Red state governors are voicing their support for school choice programs as legislation moves through their states.
Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt and Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin are supporting Education Savings Account (ESA) programs in their state to provide families who withdraw their students from public and charter schools with taxpayer funds.
“We have to set aside this us-versus-them mentality. If you want to pretend that this is a war between two different school systems, then you’re not focused on our children,” Reynolds said in her Jan. 10 Condition of the State speech.
Red state governors across the country are pushing for expansive school choice legislation in their state to fund students outside of the public school system.
Several governors have made school choice bills a top priority for state legislatures in 2023. Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt and Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin are on the forefront of pushing for Education Savings Account (ESA) programs which provide families who withdraw their students from public and charter schools with taxpayer funds.
In Iowa, Reynolds announced the proposal of House Study Bill 1, which would allocate $7,598, the average cost the state spends on a public school student, for any family in the state to cover private school costs. With approval from the Senate Appropriations Committee, the bill, supported by Reynolds, is expected to pass in January, according to KCCI News.
“We have to set aside this us-versus-them mentality,” Reynolds said in her Jan. 10 Condition of the State speech. “If you want to pretend that this is a war between two different school systems, then you’re not focused on our children.”
For 2023, Stitt has made school choice legislation a priority in Oklahoma; five pieces of school choice legislation have been filed, including a bill that would make every student eligible for the state’s Education Savings Account program.
As a part of his school choice push, Stitt is visiting with Oklahoma charter school parents and families to listen and answer questions about the program, Stitt’s office told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
The 2023 edition of The ABCs of School Choice is now available online. This guide provides readers with the most up-to-date and comprehensive data on every private educational choice program in America and it’s free.
“I’m looking forward to getting to work this year to talk with and listen to parents, students and teachers to come together and ensure every kid in the state receives the best education possible, regardless of economic status or zip code,” Stitt told the DCNF. “Oklahoma ranks near the bottom in education and as leaders, we need to put politics aside, ask the tough questions and have the tough conversations to address what’s working and what’s not. The future of our state depends on it.”
Youngkin issued a proclamation declaring the week of Jan. 22 “Virginia School Choice Week” in order to “raise awareness of the need for effective educational options” for students of the state. HB 1396, which has support from Youngkin, would allow all Virginians, regardless of income or previous schooling, to be eligible for the ESA program.
“Since day one, Governor Youngkin has worked to empower parents and provide every child across the Commonwealth with access to an excellent education, regardless of background or zip code,” Macaulay Porter, Youngkin’s spokeswoman, told the DCNF. “The governor has secured $100 million for lab schools, proposed an additional $50 million to expand this program, provided $30 million for parent-directed K-12 learning recovery grants and is working to grow Virginia’s tax credit scholarship program to help those families most in need.”
In South Carolina, Republican Gov. Henry McMaster’s budget recommendation takes into account $25 million for a ESA program that is set to be debated in January. The proposed legislation titled the “Put Parents in Charge Act” would give 5,000 students $6,000 for a private school education and increase it to 10,000 students the following year.
A recently proposed piece of Florida legislation HB 1, named “School Choice,” would expand on Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ school choice plan and make all students, regardless of income or education history, eligible for vouchers up to $7,000 as a part of the ESA program.
“Since taking office, Governor DeSantis has been a vocal advocate for school choice,” Bryan Griffin, DeSantis’ press secretary told the DCNF. “As a result, Florida is ranked #1 for Education Freedom by the Heritage Foundation and #1 for parent empowerment according to the Center for Education Reform’s ‘Parent Power!’ index.”
Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott backed school choice legislation moving through the state such as SB176, a bill that would create a program similar to Arizona’s, which is considered the country’s most expansive school choice system in the country.
“Our schools are for education and not indoctrination,” Abbott said in his Jan. 17 inaugural address. “Schools should not be putting forth social agendas. We must reform the curriculum and to get kids back to learning the basics and empower parents with the tools to challenge the curriculum when it falls short of expectations.”
Reynolds’ office, Abbott’s office and McMaster’s office did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2023-01-24 06:24:592023-01-25 15:25:07Red State Governors Push For School Choice Legislation Across The Country
My greatest and most profound mistake is not seeing the existential danger of the “Red-Green-Rainbow Alliance” to the national security of the United States of America.
I was stationed in Germany, with my wife and soon to be born son, from 1971 till 1974. While there I, my family and my unit were exposed to two terrorist organizations. I at that time did not connect the dots between these two organizations and their clear and present danger to me, my family and our nation.
The Baader–Meinhof Gang
The first terrorist organization was the Baader–Meinhof Group or Baader–Meinhof Gang also know as the Red Army Faction (RAF). This group was made up of hardcore Communists. They attacked U.S. assets, conducted assassinations, kidnappings, bombed a club frequented by American soldiers and robbed banks to fund their Marxist movement.
Because of the Baader–Meinhof Gang’s stated tactic to abduct the children of American military members stationed in Germany the housing complex, that I, my wife and our newly born son Rich, Jr., lived in had barbed wire surrounding it and armed guards patrolling the grounds 24-7.
The Red Army Faction was a very real and direct threat to me and my wife and our son. Today, the Communist ideology has become an existential threat to the American way of life.
Black September 1972
The second group was known as “Black September.” Black September (Arabic: أيلول الأسود; Aylūl Al-Aswad), was named after the conflict between the Hashemite Kingdom of King of Jordan and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
On September 4th, 1972 Black September attacked the Olympic Village in Munich, Germany. This Islamic terrorist attack was to become known as the “Munich massacre.” The attack was carried out by eight members of the Palestinian militant organization Black September, who infiltrated the Olympic Village, killed two members of the Israeli Olympic team, and took nine others hostage. Later, in a failed rescue attempt by the German police, the nine Israeli athletes and one German police officer were murdered. Total murdered: 11 Israelis and 1 German.
After the Munich massacre my unit, the 1st Infantry Division, was called out to provide additional security at the Olympic Village.
What I did not know at that time was that both the Baader–Meinhof Gang (Red Brigade) and Black September were trained by the Palestine Liberation Organization in camps in Jordan.
This was the Red-Green Alliance that has now infiltrated the United States and is causing irreputable harm to our nation and its people. This alliance has grown in strength and power. There are even members of Congress who are followers of Marx and Mohammed.
The Red-Green Alliance is today a much greater threat to me, my family and a “clear and present danger” to our country.
What am I doing differently?
I now spend time speaking, writing and teaching others about the Red-Green Alliance, which has added a third new ultra-radical faction the LGBTQIA+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexuals + Allies) movement.
We now have an even more dangerous and deadly “Red-Green-Rainbow Alliance” bent on the destruction of our families, lives, lifestyles and livelihoods.
Each is working, in concert, to destroy our cultural norms, fundamentally transform our society, destroy the traditional family and marriage between one man and one woman, undermine our Judeo-Christian religious foundation and infiltrate all of our government agencies including the Department of Defense.
Each wants more and more power, absolute power over me, my family, my son and our grandchildren.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2023-01-23 14:03:272023-01-23 15:44:46My Greatest and Most Profound Mistake: Not Seeing the Existential Danger of the ‘Red-Green-Rainbow Alliance’
For all its faults, many people still think of California as “the place you oughta be,” as one long-ago sitcom theme song has it. Besides swimmin’ pools and movie stars, it has temperate weather year-round, beautiful beaches, breathtaking scenery, and amazing things to see and do.
Unfortunately, the political progressives who run the state are dragging it down. The taxes, regulations, and bizarre social policies they’ve put in place are driving people away. The latest proposal to hit the drawing board is a new wealth tax that would go after the billionaires whose tax payments are keeping the state going.
It’s as though they’re intent on killing the goose, as the fairy tale puts it, that lays the golden eggs.
The latest proposal, if it gains any kind of steam, is sure to drive away the remaining investors, job creators, and the people who actually pay taxes who have not yet fled the state because of the high taxes, declining public school performance, rising crime and the failure to prosecute those who commit them (if they’re caught) and other outrageous ideas like $5 million payments to individuals as reparations for slavery plus the establishment of an annual guaranteed income worth $97,000 in today’s dollars.
California was never a “slave state” – at least not in the traditional sense of the term. The wealth tax proposal introduced in the legislature on January 23, 2023, may make it seem like one if it passes.
Unlike an income tax, which is determined based on what you bring in each year, wealth taxes are assessed based on everything you own. It’s a tax on the whole Magilla, as my great uncle used to say, with all that implies.
The bill, A.B. 259, calls for the imposition of a yearly tax of 1.5% of any California resident’s total, global net worth “in excess of $1,000,000,000, or in excess of $500,000,000 in the case of a married taxpayer filing separately.”
That may not seem like a lot. The rate is low, and it only applies to billionaires. Then again, that’s what people thought about the income tax when it was first introduced, at a low rate, applying only to millionaires and multi-millionaires.
As the bill is currently written, it’s an easy tax to escape. All one must do is give up one’s California residence which, given that the top income tax rate is already 13%, doesn’t seem like much of a hardship. Except it doesn’t take into account what would happen to the people left who are left behind.
Demographer Wendell Cox, who runs the Demographia.com website and who studies the economic impact of interstate migration, says a global wealth tax would “likely accelerate the already substantial migration out of California, which has been driving out middle-income households with its unconscionably high cost of living and taxation.”
He’s not wrong. The effect of out-migration is already being felt in substantial ways. After the 2020 census, and for the first time since statehood in 1850, California lost a congressional seat. That’s a big deal.
