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.

The Globalists’ Economic War Against Humanity—Environmental, Social and Governance [ESG] Scores

ESG Score: A measure of a company’s exposure to long-term environmental, social and governance risks.


ESG Explained in 60 seconds:

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. recently spoke to the nation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. One of the items Biden did not discuss is his active support of the “great reset” which is the globalists’ war against humanity.

A key component of that war against the common man is to eliminate capitalism and replace it with a new “stakeholder” doctrine for businesses globally and in the U.S. This model is based upon the need to attain environmental, social and governance scores that fully supplant capitalism and replace it with a one world governance based on big government, i.e. Socialist, Communist, ideals.

ESG scoring’s goal is to fundamentally transform the role of every company from a shareholder focus (capitalism) to a single stakeholder decree (the government).

According to the Heartland Institute,

Klaus Schwab and a growing list of powerful global economic and political elites, including BlackRock CEO Larry Fink and President Joe Biden, have recently committed to a global “reset” of the prevailing school of economic thought. They seek to supplant the entrenched “shareholder doctrine” of capitalism, which—as Milton Friedman famously espoused over 50 years ago—holds that the only purpose of a corporate executive is to maximize profits on behalf of company shareholders.

This effort to fundamentally transform global economics via the cooperation of major corporations and state legislatures is an existential threat to every American’s Constitutional rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Heartland Institute explains,

To replace shareholder capitalism, Schwab, Fink, Biden, and a legion of their peers have promulgated a nouveau “stakeholder doctrine,” commonly referred to as “stakeholder capitalism.” This approach, which aims to harness the growing clamor for more socially conscious corporate decision-making, authorizes, incentivizes, and even coerces corporate executives and directors to work on behalf of social objectives deemed by elites to be desirable for all corporate stakeholders—including communities, workers, executives, and suppliers.

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) scores—a social credit framework for sustainability reporting—are being used as the primary mechanism to achieve the shift to a stakeholder model. They measure both financial and non-financial impacts of investments and companies and serve to formally institutionalize corporate social responsibility in global economic infrastructure.

We recently reported on an armed raid by the U.S. Marshal Service on an Amish farm in Bird-in-Hand, Pennsylvania. The farm is owned by independent business owner Amos Miller who produces organic meats and vegetables and sells and ships his products directly to his 4,000 customers across America. The reason given for the raid was that Amos was “not using GMO drugs” to grow his produce and raise his livestock.

In other words Amos Miller was totally in line with the environmental component of ESG because Miller, who has been farming for 25 years, uses no electricity, no fertilizer, and no gasoline. Because of his totally organic and ecofriendly mantra he has tremendously impressive crop yields using only the oldest of methods, his products are totally organic.

So, why raid Amos Miller’s farm?

Because he does not comply with the social and governance components of ESG. You see Amos is Amish and the Amish want little to do with governance or regulations and they have their own social code, Christianity, which flies in the face of Biden’s globalist agenda.

Watch Tucker Carlson discuss the U.S. Marshal’s raid on Amos’ farm for not following government regulations “endocrine disrupting chemicals, GMO drugs.”

Because Amos refused to follow Biden and the globalists nouveau “stakeholder doctrine” his farm was shut down and he has been fined $300,000 for disobeying the globalist agenda.

According to the Heartland Institute,

Environment, social, and governance scores are theoretically supposed to incentivize “responsible investing” by “screening out” companies that do not possess high ESG scores while favorably rating those companies and funds that make positive contributions to ESG’s three overarching categories. A company’s ESG score has become a primary component of its risk profile.

Amos does not make positive contributions to two of ESG’s three overarching categories. Hence Amos must be destroyed as an enemy of ESG.

The Bottom Line

According to the Heartland Institute’s Anti-ESG Action Map:

  • Maine’s legislature has enacted pro-ESG laws.
  • California, Hawaii and Maryland have pro-ESG legislation pending.
  • Vermont, Virginia, and New Mexico have defeated pro-ESG legislation.
  • Utah, Oklahoma, Texas, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, Florida have enacted anti-ESG legislation.

We are seeing major corporations voluntarily going pro-ESG from car manufacturers producing all electric vehicles to companies like Disney, Apple, Mastercard and social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn going pro-ESG.

In the Feb. 22, 2022 Bloomberg Law article Who Regulates the ESG Ratings Industry? Kurt Wolfe reported,

The SEC is keenly aware of investor demand for ESG information, and ESG disclosures count among SEC Chair Gary Gensler’s regulatory priorities. But the SEC is unlikely to make sweeping changes to its decades-old, materiality-based disclosure framework just to accommodate investor demand. The SEC will likely require “climate risk disclosures” soon, and it may tack on other reporting requirements (like “human capital” metrics), but there is little appetite for overhauling the system.

QUESTION: Will the 87,000 newly armed and authorized to use deadly force IRS Agents be the enforcers of ESG Ratings?

That is the question, isn’t it.

The Democrat Party is pro-ESG which fits its equity, diversity and inclusion agenda.

ESG is the global strategy to destroy Western Civilization and with it our Constitutional Republican form or government.

ESG is the head of the globalist snake called the great reset.

Go ESG or you will be raided and watch your business die!

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Lawyer sues to stop NASDAQ diversity rule for corporate boards

RELATED ARTICLES:

Visa, Mastercard, AmEx to start categorizing gun shop sales

Biden to introduce social credit system like China?

MCMAHON: On Labor Day, The Data Shows The Struggles Of Our Country’s Small Businesses And Workers

The Fight Against ESG Is Gaining Momentum – Jack McPherrin, Western Journal, August 9. 2022

Gov. DeSantis Declares War on Environmental, Social, and Governance Investing Scam – Chris Talgo, Townhall, July 29, 2022

The White House’s Secret Meetings With BlackRock Are a Major Threat to Freedom – Justin Haskins, RedState, June 28, 2022

Kentucky Attorney General: ESG Investing Is ‘Inconsistent with Kentucky Law’ – Chris Talgo, Townhall, May 28, 2022

A Global ESG System Is Almost Here: We Should Be Worried – Jack McPherrin, The Epoch Times, May 31, 2022

ESG Scores Similar to China’s Social Credit System, Designed to Transform Society – Teny Sahakian, Fox Business (featuring Justin Haskins), May 18, 2022

How the ESG Movement Is Shooting Itself in the Foot – Bette Grande, American Thinker, May 12, 2022

ESG Ratings Are Counterproductive, Hypocritical, and Anti-American – Jack McPherrin, Human Events, April 29, 2022

Mastercard: ‘ESG Goals Will Now Factor into Bonus Calculations for All Employees’ – Chris Talgo, Townhall, April 26, 2022

The ESG Movement Is Even Worse Than You Think – Bette Grande, Human Events, April 12, 2022

Debunking the Media’s Lies About ESG Social Credit Scores and the Great Reset – Glenn Beck and Justin Haskins, The Blaze, March 30, 2022

The Environmental, Social, and Governance Threat – Bette Grande, Issues & Insights, March 23, 2022

ESG Standards Are Predicated on Cronyism – Bette Grande, RedState, March 15, 2022

What Are ESG Scores? – Jack McPherrin, RedState, March 2, 2022

Why banks are fighting ESG legislation – Bette Grande, American Thinker, February 23, 2022

Public Pension Plans Are the Wrong Place for Public Policy Experiments – Bette Grande, Red State, February 16, 2022

Socialist Squad Members Demand SEC Implement ‘Climate Rule’ – Chris Talgo, Stopping Socialism, February 16, 2022

11 things you can do to help stop the Great Reset – Glenn Beck, Justin Haskins, Stopping Socialism, February 1, 2022

Ottawa, Canada is following Germany’s failed climate goals – Ronald Stein, P.E., The Heartland Institute, February 1, 2022

