No, You Don’t Need to be “Qualified” to Homeschool Your Children

If you can do these three simple things, you’re already qualified to be a homeschooling parent.


Over the years, I’ve heard so many parents dismiss the possibility of homeschooling their children because they don’t feel “qualified.”

“I’m not a teacher.”

“I’m not good at math.”

“I wasn’t good at X in school, so I could never teach my child that subject.”

All these assumptions stem from a fallacy about what education is, and what makes an individual “qualified” to be a teacher.

The fallacy: that your ability to teach relies on your expertise on the topic you’re teaching. While that may be true for selling your teaching as a service—you wouldn’t make a living teaching a class in a topic you don’t understand—it’s not a prerequisite for effectively facilitating your child’s learning.

Whether or not you hold a teaching certificate is an irrelevant accessory to your ability to teach. To be an effective educator, all you need to be able to do is:

  • Use reference resources (like books and Google)
  • Find the answers to your own questions
  • Foster a sense of curiosity in your children

If you can do those things, you’re qualified to be a homeschooling parent.

In most cases, basic Googling skills and the ability to explore with your child is all you need to teach your children at home.

Take this as an example: your child is sitting outside in the sun drinking a cold drink, and asks you why the outside of their cup is getting wet.

Your reaction is simultaneously intimidation (I have no idea) and interest (there might be a science lesson buried in this).

You say, “I don’t know. Let’s figure it out.”

Five minutes and some Googling later, your child has learned about condensation, the dew point, and the effects of a hot entity meeting a cold one.

Your child has the answer. They have the same outcome they would have received had they asked an expert; they now know why condensation forms on their cold glass. The only difference is that they got to see your process along the way—which is an asset, not a deficit, because they’ve learned something about finding answers to their questions, a process they will be required to repeat over and over throughout their lives.

As a parent, your ability to use your Googling skills to teach applies to entire subjects, not just one-off questions. The most common subjects I hear parents express intimidation of are math and science; subjects they often found challenging in school, and don’t feel qualified to teach to their children.

With abundant free resources on the internet (such as YouTube and Khan Academy), as long as you know how to find an answer to a question—which every adult who can Google does—you can facilitate your child’s learning on any topic, whether by finding the answers yourself or by finding resources that can do the teaching for you.

The ability to find answers to questions has always been important, but it’s especially so in the information age. As Einstein said,

“Never memorize what you can look up in books.”

The answer to almost any question that has been answered by man is available at your fingertips. The key to a useful education—one that sets a child up for a lifetime of success—is not memorizing facts, but rather learning how to ask the right questions—and then learning how to find the answers.

Einstein again: “The value of a college education is not the learning of many facts, but the training of the mind to think.”

This is true not only of college, but of education in general. If your child knows how to think, how to formulate their curiosities into questions, and how to answer those questions, they will be able to learn anything they need to, at any point in time, for their entire lives.

That skill transcends the value of a standardized education—because it’s a skill that can be used to learn anything covered in a standardized education, and anything else your child will ever want to learn.

Time and again, I’ve watched homeschool children quickly catch up to and surpass their peers on a given subject or skillset, because they understand how to adapt and learn.

When you’re working with your children to find answers to their questions, you’re implicitly helping them build this skill, and equipping them for a lifetime of learning.

Children are naturally wired to learn. The next generation’s proclivity to learn is a critical part of our survival as a species, and it’s hardwired accordingly.

Every time a child mimics an adult, play-acts the real world (like “playing store”), or asks a question, you’re watching this natural wiring in action.

This natural proclivity to learn works to your advantage as a homeschooling parent. All you have to do is nurture it. And homeschooling allows you to do that far more effectively than regular school does.

My first foray into teaching (right after I graduated high school) was instructing writing classes. I worked with both homeschool and public school students, and the difference between the two was startling.

The homeschool students were curious, excited, and fun to work with. I was teaching them how to write fiction, and they didn’t require much prompting. I gave them a challenge each week, and that was all the encouragement they needed. I had students practically tripping over themselves each week to show me what they’d written when they were at home in between classes.

Their joy in learning was alive. All I had to do was direct their natural curiosity and let them run with it.

Working with public school students was an entirely different story. I was working with the full grade range—1st grade all the way into high school—and I saw in stark relief their natural curiosity slowly dying.

The 1st-3rd graders were hungry to learn. The 4th-6th graders required some prodding, but after some explanation and encouragement could start to have fun. But by the time the students hit middle school, their interest in learning was gone. Nothing I tried could make them excited. They were there because they had to be, and they were watching the clock waiting until they could go. Learning had become a compulsory requirement, not an endeavor stemming from desire.

School doesn’t foster curiosity; it kills it. With its rules, its rigid structure, its obsession with right and wrong answers, and its punishments for deviating off course, it doesn’t leave any room for curiosity.

With all that unnatural structure absent, a child’s natural curiosity remains intact. And when a child is left to their own devices and allowed to lean into their curiosity, a parent’s biggest job is helping to direct it.

Despite common belief, all of this applies to homeschooling your high schooler, too

I’ve heard countless homeschooling parents say, “I could never teach my child through high school.”

Even when someone is convinced of their ability to educate their child through elementary and middle school, high school is considered to be a different beast.

The subject matter is more challenging, the standard requirements more complex, and the level of expertise necessary to answer questions is significantly higher.

In spite of that, you don’t need any extra qualifications to homeschool your high schooler. If anything, the resources available to you are even more expansive than they are for elementary-aged students.

With your child at a comprehension level to use resources like The Great Courses and Khan Academy (both of which were staples of my own homeschooling experience), they’re able to engage with entire courses covering the subject matter they’re expected to learn—putting less of a burden on you, not more.

And as your high schooler becomes more self-directed, they’re able to take on more and more of the impetus of answering their own questions. As long as you’re able to support them in finding the answers they’re looking for, you’re more than qualified to educate your child through high school—and often, high school is the most fun part of the homeschool experience (it certainly was for me).

COLUMN BY

Hannah Frankman

Hannah is a career development coach and a course instructor. She works as an advisor at Praxis and an instructor at The Objective Standard Institute. You can find her work at hannahfrankman.com.

RELATED ARTICLE: What Are Your Children Reading?