Looking at who pays taxes in California, Cox believes a wealth tax would have a disastrous effect on the state’s economy. “Those with the highest incomes, only 0.5% of the population, pay 40% of the state income tax revenue, meaning the new tax could drive out more revenue than it raises, as wealthy taxpayers leave for more friendly states,” he says.
California has an expansive social safety net and is forced to absorb an unknown number of undocumented workers into its economy every year thanks to the illegal crossings that occur every day over the border with Mexico. All that comes at a great cost. If the cash cows in Silicon Valley and other parts of Northern California and the hedge fund managers and investors around Los Angeles take the introduction of a wealth tax as an indication of what’s coming, the numbers of dollars taken out of the state as the people who generate them relocate to no-tax Texas or Tennessee could be catastrophic.
It’s all avoidable. Yet for some unfathomable reason, the people in power there now, from Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom on down seem intent on the state where people used to go to claim their share of the America Dream into a kind of neo-socialist nightmare. Newsom wants to be president in the worst way, but if the Californication of the United States is what he has in mind, we’ll pass, thank you.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
A former UPI political writer and U.S. News and World Report columnist, Peter Roff is a Trans-Atlantic Leadership Network media fellow. Contact him at RoffColumns AT mail.com or on Twitter @TheRoffDraft.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2023-01-23 13:44:372023-01-23 13:46:16California — The Place You Oughta Leave
Republicans know that Washington is broken. Over the past two years, Washington Democrats took advantage of their majorities in the House and Senate to usher in trillions of dollars of new taxes and spending at the expense of the American people.
As a direct result, inflation skyrocketed to its highest level in decades, gas is over 30% more expensive than it was two years ago, millions of people have unlawfully entered our country and crime is surging.
Democrats do not seem to care.
In November, more than 54 million people gave Republicans control of the House of Representatives to serve as a check against the left’s extremism.
Since Republicans have won the majority, we have been working to follow through on the plan we ran on in our “Commitment to America” so we can finally get our country back on track.
At the beginning of every Congress, representatives come together to elect a speaker of the House and pass a Rules Package that establishes the governing procedure for the next two years.
The Rules Package for the 118th Congress will make the House of Representatives more accountable and accessible to the American people. One of the biggest changes we made was to end proxy voting.
If hardworking Americans have to show up to their job each day, members of Congress should be expected to do the same.
All Americans should have the opportunity to visit our nation’s capital, explore the halls of Congress, meet with their representative and see their government at work. Unfortunately, Nancy Pelosi locked down the “People’s House” at the beginning of 2020.
Republicans have done what Democrats have refused to do for nearly three years: Re-open the House of Representatives to the public so people can once again see their government work in person.
While Pelosi ignored the rank-and-file members in her party, Republicans want more involvement from our members, not less. That’s why we committed to giving lawmakers more time to read legislation before bills come to the House Floor for a vote.
Under Pelosi’s leadership, thousand-page bills and spending trillions of dollars could be introduced in the dark of night with unrelated policy provisions snuck into the text, and members of Congress would have little time to read the legislation before a vote would be called.
We want our committees of jurisdiction to have a say in what legislation comes to the House Floor for a vote. House and Senate Democrats are both guilty of circumventing committees and putting massive leadership-drafted bills up for a vote, bypassing critical committee hearings and transparency to vet legislation.
Republicans want to empower our committee chairs to take back control of the legislative process and make it easier for our rank-and-file members to offer amendments. That way, all lawmakers can better represent the people who elected them to solve the massive problems facing hardworking families.
We created a select committee to counter the Chinese Communist Party’s malicious agenda and established a select subcommittee that will investigate the weaponization of federal agencies and how they have abused their power by targeting Americans based on their political beliefs.
The House of Representatives voted to condemn violence against churches and other groups that promote life and passed legislation that would protect babies who survived an abortion. Additionally, Republicans and Democrats joined together to stop President Biden from raiding our Strategic Petroleum Reserve and selling our emergency oil reserves to the Chinese Communist Party.
We’ve had a strong start to this new majority, but we have much more work to do for families who are struggling under the weight of President Biden’s extreme agenda.
As the Majority Leader, I’m looking forward to bringing bills to the House Floor that focus on lowering inflation, reducing energy costs, securing America’s border, giving law enforcement the tools they need to keep our communities safe and getting parents more involved in their kids’ education.
But that’s not all. We need to hold the Biden administration accountable for its many failures. The American people deserve a government that is transparent and accountable.
If the last two years have shown us anything, it is that Congress is broken and needs to change. The American people are deeply frustrated about how our government works. Republicans are taking critical steps to make our legislative process more transparent and make Congress work again.
Ending Speaker Pelosi’s heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all approach to government will help get our country back on the right track.
Steve Scalise serves as House Majority Leader for the 118th Congress.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2023-01-23 13:32:012023-01-23 13:33:25MAJORITY LEADER STEVE SCALISE: Here’s How The 118th Congress Will Be Different
Authorities charged a former Special Agent In Change of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division in New York and a court interpreter with breaking sanctions to work for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, the Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney’s Office announced Monday.
Charles McGonigal, 54, who investigated Deripaska during his FBI career ending in 2018, and U.S. citizen Sergey Shestakov, 69, were allegedly paid to investigate a rival Russian oligarch for him in 2021 and worked with his agent to conceal his involvement using shell companies and a forged signature, the office’s press release said. The U.S. government had sanctioned Deripaska in 2018 in connection with Russian government action towards Ukraine following the 2014 presidential declaration of a state of emergency there.
Former Special Agent in Charge of the New York FBI Counterintelligence Division charged with violating U.S. sanctions on Russiahttps://t.co/krkeabMnLa
McGonigal is charged with conspiring to violate and evade U.S. sanctions, violating International Emergency Economic Powers Act, money laundering and conspiring to commit money laundering, while Shestakov faces those charges and one count of making false statements, according to the release. Each of their shared charges could land them 20 years in prison, while making false statements is punishable by up to five years.
“Russian oligarchs like Oleg Deripaska perform global malign influence on behalf of the Kremlin and are associated with acts of bribery, extortion, and violence. As alleged, Mr. McGonigal and Mr. Shestakov, both U.S. citizens, acted on behalf of Deripaska and fraudulently used a U.S. entity to obscure their activity in violation of U.S. sanctions,” FBI Assistant Director in Charge Michael Driscoll said. “There are no exceptions for anyone, including a former FBI official like Mr. McGonigal. ”
The FBI did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for further comment.
“Davos”, the joke goes, “is where billionaires tell millionaires what the middle class thinks.”
The mega-elites in Davos have invested completely in climate, prompting CFACT policy advisor Joanne Nova to describe the gathering as, “what it would look like if a doomsday cult had a billion dollars to spend on a skiing holiday.”
Headlining Davos this year were the comedy team of Kerry and Gore.
“We’re still putting 162 million tons into it every single day, and the accumulated amount is now trapping as much extra heat as would be released by 600,000 Hiroshima class atomic bombs exploding every single day on the Earth… That’s what’s boiling the oceans, creating these atmospheric rivers and the rain bombs and sucking the moisture out of the land and creating the droughts and melting the ice and raising the sea level and causing these waves of climate refugees predicted to reach 1 billion in this century… Look at the xenophobia and political authoritarian trends that have come from just a few million refugees. What about a billion? We would lose our capacity for self governance on this world.“
Phew! Have you been to the ocean lately? Was it “boiling?”
Maybe Gore and the Davos crowd are confusing the ocean with the hot tubs at their swanky resorts (although hot tubs don’t “boil” either).
Kerry tried to one-up Gore with bizarre rhetoric which soared right off the planet.
“It’s so… almost extra-terrestrial to think about, saving the planet.” President Biden’s Climate Envoy said, “If you say that to most people, they think you’re just a crazy tree hugging and lefty liberal, you know, do-gooder, whatever.”
Kerry’s “most people” are absolutely right about him.
Could Kerry and Gore be any more out of touch with climate reality or the hard-working Americans they purport to speak for?
The WEF is now calling for millions of cats and dogs worldwide to be killed in an attempt to reduce the "carbon footprint" that they produce as a result of eating meat. They’re introducing an international policy that would require most pet owners to euthanize their animals. pic.twitter.com/EUiqtR3SBy
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Committee For A Constructive Tomorrowhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCommittee For A Constructive Tomorrow2023-01-23 12:45:212023-01-23 15:30:26The Cult of Davos
Will Rogers used to joke, “Alexander Hamilton started the Treasury Department with nothing — and sometimes I think that’s the closest we’ve been to breaking even.”
Not many people saw the humor in that Thursday when the U.S. bumped its head on the debt ceiling, setting the stage for a titanic showdown over America’s spending. While Uncle Sam has maxed out his credit cards for years, the government has never owed anything close to $31 trillion — a failure the new conservative House majority has zero intention of repeating.
If anyone doubts whether the GOP means business, one look at the speaker’s race ought to tell the skeptics all they need to know. The group forged by five days of adversity over Nancy Pelosi’s successor is a hardened and united front now, determined to declare war on the reckless habits that got our country into this mess. Many believe one of the biggest victories the conservative holdouts won was the promise not to raise the debt ceiling until serious budget reforms are made.