“ESG” = Extreme Shortages Guaranteed! – Ronald Stein, P.E., The Heartland Institute, January 26, 2022

Divesting in Crude Oil Guarantees Shortages and Inflation – Ronald Stein, P.E., The Heartland Institute, December 21, 2021
Conference Warns of Climate Socialism Agenda – H. Sterling Burnett, The Heartland Institute, October 28, 2022

What Is Wrong With “ESG” Wokeism​ – Heartland Daily News, October 8, 2021

Report: ESG Funds Are Riskier Than Others – Eileen Griffin, Environment and Climate News, September 28, 2021

Woke Companies Must Wake Up on ESG – Paul Driessen, The Heartland Institute, September 8, 2021

SEC Considering ESG Disclosure Mandates for Advisory Firms – Eileen Griffin, Environment and Climate News, July 28, 2021

House Passes Bill to Mandate ESG Disclosures – Kevin Stone, Environment and Climate News, July 13, 2021

Texas Rejects ESG Investing As Movement Grows – Eileen Griffin, Environment and Climate News, June 28, 2021

How the European Union Could Soon Force America into the ‘Great Reset’ Trap – Justin Haskins, Stopping Socialism, June 22, 2021

Heartland’s Work on ESG

Testimony

Testimony Before the New Hampshire Senate Commerce Committee Regarding HB 1469
Bette Grande, April 12, 2022

Testimony Before the Missouri Senate Small Business and Industry Committee Regarding SB 1171
Bette Grande, March 22, 2022

Testimony Before the Tennessee House Finance, Ways and Means Committee Regarding HB 2672 
Bette Grande, March 9, 2022

Testimony Before the Kentucky Senate Natural Resources & Energy Committee Regarding SB205
Bette Grande, March 2, 2022

Testimony Before the Tennessee Senate State and Local Government Committee Regarding SB 2649
Bette Grande, March 1, 2022

Testimony Before the Wyoming Senate Appropriations Committee Regarding SF0108
Bette Grande, February 24, 2022

Testimony Before the Wyoming Senate Appropriations Committee Regarding SF0108 – Supplemental Testimony
Bette Grande, February 24, 2022

Testimony Before the Vermont General Assembly Senate Committee on Government Operations Regarding S.251
Bette Grande, February 22, 2022

Testimony Before the Arizona House Commerce Committee Regarding House Bill 2656 – Supplemental Testimony
Bette Grande, February 15, 2022

Testimony Before the Arizona House Commerce Committee Regarding HB 2656
Bette Grande, February 15, 2022

Testimony Before the Virginia General Assembly Senate Finance & Appropriations Committee Regarding SB 213
Bette Grande, February 10, 2022

Tim Benson, February 8, 2022
Bette Grande, February 7, 2022
Bette Grande, January 22, 2022

To Stop Monkeypox The CDC Must Mandate Gay and Bisexual Men Wear Chastity Belts

Dylan Housman from the Daily Caller on August 19, 2022 reported,

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a study Friday suggesting that people wear masks to protect themselves from monkeypox despite growing evidence the virus is transmitted sexually.

In a July 29th, 2022 article titled Cases of Gay STD Monkeypox Reported in Children noted,

How did children contract a predominately gay sexually transmitted disease? And why is no one asking that question?

  • Men who have sex with men are at the highest risk of infection right now from monkeypox, according to the WHO.
  • About 99% of cases are among men, and at least 95% of those patients are men who have sex with other men, according to WHO official Rosamund Lewis.
  • WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said men who have sex with men should consider limiting their sexual partners to lower their risk of infection and reduce the spread. The WHO chief called on media, public health authorities and government to fight stigma and discrimination, which he said will only fuel the outbreak.

Currently, HHS documents describe the current administration’s promotion of transgender ideology for children “at any age or stage.” Those documents also describe what it calls appropriate treatments for transgender adolescents, including: “‘Top’ surgery – to create male-typical chest shape or enhance breasts;” and “‘Bottom’ surgery – surgery on genitals or reproductive organs, facial feminization or other procedures.”

This is why we are finding children coming down with the Monkeypox.

The following tweet shows men in New York City lined up to get the Monkeypox vaccine:

Here’s a video asking if the Monkeypox is the next HIV-AIDS, planned out 5 years ago:

Finally, here is an August 16th, 2022 article titled First Dog Infected With Monkeypox After ‘Sharing Bed’ with Gay Men in which Jim Hoft, from The Gateway Pundit reported,

Scientists have reported the first human-to-pet transmission of monkeypox when the dog of a gay French couple became infected after sharing a bed with its infected owners.

Early this summer, the 4-year-old Italian greyhound tested positive for the disease, not long after its French owners began experiencing symptoms, according to reports.

It is suspected that the gay men, ages 44 and 27, caught the virus as a result of having sexual contact with other men during their non-monogamous relationship.

“One man is Latino, aged 44 years, and lives with HIV with undetectable viral loads on antiretrovirals; the second man is White, aged 27 years, and HIV-negative,” according to a report published last week in the journal The Lancet.

Read more.

If the CDC is serious about its motto “Safer • Healthier • People” then, following the science gay and bisexual men must be the primary targets for stopping the spread of Monkeypox into the general population and infecting children, dogs, other animals and women.

To do this the easiest way of insuring that gays and bisexuals don’t have sex with other gays, bisexuals, children, animals and straight women is for them to wear a chastity belt. Chastity is the best defense against Monkeypox.

The chastity belt, along with vaccines, can help stop this new “pandemic” from spreading out of control.

If the CDC does not act quickly then more gay and bisexual men will undoubtably contract the Monkeypox disease and then spread it!

Don’t say we didn’t warn you. Better safe than sorry!

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Cases of Gay STD Monkeypox Reported in Children

First Dog Infected With Monkeypox After ‘Sharing Bed’ with Gay Men

Judge Calls Trump Raid ‘Unprecedented,’ Formally Rejects DOJ Plea To Keep Things Under Wraps

UPDATE: Trump Files Motion Requesting ‘Special Master’ to Review Docs Seized in FBI Mar-A-Lago Raid


U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart rejected the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) argument Monday to keep the Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit under wraps, saying the government has the burden of proof to show why parts of the affidavit must be sealed.

The FBI raided the Florida home of Former President Donald Trump on Aug. 8, sparking demands that the DOJ justify the unprecedented search.

Reinhart wrote the government can keep the search warrant affidavit, which would shed light on the reasoning behind the warrant, sealed so long as “there is a compelling governmental interest and the denial of access is ‘narrowly tailored to serve that interest.’”

The DOJ is arguing unsealing the affidavit “would jeopardize the integrity of its ongoing criminal investigation,” with Reinhart saying he is greatly weighing the fact that “there is a significant likelihood that unsealing the Affidavit would harm legitimate privacy interests” of those involved in the raid as well as witnesses as well the fact that Secret Service uses the premises at Mar-a-Lago and unsealing the affidavit could be a security threat.

Reinhart also noted, however, that “unsealing the Affidavit would promote public understanding of historically significant events. This factor weighs in favor of disclosure.”

Nonetheless, Reinhart said he believes the DOJ has “met its burden of showing good cause/a compelling interest that overrides any public interest in unsealing the full contents of the Affidavit” but that he “must consider whether there is a less onerous alternative to unsealing the entire document.”

Reinhart then noted the DOJ’s argument that redacting portions of the affidavit would cause an “undue burden on its resources” has not been justified.

“Given the intense public and historical interest in an unprecedented search of a former President’s residence, the Government has not yet shown that these administrative concerns are sufficient to justify sealing.”

“I therefore reject the Government’s argument that the present record justifies keeping the entire Affidavit under seal.”

Reinhart granted the DOJ’s request to give the agency the opportunity to propose redactions, with the deadline being August 25.

