‘Shame And Horror’: Tucker Carlson Doesn’t Mince Words Blasting Doctors Who Perform Sex Changes On Kids

Fox News host Tucker Carlson blasted doctors and universities involved in performing sex changes on children Wednesday evening.

“Never has American medicine been more transparently a racket than it is right now. With the most basic ethical guidelines gone, completely ignored, we should not be surprised to learn that some hospitals have decided to monetize the mental anguish of children,” Carlson said in reference to recent news stories on hospitals providing sex change treatments to children. “Consider the University of California at San Francisco hospital. Supposedly it’s one of the best in the world, UCSF, despite its august reputation, is not even trying to behave responsibly when it comes to children who have been convinced by TikTok they should change their sex.”

Carlson claimed that this meant that groups like the Human Rights Campaign and other activists supported such procedures, while hospitals viewed the procedures as moneymakers, playing a video from one administrator at Vanderbilt University shared by Daily Wire columnist Matt Walsh that reportedly outlined how one procedure brought in $40,000.

Walsh posted a thread on Twitter featuring videos of officials at Vanderbilt University Tuesday. Walsh later tweeted that Vanderbilt took the page down after his initial thread on the social media site.

WATCH:

Republican Gov. Bill Lee and Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee called for an investigation into the practices at Vanderbilt in response to the reports. The university denied wrongdoing in a statement, according to Fox News.

“The truth is people who are horrified for this are not the bad actors. Vanderbilt is a bad actor. They just admitted on camera to castrating children as young as 13 years old,” Carlson said.

“Five years from now, we’re going to look back at this, like a lot of things we’ve done recently, like destroying public art and statues, and the Covid vaccine, so many of the things we done without thinking about it in an environment where no one is allowed to protest and we’re going to look back at shame and horror,” Carlson said.

AUTHOR

HAROLD HUTCHISON

Reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Stacey Abrams Claims Six-Week Fetal Heartbeats ‘Manufactured’ To Help Men Control Women

Chicago Children’s Hospital Promotes Sex Toys And Gender Affirming Tools For Schools

Hospital Assigned ‘Trans Buddies’ To Pressure Doctors Into Affirming Children’s Gender Identity

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

New California Law Legalizes ‘Human Composting after Death’ to Combat Climate Change

What next, Gavin? Braised human hearts at your favorite bistro, French Laundry? Seriously, cannibalism is not far behind. Democrats are taking dehumanizing Nazi practices one step further.

California Will Allow Human Composting After Death to Combat Climate Change

By: Paul Bois, Breitbart, September 22, 2022:

The far-left state of California further embraced neo-paganism this week when Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law allowing the practice of composting dead human beings to better combat climate change.

Citing the high CO2 emissions associated with cremation, the bill will give people the option to give their dead remains over to a process known as natural organic reduction (NOR) should they not want to be buried or cremated.

“The process involves placing the body inside a long, reusable steel container along with wood chips and flowers to aerate it – allowing microbes and bacteria to break down the remains,” according to the Daily Mail. “One month later, the remains will fully decompose and be turned into soil.”

The act of cremation reportedly accounts for 360,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.

California Democrat Assembly member Cristina Garcia, who authored the bill, praised NOR as a “more environmentally friendly” practice that will give people more options for their desired burial. She wrote:

With climate change and sea-level rise as very real threats to our environment, this is an alternative method of final disposition that won’t contribute emissions into our atmosphere. I look forward to continuing my legacy to fight for clean air by using my reduced remains to plant a tree.

The bill will make it illegal to combine human remains without permission or unless the two are related. It will also be illegal to sell the soil or use it for agricultural purposes.

The Catholic Church strongly opposes the practice of NOR, charging it was meant for livestock.

“NOR uses essentially the same process as a home gardening composting system,” Kathleen Domingo, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, told SFGATE. She added:

These methods of disposal were used to lessen the possibility of disease being transmitted by the dead carcass. Using these same methods for the ‘transformation’ of human remains can create an unfortunate spiritual, emotional and psychological distancing from the deceased.

The law will not take effect until 2027 and follows the states of Washington, Colorado, and Oregon.

AUTHOR

RELATED VIDEO: Unobtanium

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Climate Emergency’ Is a Hoax, International Study Finds

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

It’s ‘Unreasonable’ for Banks to Share Your Financial Info With the Government, 8 in 10 Americans Say

About a fifth, 21%, think it is reasonable.


hat if your bank shared what you spent your money on with the federal government? By law, banks and other financial institutions (like car dealerships, jewelers, pawn shops) are required to report certain types of purchases people make to financial regulators. What do Americans think of this?

new Cato Institute national survey of 2,000 U.S. adults conducted by YouGov finds that 79% of Americans believe it is “unreasonable” for your bank to share your financial records and bank transactions with the federal government. About a fifth, 21%, think it is reasonable.

Instead, and overwhelming majority—83%—think that the government should first obtain a warrant to access your financial records, while 17% think a warrant shouldn’t be needed.

Even in an era of hyper‐​partisanship, Democrats, Republicans, and independents agree on this issue. Majorities of Democrats (68%), independents (83%), and Republicans (89%) think it’s unreasonable for your bank to share your financial records with the government. Similarly, overwhelming majorities of Democrats (82%), independents (76%), and Republicans (87%) think a warrant should be needed first.

The issue somewhat divides a portion of the Democratic coalition. Americans who identify as “very liberal” were the most likely (41%) group to think it’s reasonable for banks to share customers’ records with the federal government compared with 26% of mainline liberals.  Nevertheless, strong majorities of both strong liberals (59%) and moderate liberals (74%) believe sharing what people buy with the federal government is unacceptable. Furthermore, the same percentage (86%) of both say the government should need to obtain a warrant before reviewing purchases people make.

The Cato Institute 2022 Financial Privacy National Survey was designed and conducted by the Cato Institute in collaboration with YouGov. YouGov collected responses online August 17 to 23, 2022, from a national sample of 2,000 Americans 18 years of age and older. Restrictions are put in place to ensure that only the people selected and contacted by YouGov are allowed to participate. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 2.39 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence.

The topline questionnaire and survey methodology can be found here. If you would like to speak to Dr. Ekins on the poll’s results please contact pr@​cato.​org or 202–789-5200.

This Cato Institute article was republished with permission.

AUTHOR

Emily Ekins

Emily Ekins is a research fellow at the Cato Institute.

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

Not a Single U.S. State Is Requiring Kids to Get Vaccinated to Attend Public School. Why?

Economics may offer a clue as to why not one state is mandating vaccination to attend school in the 2022-2023 school year, even though many government officials support coercive vaccination policies.


September has arrived and many children are back in public schools (though fewer than previous years).

At a recent event, one parent joked to me we’re now officially in “vaccine season.” The comment made me laugh, but there’s at least a kernel of truth to it. It’s not unusual for states to require that children receive an array of vaccinations—from polio, diphtheria, and chickenpox to measles, mumps, and meningitis—to be enrolled in a public school system.

One vaccine that parents will not find on any state’s required list in 2022 are the Covid-19 shots, which have been a source of great debate in the US and other countries.

While a few US cities continue to push vaccine mandates to attend, Pew Charitable Trusts pointed out earlier this year that states have been surprisingly wary of mandating Covid shots for children.

“[Only] two states—California and Louisiana—have added COVID-19 vaccines to the list of immunizations mandated for schoolchildren,” Michael Ollove pointed out in January. “Both requirements would be enforced next school year, and then only if the vaccines receive full authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.”

Things have changed since then.

In May, Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards announced the Louisiana Department of Health would not require children attending the state’s daycares or K-12 schools to provide proof of vaccination. California, which in October 2021 became the first state to announce Covid vaccine requirements for school, announced in April that it would not require vaccination, noting the vaccines had not at that time been approved by the FDA for all school-age children. (They are now.)

The fact that not a single US state is requiring students to be vaccinated against Covid to attend K-12 school is probably a bit surprising to readers. (It was to this author.)

I’d like to think that policymakers and politicians finally woke up to the fact that vaccine mandates are immoral, inhumane, and a clear violation of bodily integrity. But that seems unlikely considering that many vaccine mandates remain in place, particularly at the federal and municipal levels.

It’s also possible that lawmakers have realized vaccinated individuals can still get sick and spread the virus, and therefore concluded vaccinations are a matter of personal health, not public health. Yet once again this theory is undermined by the presence of other vaccine mandates that remain in place. Some may contend that we’ve simply beaten the virus and mandates are no longer necessary, but official statistics show Covid deaths and cases remain stubbornly high.

So what’s the answer?

What’s most likely is that political considerations are at play. Yet this thesis too, at first blush, appears to be undermined by the reality that polls show Americans support Covid vaccine mandates in schools.