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

Sorry, Washington Post, But Parents Do Have Every Right to Shape Their Kids’ Curriculum

Which sounds more like indoctrination? Compulsory government curriculum or educational freedom?


We shouldn’t be too surprised that the ongoing exodus from public schools is leading those loyal to government-run schooling to go on the offensive. A new Washington Post Op-Ed is leading the charge, boldly declaring in its headline: “Parents claim they have the right to shape their kids’ school curriculum. They don’t.”

The two authors, Jack Schneider and Jennifer Berkshire, clearly fear the collapse of public schooling if parents gain access to more education choices. So, they’re attacking parents for having the audacity to think they could actually make such choices.

The authors sneer at parents for challenging “experts” like them who clearly know more about raising and educating children than any parent. Indeed, they scoff at political campaigns that tout “parental rights” and slogans that suggest “parents matter.” The writers further allude to the ignorance of parents who might have misgivings about their children being taught such things as critical race theory in schools.

“In framing our public schools as extremist organizations that undermine the prerogatives of families, conservatives are bringing napalm to the fight,” the Post authors write.

They criticize the growing favorability and expansion of school choice policies in many states, including education savings accounts, vouchers, and tax-credit programs, that allow education dollars to follow students instead of funding bureaucratic school systems. It’s understandable that they’re on alert: decentralizing education funding is something that nearly three-quarters of Americans now support. So, it’s no wonder that those scrambling to keep hundreds of billions of dollars in annual taxpayer money tied to government-run schooling would be quick to throw stones at those suggesting another way.

Rather than admitting their greed, the Post authors chastise parents for believing that they might, in fact, know what’s best for their children—or, god forbid, might even have a different viewpoint on education than that which the government and the “experts” deem proper.

“When do the interests of parents and children diverge?” the authors ask. “Generally, it occurs when a parent’s desire to inculcate a particular worldview denies the child exposure to other ideas and values that an independent young person might wish to embrace or at least entertain.”

They say this without the slightest acknowledgment that in many of the country’s public schools, teachers and staff members are actively inculcating a “particular worldview” that excludes recognition of “other ideas and values,” especially those on the political right. It was ideological inculcation that led a Nevada mother to sue her mixed-race son’s school over its critical race theory curriculum that elevated racial identity over individuality. It was also this type of left-leaning indoctrination that led a Rhode Island mother, Nicole Solas, to seek access to public records regarding the curriculum her public elementary school child was receiving.

“I was also told that they refrain from using gendered terminology in general terms of anti-racism,” Solas told Fox & Friends in June.

“I was told that kids in kindergarten are asked what could have been done differently at Thanksgiving, and this struck me as a way to shame children for their American heritage,” she said.

The Rhode Island teachers union was so angered by this mother’s request for curriculum transparency that they filed a lawsuit against her in August.

The Post article comes on the heels of one of the largest drops in US public school enrollment in modern history. Catalyzed by the coronavirus response that shuttered most schools last year, the homeschooling rate tripled from its pre-pandemic levels to over 11 percent of US schoolchildren. Black homeschooling families led the way, experiencing a five-fold increase in homeschooling numbers in 2020. Other families fled public schools for private schooling or delayed early school entry for their young children.

Despite schools being open this fall for full-time, in-person learning, the public school enrollment decline continues. Los Angeles Public Schools, for example, lost 4.76 percent of their student population last year and lost 6 percent this year. Homeschooling remains popular throughout the country this fall, and some private schools report ongoing enrollment increases.

The large number of families who have fled public schools for private education options over the past 18 months reveals that parents are more empowered than ever to find the best educational fit for their children.

They are no longer satisfied with assignments. Parents want choices. The Post authors decry these choices, saying that “conservatives” want “a privatized system — one in which families, not taxpayers, would bear the cost of education, and governance would happen through the free market rather than democratic politics.”

The free market expands choices in education—offering variety, personalization, and entrepreneur-led innovation—just as it does in all other sectors of the economy. Families have diverse needs and preferences, and one-size-fits-all, government-run schooling doesn’t meet all of those needs or satisfy all of those preferences.

As the Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek wrote in The Road to Serfdom: “Our freedom of choice in a competitive society rests on the fact that, if one person refuses to satisfy our wishes we can turn to another. But if we face a monopolist we are at his mercy.”

Parents are increasingly demanding freedom of choice in education— and the monopolists are right to be worried.

COLUMN BY

Kerry McDonald

Kerry McDonald is a Senior Education Fellow at FEE and author of Unschooled: Raising Curious, Well-Educated Children Outside the Conventional Classroom (Chicago Review Press, 2019). She is also an adjunct scholar at The Cato Institute 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 newsletter on parenting and education here.

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

INSANITY: Biden Releases ‘National Gender Strategy’

There’s no end to Democrat madness and their war on G-d.

Biden released a ‘National Gender Strategy,’ and it is every bit as ridiculous as it sounds

By: Conn Carroll,  Washington Examiner, October 26, 2021:

If the Babylon Bee had been asked to write a “National Gender Strategy” to be posted on the White House’s website, it wouldn’t look any different than the document the Biden administration actually released last Friday.

The “fact sheet” contains every buzzword and policy that you would expect to hear from a progressive activist with a degree in gender studies

The four-page document begins by identifying “gender equity” as a “moral and strategic imperative.” Thanks to COVID-19, “we are at an inflection point,” the statement reads, as the pandemic has “magnified the challenges” that women and girls face — “especially women and girls of color.”

Given that the document asserts without any evidence that women of color have been hit hardest by COVID, it isn’t surprising that the document also promises “an intersectional approach” that “considers the barriers and challenges faced by those who experience intersecting and compounding forms of discrimination and bias related to gender, race, and other factors, including sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, and socioeconomic status. This includes addressing discrimination and bias faced by Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American people, Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders, and other people of color.”

To improve “economic security,” the document calls for investments in “care infrastructure,” but nowhere is any real infrastructure ever mentioned.

The document promises to “dismantle the barriers to equal opportunity in education” so that women can “compete on a level playing field.” Never mind that women now make up 60% of all college students and are awarded two out of every three college degrees .