Reinhart previously announced he was considering allowing a redacted version of the affidavit to be released as various media outlets including The New York Times and CNN pushed for the document to be released in the interest of the public.

AUTHOR

BRIANNA LYMAN

News and commentary writer. Follow Brianna on Twitter

RELATED ARTICLES:

Report: Documents Show Biden White House Involvement in Trump Criminal Probe

Memos: Biden White House Triggered Raid On Mar-A-Lago

REPORT: FBI Was After Documents Trump Believed Would ‘Exonerate’ Him From Russia Conspiracy

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

CDC Wants Americans to Wear Masks Again to Stop Monkeypox, Despite Growing Evidence It’s Sexually Transmitted

Just in time for mid-terms. U.S. officials have declared monkeypox a public health emergency, and now the CDC is telling Americans to mask up again. Mail-in voting on a large scale is sure to follow, and in November there will be a big blue wave. That’s what the plan is behind all this.

People who do not engage in gay sex or have sex with men who have engaged in it will almost certainly never get monkeypox. Nobody dies from from this gay sexually transmitted disease. No matter. Time to crush our constitutional republic.

This “pandemic,” like the last one, is in essence all about the ballot box, and not about public health at all.

CDC Recommends Masking To Stop Monkeypox Despite Growing Evidence It Spreads Through Sex

by Dylan Housman, Daily Caller, August 19, 2022:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a study Friday suggesting that people wear masks to protect themselves from monkeypox despite growing evidence the virus is transmitted sexually.

The CDC’s Friday Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), its internal journal, included research on the spread of monkeypox via contaminated surfaces. Researchers in Utah sampled 30 different samples from the home of two monkeypox patients, and found that 21 of the surfaces yielded positive real-time PCR results, but none tested positive for viral cultures.

Still, despite the lack of live virus found in the samples, the paper still warns that monkeypox can spread through surface contact. The agency also recommends wearing masks at the bottom of the paper, even though little evidence has emerged that monkeypox is an airborne virus.

“Monkeypox virus primarily spreads through close, personal, often skin-to-skin contact with the rash, scabs, lesions, body fluids, or respiratory secretions of a person with monkeypox; transmission via contaminated objects or surfaces (i.e., fomites) is also possible,” the paper reads. “Persons living in or visiting the home of someone with monkeypox should follow appropriate precautions against indirect exposure and transmission by wearing a well-fitting mask, avoiding touching possibly contaminated surfaces, maintaining appropriate hand hygiene, avoiding sharing eating utensils, clothing, bedding, or towels, and following home disinfection recommendations.”…

“Monkeypox does not spread through airborne particles or droplets, therefore, is not considered to be an airborne virus,” Dr. Rafael E. Pérez-Figueroa, associate dean of Community Engagement and Public Health Practice at the Rutgers School of Public Health, told Prevention.com. “Airborne transmission occurs when small virus particles become suspended in the air and can stay there for periods of time. These particles can spread on air currents and infect people in far distances. That is not the case with the monkeypox virus.”

More and more evidence is emerging that suggests the virus is spread primarily through homosexual male sex, although women and heterosexuals can still be infected….

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Cases of Gay STD Monkeypox Reported in Children

First Dog Infected With Monkeypox After ‘Sharing Bed’ with Gay Men

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

AUSTIN, TEXAS: School District Pushes Teachers to Take ‘LGBTQIA+ Training’ for Children as Young as FIVE — At Taxpayer Expense

The fruit of the poisonous tree of leftist indoctrination. It’s a form of murder. What you won’t hear about is the suicide rates for these mostly confused, brainwashed and depressed children over the next twenty years. When is enough madness enough? How long will America sit idly by while this evil insanity envelops all of our lives? There is something really sick going on. The Democrats have made sexualizing children and gender nullification a top agenda item. This is biblical level depravity. Why this obsession with a tiny percent of the populace? What is really going on here? The destruction of civilization.

G-d save the children. Pull your children out of government schools.

Texas School District Pushes Teachers To Take ‘LGBTQIA+’ Training on Taxpayers’ Dime

by Patrick Hauf, Washington Free Beacon, August 20, 2022:

A Texas school district encouraged K-12 teachers to take paid time off, at taxpayer expense, to take a course on “how to create supportive learning environments for LGBTQIA+” students as young as five years old.

The Austin Independent School District’s course material, obtained through a public information request, defined gender identity as the “innermost concept of self as male, female, neither or both,” calling it “one’s authentic identity.” The course also provided an example of a girl who questions her gender identity and asked how teachers should properly respond.

“A 14-year-old youth, who recently asked to be called Ronnie not Veronica, discloses to you a desire to go by ‘they’ pronouns,” one PowerPoint slide read. “Ronnie wants to cut their hair short but isn’t sure how their parents will react, making them feel anxious. Ronnie is also stressed because while they have been dating Julie and ‘came out as a lesbian’ in 7th grade, they have started to have feelings for Ted, who identifies as male, and this is confusing for them.”…

The “Be a Beacon” gender course is run by Out Youth, which in a February Facebook post claimed that so-called gender-affirming care for transgender children “saves lives.” The training course cited resources from two prominent LGBT groups that also support children receiving puberty blockers and hormone treatment. The presentation cited a book titled, The Transgender Child: A Handbook for Families and Professionals.

“Are you, or parts of you, both? How do you know?” the course asked teachers. “If your anatomy changed overnight to the opposite sex, would it change who you feel yourself to be?”

AUTHOR

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

Dialectics: The Prime Weapon Destroying Western Civilization

“Dialectics” is a term used to describe a method of philosophical argument that involves some sort of contradictory process between opposing sides.


For weeks now I have been ruminating on a paper or post about the state of the dialectic attack on Western civilization via every single imaginable metric. That is to say, think of a value or a compartment or a taboo that is part of the Western culture and thought process and it is under attack. From national feelings to sexual habits to your traditional form of diet in the West.

A lot of people get it at one level, but at the meta, its quite a well constructed ceaseless attack, created and launched via communist and postmodern think tanks, some of which date back over a hundred years.

The evidence is overflowing. So permeated is our culture now that you can basically play a version of dialectic Pin the Tail on the Donkey and win every time. You could blindfold yourself and spin around and walk forward with your arm out and whatever you stop against is probably an example.

Each day that goes by, my list of examples grows, and of course, the project becomes more intimidating. So I have decided to do a kind of proto-post on the subject. Perhaps each time I add a data point, I’ll do it in a separate post and link back to this one. It may be messy, but at least the ideas will be out there.

Let’s begin with this video on Diversity training:

What the makers of this otherwise excellent video fail to understand, can be seen in the last couple of sentences:

“Whatever the explanation, it is bad business in the long run”.

See, it’s meant to be. That is what many who are proper critics of the revolution that is now taking place, do not recognize or express. It is meant to ruin not just business, but all aspects of cooperation in our culture between all people by grouping them in various ways and setting them at each other. In fact they may not even recognize it as rhetorical/dialectic weapons in an actual war on Western thought, and the very concept of the individual itself. (My personal theory as to the nature of the vaccine mandates, was specifically to in part or in whole, dissolve the concept of the individual in our own heads and form an almighty collective we put before ourselves, guided by a God like state.) This is why people must be lumped into groups as the attackers define those groups, and set us all against each other. To not do so, is somehow racist, when in fact racism is a key part of the strategy by the leftist revolutionaries.

Another example is sexual preferences, which have been turned into sexual identity now. So much so, that cross walks are sometimes painted with rainbow colours, and crossing lights for pedestrians are sometimes modified to show homosexual people or couples. This is, as we now know, because the most important thing about crossing a busy street is celebrating men having sex with other men.

Much like this flagpole in front of a posh prestigious private school in Ottawa Canada: Photo of flagpole.