Not surprisingly, Democrats are demanding that Congress raise the borrowing limit — no strings attached. Joe Biden, who called Republicans “fiscally demented” for trying to steer America away from the cliff, is insisting that conservatives who want new spending limits can pound sand. Of course, his refusal to negotiate with the GOP is rich considering that he’s added more to the national debt ($3.8 trillion) in two years than our country did in 61 years (1929-1990).
Biden’s pigheadedness is putting the two parties on a collision course for a knock-down, drag-out fight — the likes of which Washington hasn’t seen since 2011 and 1995 when other House majorities tried to put Congress on the spending straight and narrow. Meanwhile, the prospects of Congress coming to blows over America’s ballooning debt is making the media downright hysterical. The New York Times wrung its hands, writing that “breaching the debt limit would lead to a first-ever default for the United States, creating financial chaos in the global economy.” Other Chicken Littles panicked that Republicans will pull the plug on Social Security and Medicare.
The reality is, America has never defaulted on its loans (despite coming dangerously close under Barack Obama). Even now, the House GOP is working on an emergency plan to keep the government afloat while the two sides hammer out an agreement. Conservatives have said that non-Defense spending will be first on the chopping block, but that doesn’t mean, as Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) joked with me on “Washington Watch,” that “nasty Republicans are going to push grandma off a cliff.” “We’re going to start with non-Medicare, non-Social Security spending,” he insisted. But frankly, Harris said, we should ultimately have “a bipartisan agreement on how to control all our federal spending.”
And yet the media would have you believe that any Republican who wants to leverage the moment to help America sober up after decades of a spending binge is reckless. “Crazy even,” National Review’s Veronique De Rugy writes. The fact of the matter is, our fiscal house is a disaster “and Congress is to blame for it. … These people are upset about the symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.”
Ironically, these same media outlets didn’t seem the slightest bit concerned when it was Biden and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) opposing multiple debt ceiling hikes. Back in 2006 and 2004, the two men could’ve been mistaken for Ronald Reagan, saying such things as “This massive accumulation of debt … was the result of willful and reckless disregard for the warnings that were given and for the fundamentals of economic management.” That was then-Senator Joe Biden before voting against increasing the debt limit. Schumer was so against the idea that he ran ads about it.
Apparently, the press is messaging this debate the same way they did the speaker’s race: demanding Republicans stop whining and fall in line. Conservatives who didn’t earlier this month, who made demands of their next leader in exchange for their support, were “terrorists.” Today, when Republicans ask for everyone to come to the table, Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii) lashes out, “There is no table.”
In other words, Congress should just roll over and rubber-stamp more borrowing to fund the Left’s agenda. If that’s the House’s perfunctory duty, as the critics say, why even vote? Or, could it be that this is a neglected accountability tool for lawmakers to keep spending in check?
I know some Americans will yawn at the country’s predicament. We’ve become numb to the big numbers. Living within our means seems to be an ideal long lost in this age of excess and instant gratification. But as everyone eventually learns, borrowing of this magnitude is ultimately unsustainable — and it’s immoral for us to leave it to our children and grandchildren to pay Washington’s piper. This is a fight that needs to be had, and we need to have it now.
When Ronald Reagan took office, the government’s debt was $650 billion. By 2010, it had skyrocketed to $10 trillion. Now, we’re approaching three times that number. And it’s not because Republicans have been spending angels, and Democrats have been devils. Both parties have been irresponsible. But we can’t keep swimming in red ink as a country and hope to survive. We have to address it.
Some of the ideas floating through the conservative caucus are completely reasonable solutions like “no budget, no pay,” which withhold lawmakers’ pay when they don’t pass budgets. For years, they’ve been kicking the can of appropriations down the road, which has resulted in gigantic, unread, multi-trillion-dollar boondoggles like we saw in the December omnibus. No more, House conservatives said in the speaker’s fight. It’s time to send these 13 budgets through regular order — holding hearings, conducting mark-ups, and giving members time to digest and amend the bills.
In return for a debt ceiling increase, Republicans will almost certainly demand across-the-board cuts and savings. There are calls to balance the budget in 10 years and scale back on glutted entitlements.
“The bottom line is we can’t just keep raising the debt ceiling year after year and just whistling past the graveyard on this,” Harris warned. “[O]ur debt exceeds our entire output of our economy. We are beyond the point where Greece was about 10 years ago when they essentially went bankrupt, so it’s completely unreasonable for the president to not want to negotiate some spending control.”
He compared it to a teenager maxing out his credit cards and telling his parents, “Look, just raise my limit. Don’t talk to me about controlling my spending.” “It’s crazy,” Harris shook his head. “We will discuss it, and the president will have to negotiate … because the debt ceiling is not going to be increased by the House without some spending control.”
At the end of the day, the new majority may not be able to take the credit cards away, but they can put a serious dent in Congress’s allowance. True leadership means “the bucks stop here.” It’s time for Republicans to take charge — and not the plastic kind!
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2023-01-23 12:27:312023-01-23 13:05:04New House Majority Attempts Debt-Defying Feat
Socialists will continue to argue that Nazism was not “real” socialism, but the Nazi propaganda despised capitalism and spoke like Karl Marx.
One of the comforts of growing older is knowing that some things will never change.
Sports fans will always argue over the designated hitter rule and over who was the best heavyweight boxer of all-time (Muhammad Ali). Movie fans will never agree which Godfather movie was better, the first or the second (the first.) And the trumpets will sound at the Second Coming before capitalists and socialists agree on whether the Nazis were “really socialists.”
The last item has always puzzled me, I confess, and not just because the word is right there in the name: National Socialism. If you read the speeches and private conversations of the Nazi hierarchy, it’s clear they loved socialism and despised individualism and capitalism.
In his new book Hitler’s National Socialism, the historian Rainer Zitelmann gives a penetrating look into the ideas that shaped men like Hitler and Goebbels. While it’s clear they saw their own brand of socialism as distinct from Marxism (more on that later), there is no question they saw socialism as the future and despised bourgeoisie capitalism.
Consider, for example, these quotes from Joseph Goebbels, the chief propagandist for the Nazi Party:
“Socialism is the ideology of the future.” – Letter to Ernst Graf zu Reventlow as quoted in Goebbels: A Biography
“The bourgeoisie has to yield to the working class … Whatever is about to fall should be pushed. We are all soldiers of the revolution. We want the workers’ victory over filthy lucre. That is socialism.” -quoted in Doctor Goebbels: His Life and Death
“We are socialists, because we see in socialism, that means, in the fateful dependence of all folk comrades upon each other, the sole possibility for the preservation of our racial genetics and thus the re-conquest of our political freedom and for the rejuvenation of the German state. – “Why We Are Socialists?” Der Angriff (The Attack ), July 16, 1928
“We are not a charitable institution but a Party of revolutionary socialists.” -Der Angriff editorial, May 27, 1929
“Capitalism assumes unbearable forms at the moment when the personal purposes that it serves run contrary to the interest of the overall folk. It then proceeds from things and not from people. Money is then the axis around which everything revolves. It is the reverse with socialism. The socialist worldview begins with the folk and then goes over to things. Things are made subservient to the folk; the socialist puts the folk above everything, and things are only means to an end.” -”Capitalism,” Der Angriff, July 15, 1929
“In 1918 there was only one task for the German socialist: to keep the weapons and defend German socialism.” -”Capitalism,” Der Angriff, July 15, 1929
“To be a socialist means to let the ego serve the neighbour, to sacrifice the self for the whole. In its deepest sense socialism equals service.” – diary notes (1926)
“The lines of German socialism are sharp, and our path is clear. We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine nationalism! We are against Marxism, but for true socialism!” – Those Damn Nazis: Why Are We Socialists? (1932)
“We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces.” – Those Damn Nazis: Why Are We Socialists? (1932)
“England is a capitalist democracy. Germany is a socialist people’s state.” – “Englands Schuld” (the speech is not dated, but likely was given in 1939)
“Because we are socialists we have felt the deepest blessings of the nation, and because we are nationalists we want to promote socialist justice in a new Germany.” – Die verfluchten Hakenkreuzler. Etwas zum Nachdenken (1932)
“The sin of liberal thinking was to overlook socialism’s nation-building strengths, thereby allowing its energies to go in anti-national directions.” – Die verfluchten Hakenkreuzler. Etwas zum Nachdenken (1932)
“To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole. Socialism is in its deepest sense service.” – as quoted in Escape from Freedom, Erich Fromm
“We are a workers’ party because we see in the coming battle between finance and labor the beginning and the end of the structure of the twentieth century. We are on the side of labor and against finance. . . The value of labor under socialism will be determined by its value to the state, to the whole community.”-Those Damn Nazis: Why Are We Socialists? (1932)
These quotes represent just a smattering of Goebbels’ views on and conception of socialism. One can see that in many ways the Nazi spoke much like Karl Marx.
Phrases like “we are a workers’ party,” “the worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces,” “money…is the reverse with socialism,” and “we are against the political bourgeoisie” could easily be plucked from Marx’s own speeches and writings—yet it’s clear Goebbels despised Marx and saw his brand of “national socialism” as distinct from Marxism.
So what sets National Socialism apart from Marxism? There are two primary differences.
The first is that Hitler and Goebbels fused their socialism with race and German nationalism, rejecting the international ethos of Marxism—workers of the world unite!—for a more practical one that emphasized Germany’s Völkischen movement.
This was a clever tactic by the Nazis. As the Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek pointed out, it made socialism more palatable to many Germans who were unable to see Nazism for what it truly was.