Abortion is, of course, absolutely essential for the “health care” of women, according to the document, which also promises to “defend the constitutional right to safe and legal abortion in the United States, established in Roe v. Wade.”

If there is one document that best encapsulates how out-of-touch the Biden White House is with everyday concerns of voters, this “National Gender Strategy” may be it.

RELATED ARTICLES:

State Department Issues First Gender-Neutral Passport

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

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

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

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

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

Harvard Professor of Medicine: ‘Children Should NOT Get COVID-19 Vaccines’

Martin Kulldorff, is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a biostatistician at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital. He serves on scientific advisory committees to the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control. Kulldorff said children should not get vaccinated against the virus that causes COVID-19, according to Harvard University professor of medicine Martin Kulldorff.

WHITE HOUSE UNVEILS PLAN TO “QUICKLY” VACCINATE CHILDREN AGES 5-11

FDA panel votes 17-0 to start giving vaccine to young children

FDA panel member Dr. Eric Rubin called the vaccine “pretty safe” in one article (NBC News) but in a separate interview said “We’re never gonna learn about how safe the vaccine is until we start giving it” (Twitter).

From Karol Markowicz: Gotta say, not a comforting comment. Doesn’t make me want to run right out and get it for my kids for some reason (Twitter).

Children Shouldn’t Get COVID-19 Vaccines, Harvard Professor Says

By Zachary Stieber and Jan Jekielek, October 26, 2021:

Children should not get vaccinated against the virus that causes COVID-19, according to Harvard University professor of medicine Martin Kulldorff.

“I don’t think children should be vaccinated for COVID. I’m a huge fan of vaccinating children for measles, for mumps, for polio, for rotavirus, and many other diseases, that’s critical. But COVID is not a huge threat to children,” he said on EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” program. The full episode can be watched on EpochTV.

“They can be infected, just like they can get the common cold, but they’re not a big threat. They don’t die from this, except in very rare circumstances. So if you want to talk about protecting children or keeping children safe, I think we can talk about traffic accidents, for example, which they are really at some risk.

“And there are other things that we should make sure [of] to keep children safe. But COVID is not a big risk factor for children.”

Vaccinating older people and people of all ages with compromised immune systems against the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, which causes COVID-19, has drawn support from most medical experts. But vaccinating healthy young people, particularly children, has triggered more opposition, in part because of how little risk COVID-19 poses to them.

Children are more likely to contract serious disease or die from the annual influenza, or the flu, than COVID-19, according to data and studies that Kulldorff has reviewed. Just 195 children under the age of 4 and 442 between 5 and 18 have died from COVID-19 in the United States as of Oct. 20, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children are 15 times less likely to be hospitalized with the disease than individuals who are 85 or older, and 570 times less likely to die, the agency says.

“One example is from Sweden, during the first wave in the spring of 2020, which affected Sweden quite strongly,” Kulldorff said. “But Sweden decided to keep daycare and schools open for all children ages 1 to 15. And there are 1.8 million such children who got through the first wave without vaccines, of course, without masks, without any sort of distancing in schools.

“If a child was sick, they were told to stay home. But that was basically it. And you know how many of those 1.8 million children died from COVID? Zero. Only a few hospitalizations. So this is not a risky disease for children.”

When weighing whether to vaccinate children, the risk of vaccine side effects must also be taken into account, Kulldorff said. The main risk to young people seen so far is heart inflammation, which has occurred post-vaccination at much higher than expected rates. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) added a warning label to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines over the summer about myocarditis and pericarditis, two types of heart inflammation.

“If you’re 78 years old, then it’s the no-brainer, in my view, because the benefits are so great that even if you have a small risk for some adverse reaction, the benefit far outweighs the risk,” Kulldorff said. “On the other hand, if you have already have immunity from having had COVID, then the benefits of the vaccines are much, much smaller. If you’re a child, even if you haven’t had COVID, the risk of serious disease or death is minuscule … So it’s not at all clear that the benefits outweigh the risks for children.”

Kulldorff was speaking ahead of an FDA advisory panel meeting. Members on Oct. 26 decided to advise drug regulators to authorize Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for use in children between 5 and 11. They said the benefits of vaccinating the age group, such as the predicted decrease in hospitalizations, outweighed the risks, including estimated incidence of myocarditis.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Illinois Bill would remove ‘conscience’ as basis for refusing vaccine

Here’s how the media is deliberately misreporting COVID-19’s death toll in America

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19: Science-Based Information

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re COVID-19 Injections —

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

COVID-19 Vaccine: Safe & Effective?

We Would Get a COVID-19 Vaccine, If…

Responses to Some Mandate Promoter’s Positions

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

Misc Re COVID-19 —

COVID-19: Prevention & Treatment Suggestions

What Schools Should Do For COVID-19

Food For Thought: Comparing Climate Change to COVID-19

The Russian/Chinese Plan to Bring Us Down

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

Re COVID-19 Therapies —

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

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

Directories of Physicians who may prescribe Ivermectin: herehere and here

Overcoming Barriers — Getting Ivermectin Prescriptions Filled

I-MASK Early Outpatient Treatment for COVID-19

The FDA’s War Against the Truth on Ivermectin

Report: India’s Ivermectin Blackout – The Secret Revealed

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

Short Video: Dr. John Campbell: Ivermectin or Molnupiravir

An extensive collection: COVID-19 Preventions and Treatments

Re COVID-19 Injections —

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

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

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

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

List of State laws, pending and enacted, regarding vaccination

John Hopkins: Immunocompromised People — Fully Vaccinated and Not Protected

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

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

Study: Some effects of mRNA vaccine on immune system

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

Exclusive Summary: COVID-19 Vaccine Concerns

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

Short Video: Israel’s Alarming Data

Short Video: COVID-19 Vaccine Data From Singapore

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

The Spartacus Letter

Re COVID-19 Injection Mandates —

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

The Totalitarian Roots of Vaccine Mandates

Some Resources to Stop Mandatory Vaccinations

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

Individual Choice and Bodily Autonomy vs. Vaccine Mandates

COVID-19 Mandates Will Not Work for the Delta Variant

When Employers Practice Government Tyranny

Misc Re COVID-19 —

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

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

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

Open Letter from Healthcare Professionals

COVID has Replaced Climate Change as the Religion of the Left

COVID was a dress rehearsal for global climate change

Short video: Have You Heard the Buffalo Paradox?