Because after the National flag and the crest of the school, the most important thing about educating children from grade 5 to 12, is celebrating sexual identity and practice of anyone engaging in non-conventional sex acts and identifying as being part of groups with similar prefrences at the expence, it would seem, of more meaningful identities. This is so important, they actually have to flag the school with it.

How long till that flag finds its way to the top? And then what is known as dialectic negation could occur. The replacement of the National flag, which is anathema to communism, with group identities which maintain acrimony and division. Until of course its all the party flag which by then will be a hammer and sickle.

Perhaps Trudeau’s first minister of health could design it. After all, her training was entirely in graphic arts. Her replacement is a graduate of the communist think tank university, The London School of Economics. Neither of them have any medical training.

Then we have the Rogers Communications building on Richmond Rd. in Ottawa. One of the HQ buildings for Canada’s main cable TV, internet, and cell phone providers.

Rogers is more prepared than the private school. They understand that the dialectic attack is part of a never ending revolution, which is what communism is. Their flag is the most up-to-date one with the bits added for Trans and whatever else has been added in the last year or so. At this point the Rainbow flag is at risk of being called racist since it is insufficiently inclusive of whatever new ‘groups’ or ‘communities’ have been created as part of the ongoing dialectic.

These photos are all from this August, 2022. “Pride Month”, which itself is revealing since it’s not “Gay Pride” anymore as, like the flag, its not inclusive enough, was all of  June.

(Also noteworthy is that the literally millions upon millions of young, healthy, productive and nearly entirely men, who sacrificed themselves for our freedom and culture and rule of law, get half a day a year to be celebrated and remembered, while people who like to have sex in unusual ways get a whole month.)

Two months later, and the flags are hanging off buildings which are highly symbolic of important aspects of our culture.

To be clear about the highly annoying and too-often repeated word, “Dialectic”, I mean one thing. Operationally defined for the purpose of this post: dialectics is the weaponization and re-tasking of language in order to be used against classical thought and non-communist, or counter-revolutionary people.

It takes many forms. One common form would be to define a word in such a way that the user of that word, no matter what the context or how that person may use or understand that word, or how its has always been used up until now, can now be made to be guilty of an actual crime based on the new assignment of meaning to that term by communist groups. But that is just one form of dialectics and one worth understanding. Dialectics are always selectively enforced. More accurately, they appear to be selectively enforced. But it is better to see it as a calculated form of weaponized language, the purpose of which is always to move the culture and the law ever leftwards.

When for example, it is not an actual crime to use one of the selected words, they can cite the use of that word to destroy the person in much the same way as if it was. Sometimes worse. I think it was Wendy Mesley of CBC who used, (now get this cause its an example with an example), “The N word” OFF AIR near colleagues, while quoting someone else who used “the N word” to try and show how horrible that person was because they used “the N word” and was fired or otherwise castigated and punished in some manner by the state broadcaster for doing so. The fact that she was waging a dialectic attack against a hated non-leftist by quoting him wasn’t important. It was the blasphemous utterance of the word itself, now more fetish than language, which caused her to metaphorically be put in stocks and have fruit thrown at her.

Photo: US Embassy August 21, 2022 Ottawa

The government funded media in Canada, mostly CBC, CTV and Global, but City News, whatever that is, and other news orgs. use the same MO.

They do not cover news and views. They wage dialectic attacks against targets they wish to destroy. Mostly ones which could be properly described as believing in individual choices for themselves and real non-racism as racism was originally sold to us.

In essence, there is only one metric at play in the developed world now. And its very easy to understand. Any revolutionary act will be amplified, rewarded, normalized and in all ways promoted. If the act is illegal, such as throwing a firebomb at police in Portland or Seattle, or killing a Trump supporter who is an unarmed woman-veteran waved into the Capitol building in the US, won’t be punished and the person who committed these acts will be protected. Any counter-revolutionary actions will be punished. Even if the act was fully legal and harmed no one, it can and will be construed as “hate speech” along the lines of Marcusean Discourse theory. Suddenly speaking a simple empirical truth will be a crime, and if they cannot make it an actual crime, they will doxx you, attack you in other ways, cause you to lose your job or punish you in legal and illegal ways. This is a full scale war for all the marbles. It just happens to be using information warfare for the most part at this time.

I have witnessed this myself for days at the building referred to as “The United People of Canada building on St. Patrick. Media will fire astonishingly awful attacks with question marks against the people within the organization, while asking softball questions to hate-filled protestors on their lawn. One question I heard repeatedly was, “Can’t you understand that people in this area would be frightened when they see vehicles here that are decorated in a similar fashion to the ones in the convoy when they were so traumatized by the protest?” This isn’t a question. It’s the crown attorney grilling a suspect when he knows they have no lawyer who will object. Had that question been asked as a “guilty by association” issue about any in-fashion group, we all know what would happen to the questioner. Imagine it about fearing a racial or sexual orientation group because of the imputed experience of people with other members of that group. You can see what I mean.

Photo: Rude and aggressive protestor who claimed to represent the area

I suppose this will do for a start. If anyone made it this far, my sincere thanks.

There will be MUCH more on the United People of Canada soon. It does appear that it was Ottawa’s Mayor who is interfering with their rent payments. I really hope they have a good lawyer.

AUTHOR

Eeyore

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

DOCUMENTS: 44 Percent of Pregnant Women Miscarried After Receiving Pfizer Vaccine

And still they aggressively promoted this poison. It is, in fact, one of the greatest medical crimes in history.

American Greatness:

More than 40 percent of pregnant women who participated in Pfizer’s mRNA COVID vaccine trial suffered miscarriages, according internal Pfizer documents, recently released under court order. Despite this, Pfizer, and the Biden administration insisted that the vaccines were safe for pregnant women. Out of 50 pregnant women, 22 of them lost their babies, according to an analysis of the documents… The FDA and CDC could conceivably claim they were unaware of high rate of miscarriages in the trial because Pfizer attempted to obscure the data.

Will Witt:

According to Dr. Naomi Wolf, who runs a crowdsourced project to analyze 300,000 Pfizer documents released via a FOIA request, 44 percent of pregnant women who participated in the drug maker’s COVID-19 vaccine trial lost their babies (Twitter).

Florida Standard:

On its website, the CDC still recommends that pregnant women get vaccinated: “COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for all people 6 months and older. This includes people who are pregnant, breastfeeding, trying to get pregnant now, or might become pregnant in the future”.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pfizer Whistleblower Exposes Vaccine Data Cover-Up

VIDEO: Pfizer Scientist’s Latest COVID Revelations…ABOUT VAXXED PREGNANT WOMEN!

Pfizer Says COVID-19 Vaccine Efficacy Weakens Over Time!

VIDEO: FBI Letter Shows Pfizer Tied to Investigation of Project Veritas

VIDEO: Pfizer Insider LEAKS Hidden COVID Vaccine Info

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

Joe Biden’s 2022 migrant invasion breaks records, despite government numbers hiding huge number of ‘got-aways’

Free-for-all open borders means an open invitation to literally anyone, jihadists, drug dealers and human traffickers included.

From economic damage to threats to national security, Joe Biden is destroying America from within.

Joe Biden’s 2022 Migrant Flood Breaks Records

by Neil Munro, Breitbart, August 18, 2022:

Another 199,976 economic migrants arrived at the southern border in July, ensuring President Joe Biden’s 2022 migration exceeds the total 2021 numbers, even though August and September numbers have yet to be added.

The government tracks the migrant arrival and inflow data by its “Fiscal Year” calendar, which starts October 1 and ends September 30. The total 2022 number will be known once the August and September numbers are counted.

In all 12 months of fiscal 2021, officials counted 1,734,686 migrants at the border and allowed 671,160 into the United States via various border-law loopholes.