Some basic economics, however, can help us see that the politics are more complicated than that.

Public Choice Theory is a field of economics pioneered by the Nobel Prize-winning economist James M. Buchanan and economist Gordon Tullock. It rests on a simple assumption: politicians and bureaucrats make decisions primarily based on self-interest and incentives just like everyone else, not out of an altruistic goal of serving “the public good.” (This is why public choice economists have dubbed it “politics without romance.”)

I’ve previously pointed out that politicians were incentivized during the pandemic to embrace Covid restrictions even if they didn’t work because of the political climate in 2020. The absence of government regulations was viewed as actual violence by some public health experts, and those who didn’t embrace strict interventions were accused of genocide.

Moreover, the costs of these regulations tended to be dispersed, delayed, and hidden from view. Depression, drug overdoses, lost learning, and speech impediments were among the consequences of NPIs (Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions) imposed by governments. But the results of these policies were relatively “unseen” (to use a term from the 19th century economist Frederic Bastiat), at least compared to Covid deaths, which public health officials, the media, and even ordinary citizens tracked obsessively.

The costs of NPIs were quite serious, but they were quite low politically for the reasons stated above. The political costs of keeping a state open were much higher. No politician wants to explain why Mrs. Jackson, the 60-year-old math teacher, died from Covid while schools in your state remained open. (It would be just as tragic if Mrs. Jackson had died at home when schools were closed, but at least no politician would be blamed for her death in this case.)

In other words, the incentive structure early in the pandemic encouraged interventions, even if those interventions were ineffective and ultimately ended up doing more harm than good.

The incentive structure for vaccines is very different, particularly for young people.

Children can and do die from Covid, of course, but their risk is extremely low compared to other age groups. Even more important, perhaps, is that the costs of mandatory vaccination are not delayed, dispersed, or hidden from view. They are immediate, concentrated, and highly visible.

The sad reality is that vaccine injuries, though rare, do occur, as the CDC notes. And when they occur, they are the opposite of “unseen,” which means the political repercussions have the potential to be swift—and severe.

After all, when a young person dies after taking a vaccine designed to protect him, it’s a tragedy. When a young person dies of myocarditis after taking a vaccine he was forced to take to attend school, it’s a tragic event and a political disaster with a wide radius, even if some studies show the risk of myocarditis is greater after Covid infection than after Covid vaccination.

All of this analysis is dark and a bit troubling, of course. Now you see why they call public choice theory “politics without romance.”

But it might help explain why even state leaders comfortable with mandatory vaccination and vaccine passports have been reluctant to compel children to get the shot, even if they truly believe it could save lives.

Whether mandatory vaccination would have done more harm than good is a question we’ll never know, though it’s a debate that will likely continue for years to come. But because vaccines have the power to both save lives and claim lives, the decision to accept or refuse them can only morally be made by one person: the individual (or parents, if the decision concerns a child).

So at least state leaders are getting it right this time, even if they are doing so for the wrong reasons.

AUTHOR

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. 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.

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

Federal Court Upholds Texas Social Media Bill, Rules Corporations Do Not Have ‘Right’ To Censor

The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals preserved Texas state law Friday that would stop large social media platforms from restricting particular opinions.

Texas’ HB 20 was signed last year and generally prohibits platforms with over 50 million monthly U.S. users from censoring them based on their viewpoints. The Computer Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and the NetChoice organization, representing social media companies, argued that aspects of the law were unconstitutional but failed to convince the court.

“In urging such sweeping relief, the platforms offer a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment,” the court’s majority decision said. “That Amendment, of course, protects every person’s right to ‘the freedom of speech.’ But the platforms argue that buried somewhere in the person’s enumerated right to free speech lies a corporation’s unenumerated right to muzzle speech.”

The appeals court must give the district court that previously decided the case written instructions for the law to become effective, according to Politico. A 5-4 May U.S. Supreme Court ruling had halted the law from going into force after an emergency request by the CCIA and NetChoice.

Appealing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton celebrated the circuit court’s decision Friday, tweeting, “#BigTech CANNOT censor the political voices of ANY Texan! The 5th Circuit ‘reject[s] the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say.”

CCIA President Matt Schruers decried the ruling, stating, “Forcing private companies to give equal treatment to all viewpoints on their platforms places foreign propaganda and extremism on equal footing with decent Internet users, and places Americans at risk,” according to The Hill.

The Supreme Court could still be asked to directly consider the law’s validity, the outlet reported.

In May, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a block on enforcing parts of Florida Senate Bill 7072, which would require social media platforms to explain the reasons for individual acts of supposed censorship, deplatforming and shadow banning and stop them from censoring a “journalistic enterprise based on the content of its publication or broadcast,” according to The National Law Review.

“We are disappointed that the Fifth Circuit’s split decision undermines First Amendment protections and creates a circuit split with the unanimous decision of the Eleventh Circuit,” NetChoice Vice President and General Counsel Carl Szabo said in a Friday press release. “We remain convinced that when the U.S. Supreme Court hears one of our cases, it will uphold the First Amendment rights of websites, platforms, and apps.”

NetChoice declined the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment. The CCIA did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

AUTHOR

TREVOR SCHAKOHL

Legal reporter. 

RELATED ARTICLE: Facebook Spied On Conservative Users’ Private Messages, Fed ‘Leads’ To The FBI: REPORT

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

New Poll Delivers Some Alarming News For Democrats

Voters overwhelmingly trust Republicans to manage the economy, a new poll ahead of this year’s midterm elections suggests, while

Roughly 52% of voters said that they trust Republicans to manage the economy, compared to 38% for Democrats, while only 1% of respondents said they agreed with the proposals of both parties to manage it, according to a poll conducted by the Times and Siena College, which measured the relative strength of both parties in advance of the election scheduled on Nov. 8. The economy has been the most important issue to voters heading into the polls; in a July edition of the same NYT/Siena poll, 20% called it the “most important problem facing the country today,” while roughly 76% said that it would be “extremely important” to them as they vote.

Democrats have sought to focus their campaign narrative on social issues such as abortion in the wake of Roe v. Wade’s overturning by the Supreme Court, as well as gun regulations following mass shootings across the country over the summer.

However, efforts to place social issues at the forefront of voters’ minds do not appear to be working. The NYT/Sienna poll revealed that voters consider economic issues more important to their voting decision than social issues, by an 18-point margin.

The polls come at a time of bad economic news for the Biden administration before November’s election. The White House recently released an economic blueprint listing its various accomplishments, with President Joe Biden holding a series of events to highlight the “Inflation Reduction Act,” a massive spending package that his administration had proposed to the Democratic-controlled Congress.

The Consumer Price Index, an aggregate measure of inflation, increased by 0.1% from July to August, though tempered by reductions in the price of gasoline even as food costs rose, according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. The news poorly affected stock markets over the week, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average falling by 1,600 points beginning Monday, closing for the week at 30,841.05 points.

There was some good news for Democrats, who currently control Congress and the White House. Between July and September, the number of voters who believe the country is “heading on the right track” increased modestly, from 27% to 50% for Democrats, and 9% to 27% for independents; however, 53% expressed disapproval of Biden’s performance in office.

The poll surveyed 1,399 registered voters nationwide from Sept. 6 to 14, 2022, its margin of sampling error was +/- 3.6 percentage points.

The White House and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had not responded to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

AUTHOR

ARJUN SINGH

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Three ‘October Surprises’ Loom Over The Midterms. Will They Sink The Dems – And America, Too?

Federal Court Upholds Texas Social Media Bill, Rules Corporations Do Not Have ‘Right’ To Censor

John Kerry, Who Owned 5 Homes And A Private Jet, Cautions Impoverished African Nations Against Natural Gas Projects

NBC Deletes Tweet Comparing Immigrants To ‘Trash’

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

Biden’s ‘Lie & Deny’ Agenda is Destroying America’s Peace, Prosperity & Health

“Lie and deny are the Biden, Harris and Democrat Party’s mantras leading into the 2022 midterms and beyond.” — Dr. Rich Swier


We have decided to do an exposé on the Democrat’s plan to destroy our peace, prosperity and health, and healthcare, for everyone in the United States of America.

Many have called what their doing by different names: woke, cultural war, anti-American, semi-fascist, Communist, socialist, red-green-rainbow alliance and traitorous.

The fundamental agenda of Democrats is to lie and then deny.

Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels said,

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”

The Democrat Party and their leaders, i.e. Biden and Harris, are telling big lies and repeating them over and over again.