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

How the Pandemic Is Changing the Norms of Science

Fox guarding the henhouse? Yes, indeed!

The smear campaign against the Great Barrington Declaration

Report: The Masked Ball of Cowardice

Video: Special Investigation — What Really Happened in Wuhan

 

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

 


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why a Capital Gains Tax Increase Would Be a Massive Jobs [and Wealth] Killer

Although startups comprise less than one percent of all companies, they generate 10 percent of new jobs in any given year.


When discussing the economic growth of a post-COVID landscape, too often the role of angel investors is overlooked. Angel investors, or private investors who are often wealthy, finance small business ventures in exchange for equity. For small businesses, angel investors provide a much needed lifeline in the form of cash infusion that doesn’t have to be repaid, except in shared ownership. Private investment, most often through angel investors, is undoubtedly a driving force in technological advancement and job creation.

Unfortunately, angel investment has recently been threatened by the looming possibility of capital gains tax increases under the new administration. Long-term capital gains taxes are applied to assets, such as equity in business, owned for over a year when sold. As of now, long-term capital gains are taxed at 20 percent for wealthy investors. The White House is now calling for a 39.6% top federal tax rate, nearly double the current amount.

As Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at Downsizing Government, explains, “In biotechnology and other leading-edge industries, after-tax investor gains are often reinvested in the next round of risky startups, thus creating a virtuous cycle.”

One of the reasons that nearly all high-income countries keep capital-gains taxes low is to help ensure that investors and entrepreneurs are incentivized to take the risk of committing time and resources to relatively risky start-up ventures, typically reliant on the type of scientific and technical innovation that fuels job growth and progress in the long run.

According to Census Bureau data, although startups comprise less than one percent of all companies, they generate 10 percent of new jobs in any given year. The Kauffman Foundation’s Tim Kane pointed out that “without startups, there would be no net job growth in the U.S. economy.” In the same paper, he lays out the argument that “in terms of the life cycle of job growth, policymakers should appreciate the tremendous effect of job creation in the first year of a firm’s life.”

Wealthy angel investors have been behind many US corporations that have revolutionized their field and led to unprecedented growth and technological progress. Henry Ford, for example, received an infusion of cash from coal dealer Alexander Y. Malcolmson. The first investor in Apple was a millionaire retiree from Intel, Mike Markkula. Jeff Bezos obtained $8 million from Kleiner Perkins to build Amazon.

An increase in capital gains taxes would discourage such high-risk investments that provide much-needed seed money to startups, and induce investors to shift their investments to dividend-paying stocks or bonds. While safer, these avenues of investment do not produce the jobs or innovation that startups do, and would hinder entrepreneurship.

“Such tax increases would be a blow to startup investment and entrepreneurship,” Edwards writes. “People considering launching technology startups would instead stay in salaried jobs because earning a smaller after-tax gain from a startup would not be worth all the extra stress, risk, and hard work.”

This tax increase would also make it harder for startups to attract skilled workers. Three-quarters of Silicon Valley firms offer stock options to employees to lure them away from their salaried positions at large companies. A significantly higher capital gains tax would make that benefit much less appealing.

A capital gains tax increase would come as a huge blow to angel investors who fund the new technologies and ideas that we often take for granted. To ensure future growth and progress, it is imperative that we create and maintain an environment that allows angel investors to operate and thrive.

COLUMN BY

Aadi Golchha

Aadi Golchha is the author of “The Socialist Trap: How the Leftist Utopia Will Destroy America” and an independent political analyst.

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

VIDEO: Vaccine Mandates, The Mask and Leftist Hate

Dr. Jamie Glazov discusses the Left’s romance with tyranny and terror amidst the Bolshevik coup in America.

Watch: Vaccine Mandates, The Mask and Leftist Hate.

RELATED ARTICLE: Hospitals are overflowing with fully vaccinated patients while the unvaccinated remain healthy!

EDITORS NOTE: This The Glazov Gang video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The ‘Build Back Better Baskets’ — All Tricks but No Treats?

Here’s a video of Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) explaining Biden’s Build Back Better (BBB) agenda. Pelosi also characterizes BBB as “transformative” which sounds eerily like Obama’s promise to “fundamentally transform” America.

Pelosi states, ‘The Build Back Better is 3 Baskets. ‘It’s Climate, Health, Jobs, Security and Moral Responsibility.”

According to the White House website Build Back Better is defined as follows:

The Build Back Better Agenda is an ambitious plan to create jobs, cut taxes, and lower costs for working familiesall paid for by making the tax code fairer and making the wealthiest and large corporations pay their fair share. [Emphasis added]

According to Wikipedia:

The plan is divided into three parts: the American Rescue Plan, a COVID-19 relief package, which passed in March 2021;[2] the American Jobs Plan, a proposal to rebuild America’s infrastructure and create jobs;[3] and the American Families Plan, a proposal to invest in areas related to childcare and education.[4] As of October 1, 2021, the American Rescue Plan is the only plan that has been signed into law, though proposals featured in the American Jobs Plan have been passed in the Senate through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act[Emphasis added]

So, are there are, according to the White House and Wikipedia, only three baskets? Or, according to Pelosi five baskets?

To help us better understand what is really going on with BBB, I will go with what Pelosi’s five baskets.

Let’s take a look at each of these baskets and see what’s inside of each one as we approach Halloween.