But in the first 10 months of fiscal 2022, border officials have counted 1,946,780 migrants at the border and allowed 1,012,378 economic migrants to seek homes and jobs throughout the United States.

This July, Biden’s deputies admitted 125,403 of the 199,976 arriving migrants. The 2022 admission numbers show a 50 percent jump over 2021, with two months to go.

The numbers are flawed. For example, the numbers counted at the border are inflated when rejected migrants repeatedly try to sneak across the border.

But the bigger problem is that the government numbers hide the huge inflow of “got-aways” — people who sneak past the few patrol agents and the incomplete border wall along the border. Insiders within the border agencies say the agencies count roughly 40,000 got-aways each month or roughly 500,000 per year….

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Regime Allowing Former Taliban To Migrate To U.S. Under Refugee Program Billed As For ‘Interpreters

NPR Poll: 54% of Americans Agree Border Crisis an ‘Invasion’

The American Conservative denounces Rushdie, complains that his book was ‘deliberately insulting to Islam’

A year after conquering Afghanistan, the Taliban are no longer pretending to be ‘inclusive’

Pakistan: Teen girl forced to lick shoes, her hair is chopped for refusing to marry her friend’s father

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

Documentary: ‘Uninformed Consent’

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The documentary “Uninformed Consent” takes a deep dive into the COVID-19 narrative — who’s controlling it and how fear was used to push novel, unproven gene transfer technology onto, and into, people of all ages
  • Weaving in and out of the heart-wrenching story of one man’s loss, interviews with doctors and scientists explore the loss of human rights in the name of biosecurity, and how the “elite class” profit from it all
  • “Divide and conquer” — creating division among people — is an age-old war strategy. During Hitler’s reign, anti-Semitism was normalized through propaganda in which Jews were likened to “lice” and were accused of carrying infectious disease. The same tactic was used during the COVID pandemic
  • The personal story that is returned to again and again throughout the film is that of a grieving husband, whose wife committed suicide. She suffered relentless bullying and harassment from coworkers and superiors for refusing the jab, and when she was finally placed on unpaid leave, she took her own life
  • The film reviews the medical establishment’s wholesale abandonment of the Hippocratic Oath, the lawless culture of the drug industry and its capture of regulatory agencies and media, the history of informed consent and why coercion and mandates violate this basic public health principle, vaccine injuries and vaccine-injury denialism, the behind-the-scenes corruption that led to the suppression of science and early treatment, and more

The documentary above, “Uninformed Consent,”1,2,3 takes a deep dive into the COVID-19 narrative — who’s controlling it and how fear was (and continues to be) used to push novel, unproven gene transfer technology onto, and into, people of all ages, and the simultaneous theft of private wealth and the destruction of small businesses, across the globe.

The film is written and directed by Todd Michael Harris (Matador Films). Odessa Orlewicz, a pro-freedom activist in British Columbia and founder of the Canadian social media platform Librti, and Ted Kuntz, retired psychotherapist and president of Vaccine Choice Canada, co-produced the film.

Weaving in and out of the heart-wrenching story of one man’s loss, interviews with doctors and scientists explores the loss of human rights in the name of biosecurity, and how the “elite class” profit from it all.

Interspersed are compilations of media lies and the bewilderingly contradictory dictates of government officials, as well as footage from protests and examples of people collapsing on live television after getting the jab.

The COVID jabs are a crime against humanity, and it’s a crime in progress. For many who are aware of what’s going on, everyday reality is like watching an intentional, slow-motion train wreck.

Divide and Conquer

As noted by B.C. physician Dr. Stephen Malthouse, who is interviewed in the film, “divide and conquer” is an age-old war strategy. During Hitler’s reign, anti-Semitism was normalized through propaganda in which Jews were likened to “lice,” and were accused of carrying typhus. The same exact strategy was used during the COVID pandemic.

Irrational hatred against anti-maskers, “anti-lockdowners” and “anti-vaxxers” was relentlessly fueled and “normalized” by government officials, health authorities and media, right from the start.

Those who dutifully wore their face masks and got the jab were hailed as good and moral citizens, while the rest were labeled as murderous, disease-carrying, amoral egotists, who’d by their selfishness forfeited their right to life.

Family members were pitted against family members. Friends against friends. Coworkers against coworkers. Employers against employees. Most of us who opted out of this grand genetic experiment have been shunned and berated by people we love.

Adding insult to injury, we all paid for this abuse. Billions of taxpayer dollars were spent on propaganda, anti-vax harassment and pro-vax advertising. The pain of this intentional divide and conquer strategy was too great to bear for many.

Bullied to Death

The personal story that Harris returns to again and again throughout the film is that of a grieving husband whose wife committed suicide. She suffered relentless bullying and harassment from coworkers and superiors for refusing the jab, and when she was finally placed on unpaid leave, she took her own life.

How many suicides are the pandemic puppet masters and their brainwashed minions responsible for? Nobody knows, but it’s likely quite a few. And make no mistake: The hateful rhetoric fed into everyone’s brains and acted out by the weak-minded was intended to cause harm.

It was intended to cause distress, and many now carry the cross of having bullied someone to death, whether they’re aware of it or not. Sadly, many have not yet learned their lesson, and efforts to demonize certain groups continues. Now, the targeted opposition are those who ask questions that Big Pharma and government refuse to answer, or point out blatant contradictions in the narrative.

Most ‘Conspiracy Theories’ Are Conspiracy Facts

Terms like “conspiracy theorist” and “conspiracy theory” are applied to everything and everyone who questions the official and clearly ridiculous narrative. And, the demonization continues even as so-called “conspiracies” are repeatedly shown to be true.

For example, the suspicion that we’d be forced to take these gene therapy shots multiple times a year, for years on end, was labeled a “conspiracy theory,” yet it didn’t take long before boosters were rolled out, and now they’re coming out with shots for newer variants as well, which will result in another round of shots.

Similarly, “conspiracy theorists” warned that people who got the jab would have to continue getting boosters or lose their precious “fully vaccinated” status, and that’s exactly what happened.

In fact, the concept of vaccine passports being used to shut people out of everyday society was initially dismissed as a paranoid conspiracy theory, yet it didn’t take long before governments were doing exactly that.

“Conspiracy theorists” also warned that the COVID jab didn’t prevent infection or spread, and that too is now an indisputable fact. As of early February 2022, Israel reported that 80% of serious COVID cases were among the fully vaccinated.4

“Conspiracy theorists” warned that giving the experimental shot to teens and young children would be unconscionably dangerous, as they have a negligible risk for COVID complications, and now even mainstream media from time to time admit that teens and young adults are suffering above normal rates of heart inflammation.

Between January 2021 and August 2022 (a period of 19 months), at least 1,249 athletes have suffered cardiac arrest or collapse, and 847 have died after COVID injection, worldwide.5 Historically, the annual average of sudden death in athletes was between 296 and 69.7

Pandemic Responses Scrutinized

“Uninformed Consent” scrutinizes many of the elements of the pandemic response, such as the irrational idea that early treatment for COVID-19 is nonexistent and/or futile, and the equally irrational idea that the only solution is to inject everyone on the planet with an experimental product, without regard for individual levels of risk.

In interviews with doctors and scientists — such as Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Peter McCullough, B.C. family physicians Dr. Stephen Malthouse and Dr. Charles Hoffe, Dr. Tess Laurie and government drug policy researcher Alan Cassels — Harris shines a bright light on the medical establishment’s sudden wholesale abandonment of the Hippocratic Oath.

He also looks at the lawless culture of the drug industry and its capture of regulatory agencies and media — a development that has effectively eliminated any protection the public would have had, and should have, from predatory behavior and dangerous products. Harris also reviews:

  • The history of informed consent and why coercion and mandates violate this most basic and essential public health principle.
  • Injuries from the COVID jab and other childhood vaccines, and the history of vaccine-injury denialism.
  • The corrupted individuals, organizations and networks behind the pandemic measures, including the central roles of Dr. Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates in the suppression of science and life-saving treatments.
  • The massive conflicts of interest between Big Pharma, the agencies that regulate them and politicians who create our laws.
  • The collusion between private entities and governments to bring forth global totalitarianism under the banner of biosecurity.

