slave.'”
  23. “No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others.”
  24. “The doctrine that “human rights” are superior to “property rights” simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others.”
  25. “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?”
  26. “Freedom, in a political context, means freedom from government coercion. It does not mean freedom from the landlord, or freedom from the employer, or freedom from the laws of nature which do not provide men with automatic prosperity.”
  27. “In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate.”
  28. “There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals.”
  29. “A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort…is…but a mob held together by institutionalized gang-rule.”
  30. “It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree.”
  31. “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”
  32. “Individual rights are not subject to a public vote…the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities.”
  33. “What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery? It is the principle of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion.”
  34. “Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel.”
  35. “We are fast approaching the stage…where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission.”

However much some adore Ayn Rand and others despise her, those who seek wisdom wherever it can be found will find serious food for thought in her words on liberty, rights and government.

When so many promote the cognitive dissonance of pursuing supposed collective or social “justice” by the unjust expedient of violating the rights of individuals who make up society, she can stimulate our thought about foundational questions. And that is crucial, because, as George Mason said, “No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by… frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”

COLUMN BY

Gary M. Galles

Gary M. Galles is a Professor of Economics at Pepperdine University and a member of the Foundation for Economic Education faculty network. In addition to his new book, Pathways to Policy Failures (2020), his books include Lines of Liberty (2016), Faulty Premises, Faulty Policies (2014), and Apostle of Peace (2013).

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

The Case for Vaccine Mandates—Refuted

/in , , , , , , /by

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 reaction; myocarditis 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 VIDEOS:

Hannity: Are We Thanking the Service of Our Unvaxxed Police and Fire Fighters By Firing Them?

Could Natural COVID Immunity be better than Vaccinated Immunity?

RELATED TWEET:

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

PODCAST: Who Is Running The Show?

/in , , , , /by

It is not much of a secret that President Biden’s approval ratings are tanking. His policies on the economy, immigration, and foreign affairs has led to his decline. In front of the press, he shows all of the signs of an old man in his dotage, e.g., lost, confused, lethargic, etc. His cognitive ability is now in question, as reflected in a recent Pew Research Poll (9/23/2021) whereby 56% of those surveyed thought the President was NOT mentally sharp. Even the foreign press openly questions his ability as leader of the free world, such as the Australian media (click HERE for another video).

All of this makes you wonder, who is really running the government? Personally, I believe it is a group of young administrators, fresh out of college, who possess a zeal for the liberal agenda.

Having junior people run things is actually not uncommon. To illustrate, in the medical field, particularly hospitals, doctors and nurses spend an inordinate amount of time inputting data into computers as opposed to treating patients. This means they spend less time practicing medicine, and more time fulfilling government mandated bureaucracy. So, who spends most of the time caring for patients? The junior people who do not have the knowledge and experience of the doctors and nurses. Because they are not burdened with the minutia as prescribed by government, they become the primary care workers by default, which is a bit unsettling when you think about it. The same is true in any business or government institution, particularly something as large as the United States.

The White House is primarily run by the Executive Office of the President (EOP), as created by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1939. The office has traditionally been home to the President’s closest advisors and run by the President’s Chief of Staff who is currently Ron Klain, an attorney, a loyal Democrat consultant, and a former lobbyist. Prior to his current assignment, he had been Chief of Staff for Al Gore and Joe Biden (under Obama). He also actively worked as a senior advisor to Biden’s presidential campaign. All of this means he is well connected to the Democrat machine and helped recruit the remaining office employees, of which there are approximately 1,800 with an annual budget of $714 million.

The EOP staff likely includes two types of people: retreads from the Obama administration who carry forward the former president’s policies, and; new zealous young prople advancing the liberal agenda. I believe it is this group, the EOP staff, who is driving the country and making the hard decisions.

The President’s senior EOP advisors work in the West Wing of the White House. The remainder are housed in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, just a stone’s throw away from the Oval Office.

Also keep in mind the EOP has counterparts in the Congress where there are approximately 13,500 staffers, of which in both chambers there are…

7,405 – Democrat staffers
6,148 – Republican staffers
13,553 – Total

The average age of a Congressional staffer is between 32-33 years. As in the medical analogy mentioned earlier, it is these people who perform the legwork and heavy lifting for the Congressmen and Senators who are busy campaigning, attending committee meetings, traveling, talking to constituents, lobbyists, and the news media.