Biden, Harris and the White House have been lying and denying on issues like:

  1. Kamala Harris repeatedly stating that there is no border crisis.
  2. Biden, Kamala Harris, Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortes, Al Gore and the Department of Energy believing that mankind can control the weather and climate by changing they’re behaviors, i.e. going green, buying all electric cars, stop all fossil fuels, stop eating meat, etc.
  3. Biden’s policies that male and female are inter-changeable and one can choose their personal pronouns and gender at will.
  4. Biden and his Department of Education believing that it is the governments duty to teach underaged children, K-3, about sex and any parent who speaks out against this is designated as a domestic terrorists by Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland.
  5. Being queer (LGBTQ+) is a healthy behavior and life choice that must be encouraged, promoted, funded and even mandated.
  6. Taking Covid vaccines is the only right thing to do. Not to get vaxxed is a form of fascism.

Let’s look at these and other issues that the Democrats from the school house to the White House are promoting.

PEACE

Since taking office we have seen the world respect for America disappear. Today, under Biden, we have morphed from  a peaceful world under President Trump, e.g. the Abraham Accords, into a global war with our sworn enemies: Russia, Iran, China and North Korea.

It all began with the Biden administration’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The withdrawal from Afghanistan showed the incompetence and weaknesses in Biden and his administration including Biden’s Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark A. Milley.

In 2017 President Donald J. Trump warned that any hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan would be disastrous. Watch:

Trump made the following key points that upon taking office Biden ignored:

  1. First, our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made, especially the sacrifices of lives.
  2. Second, the consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable.  9/11, the worst terrorist attack in our history, was planned and directed from Afghanistan because that country was ruled by a government that gave comfort and shelter to terrorists.
  3. We must address the reality of the world as it exists right now — the threats we face, and the confronting of all of the problems of today, and extremely predictable consequences of a hasty withdrawal.

Next came Biden’s rush to war with Russia. Here are just a few of the key columns we published about Biden, his administration and the consequences of U.S. involvement in the Russia-Ukraine War:

  1. Biden Threatened Ex-Ukraine President Poroshenko With Assassination If He Cooperated With Trump
  2. United States D.O.D issued a contract for ‘COVID-19 Research’ in Ukraine 3 months before COVID-19 officially existed
  3. Biden Sent Baby Formula to Ukraine After He Learned About U.S. Shortage
  4. Russia Looking Forward To Picking Up $40 Billion In New Equipment After U.S. Abandons Ukraine
  5. Biden’s Weakness on the Ukraine-Russia War is a Threat to America
  6. Biden Regime Tells Underpaid U.S. Troops Struggling To Feed Their Families To Apply for Welfare While Giving Ukraine’s Military Billions

We now understand that Biden’s priority and our peace is being forfeited in order to support the Ukrainians, Ukraine’s military and the war rather than taking care of American citizens and our military families.

The Ukraine War is bringing hell upon every American citizen!

PROSPERITY

Again, Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph Gobbles said,

“What you get, you don’t want, and what you want, you don’t get.”

This short sentence explains what Americans are facing. What we want is being taken away and what we’re getting is clearly something none of us ever wanted.

Lie and deny is rampant in the Biden White House down to Democrats in Congress when it comes to the American economy.

Some examples of Biden lying and denying on the U.S. economy include:

  1. Saying there is no inflation. Biden in a statement released Thursday, July 28th, 2022 said, “Coming off of last year’s historic economic growth — and regaining all the private sector jobs lost during the pandemic crisis — it’s no surprise that the economy is slowing down as the Federal Reserve acts to bring down inflation.” In 2021 there was no historic economic growth. The Federal Reserve just warned that the economy will get worse, not better.
  2. America’s gross domestic product fell by 0.9% on an annualized basis from April through June 2022 according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. It is commonly understood that to be in a recession there must be two consecutive quarters of the country’s gross domestic product shrinking. The Business Cycle Dating Committee officially defines when the U.S. economy is in a recession, and they define a recession as involving “a significant decline in economic activity that is spread across the economy and lasts more than a few months.” In other words America is in a recession.

WATCH: This September 2nd, 2022 video titled What If The U.S. Economy CRASHES to understand where our economy is at.

HEALTH & HEALTHCARE

Mothers have said since time immemorial that if you have your health you have everything.

QUESTION: Who is truly in control of your healthcare and thereby your health?

In our September 11th, 2022 column titled How Electronic Heath Records Have Destroyed Doctor Patient Confidentiality we reported,

There was a time because of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) of 1996 when every American’s health record was kept secret. The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention website reads,

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is a federal law that required the creation of national standards to protect sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient’s consent or knowledge. 

Medical information confidentiality was the one thing that doctors and patients could depend upon. HIPPA was designed specifically to insure “nothing” would be shared without the “patient’s consent.”

That consent has now been compromised.

Today there is a new weapon that is being used to destroy doctor patient confidentiality—Electronic Health Records (EHRs).

QUESTION: Why are EHRs a threat to Doctor—Patient Confidentiality?

ANSWER: EHRs are a ball and chain to physicians and patients alike.

The Destruction of Doctor Patient Confidentiality

There are three issues that are key to understand why doctor patient confidentiality is a myth.

  1. Doctors who use EHR are monitored.
  2. Patients don’t know who is looking at their medical records.
  3. Neither a patient nor his or her doctors have any say on protecting confidential medical information.

EMRs are now widely used.

Click here to view a chart titled Trends in EHR adoption show increasing use of advanced functionality.

As Mobius.MD’s Remy Franklin states, “This quickly evolving [EHR] industry is still finding solutions to key challenges like interoperability and security, but the inevitable era of EHRs has arrived.

Here is one glaring example of what happens today with EHRs. In his Newsletter Steve Kirsch wrote an article titled Why doctors aren’t speaking out. Steve wrote about how we are headed for a perfect storm with escalating health needs and a shortage of doctors because of how we treat them. One doctor wrote to Steve and stated,

Dear Steve,

You ask why doctors are silent. The electronic medical records (EMRs) are a ball and chain to physicians. We are tracked through them. When I wrote a prescription for Ivermectin for a patient, with informed consent (she was vaccinated), I received 5 letters threatening my medical license, my hospital privileges, and my insurance contracts. I would not have received 5 letters if I killed someone in negligence or malpractice. If I have my license pulled, I will no longer be able to help my patients.

I speak to patients on a one-on-one basis, but speaking out would destroy my family. I have children.

Today, EMRs are being used to attack doctors who don’t comply with political practices of keeping patients from getting the treatments, in this case the use of Ivermectin, to prevent the flu.

Never have we seen doctors, nurses, hospitals so afraid to speak out against government medical mandates.

We went to a pulmonologist recently and all of the office and professional staff and patients were required to wear a mask even though there is study after study reporting that masks don’t work to prevent the spread of the Covid flu. When I asked why, as experts in lung issues, they still required wearing masks they were silent.

Why, because, like the doctor above, they are afraid of standing against the “statist medical-government complex.”

The Bottom Line

On September 17th, 2022 GOPUSA.com wrote,

In another troubling sign the Biden administration views distrusting American citizens as dangerous and subversive, the public learned this week the FBI has been reading private Facebook posts, and labeling the writer a domestic terrorist threat, if you questioned the 2020 presidential election. Those comments then earned the Facebook user his or her own investigation by their own disapproving government.

In an exclusive story published this week, The New York Post quotes Department of Justice whistleblowers who describe a 19-month operation in which a Facebook employee secretly sent online messages to the FBI if the author complained about their government – specifically if they questioned if Joe Biden legally defeated Donald Trump. [Emphasis added]

Read more.

The fundamental issue is whomever controls our peace, prosperity and health, and healthcare controls the individual.

The U.S. Constitution was created to give power over our lives, liberties and happiness to we the people and limit the role of the federal government. The founding fathers established a Constitutional Republican form of governance. Not a democracy.

Biden’s “lying & denying” agenda is designed to grow the powers of the federal government to the point that today our individual ability to control our peace, prosperity and health, and healthcare is quickly approaching zero.

In the dystopian novel 1984 O’Brien, the grand inquisitor of the totalitarian regime in Orwell’s novel, says, “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”

Today we have a new Grand Inquisitor of the Democrat’s totalitarian regime—Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.

But he is just a figurehead. It’s the dystopian bureaucracy that is our true enemy.

The dystopian bureaucracy began establishing it’s totalitarian regime on January 6th, 2021 by arresting peaceful protestors in Washington D.C., which ultimately lead to the armed raid and ransacking of the personal residence of a former president of these United States named Mar-a-Lago.

We are fast approaching that time when the federal government’s boot will be stomping on each and everyone of our faces—for ever.

Don’t believe this? Then just look at how the FBI is arresting Biden and the Democrats political opponents en masse. If you believe in making and keeping America great you are an enemy of the state and are sent to their federal gulags for reprogramming.