I hope you’ll take the time to watch “Uninformed Consent,” and share it with others. Harris specifically tried, he says, to create a film that would help open the eyes and minds of those who still cannot see what’s happening, or don’t fully believe what they’re seeing.

Resources for Those Injured by the COVID Jabs

To close things out with something that is not covered in this film, if you for whatever reason got one or more jabs and suffered an injury, know there are good doctors and scientists working on solutions.

First and foremost, never ever take another COVID booster, another mRNA gene therapy shot or regular vaccine. You need to end the assault on your system. The same goes for anyone who has taken one or more COVID jabs and had the good fortune of not experiencing debilitating side effects.

Your health may still be impacted long-term, so don’t take any more shots. When it comes to treatment, there still aren’t many doctors who know what to do, although I suspect we’ll see more doctors specializing in COVID jab injuries in the future.

Doctors who have started tackling the treatment of COVID jab injuries in earnest include Dr. Michelle Perro (DrMichellePerro.com), whom I’ve interviewed on this topic. Perro is a pediatrician who over the past couple of years has also started treating adults injured by the jab. Another is Dr. Pierre Kory (DrPierreKory.com).

Both agree that eliminating the spike protein your body is now continuously producing is a primary task. Perro’s preferred remedy for this is hydroxychloroquine, while Kory typically uses ivermectin. Both of these drugs bind and thereby facilitate the removal of spike protein.

Kory also believes there may be ways to boost the immune system to allow it to degrade and eventually remove the spike from your cells naturally, over time. One of the strategies he recommends for this is TRE (time restricted eating), which stimulates autophagy, a natural cleaning process that eliminates damaged, misfolded and toxic proteins. Another strategy that can do the same thing would be sauna therapy.

As a member of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), Kory helped develop the FLCCC’s post-vaccine treatment protocol called I-RECOVER. Since the protocol is continuously updated as more data becomes available, your best bet is to download the latest version straight from the FLCCC website at covid19criticalcare.com8 (hyperlink to the correct page provided above).

Other Helpful Treatments and Remedies

In previous articles, I’ve also covered a number of treatments and remedies that can be helpful for COVID jab injuries, such as:

  • Hyperbaric oxygen therapy, especially in cases involving stroke, heart attack, autoimmune diseases and/or neurodegenerative disorders. To learn more, see “Hyperbaric Therapy — A Vastly Underused Treatment Modality.”
  • Pharmaceutical grade methylene blue, which improves mitochondrial respiration and aid in mitochondrial repair. At 15 to 20 milligrams a day, it could potentially go a long way toward resolving some of the fatigue many suffer post-jab.

It may also be helpful in acute strokes. The primary contraindication is if you have a G6PD deficiency (a hereditary genetic condition), in which case you should not use methylene blue at all. To learn more, see “The Surprising Health Benefits of Methylene Blue.”

  • Near-infrared light, as it triggers production of melatonin in your mitochondria9 where you need it most. By mopping up reactive oxygen species, it too helps improve mitochondrial function and repair. Natural sunlight is 54.3% infrared radiation,10 so this treatment is available for free. For more information, see “What You Need to Know About Melatonin.”
Sources and References

Democrats Passed $7,500 Electric Vehicle Tax Credit, Then EV Prices Were Immediately Raised $7,500

Their contempt for you knows no bounds.

Democrats passed $7,500 Electric Vehicle Tax Credit, then prices were immediately raised

By: Sara Carter Staff, August 17, 2022:

A recent scenario at the Ford Motor Company is the perfect way to explain what Democrats are doing to this country when they pass bills for our “benefit.” On August 9, Senate Democrats passed a bill they praised, which included a $7,500 federal electric vehicle tax credit.

Shortly after, Ford raised the price of its electric car. By how much? $7,000. What a coincidence. “The base model of the 2023 F-150 Lightning pickup will now cost $47,000, up from it’s original price of $40,000, according to CNN.”

Daily Caller News Foundation reports ”More expensive models, such as the XLT High/Extended Range and the Lariat Extended Range have increased in price by $8,500, while other F-150 Lightning designs vary between $6,000 to $7,000 in price increases, according to the Detroit Free Press.”

The price change was attributed to “significant material cost increases and other factors,” CNN noted. Despite the changes, the increase will not impact those currently waiting for delivery of their vehicles, but impacts those who have reserved but not yet ordered the truck, CNBC reported.

But don’t just blame Ford for being forced to dance with the Democrats. General Motors also just announced it will increase the price of its electric model of the GMC Hummer. The cost will go up by $6,250, CNN reported.

A recent scenario at the Ford Motor Company is the perfect way to explain what Democrats are doing to this country when they pass bills for our “benefit.” On August 9, Senate Democrats passed a bill they praised, which included a $7,500 federal electric vehicle tax credit.

Shortly after, Ford raised the price of its electric car. By how much? $7,000. What a coincidence. “The base model of the 2023 F-150 Lightning pickup will now cost $47,000, up from it’s original price of $40,000, according to CNN.”

Daily Caller News Foundation reports ”More expensive models, such as the XLT High/Extended Range and the Lariat Extended Range have increased in price by $8,500, while other F-150 Lightning designs vary between $6,000 to $7,000 in price increases, according to the Detroit Free Press.”

The price change was attributed to “significant material cost increases and other factors,” CNN noted. Despite the changes, the increase will not impact those currently waiting for delivery of their vehicles, but impacts those who have reserved but not yet ordered the truck, CNBC reported.

But don’t just blame Ford for being forced to dance with the Democrats. General Motors also just announced it will increase the price of its electric model of the GMC Hummer. The cost will go up by $6,250, CNN reported.

The Daily Caller adds:

With eligibility and tax credit rules preparing to change under new legislation, including the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, certain modules of the vehicle may qualify for the credit this year, according to Consumer Reports. It is unclear if the truck will be eligible in the future, according to CNN.

The electric trucks only have a range of 230 to 320 miles depending on the model, a moderate increase of 10 miles to the company’s standard battery, CNBC continued.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLE: Study: 20% of electric vehicle owners couldn’t charge their EVs at public charging stations

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

Is the U.S. Congress Now Irrelevant?

The U.S. Congress is composed of 100 members of the US Senate and 435 members of the US House of Representatives, called ‘The People’s House’ (seriously, when was the last time “the people” actually had any voice in THAT House?). For the remainder of this article, and for the sake of clarity, all the members of the Senate and the House will be called “the 535”

When people in positions of trust and authority try to cover their own bad behavior and deliberately ignore the bad behavior of their colleagues, and worse, try to cover them up, you must be aware there is a problem. We have witnessed this in the U.S. Congress for many decades and privately wondered why this is allowed to happen, yet it continues to happen from year to year without being addressed in any way. It is a complete impossibility for those who use their eyes and ears, with their brains hopefully engaged, to deny this is a serious problem in the US.

Based on the constitutional description of their duties, have the 535 now made the entire U.S. Congress irrelevant? You decide.

These 535 people who sit in their padded chairs, who have bloated salaries and budgets and huge numbers of staff to “assist” them (doing what?), who are provided “armed security” (from what?), who fly from coast to coast, indeed around the world on OUR dime, have totally lost touch with, not only their constituents (remember them?), but with reality itself and have separated themselves from the American people in so many ways it’s nearly impossible to enumerate them. But let me give it a shot.

Separation from Constituents (remember them?)