Between the EOP and the Congressional staffers, it is these young people who are running the show in Washington. Such people historically did the busy work for their bosses, thereby allowing them to concentrate on big picture items. However, based on the President’s apparent lack of mental acuity, it appears someone is propping him up and making the decisions for him, most likely Chief-of-Staff Ron Klain and the EOP. They are likely getting input from former President Barack Obama, former Secretary of State John Kerry, former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, representing the liberal agenda.

The fact President Biden cannot seem to stand on his own two feet without committing some gaffes is disheartening and cause for concern. In a way, it is reminiscent of a Star Trek episode, “Patterns of Force,” whereby a weak and aging world leader becomes a puppet as his staff works behind the scenes to implement their agenda, not his. The comparison is uncanny.

To me, all of this means it is time to call a Constitutional Convention whereby our governing rules can be reexamined and amended accordingly. This would take important decisions out of the hands of the Congress and put them in a specially appointed delegation with members from each state. Such a Congress has not been held since 1787 (over 200 years). Think about it, this would be an opportunity to reform our electoral process, introduce term limits to eliminate the concept of lifetime politicians, lobbyist reform, and more. If you are waiting for the Congress to make such changes, don’t hold your breath. It will never happen, and more people will arise to the presidency as puppets.

For more information on a Constitutional Congress, see Article V of the Constitution.

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – For a listing of my books, click HERE.

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right podcast is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

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

/in , , , , , /by

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

LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE NYT: Build That Wall!

/in , , , , , /by

Good day Deano,

I hope today finds you in good spirits.  As usual, I would like to commend you on the outstanding work you do as the executive editor of the prestigious New York Times. You are the epitome of unbiased, fair and balanced, apolitical reporting.  As he typically does, Joey has been working at breakneck speed.  I mean, does this guy ever sleep? Well, besides, the 12 hours nightly and incessant naps during the day?  Just when you think he can’t do anymore (most, say harm), he out does himself, again and again. Let’s take a look at some of the past week or so’s highlights, shall we Deano old sport?

Build That Wall

Well, I guess those radical Conservatives can finally pipe down.  It was announced this week that Joey will in fact build that wall.  I guess he is realizing that the Southern border catastrophe is way out of control, and he is running out of options to control it. And none too soon, I’m told.   As we speak,  3,000 future illegal aliens are marching up through Mexico, after busting past a police checkpoint in Mexico.  They are carrying banners saying “Biden For All.”  This is confusing in itself, after all border czar, Heels Harris told them, “don’t come.”  Personally, I think this should have solved all of the problems, wouldn’t you agree Deano?  After all, this wall was already paid for by taxpayers, why not use it.  I mean you can only blame President Trump for so long.

Well, just as Conservatives were cheering, hoping that Joey has finally turned the corner, they received some rather bad news.  You see Deano, old chum, the wall being built is not at the Southern border at all.  It is being built around Joey’s $2,750,000 estate at Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.  (Not to be confused with his main residence). This one wasn’t paid for and is going to cost taxpayers to the tune of $455,000!  I understand Joey is concerned that one of those chartered buses moving illegal aliens in the dead of night might drop some off in his very non-diverse neighborhood of Rehoboth Beach.   Much like your palatial estate in the affluent enclave, in the very non-diverse Larchmont, California Deano.  Do you have a wall Deano, I mean just in case?   I myself was shocked, as Joey had been so anti-wall previously.  It is almost as shocking as when people were calling Joey a racist, well Kamala did anyway, during the Presidential debates but no worries, now they are pals.  Oh yes, and also called him a sexual harasser, see Tara Reade, no problem now though.

Those in the know, claim Joey wanted the wall for other reasons, because he was getting a bit self conscious.  It seems he didn’t like be photographed riding his bike, you know with the training wheels and all.  Of course, the radical right is screaming that it’s just another case of his mind boggling hypocrisy. It seems to know no bounds. They scream about walls to protect and safeguard this installed puppet, but not to protect the citizens, he swore to protect, of this once great country.  Some are calling his actions in fact, treasonous. They reached out to “General” Milley, in regards to the charges of treason,  but he was busy phoning the Chinese military, giving out information about our nuclear missle silos and such.  President Trump is a racist!