  • Basket #1 Climate: This basket is filled with green energy goodies. It’s the Green New Deal on steroids. Unfortunately, if you heat your home using natural gas or electricity you are being tricked because you energy bill will go up, not down. If you drive a car, SUV, truck or van that uses fossil fuels you have already seen gasoline and diesel prices go up over 33%. There’s no treats in this basket for us consumers too. For you see went the cost of energy goes up so does the prices of consumer goods. This basket is filled with tricks and no treats. Here are three absolutes, that a good friend of mine taught me about the climate: 1. The climate changes. 2. These changes of the climate follow natural cycles (e.g. summer, fall, winter, spring) and 3. There is nothing mankind can do to change these natural cycles. BASKET #1: TRICK!
  • Basket #2 Health: What basket #2 is about is COVID. Biden, the CDC and OSHA have used COVID to fundamentally transform our economy and how we live our lives. If you don’t have a “vaccine passport” your ability to travel within the United States and overseas can be restricted or even denied. COVID is the hammer and we are the nails. Get VAXXED or get fired. Get VAXXED or you can’t shop, go to a restaurant or even celebrate the 2021 holiday season. The health weapon of choice is government mandates. Obey or suffer the consequences. BASKET #2: TRICK.
  • Basket #3 Jobs: Work for a company with more than 100 employees and don’s get VAXXED you get fired. If you are in the medical profession and work in a hospital and you choose not to get the Covid vaccine you can be fired. It that job creation? We think not. Are lockdowns job creation? We think not. Is forced unions to get jabbed helping the job market? Nope. Are the supply chain backups helping to create jobs? You can answer that one. There’s a growing number of people pushing back against the job killing programs (e.g. higher taxes on business and individuals) of Biden’s BBB agenda. BASKET #3: TRICK.
  • Basket #4 Security: Let’s start with Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan to its being blindsided by China’s new weapons system. Iran is on the rise, Biden is encouraging unvetted illegals to cross our Southern border by the tens of thousand and importing unvetted Islamists from Afghanistan. Biden’s security policy is there’s no national security policy. Get it? Got it? Good! BASKET #4: TRICK.
  • Basket #5 Moral Responsibility: Biden left Americans behind in Afghanistan. Biden supports abortion up to birth. Biden supports giving illegals voting rights and benefits over our wounded warriors. Biden has kowtowed to the most dangerous regimes in the world and left Americans to fend for themselves. We have see an increase in suicides that fit the COVID lockdowns and social isolation. Biden’s DOJ has designated parents as domestic terrorists if the speak out about public school policies during school board meetings. Democrats continue to persecute those who peacefully demonstrated on January 6th, 2021 in Washington, D.C. Those demonstrators are facing abuse and even torture while in prison. Are these morally responsible positions? NOT! BASKET #5: TRICK

Tricks or Treats?

Question: Are we getting treats or being tricked?

Answer: According to our analysis above we’re all being tricked and Biden is just getting started.

Biden laid out the following goals for his “Build Back Better” agenda:

  1. “Build a Modern Infrastructure” [More government spending]
  2. “Position the U.S. Auto Industry to Win the 21st Century with technology invented in America” [Mandate the auto industry comply or else]
  3. “Achieve a Carbon Pollution-Free Power Sector by 2035” [Green New Deal]
  4. “Make Dramatic Investments in Energy Efficiency in Buildings, including Completing 4 Million Retrofits and Building 1.5 Million New Affordable Homes” [More Green New Deal mandates]
  5. “Pursue a Historic Investment in Clean Energy Innovation” [Green New Deal on asteroids]
  6. “Advance Sustainable Agriculture and Conservation” [Famers required to be green or else]
  7. “Secure Environmental Justice and Equitable Economy Opportunity” [Equal people are not free and free people are not equal]

The Biden administrations agenda has become very clear.

If the intent of Biden is to make the lives of every American better then as of today he is a complete failure.

Conclusion

So Build Back Better is actually a massive government growth coupled with social a massive government spending spree. Not surprisingly it is inextricably tied to Covid.

To pass the Democrat/Biden Build Back Better agenda requires the American people’s cooperation. However, we are seeing more and more Americans taking up arms against this plan via civil disobedience.

Since his election, Biden’s poll numbers have dropped dramatically as he and his handlers try to implement his BBB agenda.

The backbone of Build Back Better is comply or else.

Freedom of choice. My body, my choice only applies to killing the unborn, not to you if you don’t get jabbed.

We predict as the Build Back Better agenda moves forward more and more American workers and their families will move backwards.

We sincerely hope we are wrong but unfortunately is appears were not.

The midterm elections in 2022 will be a bell weather election. If conservatives, note I did not write Republicans, don’t take control of one or both houses of Congress we are doomed

Get out and vote. Insure your state implements laws that enhance election integrity.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Why Has #EmptyShelvesJoe Gone Viral on Twitter?

16K COVID-19 Positive Migrants Released into U.S. by ICE, Says Whistleblower

‘Democrats Are Just Living In A Fantasy World’: Republican Sen. Says Dems Are Denying ‘Reality’ Of High Inflation

‘We Can Enjoy The Holiday Season’: Fauci Is Still Telling Unvaccinated Americans They Shouldn’t Have Normal Holidays

Buttigieg Praises Biden’s Economic Leadership Amid Supply Chain Crisis

‘Escalating Into A Firing War’: Texas Gov. Abbott Says ‘Aggressive’ Mexican Cartels Shooting At National Guard

Horror: Covid ‘Vaccine’ Vials Under the Microscope [Videos]

This new Glazov Gang episode features Dr. Carrie Madejan Osteopathic Internal Medicine Physician who blends traditional & holistic medicine for optimal health.

Dr. Madej discusses: Horror – Covid ‘Vaccine’ Vials Under the Microscope, sharing her terrifying findings.

And make sure to watch our 2-Part Series with Dr. Carrie Madej and Vera Sharav on COVID Vaccine Mandates & Nazi Tactics and The COVID Vaccine and Rewriting Human DNA.

[1] Dr. Carrie MadejThe COVID Vaccine and Rewriting Human DNA — the transhumanism agenda and the Deep State’s plan to own your body.

[2] Vera Sharav: COVID Vaccine Mandates & Nazi Tactics — How “Auschwitz did not begin with Auschwitz.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Glazov Gang video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Subscribe to JamieGlazov.com.

Gun Control Works! Muslim Convert Murders Five People with a Bow and Arrow

My latest in PJ Media:

Advocates of gun control should take note of recent developments in Norway, but won’t: On Wednesday evening, a convert to Islam in the city of Kongsberg, southwest of Oslo, began shooting at random people with a bow and arrow. Police confronted him, but police in Norway are unarmed, so they had to retreat when he began firing arrows at them. He was only apprehended 35 minutes later, after he had murdered five people. The lessons for foes of the Second Amendment should be obvious, and those aren’t the only lessons of this grisly incident.