Lie and Deny we are believe that War is Peace—Freedom is Slavery—Ignorance is Strength.

It is only be a matter of time before they come for us.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

FBI Agents Execute Warrant Against Mike Lindell at Fast Food Drive-Thru

Biden DOJ Unlawfully Subpoenas Trump Allies, Tucker Says; Details Demands

FBI Makes 6,000 MORE Arrests

Trump-Approved ‘Special Master’ Makes Big First Move in Mar-a-Lago Raid Case

Judge Releases New Portion of Mar-a-Lago Affidavit: Look What Biden DOJ Wanted

Saudi Writer: We Must Provide Parents, Educators With Tools To Combat Homosexuality

Key Inflation Indicator Remains Sky-High In Another Worrying Sign For Businesses

The prices faced by producers rose by 8.7% year-on-year in August as inflation continues to challenge businesses, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

While down from the near-record highs of 11.3% in June, the current price increases were over 4 times the typical rates — between 1 and 3% annually — seen in 2019 and 2020according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Producer Price Index (PPI), which measures the prices suppliers charge businesses and other customers. These elevated rates mirror Tuesday’s Consumer Price Index (CPI), which pegged inflation at 8.3%, according to the BLS.

A significant component of the decrease was accounted for by a 5.2% decline in energy costs, according to the BLS. Mirroring July’s results, the index for foods and all goods less food and energy rose by 0.1% and 0.2%, respectively.

The index for all products other than foods, energy and trade services rose by 5.6% year-over-year,  less than the 5.8% posted in July, according to the BLS. The price for unprocessed goods was still incredibly elevated, at 36.1%, more than July’s value of 30.4%, as a spike in the price of natural gas kept prices up.

The Biden administration has been taking a victory lap on economic conditions, with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen claiming the economy had undergone one of the fastest recoveries in modern history. President Joe Biden claimed that the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act had helped to combat inflation “at the kitchen table,” in a Tuesday speech at the White House.

Simultaneously, the BLS’ monthly CPI report placed inflation at 8.3%, and found that food prices had increased 13.5% annually. Rent and electricity were also up, 6.7% and 15.8% respectively.

Increased rent prices have put pressure on families in particular, with the average cost of a single family rental home up about 13.4% this year, according to CNBC. At a median cost of $2,495 per month, families who might otherwise save to purchase a house are being priced out of home ownership, CNBC reported.

Gas prices also remained incredibly elevated, despite having fallen 12.2% month-on-month, and were still up 25.6% compared to the same time last year, the BLS reported.

AUTHOR

JOHN HUGH DEMASTRI

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Food Prices Hit 40-Year High, Keep Breaking Records Every Month

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

What Are the Top Abused Prescription Drugs?

The illegal manufacturing of drugs and counterfeit street drugs is a significant problem in the U.S. today. In fact, drug abuse can happen to millions of people with a legal prescription written by a licensed doctor and filled by a licensed pharmacist. But with more than 20,000 prescription medications approved by the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the market today, it can be challenging to understand which of these drugs is especially prone to abuse. Here are some of the top abused drugs from that list.

Ranking Drug Abuse Is Tricky

Many factors come into play when determining how abusive a drug is. For one, we can rank drugs based on their dosage size or their overall potency compared to others. We can also compare drugs based on their drug class, deciding which drug class has a higher abuse potential than others. Some might suggest comparing substances by using the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)’s drug schedule list, which ranks drugs based on their addictive potential and medical use.

Another way of comparison is to take the statistics of drug overdoses and fatalities along with national drug use surveys to discover trends that occur with certain drugs on all lists. However, none of these approaches can provide us with a full picture. Many factors can contribute to drug abuse, including biology, family history, metabolism, and stress factors, which can vary from person to person.

Because of this, it is important to know that this list is not exhaustive or in any particular order. Instead, it will include the main prescription drugs that seem to check most, if not all, the category “boxes” mentioned above for abuse potential.

Benzodiazepines

Benzodiazepines were once the most widely used prescription drug in America. The drugs were developed and promoted in the aftermath of barbiturate drug use and were believed to be a safe alternative to treating a wide variety of symptoms, including anxiety, insomnia, muscle spasms, and seizures. These drugs suppress the central nervous system and produce a relaxing sensation of euphoria, similar to alcohol. Multiple kinds of benzodiazepines are on the market. Most people have heard of Xanax, Klonopin, Ativan, and Valium, to name a few.

Each of these benzos varies in its onset of action (how fast it begins working) and duration of action (how long it works). Depending on what the symptoms are, a doctor will prescribe the benzodiazepine that best treats a particular symptom. Unfortunately, these drugs quickly gained a reputation for causing abuse and addiction that their forerunner barbiturate drugs had already gained. In fact, some medical professionals consider the benzodiazepine abuse problem to be an epidemic.

Opioids

Opioids have unquestionably been an epidemic-inducing drug in the United States over the years. Opioid use has been around for quite some time, including when morphine was used for pain management after surgery and battlefield wounds. However, the epidemic of opioid use is focused on the 1990s when OxyContin hit the markets.

By 2001, sales exceeded $1 billion, and Purdue Pharma, the company responsible for manufacturing the drug, controlled a third of the U.S. pharmaceutical market. However, the company has faced a relentless number of lawsuits for the abuse potential of this “poor man’s heroin.” Because of this, the popularity and prescription frequency of OxyContin has decreased dramatically over the years.

However, the abuse surrounding opioid use isn’t limited to OxyContin. Other prescription opioids include Vicodin (hydrocodone), Percocet, and methadone. In the era of drug cutting and accidental overdose, we must mention fentanyl when discussing opioids. Legally made and prescribed fentanyl treats severe chronic pain, such as that in cancer patients. However, illegally made or illegally diverted fentanyl sold on the streets is often added to heroin, making the combination drug deadly to users.

Stimulants

Prescription stimulants are another commonly abused drug. Prescription stimulants include the drugs Adderall and Ritalin, and they work differently from central nervous system (CNS) depressants. Stimulants increase activity in the central nervous system, so they commonly increase energy and focus rather than relaxation. This makes prescription stimulants an effective treatment option for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

When compared to benzos and opioids, prescription stimulants are not as closely related to overdose death statistics, although they can cause deadly results when mixed with other drugs. With that said, prescription stimulants can cause addiction and dependence, and many people who abuse these drugs can experience poor sleep habits and a decline in nutritional habits. Long-term Adderall use can bring about detrimental health consequences, including an increased risk for stroke or heart attack.

Sedatives

Sedative drugs or “Z-drugs” are a class of drugs used almost exclusively as sleep aids. The reason these are referred to as “Z-drugs” is not that they help people sleep but because they include names like zolpidem, eszopiclone, and zaleplon. By far, the most popular of these drugs is zolpidem, which we know by the generic name Ambien. While these drugs are not the same as benzos, they work similarly to benzos and have a moderate-to-high addiction liability. As mentioned earlier about the alcohol-like effects of benzo use, sedative drugs are known for their intoxication effects. “Sleep driving” has been used to refer to someone who drives while “drunk” on sedative drugs like Ambien.

A Mixed Bag

A host of factors come into play with each drug, which can increase or decrease the likelihood of abuse. Because these drugs are so common (and legal with a prescription), one of the most important things to remember is the increased risk of mixing these drugs. The FDA always releases updated warnings for new dangers that come to light with various drugs over the years, and many of these warnings concern the deadly risk of mixing these drugs together.

Just because something comes in a pill bottle with a label and clear directions doesn’t mean it is harmless. If you or someone you love is prescribed any of the drugs mentioned above, remember that abuse is not limited to illegal drug use or failing to follow dosage directions. It can happen to anyone who uses these highly addictive medications as directed.