Build Back Communism Bill

It looks like we are making headway on Joey’s Build Back Communism Bill though.  How Joey keeps this work schedule is nothing short of amazing.  I mean, what this man gets done from Tuesday-Thursday is awe inspiring.  We recently got a breakdown of a typical day for Joey during these negotiations, and it goes something like this.

– 8:00  “Dr” Jill usually wakes Ole sleepy head Joe, and gets him ready for another day, at the negotiating table.
– 8:30   Joey has his cereal and Flintstones vitamin.  Joey we are told, is partial to Count Chocula, but sometimes prefers Captain Crunch.
– 9:00-10:00  This is cartoon time, usually Bugs Bunny/Roadrunner Hour
– 10:00-11:30 This is Presidential nap time
– 11:30-12:00. This is where Joey gets into the negotiations with his severely divided Democratic Party.  Basically, 48 Socialist/Communist members and 2 moderate Democrats.
This time frame has become a point of contention with Joey and “Dr” Jill.  It seems Joey demands to wear a beanie hat with a propeller and the “Dr,” doesn’t think it looks very Presidential.  So they compromised and let Jen Goebbels Psaki glue some sparkles on the cap that say Installed POTUS.  All parties, we are told, are happy with the compromise.
-12:00-2:00  This is lunch break.  Joey usually just heads back with the “Dr” for a grilled cheese or sometimes Mac and cheese.
-2:00-3:00  TV time again, usually Matlock or The Love Boat
-3:00-4:00  Presidential nap time
-4:00-5:00  It’s back to the grind stone, trying to hash out details on the $3,500,000,000,000 BBCB, not to be confused with the $1,200,000,000,000 “Infrastructure“ Bill, being held hostage by the Progressive/Communist faction of the “Democratic” Party.

Ideas abound, Bernie/Chuckie  and the like wanting more cradle to grave entitlement programs, gender studies, paid day care, anti-discrimination in healthcare (obviously needed), the list goes on and on.  Finally, at the end of the day, they asked Joey for his input.  He exclaimed, he wants every family to get a swing set and sandbox.  I understand this is where Bernie lost it.  His face beat red, hands waving, screaming these are ridiculous demands………ironic statement huh, Deano?  They said, old Bernie was madder than an old man at a deli in Brooklyn screaming, “my soup is too hot, I’m not paying for it…this is an outrage!”

The good news is they say we are making headway with Senator Sinema.  Reports are AOC and the squad followed her into the bathroom and are holding her head in the toilet until she votes yes!
So, you see why Joey can only do a 3 day work week.  The man is not Superman, for heaven’s sake!  Besides, he needs to keep an eye on those contractors, back at the beach estate, his sand bucket and shovel went missing recently.  Plus sometimes, the machine operators let Joey sit in the seat and wear a hard hat, which he enjoys very much, we are told.   President Trump is a racist!

Joey Nails The Town Hall Again!

As your partner in unbiased reporting, CNN reported, Joey scored big with his last town hall Q&A.  They said he really connected with the scripted, sorry I mean objective people and their questions.  Keeping them at ease with his folksy banter, and comical exchanges.  He had the crowd in stitch’s I’m told………….they were laughing with him, not at him, right Deano?  I had forgotten to tune in, as many also did I’m told.  I saw the replay on the comedy channel later on.  Of course, the radical right hammered Ole Joey Talibiden.  Let’s touch on a couple of their outlandish gripes against the best orator and diplomat we have seen, since JFK.

Firstly, the moderator, the distinguished Anderson Cooper.  Have you ever seen a more impartial reporter than him, sans Donnie Lemon or Fredo, sorry Chris Cuomo of course. He certainly kept Joey on his toes.

Like when the question popped up about about the disastrous capitulation to the Taliban, while fleeing Afghanistan under terms set forth by these terrorists.  Well, hold on now, just hold on.  Now that I’ve watched this charade, it seems not ONE of the scripted actors asked Joey about this…….not one question!  Almost, almost mind you, it seems that they are trying to whitewash one of the most humiliating episodes in the history of the United States.  This as news has come out that there are approximately 360 Americans still in Afghanistan.  This after the White House, specifically the lovely Little Red Lying Hood Psaki, has been insisting the number is under 100 for weeks now. Who perpetuated this latest lie, Liar-in-Chief Talibiden, Blinken, Harris (sorry, MIA), Austin, Milley.  By the way we tried to reach Milley again, but he is now on the phone with the Russians.  He should be available later today, after speaking to Iran and North Korea. What really surprised me was the ever unbiased Anderson Cooper, never made mention of the Afghanistan debacle either.  Maybe Donnie Lemon covered it later, he is very fair and balanced.