The attacker was a Danish citizen and convert to Islam named Espen Andersen Bråthen. And he hadn’t embraced that religion of peace and tolerance that non-Muslim politicians in the West keep telling us about. According to the UK’s Sun, “Police said the Danish man suspected of the attack is a Muslim convert who was previously flagged as having been radicalized.” Chief of Police Ole Bredrup Sæverud stated that “there has previously been worrying information about this man linked to his radicalisation which the police have followed up… but in 2021, we have not received any warnings about him.”

So the police knew that Espen Andersen Bråthen could be dangerous, but they hadn’t received any reports about him lately, and so he was free and unsupervised to the extent that he was able to murder five people. It would be unrealistic to expect Norwegian police to be shadowing every dangerous person who may at some point commit a crime, but Bråthen does appear to be one who warranted a bit more attention than he received. According to the Washington Post, “Norwegian media reported that a court had granted a restraining order last year for the alleged attacker to stay away from two of his family members for six months after he threatened to kill one of them.”

Despite all this, the Sun claimed that Bråthen’s motive was “unknown,” and the Post noted that “the police attorney said psychiatric experts would assess him on Thursday.”

Maybe he is insane, but there is a long history of authorities in the West declaring that people who are obviously jihadis are simply mentally ill. In the real world, there is extremely strong evidence of what Bråthen’s motive was. He is a convert to a religion that reveres as holy a book that tells believers to “kill them,” that is, unbelievers, “wherever you find them” (Qur’an 2:191; 4:89; cf. 9:5). This applies to family members as well, for the same book says: “O you who believe, do not choose your fathers or your brothers for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoever among you takes them for friends, such people are wrongdoers” (Qur’an 9:23). It depicts the patriarch Abraham as telling his unbelieving father that “there has arisen between us and you hostility and hatred forever, until you believe in Allah alone.” (Qur’an 60:4)

There is more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden’s handlers bring in over 2,000 migrants from countries that export jihad terrorism

Vatican top dogs tried to dissuade Islamocritical Anglican from converting to Catholicism

Richard Clarke’s Complicated Iraq Calculus (Part Two)

Afghanistan: Sunni Muslims murder 32 Shi’ites in jihad suicide bombing at Kandahar mosque

UK: Muslim linked to ‘Islamist extremists’ stabs MP to death

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

VIDEOS: Why Are Mail-in Ballots Wrong?

“So the answer to the question about what could go wrong with mail-in ballots is this: plenty.” – Peter J. Wallison, American Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Emeritus.


On November 16th, 2020 a video was posted titled This Is Why “Mail In Ballots” Are A Problem.


On March 29th, 2020 the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center told One America News that the first and, so far, only complete audit of 2020 election mail-in ballots shows about 6 percent of the votes cast were illegal.

On September 11, 2020 a local election official in New York state is warned that some people are trying to request mail-in ballots on behalf of deceased people.

On October 20th, 2020, MIT News reported:

In elections, every vote counts. Or should count. But a new study by an MIT professor indicates that in the 2016 U.S. general election, 4 percent of all mail-in ballots were not counted — about 1.4 million votes, or 1 percent of all votes cast, signaling a significant problem that could grow in 2020.

The study quantifies the range of reasons for this, including late-arriving ballots, problems with ballot signatures and envelopes, and improperly marked ballots, among other things.

In an August 25th, 2020 Op-Ed column titled “Mail-in ballots: What could go wrong?” Peter J. Wallison wrote:

So the answer to the question about what could go wrong with mail-in ballots is this: plenty. Just in the recent primary election in New York, results in one race could not be reported until six weeks after the balloting as the representatives of rival candidates fought over the validity of mail-in ballots. As the Washington Post reported,

At the center of this mess is a massive influx of mail-in ballots — 403,000 returned ballots in the city this cycle vs. 23,000 that were returned and determined valid during the 2016 primary — and a system wholly unprepared to process them. It’s not just delayed results that are at issue: In the 12th District and in the primaries across the country, tens of thousands of mail-in ballots were invalidated for technicalities like a missing signature or a missing postmark on the envelope.

In New Jersey, as reported in the Wall Street Journal, 9.6% of ballots were not counted, because of deficiencies such as late delivery and lack of signatures. These controversies will not be settled by goodwill on both sides. They will eventually make it into the courts, and the inevitable delays in litigation may mean that the new Congress will convene on Jan. 3 without all the seats filled in both the House and Senate.

Infinitely worse will be the controversy over the presidency, as tedious ballot counts produce challenges to the validity of signatures, ballot delivery dates and whether a voter is truly a resident of the state in which the vote was cast. Several weeks ago, for example, the Wall Street Journal published an article by a voter who was once a resident of Washington state but is now a resident of Texas. A ballot was sent to his Washington home and dutifully forwarded by the post office to his Texas address. Clearly, he could easily vote in two states. How many partisans will resist this temptation? Imagine the fights that will occur over whether a particular voter is validly entitled to vote in Texas or Washington. Will the residency of every voter have to be verified?

California’s Mail-in Ballots

On July 13th, 2020 The Associated Press reported:

More than 100,000 mail-in ballots were rejected by California election officials during the March presidential primary, according to data obtained by The Associated Press that highlights a glaring gap in the state’s effort to ensure every vote is counted.

[ … ]

The California secretary of state’s election data obtained by the AP showed 102,428 mail-in ballots were disqualified in the state’s 58 counties, about 1.5% of the nearly 7 million mail-in ballots returned. That percentage is the highest in a primary since 2014, and the overall number is the highest in a statewide election since 2010.

Today California has implemented statewide mail-in balloting.

What could possibly go wrong now?

Mail-in Ballot Fraud

‘Impossible’: Analysis of 950 Military Mail-In Ballots in GA Show 100% Went to Biden.

Ballotpedia defines mail-in ballot fraud as,

Absentee/mail-in ballot vote fraud occurs when an individual commits electoral fraud via absentee or mail-in ballot. Examples include attempting to vote more than once, attempting to vote using the name of another person, and attempting to vote while being knowingly ineligible to do so.”

On October 15th, 2020 Hans A. von Spakovsky and Kaitlynn Samalis-Aldrich in their article titled “More Examples of Election Fraud Prove the Left Is in Denial About It” wrote:

The 2020 presidential election is less than three weeks away, and many Americans have already voted early or through the mail.