“The supreme tragedy is still not seen that in Germany it was largely people of good will who, by their socialist policies, prepared the way for the forces which stand for everything they detest,” Hayek wrote in The Road to Serfdom (1944). “Few recognize that the rise of fascism…was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies.”
The second difference is that National Socialists were less concerned with directly controlling the means of production.
In his 1940 book German Economy, 1870-1940, Gustav Stolper, an Austrian-German economist and journalist, explained that though National Socialism was anti-capitalist from the beginning, it was also in direct competition with Marxism following World War I. Because of this, National Socialists determined to “woo the masses” from three distinct angles.
“The first angle was the moral principle, the second the financial system, the third the issue of ownership. The moral principle was ‘the commonwealth before self-interest.’ The financial promise was ‘breaking the bondage of interest slavery’. The industrial program was ‘nationalization of all big incorporated business [trusts]’. By accepting the principle ‘the commonwealth before self-interest,’ National Socialism simply emphasizes its antagonism to the spirit of a competitive society as represented supposedly by democratic capitalism . . . But to the Nazis this principle means also the complete subordination of the individual to the exigencies of the state. And in this sense National Socialism is unquestionably a Socialist system . . .”
Stolper, who fled from Germany to the United States after Hitler’s rise to power, noted that the Nazis never initiated a widespread nationalization of industry, but he explained that in some ways this was a distinction without a difference.
“The socialization of the entire German productive machinery, both agricultural and industrial, was achieved by methods other than expropriation, to a much larger extent and on an immeasurably more comprehensive scale than the authors of the party program in 1920 probably ever imagined. In fact, not only the big trusts were gradually but rapidly subjected to government control in Germany, but so was every sort of economic activity, leaving not much more than the title of private ownership.”
“…while most of the means of production had not been nationalized, they had nonetheless been politicized and collectivized under an intricate web of Nazi planning targets, price and wage regulations, production rules and quotas, and strict limits and restraints on the action and decisions of those who remained; nominally, the owners of private enterprises throughout the country. Every German businessman knew that his conduct was prescribed and positioned within the wider planning goals of the National Socialist regime.”
The historical record is clear: European fascism was simply a different shade of socialism, which helps explain, as Hayek noted, why so many fascists were “former” socialists—”from Mussolini down (and including Laval and Quisling).”
Like Marx, the Nazis loathed capitalism and saw the individual will and individual rights as subordinate to the interests of the state. It should come as little surprise that these different shades of socialism achieved such similar results: poverty and misery.
Socialists will continue to argue that Nazism was not “real” socialism, but the words of the infamous Nazi propaganda minister suggest otherwise.
Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. (Follow him on Substack.) His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2023-01-23 12:09:222023-01-23 12:20:01Joseph Goebbels’ Own Words Show He Loved Socialism and Saw It as ‘the Future’
“He who obeys, does not listen to himself!” ― Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Imagine a world where you can’t eat meat, voters are to be ignored, and speaking your mind is forbidden. That’s what the globalists who showed up at Davos last week have planned for you. It gets worse. Betcha didn’t know you were just a guinea pig and your purpose in life is to satisfy these people’s lust for power.
What gathering of the international elite would be complete without Al Gore raving like a lunatic about global warming? He was in rare form at Davos last week, ranting about boiling oceans, atmospheric rivers, and how global warming is like setting off 600,000 nuclear bombs a day. Sounds awful, but this would be the same Al Gore who predicted all the ice would be gone from the North Pole by 2013. The problem is people still believe his shtick and want to stick it to you so Al Gore can profit from his green energy investments.
So, in the future, according to one presenter at Davos, you will have to ask to use a car and the cloud will monitor – and eventually control – your every move. Another presenter said flatly, “There will be no cars,” only environmentally friendly transportation running on renewable energy. Kumbaya. Already, ’15-minute cities’ are in the works in Britain and France. Everything you need will be within 15 minutes of where you live and you will not be allowed to go outside of your zone more than a certain number of times a year, or you will be fined. The government will enforce this through cell phone tracking and facial recognition technology. Sign me up!
But more is required to stop global warming. Capitalism, the great scourge of humanity that has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system, must be ‘overcome’ or the planet faces “extinction”. That’s according to Colombia’s far-left President, a former Marxist guerilla fighter. He would turn everything over to the U.N. which would become the central planner for the entire global economy. Central planning has been a complete disaster wherever it’s been tried. Just ask the Soviet Union. Oh, you can’t. It’s defunct.
Then we were treated to the spectacle of FBI Director Christopher Wray at Davos openly calling for fascism, more partnership between tech companies and the government to suppress information. National security depends on it, he claimed. Apparently, he’s not the least bit embarrassed by recent revelations his FBI conspired with Twitter to censor free speech it did not like. This man is scary.
Tony Blair called at Davos last week for a “National Digital Infrastructure” to keep track of who has and who has not been vaccinated in future pandemics. Thus, he joins those previously calling for global digital health certificates and vaccine passports. The World Health Organization is already at work on all this. The U.N., again – world government, all bow down.
All these would-be Masters of the Universe want to run your life. They think they know better than you and possess secret knowledge that will end all human suffering. Wannabe puppet master Klaus Schwab set the tone for all this when he opened the conference by calling on the elites present to “master the future.” John Kerry spilled the beans when he said he is part of a “select group of human beings” whose job it is to save the planet.
What’s laughable about all this arrogance is that it’s been around for a very long time. It’s the Gnostic fantasy which goes back to ancient times – the belief,
the world and humanity can be fundamentally transformed and perfected through the intervention of a chosen group of people (an elite), a man-god, or men-Gods, Übermensch, who are the chosen ones that possess a kind of special knowledge (like magic or science) about how to perfect human existence.
Kerry, Schwab, and the others may have a sick psychological need to believe they are special and are here to save us from ourselves, but we don’t have to believe them. I call them the “Delusionati” – derived from the ‘Illuminati’ secret society – because they suffer from delusions of grandeur and lack the self-awareness to realize they have fallen into the age-old trap of unjustifiably believing they’re better than everybody else. Even if they are, my message to them is the same: Keep your grubby hands off my life. This planet doesn’t have your name on it.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Skirmish - Liberato.UShttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Skirmish - Liberato.US2023-01-23 11:29:432023-01-24 11:42:19Davos: What the International Authoritarian Left Has Planned for You
After flooding local election offices with private money to alter election operations in key battleground states ahead of the 2020 presidential contest, Democrat-aligned groups have been looking for new ways to take over America’s future elections — and a new bombshell report reveals just how they plan to do it.
Released by the Honest Elections Project (HEP) and the John Locke Foundation, the shocking report reveals how the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence — a self-professed “nonpartisan collaborative” claiming to bring together election officials for the stated goal of developing “a set of shared standards and values” — is actually a venture by left-wing nonprofit groups to “systematically influence every aspect of election administration” and advance Democrat-backed voting policies in local election offices across the country.
The Alliance’s efforts are similar to those orchestrated by groups such as the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), which, after receiving $400 million from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, poured millions of dollars into local election offices to change how elections were administered in the lead up to the 2020 presidential election. As The Federalist previously reported, these “Zuckbucks” were used to expand unsecure election protocols like mail-in voting and the use of ballot drop boxes. To make matters worse, the grants were heavily skewed towards Democrat-majority counties, essentially making it a massive Democrat get-out-the-vote operation.
Unsurprisingly, CTCL is one of the main groups partnered with the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence.
While CTCL’s actions in the 2020 election were intrusive enough to provoke 24 states to pass laws banning or restricting Zuckbucks, the Alliance seeks to take CTCL’s election-interfering tactics a step further. According to membership and grant agreements obtained by HEP, the Alliance’s “unusual and complex structure” appears to be “designed to thwart meaningful oversight and accountability.”
“For instance, after the Alliance had recruited its first cohort of members it announced plans to begin charging offices to join. However, the Alliance also created ‘scholarships’ to cover those membership costs, which are instantly converted into ‘credits’ that member offices can use to buy services from CTCL and other Alliance partners,” the HEP report reads. “As a result, offices receive access to funds they can spend exclusively on services provided by left-wing companies and nonprofits, entirely outside normal public funding channels.”
In other words, existing Zuckbucks bans wouldn’t necessarily prevent local election departments from contracting with the Alliance to obtain services ranging “from ‘legal’ and ‘political’ consulting to public relations and guidance on recruitment and training.”
Such services are already being utilized in places such as Brunswick County, North Carolina, where the locality’s board of elections director used “talking points and hyperlinks provided by the Alliance” to push back against criticism of the county’s acceptance of CTCL funds. In a series of emails obtained by HEP via public records requests, Board of Elections Director Sara LaVere is documented defending the acceptance of the grants and admitting that The Elections Group — an Alliance partner — assisted her in writing articles published during the 2022 election cycle.
“I have personally worked with the Center for Tech and Civic Life, Democracy Fund, Elections Group, and the Center for Civic Design in the past,” LaVere wrote. “The two election columns I published for this election? Those were written with assistance from the Elections Group. Most of my social media posts during the general election came from templates provided by the Elections Group.”
Legislation banning Zuckbucks and other types of private funding in North Carolina’s elections successfully passed the Republican-controlled legislature in 2021, but was vetoed by Democrat Gov. Roy Cooper.
But Alliance doesn’t provide its “benefits” to local election offices without expecting something in return. As described in the report, election departments that become Alliance members “are expected to work with the [coalition] to develop and implement an ‘improvement plan’ that reshapes the way each office functions.” This requirement allows the Alliance to gather significant data on the internal operations of participating offices.