  • They are paid $174,000 per year, compared to approximately $54,000 which is the average salary of a working class American, including their constituents (remember them?) in 2022.
  • They are provided (I should say they voted themselves) much better ‘benefits’ than the average American, including their constituents (remember them?), both in pensions and insurance, once again from the public treasury.
  • They are given exemptions from many of the ‘mandates’ that average Americans are required to accept.
  • They are (seemingly) not required to justify, to anyone, why they voted a certain way on any issue in their day to day work as “representatives” of their constituents (once again, remember them?), compared to the average American who must continually explain his actions to his employer when the expectations of his or her job are not met and the end result is usually termination of employment.
  • Unlike a majority of their constituents (remember them?), they are not required to go through a yearly “job review” in order to continue with employment, which would almost certainly result in THEIR termination based on poor job performance.
  • They introduce bills that may result in additional laws being written and signed into law requiring their constituents (remember them?) to obey these laws, while the 535 seem to be exempt from them most of the time. In addition, their constituents (remember them?) are almost never allowed any input into the bill-introduction process.
  • They are privy to “insider information” that allows them to make stock purchases and sales that brings them huge returns on investment, and indeed will render them millionaires during their time as “representatives of their constituents’ (remember them?), while their constituents must rely on the sometimes fake information given to the public and hope and pray they will not lose their life savings to a crooked and corrupt stock market.

Separation From Reality

The 535 placed their hands on The Holy Bible (remember it?) and swore an oath before Almighty God, to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God (Oh, remember him?).

It now appears that their oaths should be amended to say they swear to “support and defend their party agenda”, regardless of whether said agenda violates the Constitution, and will “bear true faith and allegiance to their party agenda”, and that they will discharge the “duties of their office”, which duties seem to have no connection to the Constitution but rather to the enrichment of themselves and their party, along with further consolidating their power over the people.

The 535 now seem to believe that their constituents (remember them?) exist only to pay the taxes levied by the Congress so that the 535 can continue in their lavish lifestyles, eating super-expensive ‘gourmet’ ice cream and jetting around the world, increasing their personal wealth from covert, and likely illegal, deals made with officials from foreign governments and corporations. While the eating and jetting are commencing, their constituents (remember them?) are trying to come up with additional ways, up to and including taking on extra jobs, to keep themselves and their children fed and clothed.

The Bloated US Debt

Setting the spending of the US government, and making sure that the financial security of the United States government is intact, is the duty of the members of the US House of ‘Representatives’ (do we truly still have those?).

It has been said that debt is bondage, and a majority of Americans experience that bondage daily, and while the AVERAGE American and the constituents (remember them?) of the 535 are living week to week, sometimes day to day, and maxing out credit cards to survive, the 535 seem to spend an inordinate amount of THEIR time, funded by the American taxpayers and their constituents (remember them?), eagerly searching for additional ways to borrow and spend even more money on ridiculous and worthless ideas, adding trillions of dollars to our current debt (and, by the way, millions of dollars to their personal wealth).

While most Americans try to live by a balanced budget (an increasingly impossible task), balancing their incomes with their expenditures, the 535 have not submitted to, or received from, a POTUS, a balanced budget since 2001 (seriously?) and the last time the federal government budget displayed a surplus was in the 1920s (again, seriously?).

If true that the last balanced budget was in 2001, could that have necessitated the instigation of a costly (in excess of $2 trillion) and questionable war, lasting more than twenty years, in order to ignore, or better yet, get rid of that pesky ‘budget-balancing’ idea? After all, wars are critical to the sustenance and proliferation of our “American democracy” (what happened to the republic?) and they sometimes demand that  reality be ‘suspended’ so that the war can be fought and won……but wait, we didn’t win THAT war, did we? No, in shame, we left the battlefield to the enemy, along with $85 billion of the latest and greatest US military hardware, paid for by the constituents (remember them) of the 535.

Could this be an indication that, while everyday American citizens wish they had enough income to simply match their necessary expenditures, reality has fled from the 535 who agree to send hundreds of billions of OUR dollars overseas, ostensibly to ‘rebuild’ the very countries they spent hundreds of billions of OUR dollars to ‘destroy’?

Has reality fled from the 535 when they think it is their “duty” to require the lives of thousands of their constituents (remember them?) who have been sent to, and shed their blood in, places that their constituents have no interest in and likely could not locate on a world globe?

Has reality fled from the 535 who daily entertain an army of lobbyists who job it is to present new spending projects to the 535 and get them approved, by any means necessary? Could it be that these lobbyists, who have extremely large amounts of money to use for wining and dining the intended recipients, offering the contents of their bulging pockets, actually enrich the 535 in order to get their pet projects approved?

If so, would that not be an unethical, immoral and likely illegal action of the 535 in receiving such funds?

Even though the 535 (sometimes) make contact with their constituents (remember them?) when their campaigns for reelection are beginning and they feel the need to get their faces in front of them so the voters will be able to place that face with a name on the ballot, those constituents would prefer that the 535 ASK them what they would like to see happen in OUR Congress, while they are being required to pay their bloated salaries, but the 535 mostly seem to be way too busy to spare any time to actually get to know them, and get a feeling for what their concerns are. And that is a real shame because they would get quite an education that, if they were honest enough to admit it, would likely change, at least some of THEIR actions in OUR Congress. (Hint: They are NOT that honest).

Could it be that the 535 don’t really WANT to know the thoughts and needs of their constituents?

BINGO!

The Real Reality, An Eventual Accounting

Has reality fled from the 535 when they believe there will not be an eventual accounting required of them for their unethical, immoral and likely illegal actions?

These 535 might want to take a closer look at those oaths they spoke. They swore, not so much to their constituents (remember them?), but to an eternal and all-powerful God who is also JUST in all His ways. But, they might say, “I really do not believe in God, so I’m not really worried about retribution from any God for violating the oath”. And based on their actions, this would likely be the one time they’re actually speaking the truth),

All well and good, no one is forcing them to believe in God, but their constituents (remember them?) are likely people who DO believe in God and take all oaths sworn before Him much more seriously than the privileged 535. They are also likely to be true patriotic Americans who understand the importance of OUR Constitution and want to see it supported and defended, especially by those 535 for whom they voted.

Conclusion

If any of this makes sense to you, it MUST be considered that the US Congress has indeed become irrelevant. Usually, when important events are occurring, anything deemed to be irrelevant is simply ignored, not considered during discussions or even thought about. But when an entity such as the US Congress, has become irrelevant, yet is responsible for raping the American taxpayers, their constituents (remember them?), an accounting must happen, whether at the hands of their constituents (remember them?) or an angry and powerful God.

The writer of the Book of Hebrews said. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Hebrews 10:31 KJV).

The current sentiment of the average American voter, with polling recently showing that the approval rating for Congress is under 20%, when considering whether the US Congress is still relevant,  the question could be asked whether it might be a more fearful thing to be required to answer, completely and HONESTLY, to their American CONSTITUENTS, either through the ballot box  or the jury box.

As for the ballot box, it has been said that votes and voters do NOT decide elections, MONEY decides elections.

I personally believe that the current political system is SO corrupt and so beyond repair, that the ballot box will not suffice to correct any problems with the US Congress. The powers that be, the ones who truly make the decisions that are ‘mouthed’ by Congress, have enough money to buy any person or party and any number of votes.

The demonic persons just mentioned seem to be very ‘relevant’, but beyond the reach of the average person, leaving the 535 alone to be held responsible, via the jury box, for their actions that affect 330 million Americans.

Blessings!

budaroo@twc.com

©Bud Hancock. All rights reserved.

When Government Meddlers Run Amok

Self-improvement is the answer to interventionism.


The world is beset by meddlers run amok. Government officials around the globe have been on an interventionist decree spree, placing whole populations under house arrest, shutting down entire industries, mandating medical procedures for millions, and so much more.