Port???

Next, they point to the numerous gaffes by the installed Houseplant-in-Chief.  One was when he couldn’t remember the name of the port in California that has been disrupting the supply chain for months now.  You know the one that Joey said, he has had a task force working on it for the last 6 months.  Maybe, he could take Kalamity off the border czar assignment, now that that situation is rectified, and make her czar of this crackerjack task force; that way we know we will get results.  As he stammered for what seemed like an eternity, finally saying “what the hell am I doing here.” (Yes indeed, what the hell is he doing here?) The professional unbiased Cooper said, “you mean, Long Beach.”  Joey chimed in “yes, yes, Long Beach.” I’m sure old Coop would have done the same for President Trump. They tried reaching out to Pete Buttigieg, Transportation Secretary, but he is on paternity leave until the 4th of July 2022 holiday, we hear.

Lying Biden

Of course they point out the blatant hypocrisy as usual from Lying Biden.  With him, saying that all first responders should be fired, if they don’t comply with the vaccine mandate.  No mention of why members of Congress, their assistants, the Judical system, even postal workers are exempt?  I have a clue about postal workers Deano, but I’ll keep that between me and you until after 11/9/22, ok champ.  Also, no mention of the unvaccinated illegal aliens flooding into the country on a daily basis.  For gosh sakes Joey, THE SCIENCE, DAMN IT, THE SCIENCE!  Of course, mask requirements are optional, this obviously doesn’t apply to Barack Hussein birthday bashes, Nancy (devout Catholic) Pelosi meeting the Pope, lovely Lori Lightfoot attending Lollapalooza events, Gavin Newsom when dining out, even “Dr” Biden and Joey dining out in Washington recently, etc, etc.  But not to worry, Joey has a mask on for those zoom calls……..oh, boy.  Again, surprisingly, no mention of these points by the always unbiased Cooper.  I love the professional, concerned look Coop had during this farce, like it is almost on the level, just too funny.

When queried about the inflated price of gasoline, you know the one that has jumped approximately 70% in 9 short months, Joey was a bit stumped.  He said, “I don’t have any solutions in the near term.”  Does the Keystone pipeline come to mind?   He did say sometime next year he expects prices to come down by 18 cents.  Conservatives ask, really Joey, exactly where did you come up with that time frame and figure?  18 cents, not 17, 19 or 50 for that matter?  Sometime next year?  Really Joey, you used to be able to lie on the fly much better than that. President Trump is a racist!

What Problem At The Border

I think the best one of the night was when Coop asked Joey, if he plans on visiting the Southern border?  Joey replied, “I have been there before, I mean I haven’t had a hell of a lot of time to get down there.”  “Maybe, I should go down, but I’ve been traveling all over, surveying hurricane damage.”  Which hurricane Joey…..Andrew, Camille, Galveston?  Doesn’t Joey realize, he HAS had time to spend 70 days in Delaware biking with the good “Dr” and eating plenty of ice cream.  But in fairness, he says “his wife has been there, to both sides, and she knows all about it.”  So, we have that going for us. Now, you know why they are playing the replay of this Q&A on the comedy channel, Deano.  If it didn’t involve the destruction of the greatest country ever, it would be too, too, funny.

One more Deano.  I know, I know, there are tons more, but we have to move on.  To solve the the supply chain catastrophe, he would call out the National Guard to drive trucks……(you know like Joey used to), and that they are in fact doing so right now! Well, the lovely Peppermint Patti Psaki had to clear up that falsehood the next day saying, they currently are NOT using the National Guard in regards to the supply chain catastrophe.  Another lie, go figure.

The right says, why don’t we just go with the premise that whatever comes out of Talibiden’s mouth is a lie.  Oh, Joey why do you lie so?  Look at all the press conferences Lying Jen Psaki could skip trying to clear up Joey’s lies with her own lies. The man cannot control his impulse to lie, but don’t sell the rest of his administration short by any means.  They are terrific pathological liars in their own right. Of course Goebbels Psaki, then we have Kalamity (when she is around) is no slouch. Did you see A.G. Merrick Garland this week testify before Congress?   What a performance!  He is all over those domestic terrorist soccer Mom’s, but left speechless when discussing artistic great Hunter Biden (known as Picasso Jr. in inner circles) and his famed laptop…….nothing to see here, move along.