“No matter what it claims to be, the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence is nothing more than a dark money-fueled scheme to push liberal voting policies and influence election administration in key states and localities,” said HEP Executive Director Jason Snead in a statement. “Nobody should be able to manipulate the democratic process for partisan gain. … This report should make clear that a private funding ban, vigorous oversight, and complete transparency from officials are essential to restoring trust in our election system and making it easier to vote and harder to cheat.”
To date, the Alliance-connected CTCL has committed to distributing $80 million to 10 counties (including Brunswick) over the next five years in states such as Nevada, Wisconsin, and Michigan, among others.
By Sandy Fitzgerald | Newsmax, 21 January 2023 11:22 AM EST
Twitter CEO Elon Musk, a frequent critic of Dr. Anthony Fauci and COVID-related mandates, says he felt like he “was dying” after he got his second COVID booster vaccine, and that a cousin of his suffered myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart, after getting his shot.
And my cousin, who is young & in peak health, had a serious case of myocarditis. Had to go to the hospital.
“I had major side effects from my second booster shot,” Musk said in a tweet Friday. “Felt like I was dying for several days. Hopefully, no permanent damage, but I dunno.”
In a subsequent message, Musk said that his cousin “who is young & in peak health, had a serious case of myocarditis. Had to go to the hospital.”
The second booster shot, he explained in another tweet, wasn’t his choice but a requirement to visit one of his Tesla locations in Berlin, Germany.
Musk also said that he had contracted COVID-19 before the vaccines came out and “it was basically a mild cold,” and then he had the Johnson & Johnson vaccine with “no bad effects, except my arm hurt briefly.”
He added that his first mRNA booster “was ok, but the second one crushed me.”
His posts came after a Rasmussen Reports tweet saying that about 12 million people may have had “major side effects” after getting the COVID vaccines.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there have been “rare cases” of myocarditis or pericarditis” that have occurred, most often among adolescent and young adult males ages 16 and older within a week of getting a second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccine. However, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine has not had similar reports.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2023-01-23 06:45:162023-01-23 06:48:25Elon Musk: ‘Felt Like I Was Dying’ After COVID Vaccine
A journalist hired by the BBC has ranted “death to Israel” on social media and described it as “occupied Palestine” live on air, the JC can reveal.
Regular BBC Arabic contributor Mayssaa Abdul Khalek, a Lebanon-based reporter, also called on Arab states to attack Israel on Twitter, alongside links to her broadcasts for the corporation.
The disclosure comes despite a JC campaign which has revealed a catalogue of anti-Israel bias in BBC broadcasts and has led to the establishment of parliamentary inquiry due to start later this year.
In a live report, Ms Khalek, who describes herself as a “BBC Arabic co-host”, described a Hezbollah rocket attack on northern Israel as an attack on “occupied Palestine”.
Khalek’s tweet in which she sends a ‘message to the Israeli enemy’
Three rockets had been launched against the Israeli border town of Metula, which she then called “an imperialist colony”.
The town is located at Israel’s northernmost point, inside the internationally-recognised 1967 border with Lebanon.
During the 2006 Lebanon war, the town’s population was forced to flee as it was bombarded by Hezbollah rockets.
During a live report in May 2021, Ms Khalek described how a Lebanese man had died, saying, “he and a group of youths were hit by RPGs that Israeli military shot at them during their attempt to cross the border fence in front of the imperialist colony of Metula”.
Without interruption by the presenter interviewing her, she went on:
“These events also come after three rockets were launched yesterday from South Lebanon towards occupied Palestine.”
She also used the phrase “occupied Palestinian territories” to describe Israel in a tweet linked to the same broadcast, which contravenes BBC guidelines. Last week, after she was contacted by the JC, the post was deleted.
Ms Khalek has used the social media account to publicise 30 broadcasts she has made for the BBC, alongside anti-Israeli material.
In March last year, she liked a tweet commemorating Diaa Hamarsheh, a terrorist who died in a gun battle after killing a rabbi, a policemen and three civilians in Bnei Brak, near Tel Aviv.
Then in November she described “the enemy, Israel” alongside photographs of a Palestinian rally and a teenager holding up a sweatshirt with the slogan “Freedom for Palestine”.
A December 2017 post under a photo of the late Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir read: “The Arabs are in a deep slumber… Confronting Israel was limited to statements of denunciation that do not make us fat, do not satisfy our hunger, and do not restore our Jerusalem to us.”
A post on the Syrian war in February 2016 began with the phrase “Death to Israel”. It went on: “Is it your business to resist the Arab countries or Israel? Oh, sorry, Israel is an ally of your friend Russia, and they coordinate in the Syrian war.”…
Many of us are familiar with the ideological and political biases of mainstream media, in particular the media’s uncritical embrace of leftist commitments on issues like inclusive language, hate speech, transgenderism, abortion, same-sex marriage, immigration, the Christian faith, education, and pandemic policies.
It’s par for the course.
Much of the mainstream media does not simply defend its favoured positions; it also refuses, all too often, to give a fair hearing to opposing viewpoints. The silencing, censoring, and exclusion of opinions that newspaper, radio, and TV editors deem politically incorrect impoverishes our public square by making open and candid discussion of a wide range of issues practically impossible.
This would not necessarily be the case in an ideologically and politically diverse media system, because the one-sided and exclusionary editorial policies of one media organ could be checked and balanced by the diverse biases and editorial policies of another. However, in practice, many mainstream media do in fact speak with one voice on lots of important issues, including issues that are by no means settled in the general population.
Sometimes the silencing of dissenting viewpoints is achieved through overt censorship – as we saw when Facebook suppressed arguments that entertained the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis, or when Twitter censored pretty much any assertion that could be construed as even slightly unfavourable to Covid vaccines. But more often than not, it is achieved by refusing to give any airtime to arguments from “the other side.”
In many ways, this is more sinister than overt censorship, because it is subtle and may easily go completely unnoticed.
I have had personal experience of this “from the inside,” so to speak. I used to write occasionally for a prominent national newspaper in Ireland, as well as a regional newspaper in Spain. Soon after I began to seriously question Covid measures or the science behind lockdowns, my contributions at both newspapers ceased to be published, quite abruptly. There was simply no editorial interest in questioning the fundamentals of the national response to the virus.
The average newspaper reader or TV viewer knows nothing of this filtering process. They just pick up the newspaper or switch on the TV and assume that there are “serious” people and experts who will be given a platform to express themselves. They will naturally assume that if no credible voice defends this or that position, it must be because the position is weak or indefensible. It will not occur to the average reader or viewer that the reason there are no “credible voices” on the other side is because they have been filtered out in advance.
Mine is one of those voices. There are many others.
It is not that mainstream media never discuss contentious issues. Rather, media “debate” on contentious issues is often bland and uninspiring, due to its near total exclusion of reasonable voices from the other side. Officially sanctioned positions are echoed uncritically by talking heads on TV and radio, and the “other side” is dismissed as a bunch of crazies or “extremists” in op-eds and on chat shows, even though moderate dissenting voices are refused airtime or never invited to participate in the debate in the first place.
This is bad for citizenship and bad for democracy, because citizens are exposed to one set of pat answers on the issues of the day, and not taught to process complexity and nuance. Citizens who should be learning to think for themselves are instead encouraged to passively imbibe a set of one-sided slogans, slogans that most journalists do not even think to interrogate or put to the test, like “I’m personally against X, but would never impose my opinion on someone else,” or “I am spiritual but have no time for organised religion,” or “Populists are a looming danger to democracy,” or “We must do everything possible to combat misinformation and hate speech,” or “The unvaccinated are granny-killers.”
The top ten
Here are ten topics that most mainstream media cover from a broadly leftist-progressive perspective, with almost no consideration of dissenting arguments, no matter how evidence-based and no matter how qualified or credentialed their author happens to be. In other words, ten topics that most mainstream media cannot or will not discuss openly and rationally:
The birth shortfall across a large part of the Western world and its contribution to the ageing of our populations – barely mentioned, let alone debated.
The ethics of administering transgender hormone therapy to children and adolescents – seems to be taboo for many editors.
Religious faith as a personal commitment and way of life – almost invariably, this is either ignored, treated superficially, or discussed as a wholly subjective “lifestyle option,” rather than a serious truth claim.
The ethics of abortion and techniques of assisted reproduction and their impact on women’s lives – the pro-life perspective is almost never given a fair hearing.
The difficulties and challenges surrounding the accommodation and integration of refugees – anyone questioning refugee policies is dismissed out of hand as “anti-immigration” or bigoted or racist.
The evidential basis and ethical merits of Covid policies like lockdowns, mandatory masking and mandatory vaccination – government advisors were essentially given a free pass to say whatever they wanted, while dissenters were either silenced or dismissed as enemies of public health.
The steep increases in excess mortality in 2021 and 2022, and its possible underlying causes – it has been reported on, but strikingly, not discussed to even a fraction of the extent that Covid deaths were.
The claim that reducing our “carbon footprint” can reverse global warming, and that this will avert a global catastrophe – you will rarely if ever hear this topic treated in a rational, critical and scientific manner, just uncritical repetition of a set of pre-packaged climate crisis mantras.
Populist and anti-establishment political movements – instead of engaging rationally with their claims, these movements are generally dismissed as “alt right,” “hard right,” or “demagogic” and anti-democratic.