Sources

DEA. (2021 May 13). Drug Fact Sheet: Counterfeit Pills. Retrieved https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2021-05/Counterfeit%20Pills%20fact%20SHEET-5-13-21-FINAL.pdf

FDA. (2021 Nov). Fact Sheet: FDA at a Glance. Retrieved https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-basics/fact-sheet-fda-glance

Delphi Health Group. (n.d.). Guide to Drug Addiction: Symptoms, Signs, and Treatment. Retrieved https://delphihealthgroup.com/addiction/

Very Well Health. (2021 Nov 21). Drug Classes: Making Sense of Medication Classification. Retrieved https://www.verywellhealth.com/drug-classes-1123991

DEA. (2018 Jul 10). Drug Scheduling. Retrieved https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling

CDC. (2022 Feb 9). Provisional Drug Overdose Death Counts. Retrieved https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/drug-overdose-data.htm

SAMHSA. (2020). National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). Retrieved https://www.samhsa.gov/data/data-we-collect/nsduh-national-survey-drug-use-and-health

Delphi Health Group. (n.d.). Guide to Benzodiazepine Addiction and Treatment. Retrieved https://delphihealthgroup.com/benzodiazepines/

Delphi Health Group. (n.d.). Guide to Alcohol Detox: Severity, Dangers, and Timeline. Retrieved https://delphihealthgroup.com/alcohol/detox/

Delphi Health Group. (n.d.). What are the Differences Between Benzodiazepines? Retrieved https://delphihealthgroup.com/benzodiazepines/differences/

Yale Medicine. (2019 Dec 11). Are Benzodiazepines the New Opioids? Retrieved https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/benzodiazepine-epidemic

Delphi Health Group. (n.d.). Opioid Addiction and Treatment. Retrieved https://delphihealthgroup.com/opioids/

DOJ. (2001 Jan). OxyContin Diversion and Abuse. Retrieved https://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs/651/abuse.htm

DEA. (2022 Apr 29). Fentanyl Awareness. Retrieved https://www.dea.gov/fentanylawareness

Delphi Health Group. (n.d.). Adderall Addiction. Retrieved https://delphihealthgroup.com/stimulants/adderall/

Medical News Today. (2022 Jun 15). Adderall Interactions: Alcohol, Medications, and Other Factors. Retrieved https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/drugs-adderall-interactions

Healthline. (2019 Aug 12). Short- and Long-Term Effects of Adderall on the Brain. Retrieved https://www.healthline.com/health/adderall-effects-on-brain

Delphi Health Group. (n.d.). Sedative Addiction. Retrieved https://delphihealthgroup.com/sedatives/

The Seattle Times. (2009 Jan 4). Beware of Sleep-Driving on Ambien. Retrieved https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/beware-of-sleep-driving-on-ambien/

FDA. (current). Drug Alerts and Statements. Retrieved https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/drug-alerts-and-statements

A Doctor Explains Why Doctors Aren’t Speaking Out

None of this would have been possible had the Democrats not socialized healthcare under Obamacare – government takeover of healthcare.

Why doctors aren’t speaking out

Written by a doctor. Everyone should read this. We are headed for a perfect storm with escalating health needs and a shortage of doctors because of how we treat them.

By: Steve Kirsch

Doctors have been whistleblowers throughout history. They’ve also been silenced | Medicine | The Guardian

Dear Steve,

You ask why doctors are silent. The electronic medical records (EMRs) are a ball and chain to physicians. We are tracked through them. When I wrote a prescription for Ivermectin for a patient, with informed consent (she was vaccinated), I received 5 letters threatening my medical license, my hospital privileges, and my insurance contracts. I would not have received 5 letters if I killed someone in negligence or malpractice. If I have my license pulled, I will no longer be able to help my patients.

I speak to patients on a one-on-one basis, but speaking out would destroy my family. I have children. Quite frankly, I have seen that patients want me to risk myself for them, but are wholly unwilling to support their physician. The population is lazy.

I can save your life, but I get paid less for my work than some hairdressers. My education is not valued by society, as supported by the rise of the “advanced practice provider.” I am almost done with my profession. I hope to retire in the next 1-3 years, decades before I had planned. I love what I do, but cannot take this toxic and broken system any longer. This is why so many have retired in the past couple years, and this trend will continue.

I am attaching the latest California bill to throttle physicians. I hear no outcry. I told patients over a year ago that the vax would not prevent them from getting COVID. It was never studied to do so. I actually read the studies. This of course was disinformation, but has now been proven to be true.

Who will be the truth czar for healthcare? How am I to keep up? I am left to assume that the population wants the government to guide their healthcare. That is, in fact, the plan. The healthcare system will be socialized within the next 5 years I predict. And the population will be shocked. No one is paying attention.

I thank you for all you are doing, and wish you the best of luck. I feel like you are David against Goliath.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Toronto doctor asks Health Canada about pregnancy drug, gets 212 pages of censored information

Miami Surgeon Using TikTok To Promote Sex Change Procedures To Teens

Doctors, Scientists and Professionals from More than 34 Countries Declare “International Medical Crisis” due to Diseases and Deaths Caused by COVID-19 Vaccines

CNN Medical Analyst Says Masking Stunted Her Toddler’s Language Development—and Taught Her an Important Lesson about Tradeoffs

Why You Shouldn’t Need a Doctor’s Permission to Get Prescription Drugs

Are We Living Under a Kakistocracy: Government by the Worst?

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

New Study Shows A Third of Working Families Can No Longer Afford Basic Needs

“A ‘mixed economy’ is a society in the process of committing suicide. If a nation cannot survive half-slave, half-free, consider the condition of a nation in which every social group becomes both the slave and the enslaver of every other group. Ask yourself how long such a condition can last and what is its inevitable outcome. When government controls are introduced into a free economy, they create economic dislocations, hardships, and problems which, if the controls are not repealed, necessitate still further controls, which necessitate still further controls, etc. Thus a chain reaction is set up: the victimized groups seek redress by imposing controls on the profiteering groups, who retaliate in the same manner, on an ever widening scale.” — Ayn Rand The Ayn Rand Column “The Cold Civil War” 

“Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others. By what criterion of justice is a consensus-government to be guided? By the size of the victim’s gang.” — Ayn Rand, “The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal


A full third of working in the families cannot afford basic needs any more.

This is horrible consequence of the Democrats’  “economy of scarcity”  versus the MAGA Republican “economy of abundance.” In other words, communism versus capitalism, individualism versus statism.

New study shows a third of working families can no longer afford basic needs

A third of working families can’t afford basic needs: study

By Snejana Farberov and Patrick Reilly, The New York Post, September, 9, 2022

More than a third of US families that work full-time do not earn enough money to cover their most basic needs, including housing, food and child care, a new study shows.

Researchers at Brandeis University found 35% of American families do not meet the “basic family needs budget” — the amount needed to afford rent, food, transportation, medical care and minimal household expenses — despite working full-time year-round.

And the economic situation is even more dire for working black and Hispanic families, more than 50% of whom cannot afford the basics.

For comparison, a quarter of white families and 23% of Asian and Pacific Islander families are struggling to make rent and buy food, despite holding down full-time jobs.

A study by researchers at Brandeis University’s diversitydatakids.org program shows that 35% of American families with full-time jobs cannot afford the basics.

A study by researchers at Brandeis University’s diversitydatakids.org program shows that 35% of American families with full-time jobs cannot afford the basics.

Jesus Montiel, Krista Mason and their daughter Diana, 2, spend time together at their home in Wyoming, where inflation has been hitting families hard.

Jesus Montiel, Krista Mason and their daughter, Diana, 2, spend time together at their home in Wyoming, where inflation has been hitting families hard.

Low-income families with children are doing especially poorly, according to the survey, with more than two-thirds of full-time workers failing to earn enough to make ends meet.

Most of these families would need to earn about $11 more per hour to fully cover basic expenses, or about $23,500 in additional annual earnings, according to the research.

Meanwhile, black and Hispanic families would need to earn more than $12 per hour — an additional $26,500 per year — just to meet a family budget.

“These results are a wake-up call for decision makers to prioritize policies that address income inequality and racial and ethnic equity and extend real opportunities for economic self-sufficiency,” said Dr. Pamela Joshi, senior research scientist and lead study author.

View Table 1: Job Characteristics of Full-Time Full-Working Families

The study, which is based on 98,000 households, also found that more than half of low-income Hispanic families do not have health insurance, and more than three-quarters do not have pensions.

“When families can’t afford their basic needs, it places stress on parents’ health, and it increases the likelihood that children will continue to lack resources and opportunities that promote their well-being,” said study co-author Dr. Dolores Acevedo-Garcia.

The study offers several recommendations to policymakers to improve the economic outlook for low-income families, including creating more jobs that provide a living wage, expanding income support, and paid family and medical leave.

The results of the survey are based on data from 2015 to 2019, before the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic that wreaked havoc on the job market, and before the recent spikes in inflation, gasoline and food prices.

View Figure 1: Additional Hourly Wages Needed by Low-Income Working Families to Earn a Family Budget at the 10th, 50th and 90th percentiles

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLE: Americans Spent More on Taxes in 2021 Than on Food, Clothing and Health Care Combined

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

Voting Booms in 5 States That Passed Election Reforms

A left-leaning New York think tank sounded a familiar warning about Arizona’s “voter suppression bills” being “dangerously close to becoming law.”

The Brennan Center for Justice added in a press release that Arizona was “taking center stage in the relent­less effort to rein in voter parti­cip­a­tion in the name of ‘elec­tion secur­ity.’” Pending bills, the think tank claimed, were “aimed at making voting by mail harder.”