As usual Deano, I can’t thank you enough for the great service you do for our country. You and all who work at the esteemed NY Times are truly great Patriots.  I never listen to the radical right wing zealots who constantly point out your fabrications and obvious defections, whether in print or by omission, and describe you as a propaganda rag, and corrupt arm of the Democratic/Communist Party.  Kudos to you, and to your publisher AG Sulzberger also.  Slushy sure has the right bunch working for him, that’s for sure. The hell with Conservatives, as long as we can take our limos home to our estates, or possibly even Barack Hussein and Michael’s $12,000,000, 29 acre estate in Martha’s Vineyard (not bad for a community organizer). As always, masks are optional at Barack Hussein’s. Just make sure they don’t bus any illegal aliens over there. Can you imagine the cost to put up a wall around that joint?

Sincerely,

Chris Cirino

©All rights reserved.

JetBlue Jihad: The Great Press Cover-up

/in , , , , , , , , /by

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

/in , , , , , , , /by

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

/in , , , , , , , /by

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.

Progressive Politics Don’t Define The ‘Righteous Gentile’

/in , , , /by

The Jewish concept of righteousness cannot be molded to fit a preoccupation with “social justice” that threatens the Jewish future.

The concept of the “Righteous Gentile” is originally rooted in the Torah’s recognition that members of other nations can serve the G-d of Israel by accepting and faithfully observing the Noahide Commandments. Known as “Gerei Toshav” (resident foreigners) in ancient Israel, “pious people of the world” were honored for renouncing idolatry and attaching their destiny to the Jewish nation.

In modern times, the term was applied to people who saved Jews from genocide during the Holocaust, regardless of whether they accepted the seven laws of Noah; but more recently it has been imbued with political connotations by those seeking Jewish validation for partisan agendas. For many secular liberals, the term refers to those who embody progressive ideals that are often inconsistent with or extraneous to Torah values.

To determine who can truly be called a Righteous Gentile, one must understand the scriptural basis and historical evolution of the concept and the character of those to whom it traditionally applied.

Given its classical meaning, the term would certainly include Noahides who reject idolatry and embrace the Torah. Their virtue is reflected not only in their faith, but in their recognition of the Jews as a “light unto the nations” and passionate belief in Jewish spiritual and national integrity. Many of today’s B’nai Noach are outspoken in their support for Israel and opposition to the growing evangelical threat against Israeli and Diaspora Jewry.

During and after the Second World War, the title “righteous among the nations” was conferred upon those who saved Jews from the Nazis and their collaborators. It was not based on religious belief but on commitment to saving Jews from extermination. Raoul Wallenburg and Oskar Schindler were among those who acted at great personal risk – and without ulterior motive – to rise above a common European culture steeped in ancestral antisemitism. And they were not alone. Yad Vashem in Jerusalem honors more than twenty-seven thousand non-Jews for acts of bravery and moral courage during the war.

But did simply saving Jews physically constitute a righteous act? If this were the only criterion, those who saved Jews for impure reasons would be honored as righteous. This was certainly a concern with respect to Jewish children who were taken in by convents, monasteries, and churches, baptized against their will or without understanding, and then effectively kidnapped after the war pursuant to a 1946 Vatican directive forbidding their return to surviving family members. The Church’s motivations were rooted in the same doctrinal hatred that paved the way for the Nuremburg Laws and Holocaust; and the complicity of priests, nuns, and laypeople who exploited parental anguish excludes them from honorable recognition. They may have saved children from the gas chambers, but they crippled them spiritually.

Catholic apologists engage in historical revisionism to suggest that the Church worked to save Jews during the Shoah – despite much evidence to the contrary – and some even argue against all reason that Pope Pius XII should be considered a righteous gentile. Such sophistry is understandable coming from an institution attempting to conceal its past sins. It is unfathomable when spouted by social and political activists who apply the term to people who supported the Nazis, but whose descendants are now allied with the progressive left in its fight against western values and Israel.