The perspective of stay-at-home mothers or women who choose to sacrifice their careers or accept more modest careers, in order to be more available to their children – apparently, most mainstream journalists are unable or unwilling to discuss such a choice sympathetically.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexitieshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexities2023-01-23 05:36:082023-01-23 05:39:58Ten Topics You Rarely Hear Discussed Openly and Rationally on Mainstream Media
Single women are reshaping American society, education and public policy.
Soccer Moms are giving way to Single Woke Females — the new “SWFs” — as one of the most potent voting blocs in American politics.
Unmarried women without children have been moving toward the Democratic Party for several years, but the 2022 midterms may have been their electoral coming-out party as they proved the chief break on the predicted Republican wave. While married men and women as well as unmarried men broke for the GOP, CNN exit polls found that 68 percent of unmarried women voted for Democrats.
The Supreme Court’s August decision overturning Roe v. Wade was certainly a special factor in the midterms, but longer-term trends show that single, childless women are joining African Americans as the Democrats’ most reliable supporters.
Their power is growing thanks to the demographic winds. The number of never-married women has grown from about 20 percent in 1950 to over 30 percent in 2022, while the percentage of married women has declined from almost 70 percent in 1950 to under 50 percent today. Overall, the percentage of married households with children has declined from 37 percent in 1976 to 21 percent today.
The Pew Research Center notes that since 1960, single-person households in the United States have grown from 13 percent to 27 percent (2019). Many, particularly women, are not all that keen on finding a partner. Pew recently found that “men are far more likely than women to be on the dating market: 61 percent of single men say they are currently looking for a relationship or dates, compared with 38 percent of single women.”
There’s clearly far less stigma attached to being single and unpartnered. Single women today have many impressive role models of unattached, childless women who have succeeded on their own — like Taylor Swift and much of the US women’s soccer team. This phenomenon is not confined to the United States. Marriage and birthrates have fallen in much of the world, including Europe and Japan. Writing in Britain’s Guardian newspaper, columnist Emma John observed, “Singleness is no longer to be sneered at. Never marrying or taking a long-term partner is increasingly seen as a valid choice.”
Rise of identity politics
The rise of SWFs — a twist on the personal ad abbreviation for single white female — is one of the great untold stories of American politics. Distinct from divorced women or widows, these largely Gen Z and Millennial voters share a sense of collective identity and progressive ideology that sets them apart from older women.
More likely to live in urban centres and to support progressive policies, they are a driving force in the Democratic party’s and the nation’s shift to the left. One paradox, however: Democrats depend ever more on women defined in the strict biological sense, while much of the party’s progressive wing embraces the blurred and flexible gender boundaries of its identity politics.
Attitudes are what most distinguish single women from other voters. An American Enterprise Institute survey shows that married men and women are far more likely than unmarried females to think women are well-treated or equally treated. As they grow in numbers, these discontented younger single women are developing something of a group consciousness. Nearly two-thirds of women under 30, for example, see what happens to other women as critical to their own lives; among women over 50, this mindset shrinks to less than half.
This perception of linked fate stands in contrast to survey results regarding single men, who report that they are increasingly disconnected from each other while women bond more closely. This is not a temporary phenomenon, and it is much bigger than the bohemian movements of the past.
There is even a sense in which women are redefining families, and themselves, by choosing to neither get married nor have offspring. And social observers such as Bella DePaulo, a University of California, Santa Barbara professor and singles advocate, are all in favour. As she told Nautilus magazine:
“[It’s] a tremendously positive thing! Once upon a time, just about everyone in the United States thought that they needed to squeeze themselves into the heterosexual nuclear family box, even if they weren’t heterosexual or weren’t interested in getting married or had no interest in raising kids.
Now, people can create the lives and the families that allow them to live their best, most authentic, and most meaningful lives. They can choose to put friends at the center of their lives. Or they can assemble their very own combination of friends and family to be the social convoys that sail beside them as they navigate their lives. They can have kids in their lives without having children of their own.”
The key driver of these attitudes may be universities, where feminist ideology often holds powerful sway. Women now predominate on college campuses. In the late 1960s, they were about 39 percent of college graduates; now they are about 59 percent. The percentage of full-time female professors has risen dramatically; at the full professor level the percentage has grown by roughly one-third.
Women now earn more than half of advanced degrees, not only in education but health and medical sciences, and are making great strides in engineering and law. With this growth, a feminist agenda has become increasingly de rigueur in colleges. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the number of women’s and gender studies degrees in the United States has increased by more than 300 percent since 1990, and in 2015, there were more than 2,000 degrees conferred.
There are widespread movements to establish women’s centres almost everywhere, even as men are abandoning college and university life in record numbers, and those who remain are hit with messaging about behaviour and status from diversity, equity, and inclusion offices along with various student life offices that regularly call them toxic, aggressive, and born misogynists.
While both married and unmarried women have made impressive gains in the workplace, family status appears to be driving a big cleavage in politics among women. Research shows that having children tends to make one more conservative — critically, divorce does not change this calculus decisively, although it moderates leftism.
The AEI 2022 data shows that divorced women — of all age cohorts — tend to be more conservative than liberal. In aggregate, 23 percent of divorced women are liberal while 31 percent are conservative — the plurality (38 percent) are somewhere in the moderate middle.
The fault lines, however, run deeper and appear to be generational. The data show that 40 percent of Millennial women — those born between 1981-1996 — identify as liberal and 20 percent identify as conservative. For single women of the baby boomer generation (born between 1946-1963), the number of liberals drops to 25 percent and the number of conservative women increases to almost 30 percent.
We are witnessing, as sociologist Daniel Bell noted a half-century ago in The Coming of the Post-Industrial Society, a new type of individualism, unmoored from religion and family, something fundamentally transforming the foundations of middle-class culture. This echoes what the popular futurist Alvin Toffler in 1970 described as a growing immersion in work at the expense of family life. He envisioned a revolution in marriage that would result in a “streamlined family,” and, if children are in the picture, relying on professional child-raisers. The ideal of long-term marriage would give way, he expected, to more transient relationships and numerous partners at different stages of life.
There is a clear economic divergence between married and unmarried women, if for no other reason than that two incomes provide more resources and children present different demands. There are plenty of renting couples and home-owning singles, but married people account for 77 percent of all homeowners, according to the Center for Politics. Married women tend also to do far better professionally and economically, and their rate of marriage has remained constant, while those without spouses have declined by 15 percent over the past four decades, notes the Brookings Institution. Single-parent households, they find, do far worse.
This economic reality impacts political choices. Not part of an economic familial unit, they tend to look to government for help, whether for rent subsidies or direct transfers. The pitch of Democratic presidents as reflected in Barack Obama’s “Life of Julia” and Joe Biden’s “Life of Linda” — narratives that advertised the government’s cradle-to-grave assistance for women — is geared toward women who never marry, with the occasional child-raising addressed not by family resources but government transfers.
Critically, unmarried women also tend to be employed heavily in “helping professions” like medical care and teaching, an expanding field even as many traditional male jobs, particularly in manufacturing, construction, and transportation, have disappeared.
Whereas high taxes and regulation pose problems in the general economy, women predominate in fields that actually benefit from more government spending. This now includes the once GOP-leaning medical profession, nurses as well as doctors who now lean Democratic. In contrast, heavily male professions like engineers, masons, and police officers tend toward the GOP.
The divisions between married and unmarried women are reinforced and amplified by the geographic divisions in the country — what some call “the big sort” — as Americans increasingly settle into distinct communities of likeminded individuals. Urban centres, for example, are particularly friendly to singles.
In virtually all high-income societies, high density today almost always translates into low fertility rates, led by San Francisco, Los Angeles, Austin, and Boston. In urban cores like Manhattan, single households constituted nearly 50 percent of households, according to American Community Survey 2019 data.
And with many businesses and cultural opportunities moving away from cities and diffusing and becoming more diverse and family friendly with varied amenities, the polarisation between cities and their narrowly left residents and the rest of the nation may increase.
According to the recent AEI data, even married women in the Northeast are conservative. This gap, unsurprisingly, widens in the South and Midwest. But the major divides are in terms of type of community. Married women who live in urban settings are evenly split between conservative and liberal, but among single women, just 18 percent are conservative with 44 percent liberal (the rest identify as moderate or refused to say).
In the suburbs, the key political battleground, 35 percent of married women are conservative and 22 percent liberal. For unmarried women, 23 percent are conservative and 34 percent are liberal. In rural areas, 42 percent of married women are conservative compared to 14 percent liberal, while single women divide evenly.
Unlike the wave of immigrants or rural migrants who flooded the American metropolises of the early 20th century, urbanites today generally avoid raising large families in cramped and exceedingly expensive spaces. According to analysis by demographer Wendell Cox, households in suburbs and exurbs are roughly four times more likely to have children in their household than residents of the urban core.
The lowest birthrates are found in ultra-blue cities and states, magnets largely for singles and the childless. Six years ago the New York Times ran a story headlined “San Francisco Asks: Where Have All the Children Gone?” and stories abound about the Golden Gate City having the fewest children of all major American cities. Many other major cities lost families with children during the pandemic. Between 2020 and 2021, Manhattan saw a whopping 9.5 percent decline in the number of children under 5 — and many families are not returning.
Some of this reflects policies associated with driving housing prices up more than elsewhere. Like other blue states, California has adopted policies that discourage single family housing favoured by married couples with children in favour of dense, usually small urban apartments. Given the political orientation of single women, urban areas can be expected to go further left, while the suburbs, and particularly the exurbs, with their concentrations of married families, will likely shift towards the centre and right.