That was in April 2021, before Arizona passed several reform measures that state legislators said they crafted to ensure secure and honest elections.

Little more than a year later, in August 2022, Arizona notched a record for high turnout in a primary election as 1.45 million voters participated, or 35.1% of those registered, surpassing the previous record in a 2000 primary by 7,000 ballots.

Voter turnout in Arizona for 2018, the last primary in a non-presidential election year, was 1.2 million voters, or 33.4%.

In 2021, Democrats and pundits attacked election reform laws enacted in 19 states as attempts at “voter suppression.” The five states that appeared to come under the most attack were Georgia, Texas, Arizona, Florida, and Iowa—all of which saw boosted voter turnout so far in 2022 compared to the 2018 primaries.

As a rule, non-presidential elections and primary elections attract lower turnout than presidential elections or general elections.

But voter turnout was significantly higher in the 2022 primaries in Georgia, Texas, and Arizona and nominally higher in Florida than in the comparable 2018 primaries.

So new election laws in these states did a lousy job of suppressing the vote, if that’s what Republican lawmakers designed them to do.

Florida’s new law, known as Senate Bill 90, is working its way through the courts. One litigant, Cecile Scoon, president of the League of Women Voters of Florida, said the law “was clearly an anti-voter measure that raised barriers to voting with specific impacts on elderly voters, voters with disabilities, students, and communities of color.”

Florida, which also had an August primary, saw voter turnout go up slightly, Newsweek reported. The article quoted Andrea Mercado, executive director of the left-leaning advocacy group Florida Rising, as saying that overall 2022 turnout equaled that of 2018.

Voter turnout was expected to be lower because both parties had major competitive primaries in 2018 and only Democrats had state primaries this year. Still, Mercado said there is a “need to energize black communities to get out to the polls in November.”

After lititigation with varying decisions, most of Florida’s law was kept in place by courts pending the resolution of lawsuits. The U.S. Justice Department joined the lawsuit brought by the League of Women Voters, calling the law discriminatory.

In March 2021, Mark Stringer, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, criticized Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican, for signing an election reform bill.

“This law is nothing less than voter suppression, pure and simple,” the ACLU leader said.

However, Iowa logged its second-highest primary turnout on record in June with 356,000 voters, or 22.6%. The record from 1994 still stands. But the 2022 turnout marked a 123% increase from 2018, when primary turnout was 17%.

“The turnout should dispel the narrative that states are restricting voting,” Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, told The Daily Signal, adding:

The left has made it an article of faith that there is systemic voter suppression. Some politicians are happy to do that to, one, demonize their opponents and, two, score points with their base. Ironically, they often use voter suppression as a turnout tool.

Among the laws that President Joe Biden took the most swipes were those of Georgia and Texas.

In May 2021, Biden said: “Texas legislators put forth a bill that joins Georgia and Florida in advancing a state law that attacks the sacred right to vote. It’s part of an assault on democracy that we’ve seen far too often this year.”

Texas held its primary election in March, one of the year’s earliest. Turnout was 17.7%, with 3 million ballots cast, up from  the 2018 primary turnout of 17.2% and 2.6 million ballots cast.

Texas election officials did reject about 18,000 mail-in ballots for failing to meet the new voter ID requirements. However, the state took action to educate voters on how to add an ID number to an absentee ballot in subsequent runoffs and special elections after the initial primary, Snead said.

The later elections in Texas had minimal problems, he said, while Georgia, which enacted the same voter ID requirements for mail-in ballots, reported virtually no problems.

Of the Georgia voting law, Biden had said: “It makes Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle.”

Turnout for this year’s May primary in Georgia hit a record high with about 850,000 ballots cast—a 168% increase from the 2018 primary.

“The incredible turnout we have seen demonstrates once and for all that Georgia’s Election Integrity Act struck a good balance between the guardrails of access and security,” Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, said in a prepared statement.

AUTHOR

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is chief news correspondent and manager of the Investigative Reporting Project for The Daily Signal. Lucas is also the author of “Abuse of Power: Inside The Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter:

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

Pandemic ‘Learning Loss’ Actually Reveals More About Schooling Than Learning

The alleged “learning loss” now being exposed is more reflective of the nature of forced schooling rather than how children actually learn.


There are mounting concerns over profound learning loss due to prolonged school closures and remote learning. New data released last week by the US Department of Education reveal that fourth-grade reading and math scores dropped sharply over the past two years.

Fingers are waving regarding who is to blame, but the alleged “learning loss” now being exposed is more reflective of the nature of forced schooling rather than how children actually learn.

The current hullabaloo over pandemic learning loss mirrors the well-worn narrative regarding “summer slide,” in which children allegedly lose knowledge over summer vacation. In 2017, I wrote an article for Boston NPR stating that there’s no such thing as the summer slide.

Students may memorize and regurgitate information for a test or a teacher, but if it has no meaning for them, they quickly forget it. Come high school graduation, most of us forget most of what we supposedly learned in school.

In his New York Times opinion article this week, economist Bryan Caplan makes a related point: “I figure that most of the learning students lost in Zoom school is learning they would have lost by early adulthood even if schools had remained open. My claim is not that in the long run remote learning is almost as good as in-person learning. My claim is that in the long run in-person learning is almost as bad as remote learning.”

Learning and schooling are completely different. Learning is something we humans do, while schooling is something done to us. We need more learning and less schooling.

Yet, the solutions being proposed to deal with the identified learning loss over the past two years promise the opposite. Billions of dollars in federal COVID relief funds are being funneled into more schooling and school-like activities, including intensive tutoring, extended-day learning programs, longer school years, and more summer school. These efforts could raise test scores, as has been seen in Texas where students receive 30 hours of tutoring in each subject area in which they have failed a test, but do they really reflect true learning?

As we know from research on unschoolers and others who learn in self-directed education settings, non-coercive, interest-driven learning tends to be deep and authentic. When learning is individually-initiated and unforced, it is not a chore. It is absorbed and retained with enthusiasm because it is tied to personal passions and goals.

Certainly, many children have been deprived of both intellectual and social stimulation since 2020, as lockdowns and other pandemic policies kept them detached from their larger communities. I wrote back in September 2020 that these policies were damaging an entire generation of kids, and urged parents to do whatever possible to ensure that their children had normal interactions with the wider world.

Children who were not able to have those interactions will need more opportunities now to play and explore and discover their world. It is through this play, exploration, and discovery that they will acquire and expand their intellectual and social skills. This is best facilitated outside of a conventional classroom, not inside one.

“What we need is less school, not more,” writes Boston College psychology professor Peter Gray. “Kids need more time to play and just be kids. Mother nature designed kids to play, explore, and daydream without adult intervention because that is how kids develop the skills, confidence, and attitudes necessary for mental health and overall wellbeing.”

Fortunately, non-coercive schooling alternatives are becoming more widely available. My latest Forbes article describes an Illinois public middle school science teacher, Josh Pickel, who quit his job this summer to open a new self-directed microschool. As Pickel wondered: “What if we removed coercion and those kids were allowed to focus their energy and their intellect on things they care about?”

The start of this new school year brings with it greater education possibilities, including those like Pickel’s that enable children to joyfully explore content they care about, in pursuit of goals that matter to them, leading to genuine learning retained for years to come.

We can criticize school shutdowns and affirm that they never should have happened, while also recognizing that imposing more schooling is not the solution to presumed pandemic-era learning loss. It might raise test scores, but it’s unlikely to lead to true learning. Only freedom can do that.


Like this story? Click here to sign up for the LiberatED newsletter and get education news and analysis like this from Senior Education Fellow Kerry McDonald in your inbox every week.


AUTHOR

Kerry McDonald

Kerry McDonald is a Senior Education Fellow at FEE and host of the weekly LiberatED podcast. She is also the author of Unschooled: Raising Curious, Well-Educated Children Outside the Conventional Classroom (Chicago Review Press, 2019), an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, education policy fellow at State Policy Network, and a regular Forbes contributor. Kerry has a B.A. in economics from Bowdoin College and an M.Ed. in education policy from Harvard University. She lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts with her husband and four children. You can sign up for her weekly email newsletter here.

RELATED ARTICLE: Heritage Foundation Ranks Florida No. 1 in Education Freedom

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

Freedom is an Adult Enterprise

As I look back over the last few years, it is clear to me that Fauci’s COVID19 political medicine protocols, and the Biden regime’s lawlessness are both orchestrated parts of the globalist war on America. Both utilize the tactical methodology of fear-based psychological regression. Why regression? Because freedom is an adult enterprise. A nation of children and chronological adults regressed to childish psychological functioning, cannot sustain itself. It does not possess the critical thinking skills required to protect itself. Why fear-based? Because fear is arguably the most mobilizing human emotion. If you frighten people enough, you can get them to do almost anything.