Unfortunately, at the same time that they are exercising their franchise, there are others out there who are taking advantage of the vulnerabilities in our system to try to steal their vote or dilute the value of their vote.

Though many on the left downplay the threats to the security and integrity of the electoral process, such fraud really does occur, jeopardizing free and fair elections for the American people.

The Heritage Election Fraud Database showcases a sampling of close to 1,300 proven instances of election fraud. Yet, many other cases go unreported and other potential cases are not investigated or prosecuted.

Here are some examples of mail-in ballot fraud:

  • A German journalist who reports that he received three ballots at his residence in Washington, D.C., for the previous tenant, who moved five years ago; the landlady, who now lives in Puerto Rico; and the landlady’s deceased husband.
  • New Jersey residents across the state reporting that they have received absentee ballots for their deceased relatives.
  • Clerical errors that sent 1,400 Virginia voters two mail-in ballots for the general election.
  • Close to 100,000 New York City voters receiving mail-in ballots with incorrect names and addresses.
  • An acquaintance of one of the writers living in Washington, D.C., who received five ballots in the mail—two for him, one for his roommate, and two for individuals who haven’t lived at his address for years. Those ballots can be seen here.

Conclusion

The Atlantic reported on September 30th, 2020 that, “Democrats looking ahead to the presidential election urged people to stay home in November—and vote by mail.”

An August Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found that roughly half of Biden voters were expect to cast their ballot by mail for the 2020 Presidential election.

QUESTION: Did these Democrats cast their mail-in ballots lawfully?

If half of the 130 million votes cast in the 2020 election by Democrats were mail-in, then how many of these estimated 65 million mail-in ballots for Biden legally cast?

If we estimate that 6% were illegally cast then that’s 3.84 million illegal mail-in votes!

No one has seriously looked into this.

Voter fraud is real. Mail-in voter fraud is real. The future of free and fair elections is in jeopardy.

Today with mail-in ballots anyone, legal or illegally, can send in a mail-in ballot.

As we approach the 2022 mid-term elections do we have confidence that the election will be free and fair? With mail-in ballots now becoming the norm rather than the exception, we think not.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Election integrity update on Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin audits.

Freedom From Slavery is a Basic Human Right that Nevada Denies Many

By providing legal cover for the sex trade, Nevada is directly violating the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. States cannot create conditions that allow slavery or involuntary servitude to flourish—including in the form of sex trafficking.

The NCOSE Law Center’s lawsuit representing survivors seeks to hold the state of Nevada accountable for protecting prostitution and profiting from it.


The Lawsuit Against Nevada, Explained

Nevada—a state which continues to profit from and provide legal cover for the sexual exploitation of women—has been hit with a lawsuit brought by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation Law Center and Jason D. Guinasso with Hutchison & Steffen, PLLC, on behalf of sex trafficking survivors.

In the United States, it is believed that prostitution generates over $14 billion in revenue yearly and five billion of that comes from Nevada. Nevada has legalized prostitution in certain counties, and benefits from the tourism driven by the belief that prostitution is legalized everywhere.  So, not only does the state of Nevada provide the commercial sex industry with legal cover, it also profits from the sexual exploitation of women.

Here’s what you need to know about the lawsuit against Nevada, as well as information on how you can help hold the state accountable for profiting from the sexual exploitation of women.

What happened to the plaintiffs who are suing the state of Nevada?

As a child, during a vulnerable time, Angela Williams encountered a man who became the first of many to sell her to commercial sex buyers. Ms. Williams was attending college in Houston and working two jobs to support herself when she was introduced to her first sex trafficker before she was even 18. Williams was groomed and forced to perform sexual acts on commercial sex buyers once she turned 18.

Ms. Williams was eventually able to break free of her sex trafficker, but ended up at a strip club in Houston where she met another violent sex trafficker. She escaped again but was soon trapped again in the state of Nevada. There, Ms. Williams was sexually abused, exploited, and trafficked time and again. Ultimately, Ms. Williams would be trafficked in Nevada from 2006 to 2017.

Doe was introduced to the world of sex trafficking in Las Vegas by a family member who promised her it was a “quick and easy” way to get money.

Plaintiff Jane Doe was subjected to extreme violence, starvation, and torture while being sex trafficked in Nevada from 2013 to 2018.  Jane Doe eventually ended up at a legal brothel in Nevada, where she was subjected to debt bondage and other forms of coercion.

Why bring a lawsuit against the state of Nevada?

The right to be free from slavery is a basic human right that Nevada denies many. Angela Williams and Jane Doe’s experiences are not isolated.

The sexual exploitation of women for profit happens every single day in Nevada and it has long attempted to normalize and profit from the regulation of prostitution in its state. The demand of commercial sex buyers is extremely high and Nevada pulls in profits of around $5 billion annually from the commercial sex trade.

The commercial sex industry directly subjected Ms. Williams and Jane Doe to slavery and involuntary servitude in the form of sex trafficking, due to Nevada’s system of regulated prostitution.

By providing legal cover for the sex trade, Nevada is directly violating the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Thirteenth Amendment makes it so that states cannot create conditions that allow slavery or involuntary servitude to flourish—including in the form of sex trafficking.

What is the desired outcome of the lawsuit against the state of Nevada?

The plaintiffs are dealing with the repercussions of trauma and physiological damage and are seeking accountability and justice for the state of Nevada for protecting prostitution and profiting from it.

We know these two plaintiffs are not the only survivors who have been sexually exploited for profit thanks to the state of Nevada. Through this lawsuit, survivors are taking a stand and shining a light on the dark side of regulated  prostitution with which Nevada is complicit. It is clear that the state of Nevada is profiting from sexual exploitation and that it will continue to do so if left unchallenged.

Who is helping survivors bring this lawsuit against the state of Nevada?

The legal team representing Angela Williams and Jane Doe consists of:

  • Hutchison & Steffen, PLLC
  • National Center on Sexual Exploitation Law Center

You can learn more about the National Center on Sexual Exploitation Law Center here.

How can I help support the lawsuit and be part of holding the state of Nevada accountable?