The great demographic race
In the near future, American politics, both national and local, may turn on the degree to which people remain single, and also whether they decide to have children. Right now, the short run demography favours the Democrats. People are getting married at the lowest rate in American history and the birth rate remains depressed. The longer people stay single, and perhaps never marry, the better things will be for the Democrats.
The wild card may be age — specifically whether historic patterns hold and women, like men, tend to become conservative as they get older. This is hard to gauge as the evolution has usually taken in place of the context of marriage and motherhood. Unmarried women, in particular, may hold onto their youthful ideology far longer than those whose lives are transformed by marriage and parenting.
In many places, particularly on the coasts, single women have become a politically rising force. Twelve women were elected governor in 2022, a record. Maura Healey’s election as the nation’s first openly lesbian chief executive shows that in states like Massachusetts, once a Catholic conservative bastion culturally, there is enough support for single women in politics to overcome traditional reluctance to elect childless and non-heterosexual candidates.
“It’s thrilling to see Maura break down historical obstacles to both women and LGBTQ candidates to lead Massachusetts,” says Janson Wu, executive director of the Boston-based GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders. “It really shows the progress we’ve made as a society, in understanding that what counts is really the quality of the leader and not who they are.”
Future policy conflicts
Public policy may have a strong influence on this dynamic. The single, the unattached, and the unmarried are already demanding state provisions to guarantee “affordable” urban housing, more money for transit, and steps toward a guaranteed income for individuals — all of which will, in turn, provide incentives to remain unattached. In contrast, the demands of family-oriented voters may be more focused on economic growth, safety, improving basic education, and ways to save money for their offspring.
If the policy preferences of singles become more significant, the United States may have to brace for the kind of long-term demographic decline already evident in Japan and parts of Europe. Some suggest that one possible solution, attractive to some on the left, would be to adopt the “Nordic way” which encourages reproduction (if not marriage) by transferring much of the burden of child-raising from families to the state.
Other countries have also adopted pro-birth policies — like free or low-cost childcare, or even cash payments. These schemes have been applied in places as dissimilar as Poland and South Korea, as well as Quebec. But according to United Nations data, all of them, including the Scandinavian states, still suffer well below replacement rate fertility rates.
Some women in particular embrace singleness not just as a lifestyle, but a chance to redefine the role of women in society. Author Rebecca Traister, herself married with children, has followed this movement, calling it a “a radical upheaval, a national reckoning with massive social and political implications … a wholesale revision of what female life might entail.”
“We are living through the invention of independent female adulthood as a norm, not an aberration,” she adds, “and the creation of an entirely new population: adult women who are no longer economically, socially, sexually, or reproductively dependent on or defined by the men they marry.”
The likely best way to overcome the demographic decline may lie instead in boosting the economic prospects of the next generation. This includes steps that could allow for easier purchase of homes or lower cost apartments suitable for families. As Richard Florida, among others, has suggested: Efforts should be made to lower housing prices, which correlates to higher rates of fertility.
Reforms that encourage home-based businesses could spark greater fertility rates, as historian Alan Carlson suggested almost two decades ago. The rise of home-based businesses and work, now taking off, offers a unique opportunity for increased family formation. Indeed, a recent study by the Federal Reserve of Kansas City suggests that the current rise in remote work could spark a family-friendly housing boom, as people can live further away, and spend more time being parents. For that to occur, however, it would require that such housing can be constructed, which would require loosening of regulations that seek to restrain construction both in cities and suburban areas.
Ultimately the question remains what kind of society Americans want to have. Historically, here in the US and elsewhere, the family perspective has generally been prevalent and tied intimately to the sense of a common polity. But as the country changes and becomes ever more single and female-influenced, the historical pattern is likely to be challenged and significantly modified.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexitieshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexities2023-01-23 05:22:092023-01-23 05:26:33The Rise of the Single Woke [and young, Democratic] Female
CDC Aware of Hundreds of Safety Signals for COVID Jab.
In September 2022, The Epoch Times asked the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to release its Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) data mining results. The CDC refused. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request has now forced the release of these data, and they are stunning
The CDC’s PRR monitoring has identified several hundred safety signals, including for Bell’s palsy, blood clots, pulmonary embolism and death. In individuals aged 18 and older, there are 770 safety signals for different adverse events, and more than 500 of them have a stronger safety signal than myocarditis and pericarditis
In the 12- to 17-year-old age group there are 96 safety signals, and in the 5- to 11-year-old group there are 66, including myocarditis, pericarditis, ventricular dysfunction, cardiac valve incompetency, pericardial and pleural effusion, chest pain, appendicitis and appendectomies, Kawasaki’s disease and vitiligo
The proportions of deaths, which were only provided for the 18-plus age group, was 14% for the COVID jabs compared to 4.7% for all other vaccines
The FDA is also required to perform safety monitoring, using empirical Bayesian data mining. The Epoch Times asked the FDA to release its monitoring results in July 2022 but, like the CDC, the FDA refused, only to admit in December 2022 they’d confirmed the Pfizer shot was linked to pulmonary embolism
In September 2022, The Epoch Times asked the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to release its Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) data mining results. PRR1 measures how common an adverse event is for a specific drug compared to all the other drugs in the database.
According to the standard operating procedures2,3 for the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is run jointly by the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, the CDC is required to perform these data mining analyses.
Not only did the CDC refuse to release the data, but it also provided false information — twice — in response to The Epoch Times’ questions about the monitoring being performed. As reported by The Epoch Times back in September 2022,4 the CDC initially claimed PRR analyses were “outside the agency’s purview” and that no monitoring was being done by them.
Eventually, the agency admitted it was doing PRRs, starting in February 2021, only to later claim they didn’t perform any PRRs until March 2022. The Epoch Times also cited several papers in which the FDA and/or CDC claimed their data mining efforts had come up empty handed.5 Now, we find that was all a pack of lies.
CDC Monitoring Reveals Hundreds of Safety Signals
In reality, the CDC’s PRR monitoring reveals HUNDREDS of safety signals, including Bell’s palsy, blood clots, pulmonary embolism and death — all of which, according to the rules, require thorough investigation to either confirm or rule out a possible link to the shots. As reported by The Epoch Times in early January 2023:6
“The CDC analysis was conducted on adverse events reported from Dec. 14, 2020, to July 29, 2022. The Epoch Times obtained the results through a Freedom of Information Act request after the CDC refused to make the results public …
PRR involves comparing the incidence of a specific adverse event after a specific vaccine to the incidence after all other vaccines. A signal is triggered when three thresholds are met, according to the CDC: a PRR of at least 2, a chi-squared statistic of at least 4, and three or more cases of the event following receipt of the vaccine being analyzed. Chi-squared tests are a form of statistical analysis used to examine data.
The results obtained by The Epoch Times show that there are hundreds of adverse events (AEs) that meet the definition, including serious conditions such as blood clotting in the lungs, intermenstrual bleeding, a lack of oxygen to the heart, and even death. The high numbers, particularly the chi-squared figures, concerned experts.
For many of the events, ‘the chi-squared is so high that, from a Bayesian perspective, the probability that the true rate of the AE of the COVID vaccines is not higher than that of the non-COVID vaccines is essentially zero,’ Norman Fenton, a professor of risk management at Queen Mary University of London, told The Epoch Times in an email after running the numbers through a Bayesian model that provides probabilities based on available information.”
Myopericarditis Is Far From the Only Problem
One of the few side effects of the COVID jabs that the CDC has actually acknowledged is myocarditis (heart inflammation), and a related condition called pericarditis (inflammation of the heart sack). Alas, the PRR monitoring results reveal there are more than 500 other adverse events that have stronger warning signals than either of those conditions.
Josh Guetzkow, an Israeli professor trained in statistics at Princeton University told The Epoch Times:7
“We know that the signal for myocarditis is associated with something that is caused by the mRNA vaccines, so it’s more than reasonable to say that anything with a signal larger than myocarditis/pericarditis should be taken seriously and investigated.”
Guetzkow expanded on his commentary in a January 4, 2023, Substack article.8 Below is a summary list of some of the key findings from the CDC’s PRR analysis. Guetzkow goes deeper in his article, so for more details, I suggest reading it in its entirety.
For even more analyses and commentary, see Fenton’s Substack article, “The CDC’s Data on COVID Vaccine Safety Signals.”9 If you want to investigate the PRR data for yourself, you can download them from The Epoch Times’ January 3, 2023, article.10 You can also find them here.11
In individuals aged 18 and older, there are safety signals for 770 different adverse events, and two-thirds of them (more than 500) have a stronger safety signal than myocarditis and pericarditis. Of those 770 signals, 12 are brand-new conditions that have not been reported following other vaccines.
Topping the list of safety signals are cardiovascular conditions, followed by neurological conditions. In third and fourth place are thromboembolic conditions and pulmonary conditions. Death is sixth on the list and cancer is 11th. Considering the uptick we’ve seen in aggressive cancers, the fact that death tops cancer really says something.
The number of serious adverse events reported between mid-December 2020 and the end of July 2022 (just over 19 months) for the COVID jabs is 5.5 times greater than all serious reports for vaccines given to adults in the U.S. over the last 13 years (approximately 73,000 versus 13,000).