I wrote about the psychodynamics of regression and fear in a philosophy book I wrote years ago, but didn’t recognize its political implications or applications at the time. Now I do. America is experiencing psychological warfare, and globalism’s attempt at silent coup d’ état. I will explain.

Please close your eyes, and imagine a big yellow school bus. Now imagine the seats filled with passengers on the bus. The question is, “Who’s driving the bus?” Would you let a toddler drive the bus? Would you let a 5 year-old drive the bus? What about an angry teenager? Or would you insist on a rational adult at the wheel? Before you open your eyes, just remember the common goal of political medicine, the Biden regime, and the globalist war on America is to have a toddler at the wheel. Psychological regression is the strategy and fear is the tool.

My philosophy book, Dear America: Who’s Driving the Bus?, presents a theory of behavior and universal paradigm to help people understand why they do what they do. I wrote the book because I believe that to solve a problem, one must first understand the problem. The more we each individually understand our own motivations for behavior, the more we are each empowered to control our behavior, improve our lives, and enhance the nature and quality of life in our society.

The human growth process has a physical component and a psychological component. We all grow up physically (if we are lucky) because it takes no effort and is outside our control. Chronological age is an uncontested, biological accomplishment. Psychological growth is another matter entirely. The demands of responsible adults trying to draw us out of our state of infantile self-absorption (narcissism), rage against our regressive desire to remain children. We resist psychological growth.

Growing up psychologically is the universal challenge of childhood. If we understand the growth process and the complexities of the human mind, we can be more effective in meeting the challenge. A state of mind is not fixed. It is constantly shifting along the growth continuum, anywhere from total, infantile narcissism to responsible adulthood, depending upon the level and stability of the individual’s inner development and the strength of the external pressures challenging it.

Let us imagine a single life span as a time line beginning with birth and ending with death. Let us imagine a long life with a short span in infancy and early childhood, a longer time in adolescence, and the longest stay in adulthood. Ideally the chronological development of this life corresponds with its psychological development. From the total dependence and narcissism of infancy to the self-sufficiency and responsibility of maturity, the emotional and physical patterns can be recorded concurrently.

What is important to remember is that we are each the sum of our parts, and the whole of our life’s experiences. The children we once were continue to exist within ourselves, inside our minds. So, the narcissistic infant, the demanding two-year-old child, the insecure adolescent, the rebel, the adventurer, the happy chid, the angry, frightened, or lonely child we once were all persist as a state of mind. Each inner child is a mobile entity that seeks to be in control of the individual’s mind. The inner child’s struggle for power continues to challenge the individual’s rational, adult state of mind throughout his/her lifetime.

Sustaining our most rational adult state of mind is the challenge for preserving our constitutional republic, because freedom is an adult enterprise. So, what is the best strategy for sustaining psychological adulthood?

Let’s return to the big yellow school bus we imagined, and understand the bus is a metaphor for our individual selves. The bus has many seats to accommodate our different moods, roles, and states of being. The bus travels along the time line that is our lifetime. It picks up new passengers as we grow and develop, each new feeling creating another traveler and each new experience adding another rider. The driver of the bus is always selected from the passengers aboard, and the passengers are constantly competing to determine who will drive the bus. To understand how one person can perceive us in a completely different way than another, we must ask ourselves the seminal question, “Who’s driving the bus?”

When the seats are occupied by the different roles that comprise our adult lives, the answer to the question is not too challenging. The driver is mother, father, husband, wife, boss, sister, cousin, friend, employee, or employer. The list is a long as the varying roles we each have in daily life. The complication and challenge comes when we recognize that we are each the total of our life’s experience, past and present. So, also riding on the bus are the inner children of our own past. The children of our childhood are always with us: the happy child, the hurt child; the frightened, angry, timid, uncertain, inquisitive, bold or compliant child. Perhaps a tormented child, or a silenced, immobilized, completely shut-down child is on the bus and we haven’t seen and cannot recognize him/her yet. All the inner children of our past remain on the bus, and they each seek control of it.

Children universally begin life in a natural state of total narcissism, and they do not give up this state of being without a struggle. That is why growing up psychologically is so difficult and painful. Each individual grapples with his/her own competing desires for growth and regression.

Historically, the three supporting pillars of American life – family, faith, and flag – cooperated to encourage emotional growth and the development of independent, autonomous, rational adults psychologically equipped to preserve our precious American freedoms and constitutional republic. Not anymore. The globalist war on America seeks to collapse America from within using asymmetric psychological warfare. The education industry obstructs the development of critical thinking skills in children by teaching them what to think, not how to think. The communications industry’s ceaseless fear-mongering narrative regresses chronological adults back to emotional childhood to a state of being before critical thinking skills were developed.

Thought precedes behavior. If the responsible adult relinquishes his rational state of mind to his young inner child, he will behave in the regressive, self-absorbed pattern that characterizes early childhood. It is a dangerous mindset because his young inner child has not yet developed critical thinking skills. In this circumstance, it is imperative that the individual has the knowledge to recognize that he has surrendered to the regressive demands of his inner child. If he can discipline himself to ask himself, “Who’s driving the bus?” he can visualize his growth continuum, identify his inner child, and respond appropriately. He can shift his state of mind from regressive, narcissistic child to responsible adult. It is an act of volition. It is a choice, and it is a learned skill.

The responsible adult knows that it is imperative to keep his most developed state of mind operative. We have established in our imaginary exercise that no rational adult would permit a toddler or young child to make the decisions required to drive the bus. Likewise, only the psychological adult is able to repel the globalist efforts to regress him back to a childish state of being where he is easily controlled. The globalists are fighting an asymmetric psychological war, and our strategic defense is to arm ourselves with the knowledge to fend them off. Knowledge really is power, and we must acquire this knowledge and exercise our power because children do not have the required critical thinking skills to support ordered liberty in a constitutional republic, and neither do regressed adults.

The globalist social engineers are exploiting this powerful psychological dynamic and using it destroy America from within. Fear is by far the most effective weapon for regressing chronological adults back to a frightened child state of mind. Regressed adults are neutralized mentally because, like children, they lack the critical thinking skills required to resist the assault.

The same psychodynamics explain the success of the entire fear-based COVID19 narrative. Political medicine is not about public health – it is and always was asymmetric warfare designed to regress and neutralize chronological adults. Regressed adults comply like children. They believe what they are told, do what they are told, and do not challenge the “experts”. This staggering deceit is still being used to achieve totalitarian globalist control through “vaccines” – it is revolution without bullets.

Globalism’s war on humanity cannot succeed in imposing its planetary managerial state without collapsing America’s constitutional republic first. Freedom is an adult enterprise. America’s chronological adults simply must remain psychological adults to successfully oppose the globalist attacks designed to regress them back to childhood compliance.

The globalist war on humanity is a war of attrition. I am 74 years old. My generation of patriots is dying, my children’s generation of indoctrinated millennials is transitional. The primary target of the globalist war on humanity is my grandchildren’s generation. If the globalists are not stopped, and if our nation’s youngest children are not taught critical thinking skills, they are destined to become serfs in globalism’s dystopian planetary Unistate.

The future of America’s constitutional republic lies in the ability of our nation’s young children to become rational, autonomous, psychological adults with developed critical thinking skills. For this reason, I wrote my illustrated children’s book series Mimi’s Strategy. The books are my personal commitment and patriotic effort to teach young children the critical thinking skills that can protect them, empower them, and ensure American freedom for generations to come.

©Linda Goudsmit. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Joe Biden’s four-D speech

RELATED VIDEO: The CCP’s Plans for an Ethnic Fifth Column?

What AOC and Nina Turner Get Wrong about the ‘Scarcity Mindset’

AOC and Turner are right to say we should reject the scarcity mindset. But they have it all backwards.


One of the talking points the left uses fairly often is the idea of a “scarcity mindset.” Originally, this phrase was used in a self-help context to highlight a disempowering way of thinking, but it has since been appropriated by the left and given a somewhat different meaning.

Often this rhetoric comes up in the context of government spending. A progressive will advocate for some government subsidy or welfare program to help those in need. Their detractors will point out the cost, noting that you can’t get something for nothing. The progressive then responds by saying that’s just a “scarcity mindset.” If only we had an abundance mindset, they say, we could do a lot of good for a lot of people.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and activist Nina Turner both invoked this concept in recent tweets.

“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, not every program has to be for everybody,” said AOC. “Maybe student loan forgiveness doesn’t impact you. That doesn’t make it bad. I’m sure there are other things that student loan borrowers’ taxes pay for. We can do good things and reject the scarcity mindset that says doing something good for someone else comes at the cost of something for ourselves.”