Survivors need all the support they can get to take on this multibillion-dollar sexually exploiting business happening in the state of Nevada. Please consider sharing this blog and the graphics below on social media with a message about the harms of full decriminalization of the commercial sex trade. The injustices happening in Nevada can only stop once buyers feel accountable for the harm that is done.

RELATED ARTICLE: NCOSE Expert Researcher Testifies Against Legalization of Prostitution in Vermont

EDITORS NOTE: This National Center on Sexual Exploitation column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

California Town Sees Businesses Vanish Following Minimum Wage Hike

A couple of years ago, I praised federalism in part because state and local governments would be less likely to adopt bad policy (such as higher minimum wages) if they understood that jobs and investment could simply migrate to jurisdictions that didn’t adopt bad policy.

But “less likely” isn’t the same as “never.” Some state and local politicians can’t resist the temptation to raise taxes, even though that means workers “vote with their feet” for places with lower tax burdens.

And some state and local politicians continue to mandate higher minimum wages (see hereherehere, and here), even though that means workers have fewer job opportunities.

Today, we’re going to look at some fresh evidence from Emeryville, California.

The local newspaper has an impressively detailed look at what’s happened to the town’s labor market.

Representatives from the Mills College Lokey School presented data from its recent ‘business conditions’ survey to our City Council on Tuesday. The study confirmed what restaurant owners warned when the ordinance was hastily passed in 2015. They are struggling, rapidly raising menu prices and increasingly looking to leave. …It’s getting harder to find small food service businesses that were around in 2015 when the MWO was passed. Emeryville institution Bucci’s, Commonwealth, Farley’s, Scarlet City … all gone. In fact, nearly all the brick & mortar businesses that comprised the short-lived Little City Emeryville small business advocacy group have moved, folded or sold. …The survey also identified that “the restaurant industry is clearly struggling.” Specifically, small, independent, non-franchise establishments are having the most difficulty.

Here are some of the survey data on the negative effect.

Here is some specific information on how restaurants have been adversely impacted.

…nearly all the new businesses that have opened have embraced the counter service model that requires fewer employees. Paradita Eatery, whose original plan was for a full service sit-down restaurant, cited Emeryville’s wage ordinance specifically for ‘pivoting’ to a counter service model. Counter service models require fewer employees to offset higher labor costs. …The only full service restaurant that has opened since the Minimum Wage was passed was 612One Asian Fusion which folded after just two years in business.

One of the reasons for the economic damage is that Emeryville has gone further and faster in the wrong direction.

The local law is more onerous than the state law and more onerous than other nearby communities.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW EAST BAY CORE MINIMUM WAGE SCHEDULE COMPARISON

But it’s not just workers who are suffering.

Consumers are adversely impacted, as well.

One commenter, who identified herself as a resident, questioned why the survey did not include consumer data noting her dining frequency was altered by the drastic price increases she’s observed. …She noted that she used to frequent her local Doyle Street Cafe 2-3 times per month but last year went only twice. …Once franchise owner noted that the price increases they’ve been forced to pass along have ironically had the biggest impact on vulnerable communities that are more price-sensitive. “Our largest decrease in guests are folks over 50. Obviously our elderly, disabled, and folks on fixed incomes are unable increase their income to compensate for the price increases.”

Let’s close with a new video from Johan Norberg, which looks at the impact of minimum wage increases in San Diego.

P.S. If local communities are allowed to mandate minimum wages higher than the state level or federal, shouldn’t they also have the freedom to allow minimum wages that are lower than the state level or federal level?

P.P.S. A number of European nations have no mandated minimum wage. As explained in this video, that’s an approach we should copy.

P.P.P.S. If you want some minimum wage-themed humor, you can enjoy cartoons herehereherehere, and here.

This article was reprinted with permission from International Liberty.

COLUMN BY

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a Washington-based economist who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.

RELATED ARTICLE: Labor Department Reports Record High Number of Workers Quitting Jobs Over Mandate (VIDEO)

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

Court Sides With Unvaccinated Michigan Athletes in Mandate Case

Beautiful. Stand up now or live on your knees.

Court Sides With Unvaccinated Michigan Athletes in Mandate Case

By Steven Kovac, The Epoch Times, October 9, 2021:

Sixteen unvaccinated athletes won another round in their legal battle to play sports, despite Western Michigan University’s mandate that all of its inter-collegiate athletes get the COVID-19 vaccination shot.

In a unanimous published decision issued Oct. 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, Ohio, held that the university violated the athletes’ First Amendment rights.

All 16 athletes had filed for religious exemptions, which, according to the court, the university “ignored or denied.”

The court stated: “The university put plaintiffs to the choice: Get vaccinated, or stop fully participating in intercollegiate sports. By conditioning the privilege of playing sports on plaintiffs’ willingness to abandon their sincere religious beliefs, the university burdened their free exercise rights.”

The three-judge panel denied a request by the university to stay a lower court’s preliminary injunction that stopped it from enforcing the vaccination mandate.

The mandate would have barred the athletes from playing in games, or even practicing with their teams, unless they were immunized against the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, which causes the disease COVID-19.

Attorney David Kallman, senior counsel with the Great Lakes Justice Center, who represents the athletes, told the Epoch Times: “It’s a great win for our clients and for religious liberty.”

According to Kallman the court’s decision is now a “binding precedent” in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

In a press release, Kallman wrote: “The Sixth Circuit Court vindicated their (his clients) religious convictions and that they can continue to be part of their teams.

“We trust all parties can move forward in a spirit of cooperation to uphold the important constitutional issues at stake, as well as taking appropriate measures to ensure the safety of everyone at WMU.”

The order affirms: “The First Amendment, as incorporated through the 14th Amendment, prevents a state from ‘prohibiting the free exercise’ of religion.”

The 14th Amendment also guarantees equal protection under the law.

Western Michigan University has no vaccination mandate for the student body as a whole.

However, its athletes are still required to wear masks at practice and be regularly tested for the virus. Those policies were not addressed in the athletes’ complaint.

RELATED ARTICLES:

A Wyoming high school student refused to wear a mask, so police locked down the entire school and arrested her

‘Standing up for freedom’: Candace Cameron Bure says she’s not anti-vaccine but rather pro-immune system, pro-medical freedom

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

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

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

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

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