Twice as many COVID jab reports were classified as serious compared to all other vaccines given to adults (11% vs. 5.5%), which meets the definition of a safety signal.
The proportions of reported deaths, which was only provided for the 18+ age group, was 14% for the COVID jabs compared to 4.7% for all other vaccines. As noted by Fenton,12 “If the CDC wish [sic] to claim that the probability a COVID vaccine adverse event results in death is not significantly higher than that of other vaccines the onus is on them to come up with some other causal explanation for this difference.”
In the 12- to 17-year-old age group, there are 96 safety signals, including myocarditis, pericarditis, Bell’s Palsy, genital ulcerations, high blood pressure, menstrual irregularities, cardiac valve incompetency, pulmonary embolism, cardiac arrhythmia, thrombosis, pericardial and pleural effusion, appendicitis and perforated appendix, immune thrombocytopenia, chest pain and increased troponin levels (indicative of heart damage).
In the 5- to 11-year-old group, there are 66 safety signals, including myocarditis, pericarditis, ventricular dysfunction, cardiac valve incompetency, pericardial and pleural effusion, chest pain, appendicitis and appendectomies, Kawasaki’s disease, menstrual irregularities and vitiligo.
It’s worth noting that the CDC didn’t perform its first safety signal analysis until March 25, 2022 — 15 months after the shots were rolled out. Why the long wait — especially since the CDC had announced it would begin monitoring in early 2021? Just consider, for a moment, how many lives have been lost because the CDC failed to properly monitor safety, and still drags its feet when it comes to warning people about the risks involved.
FDA Still Refuses to Share Safety Data
The FDA is also required to perform safety monitoring using another technique called Empirical Bayesian data mining. The Epoch Times first asked the FDA to release its monitoring results back in July 2022,13,14 but like the CDC, the FDA refused and insisted the data showed no evidence of serious adverse effects. In other words, “Just trust us. We’re experts.”
According to the FDA, the only potential signal they’d found through April 16, 2021, was for raised body temperature.15 Then, in mid-December 2022 — just four months after The Epoch Times tried to get these data — the FDA announced that pulmonary embolism (blood clots that block blood flow in the lungs) had met the threshold for a statistical signal, and continued to meet the criteria after in-depth evaluation, but it was only linked to the Pfizer jab.16
As noted by The Epoch Times,17 pulmonary embolism is also identified as a signal in the CDC’s PRR analysis for individuals as young as 12, which really ought to strengthen concerns.
The FDA also admitted it had already evaluated three other warning signals: lack of oxygen to the heart, immune thrombocytopenia (a blood platelet disorder) and intravascular coagulation (a type of blood clotting), but none of these continued to meet the threshold after analysis.
If the FDA was evaluating four warning signals, why did they tell The Epoch Times there was no evidence of ill effects, and why did they claim the only potential signal they’d found was slight fever? Are we to believe they discovered these signals after The Epoch Times asked for the monitoring results and then completed four in-depth investigations in four months?
Whatever the truth, it’s clear that both the CDC and FDA are not being transparent. Worse, they’ve hidden data, knowing it could mean the difference between life and death for hundreds of thousands of people.
CDC Has Ignored Clear ‘Death’ Signal
The CDC ignoring a clear signal for death is probably the most egregious example of its failures as a public health institution. As early as July 2021, Matthew Crawford published a three-part series18,19,20 detailing how the CDC was hiding safety signals by using a flawed formula. In August that year, Steve Kirsch informed the agency of these problems, but was ignored.
Then, in an October 3, 2022, article,21 Kirsch went on to show how “death” should have triggered a signal even when using the CDC’s flawed formula (which is described in its VAERS standard operating procedures manual22). Here’s an excerpt:23
“The formula the CDC uses for generating safety signals is fundamentally flawed; a ‘bad’ vaccine with lots of adverse events will ‘mask’ large numbers of important safety signals … Let me summarize the key points for you in a nutshell: PRR [proportional reporting ratio] is defined on page 16 in the CDC document24 as follows … Table 4. Calculation of Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR)
A ‘safety signal’ is defined on page 16 in the CDC document as a PRR of at least 2, chi-squared statistic of at least 4, and 3 or more cases of the AE [adverse event] following receipt of the specific vaccine of interest. This is the famous ‘and clause.’ Here it is from the document: 2.3.1 Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR)
Only someone who is incompetent or is deliberately trying to make the vaccines look safe would use the word ‘and’ in the definition of a safety signal.
Using ‘and’ means that if any one of the conditions isn’t satisfied, no safety signal will be generated. As noted below, the PRR will rarely trigger which virtually guarantees that most events generated by an unsafe vaccine will never get flagged.
The PRR value for the COVID vaccines will rarely exceed 1 because there are so many adverse events from the COVID vaccine because it is so dangerous (i.e., B in the formula is a huge number) so the numerator is always near zero. Hence, the ‘safety signal’ is rarely triggered because the vaccine is so dangerous.”
A Fictitious Example
Using a fictitious vaccine as the example, Kirsch explained how an exceptionally dangerous vaccine will fly under the radar and not get flagged, thanks to this flawed formula:25
“Suppose we have the world’s most dangerous vaccine that causes adverse events in everyone who gets it and generates 25,000 different adverse events, and each adverse event has 1,000 instances.
That means that the numerator is 1,000/25,000,000 which is just 40 events per million reported events. Now let’s look at actuals for something like deaths. For all other vaccines, there are 6,200 deaths and 1 million adverse events total.
Since 40 per million is less than 6,200 deaths per million, we are not even close to generating a safety signal for deaths from our hypothetical vaccine which killed 1,000 people in a year … The point is that a dangerous vaccine can look very ‘safe’ using the PRR formula.”
Calculating Death Signal for the COVID Jab
Next, Kirsch calculates the PRR for death for the COVID jab — using VAERS data and the CDC’s definitions and formula. As of December 31, 2019, there were 6,157 deaths and 918,717 adverse events total for all vaccines other than the COVID shot. As of September 23, 2022, there were 31,214 deaths and 1.4 million adverse events total for the COVID jabs. Here’s the formula as explained by Kirsch:26
“PRR = (31,214/1.4e6) / (6,157/918,717) = 3.32, which exceeds the required threshold of 2. In other words, the COVID vaccine is so deadly that even with all the adverse events generated by the vaccine, the death signal did not get drowned out!
But there is still the chi-square test. Chi-square test results were 18,549 for ‘death,’ which greatly exceeds the required threshold of 4. The CDC chi-square test is clearly satisfied for the COVID vaccine. Because the death signal is so huge, it even survived the PRR test.
This means that even using the CDCs own erroneous … formula, all three criteria were satisfied:
PRR>2 [PRR greater than 2]: It was 3.32
Chi-square>2 [Chi-square greater than 2]: It was 18,549
3 or more reports: There were over 31,214 death reports received by VAERS … which is more than 3
A safety signal should have been generated but wasn’t. Why not? … Hundreds of thousands of American lives have been lost due to the inability of the CDC to deploy their own flawed safety signal analysis … It’s been known since at least 2004 that using reporting odds ratio (ROR) is a better estimate of relative risk than PRR.27 I don’t know why the CDC doesn’t use it.”
The CDC is also hiding the severity of side effects in other ways. As explained by Fenton,28 the way side effects are categorized by the CDC help obfuscate the scale of certain problems. For example, “cardiac failure acute,” “cardiac failure,” “infarction,” “myocardial strain” and “myocardial fibrosis” are listed as separate categories, even though in real life they’re all potential effects of myocarditis.
By separating them, you end up with fewer frequency counts per category, thereby giving you an underpowered chi-square test so that a warning signal is not triggered. If related categories were merged, far stronger safety signals would likely emerge.
CDC Has No Reasonable Defense
The CDC is responsible for monitoring both VAERS and V-Safe, and between these two databases, there’s no possible way they could ever say they didn’t know the shots were harming and killing millions of Americans.
The CDC also has access to other databases, including the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED), which (before it was intentionally altered29) showed massive increases in debilitating and lethal conditions, including a tripling of cancer cases.30
The findings in these databases have never been brought forward during any of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meetings or the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meetings, at which members have repeatedly voted to authorize the jabs to people of all ages, including infants and pregnant women.
They even added these toxic shots to the childhood vaccine schedule — which allows states to mandate them for school attendance — without addressing any of the 66 safety signals found in the CDC’s PRR analysis. The fact of the matter is that the CDC has known about these risks all along, and there’s no excuse for not sharing and acting on these data.
Help Spread the Word
Mainstream media are ignoring all of this, so help spread the word. Everyone needs to know what the CDC’s safety data reveal. To that end, here are a few suggestions for how you can help:
Write or call your members of Congress and ask them to investigate the CDC’s safety monitoring — We cannot have a public safety agency that is incapable of monitoring safety and taking appropriate action when problems are found, be it correcting a flawed formula or announcing that a safety signal has been detected. Of course, they must also publish their findings once an investigation has been made.
Contact your local newspaper and urge them to investigate and report on the CDC’s failure to act on safety signals.
Share the data on social media and ask why no one in the media, Congress, academia or medical community is investigating these matters.
Share this information with your doctor and members of the medical community.
Also share it with university administrators, and ask them to explain how and why, in light of these data, they are still mandating COVID shots.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MERCOLA Take Control of Your Healthhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMERCOLA Take Control of Your Health2023-01-23 05:05:172023-01-24 07:10:59Mind Blowing: CDC Forced to Tell How Deadly the COVID Jab Is