“We must reject the scarcity mindset,” wrote Nina Turner. “Our government has the ability to fund programs that will help everyone.”

There’s a kernel of truth in this idea, as there often is in most talking points. In this case, the kernel of truth is that not everything is zero-sum. There is such a thing as a win-win transaction. It is possible for two people to benefit from a transaction with no one being worse off.

But just because win-win transactions are possible, that doesn’t mean they are the only kind of transaction. Win-lose transactions are also very possible.

Indeed, when Steven Covey coined the “scarcity mindset” and “abundance mindset” phrases in his book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, he uses them to distinguish what he calls the win-win paradigm from the win-lose paradigm.

“The third character trait essential to Win/Win is the Abundance Mentality, the paradigm that there is plenty out there for everybody,” Covey writes. “Most people are deeply scripted in what I call the Scarcity Mentality. They see life as having only so much, as though there were only one pie out there. And if someone were to get a big piece of the pie, it would mean less for everybody else. The Scarcity Mentality is the zero-sum paradigm of life.”

Covey’s point is that we should seek out win-win transactions wherever possible. The Scarcity Mentality, properly understood, is the belief that everything has to be win-lose. The truth, of course, is that it doesn’t have to be.

But when progressives invoke this phrase, they distort its meaning. The Scarcity Mentality, in their (improper) view, is the belief that win-lose transactions necessarily involve losers. To paraphrase AOC, if you suggest that government wealth transfers “come at the cost of something for ourselves,” that’s a “scarcity mindset” that we should “reject.”

Consider two people, let’s call them Peter and Paul (completely arbitrary names I assure you). If Peter has a pencil and Paul has a pen, and they both want what the other has, they can trade with each other, and that trade would be win-win.

But now let’s say Peter has money and Paul doesn’t, and I rob Peter to pay Paul. This is a win-lose transaction. Paul wins. Peter loses.

Now here’s the question. Is it a Scarcity Mentality to suggest that helping Paul “came at the cost” of hurting Peter? Is it a Scarcity Mentality to suggest that this kind of transaction is zero-sum as far as money is concerned? Is it a Scarcity Mentality to suggest that this “program” doesn’t, in fact, help everyone, but rather helps some by hurting others?

According to AOC and Nina Turner, this is the “scarcity mindset” that should be rejected.

In practice, what leftists mean by rejecting the “scarcity mindset” seems to be rejecting the idea of scarcity all together. They are basically telling us that government transfers of wealth can help people without hurting anyone.

This is not what Covey had in mind when he coined the term, and it’s also self-evidently wrong. Government wealth transfers, being win-lose transactions, necessarily involve losers. And that’s not a “scarcity mindset.” It’s just a fact.

“The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else,” said Adrian Rogers.

“Either immediately or ultimately every dollar of government spending must be raised through a dollar of taxation,” wrote Henry Hazlitt in Economics in One Lesson.

“Everything we get, outside of the free gifts of nature, must in some way be paid for,” Hazlitt writes in a different section. “The world is full of so-called economists who in turn are full of schemes for getting something for nothing.”

Ironically, by advocating for government wealth transfers, leftists succumb to the very fixed-pie worldview that Covey warns against. They assume that in order to help some we must take from others. But Covey’s whole point is that this is the wrong approach. Government welfare is the embodiment of the win-lose paradigm that we’re supposed to avoid. Free-market transactions, by contrast, are the embodiment of a genuine abundance mindset.

Of course, leftists get lots of support for their schemes from the beneficiaries and would-be beneficiaries of welfare programs. And no wonder. As George Bernard Shaw noted, “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”

But simply pointing to beneficiaries is not sufficient to justify an action. Every action has a cost, and for the action to be justified, the benefit must be shown to exceed the cost. So when they say “look at all the people who would be helped,” our immediate response should be “look at all the people who would be hurt.”

Leftists will also point to positive externalities (spillover benefits) that wealth transfers create. For instance, we all benefit when people are more educated, so even though we have to pay taxes for schooling, we also reap the rewards of living in a well-educated society.

But the need for keeping in mind unseen costs is just as relevant in the case of externalities. When they point to positive externalities (spillover benefits) that would be created by the wealth transfer, we should immediately point to positive externalities that would be foregone because of the transfer.

It’s not being pessimistic. It’s just being realistic.

Having discussed the inescapable fact of scarcity and the resulting necessity of weighing benefits against costs, we are now in a position to steel-man the leftist argument.

The poor argument, which we have been discussing to this point, is to essentially say that scarcity doesn’t exist, that there are no costs to be considered. The better argument is to say, “Yes, there are costs and there are losers, but the benefits of [insert welfare program here] outweigh the costs. Some gain and some lose, but total social welfare is increased.”

To take it a step further, one could argue that for every person in society, the spillover benefits they receive because of the transfer are larger than the taxes they have to pay, such that everyone is technically a “net” beneficiary. This is a rather charitable interpretation of AOC and Turner’s comments, but it’s about the only way you can argue these policies ultimately harm no one (and are thus, by a technicality, win-win all around).

So, what’s wrong with this argument? The issue is that making this kind of society-wide cost-benefit judgment is simply impossible.

Many people assume that if a policy helps those they consider to be relatively “needy” and hurts those who are considered relatively “well off” then that increases social welfare. But this kind of analysis is subjective, arbitrary, and ultimately untenable.

The fact is, when we rob Peter to pay Paul, we have no way of knowing what that does for social welfare, because we can’t know (let alone measure) people’s internal mental states. There is no way of objectively comparing utility gains or losses between people (think of utility as happiness points). To use economics jargon, interpersonal utility comparisons (IUCs) are impossible.

The idea that Paul’s utility gains are greater than Peter’s utility losses is mere speculation. We have no way of knowing. Likewise, the idea that the spillover benefits to Peter (assuming there are any) are greater than the costs he was forced to incur is also speculative. You can assert it, but you have no way of proving it.

In short, the most we can say about the impact of wealth transfers on social welfare is that some people are likely better off while other people are likely worse off. There is no objective way of proving that the benefits outweigh the costs.

The question that must be asked of the leftists, then, is this. Seeing as one can’t justify wealth transfers on social welfare grounds because IUCs are impossible, on what grounds do you justify this policy? What is your argument for doing this?

As far as I know, they have none.

“What’s your argument against doing this?” they may retort. “If IUCs are impossible as you say, then you can’t definitely say that this decreases social welfare either.” Fair enough.

But while we are limited in what we can say with certainty, there are still general tendencies we can consider. For instance, when Peter spends his own money on himself, he has a strong incentive to make sure he’s buying something that benefits him and is getting it at a good price. For example, when students invest in their own education or borrow (and actually pay back) money from private lenders, the students and lenders have an incentive to make sure it’s a good investment, both in terms of cost and quality.

But as Milton Friedman famously pointed out, when the robber is spending Peter’s money on a program for Paul, he has little incentive to care about how much the program costs, and he’s not particularly concerned about how well it meets Paul’s needs either. As we can see with student loans, the government doesn’t give much thought to whether the education it is subsidizing is paying off for the graduates. Indeed, the very fact that students are struggling to pay off their loans is an indication that their education has failed to provide them with the financial stability it was supposed to facilitate. It seems likely, then, that society’s resources will be better utilized when individuals can keep their own money and spend it on themselves as they see fit.

Now, if instead of a program you simply did a straight transfer of money from one person to another, you could avoid this pitfall. But you would still be operating under a win-lose paradigm, and this is the other thing we need to keep in mind.

Win-lose transactions guarantee that there will be a loser (before considering externalities). Yes, spillover benefits could conceivably be sufficient to compensate for the loss, but this is by no means a given. With win-win transactions on the other hand, everyone is guaranteed to be better off (before considering externalities). Again, it’s possible there will be spillover costs that outweigh the benefit, but this too is by no means a given. So which would you prefer? Which approach should we strive for? Win-lose or win-win?

If you’ve read Steven Covey, you know the answer.

So rather than giving handouts, let’s give the needy win-win opportunities. Let’s allow entrepreneurs to create jobs and let’s open up trade so people can establish more mutually beneficial arrangements. Let’s find ways to increase the wealth in society rather than simply redistribute the wealth we have.

AOC and Turner are right to say we should reject the scarcity mindset. But they have it all backwards. Government welfare is the scarcity-mindset solution to poverty. Free-market capitalism, where we make the pie bigger, is what a true abundance mindset looks like.


This article was adapted from an issue of the FEE Daily email newsletter. Click here to sign up and get free-market news and analysis like this in your inbox every weekday.


AUTHOR

Patrick Carroll

Patrick Carroll has a degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Waterloo and is an Editorial Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education.

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