It has become increasingly common to hear progressive rabbis praise Arab or Muslim efforts to save Jews during the Holocaust, though such instances were extremely rare, especially when compared to the myriad acts of heroism that occurred throughout Europe. They often expound thus in broad strokes without providing specific examples in a pattern that seems to parallel their embrace of the Palestinian national myth or relationships with putative human rights groups that have covert extremist or Islamist sympathies.

These tales are exaggerated at best.

The real history is far less noble than they would have their audiences believe. Saving Jewish lives was not generally a priority in the Arab-Muslim world, much of which approved the German war effort. Rather than empathize with Hitler’s victims, many chose to serve German interests, e.g., by joining Waffen-SS Hanjar units that were personally recruited by the Mufti of Jerusalem and instrumental in the extermination of Balkan Jewry. Their complicity was consistent with the Mufti’s desire to implement the Final Solution throughout the Mideast, which likely would have happened had Rommel not been defeated at El Alamein.

Equally catastrophic was the collusion of Arab leadership in preventing the escape of Jews from Europe by influencing the British to block refugees from immigrating to their ancient homeland and thus condemning men, women, and children to the death camps. This complicity is glossed over by revisionists seeking to obfuscate the cultural past of people whose social and political causes are now advocated by the liberal mainstream.

The sparse representation of Muslims in Yad Vashem says more about the reality than the stories told in many nontraditional congregations. The roster of more than twenty-seven thousand gentiles recognized as “righteous among the nations” includes only a few Muslims, mostly from a single country – Albania.

Progressives who deny the complicity of Arab leadership during the Shoah often demean the memory of its victims by frivolously branding all political opponents “Nazis” or using the Holocaust as partisan metaphor, e.g., comparing illegal immigrants to Jews trying to escape genocide, equating southern border detention centers to death camps, or analogizing the abrogation of Jewish civil rights in prewar Germany to the struggle for gender equality in the US.

Immigrants fleeing poverty or political unrest in South America cannot be compared to Jews who were marked for death. False analogies are particularly shameful when voiced by liberal rabbis or communal leaders whose statements provide cover for left-wing antisemites.

Such sentiments and platitudes are now used within the mainstream establishment to define righteousness and glorify ideologues whose platforms threaten Jewish continuity and the State of Israel. Possible explanations for this sad state of affairs include an alarming rise in Jewish illiteracy among the non-Orthodox, the false conflation of Jewish tradition with progressive politics, and pathological self-loathing.

But just as traditional values and history cannot be rewritten to legitimize ideologies that disparage both, neither can the Jewish concept of righteousness be molded to fit people whose values, priorities, and preoccupation with “social justice” threaten the Jewish future.

The mantle of righteousness cannot be bestowed on churches that exploited the Holocaust to steal children from their families and suppress their heritage. Neither can it be conferred upon those among the evangelicals who claim to love the Jews and their nation while surreptitiously seeking their spiritual destruction by preying on the educationally weak and vulnerable. And it certainly cannot be applied to activists who endorse political agendas that delegitimize Israel and imperil Jewish continuity.

If the concept of the Righteous Gentile was originally associated with salvation and based on the premise that non-Jews have a place in the world to come, then it is inextricably linked to the belief in messianic redemption. And if the concept as defined after the Holocaust was predicated on the Jews’ physical deliverance, then it presumes a recognition that Jewish continuity is vital to the world and must be preserved.

Consequently, the concept of the Righteous Gentile – whether defined by adherence to the Noahide laws or commitment to preserving Jewish life – is connected to the Jews’ yearning for the messianic age. Indeed, this was prophesied by Zechariah ha-Navi after the return from the Babylon more than 2,500 years ago, when he wrote: “Thus said the Lord of Hosts: In those days, ten men from nations of every tongue will take hold—they will take hold of every Jew by a corner of his cloak and say, ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that G-d is with you.’” (Zechariah, 8:23.)

In contrast, the values that progressives use to define righteousness today – when analyzed against the spectrum of history – would ultimately lead to a future in which the Jewish people and nation would cease to exist.

Those who are obsessed with redefining the Righteous Gentile as a political exemplar devoid of traditional meaning or historical context would do well to discover and embrace the Righteous Jew first. It takes one to recognize the other.

©Matthew Hausman, J.D. All rights reserved.

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

/in , , , , , , , /by

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 a 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

/in , , , , , , /by

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

/in , , , , , , /by

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.

RELATED ARTICLE: The biggest mistakes buyers make when shopping for an electric car.