What can anti-interventionists do about such a metastasis of mass-meddling?

The solution that gets the most attention is direct political change: remove the mass-meddlers from power and replace them with leaders who respect liberty. Leonard E. Read, the founder of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), discussed this proposed fix in his book Elements of Libertarian Leadership.

“The interventionists, it is observed, have ‘leaders’ galore in the political arena. Why, inquire many anti-interventionists, should we tarry any longer?” Read wrote. “Why not find ourselves some political leaders who will represent our points of view?”

This solution, he noted, misunderstands the problem.

“The reason,” Read continued, “that the interventionists have so many ‘leaders’ is only because there is throughout our land a very substantial body of influential, interventionist opinion. The ones out front and who are popularly appraised as leaders are, in fact, not the real leaders. They are but echoes of the underlying opinion, and an echo implies an antecedent sound.”

As Read’s colleague Ludwig von Mises explained, thought-leaders (“influential opinion”) sway popular support, and popular support sets the parameters for political success. The reason anti-interventionist policies have not prevailed is that the ideological groundwork for them has not been laid. Read warned of “the futility of attempting to build on a foundation that does not exist. One might as well look for an abundance of flowers where there has been a scarcity of seeds…”

“The out-front folks in political parties,” Read explained, “are but thermometers—indicators of the political temperature. Change the temperature and there will be a change in what’s out front—naturally and spontaneously. The only purpose in keeping an eye on the thermometer is to know what the temperature is. If the underlying influential opinion—the temperature—is interventionist, we’ll have interventionists in public office regardless of the party labels they may choose for their adornment and public appeal.”

In other words, we will be stuck with interventionist overlords so long as the masses are under the sway of interventionist thought-leaders. Until that changes, deposing one set of tyrants will only make room for another. The only way to rid ourselves of mass-meddlers is to reorient the meddlesome masses. “Politics,” as Andrew Breitbart said, “is downstream from culture.”

And both politics and culture are downstream from ideas.

The political culture of a people is shaped by the moral, social, economic, and political philosophy of its thought-leaders.

“It’s the influential opinion,” as Read clarified (or “ideological might” as Mises called it) “that counts, and nothing else. This is to be distinguished from ‘public opinion,’ there being no such thing. Every significant movement in history—good or bad—has resulted from influential ideas held by comparatively few persons.”

“For the masses of men,” as Murray Rothbard explained,” do not create their own ideas, or indeed think through these ideas independently; they follow passively the ideas adopted and disseminated by the body of intellectuals. The intellectuals are, therefore, the ‘opinion-molders’ in society.”

It is important to note that the ranks of influential intellectuals are not exclusive to university academics and corporate journalists—which is a relief, since those establishment professions have become so compromised by interventionist governments. Especially in the age of the internet, entrepreneurial intellectuals (like podcasters and Substack writers) and amateur intellectuals (like you or anyone else with the interest and intellect it takes to read an essay like this) can rise and come to the fore.

Influence does not come from the government-aligned establishment vesting someone with a PhD or a press pass. True influence, Read taught, comes from within.

“Here, then,” he wrote, “is the key question: What constitutes an influential opinion? In the context of moral, social, economic, and political philosophy, influential opinion stems from or rests upon (1) depth of understanding, (2) strength of conviction, and (3) the power of attractive exposition. These are the ingredients of self-perfection as relating to a set of ideas. Persons who thus improve their understanding, dedication, and exposition are the leaders of men; the rest of us are followers, including the out-front political personalities.”

To realize liberty, we must first cultivate “an influential libertarian opinion.” To rid ourselves of mass-meddlers, we must first persuasively advocate an anti-interventionist, pro-liberty philosophy. And before we can effectively do that, we must understand and uphold that philosophy ourselves, which, as Read cautioned, is harder than many libertarians suppose.

With that in mind, what exactly is interventionism, as distinct from liberty? What constitutes meddling, as opposed to minding one’s own proper business? To rid ourselves of something, we must first be able to identify it.

The most fundamental distinction between proper and improper conduct is between the proper and the improper use of force. As John Locke discussed and America’s founders (for the most part) agreed, force is only proper in the defense of individual rights. Any use of force outside of that, whether by government agents or private criminals, is therefore the worst kind of intervention: meddling with someone else’s person or property. When government agents infringe on the rights of individuals, they transgress the most fundamental bounds of propriety.

And by meddling in other people’s business, government officials also stray beyond their domain of competence. As F.A. Hayek explained in his work on “the knowledge problem,” central planners are incapable of “social engineering” the affairs of others without making a massive mess of things. Tyrannical order can only yield “planned chaos,” as Mises called it.

Interventionism is morally wrong and socially destructive, whereas liberty yields justice, harmony, and flourishing. If more intelligent and upstanding men and women had understood these truths well enough to consistently abide by them and persuasively explain them, their influence would have prevented the interventionist blitzkrieg that has made such a mess of the world over the past two years.

But advancing a pro-liberty and anti-meddling social, economic, and political philosophy is only half the solution. As Mises explained in “The Psychological Roots of Antiliberalism” (a section of his book Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition), many people have moral failings and psychological issues that make their support for interventionist and socialist doctrines immune from rational counter-argument.

Some people embrace interventionism and socialism as a coping mechanism: they respond to disappointment over their own lives by shifting most of the blame away from themselves and onto outside factors: like “greedy capitalists” or capitalism itself. Through political activism, they meddle in the affairs of others as a way of evading responsibility for their own lives.

As Read put it, “Those who refuse to rule themselves are usually bent on ruling others. Those who can rule themselves usually have no interest in ruling others.”

With people for whom meddling is less an intellectual error and more of an emotional hangup, a different approach may be needed. You may need to help them understand that a life philosophy of resentment is debilitating and self-destructive, while a life philosophy of responsibility is fulfilling, ennobling, and can be downright life-saving.

Frédéric Bastiat said to the mass-meddlers of 19th century France: “You who wish to reform everything! Why don’t you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough.”

Psychologist Jordan B. Peterson echoed this injunction when on Joe Rogan’s podcast he said, “don’t be fixing up the economy, 18-year-olds. You don’t know anything about the economy. It’s a massive complex machine beyond anyone’s understanding and you mess with it at your peril. So can you even clean up your own room?”

Before you get caught up in restructuring society, Peterson advised, sort out your own life first, starting with your room, because then “you’re not exceeding your domain of competence.”

“My sense,” he said, “is that if you want to change the world, you start from yourself and work outward, because you build your competence that way.”

As you improve yourself, you may become an inspiration and good influence for your family, then your circle of friends, then your colleagues at work, then maybe even wider communities.

You change the world for the better by acting as a role model, not a mass-meddler. True leadership is modeling, not meddling.

That is how you can become a force for good instead of a do-gooder. It’s the difference between meaningful virtue and vain virtue-signaling. And attaining the former is vastly more satisfying than indulging in the latter. You can sometimes fool others, but you can’t fool your own conscience. And the human conscience knows the difference between actually doing good and fraudulently looking good.

Peterson’s message of personal responsibility and self-improvement has resonated powerfully with young audiences and inoculated them against the gospel of resentment and intellectual arrogance preached by interventionists and socialists.

Leonard Read would have been delighted to see Peterson’s impact and not the least bit surprised. “Right method,” he wrote, “…consists of self-improvement. If everyone were devoted to the perfection of self, there could be no meddlers amongst us, and without meddlers there could be no socialism.”

A message of self-improvement and personal responsibility can succeed where socio-economic arguments fail, because it’s less of an intellectual exercise and more of a practical dilemma. A person can still cling to their coping mechanism and deny the truth of the message, but only to their own great personal detriment.

We free ourselves from mass-meddling by educating ourselves and others about the dangers of meddling: both on a societal and a personal level.

But in so doing, we must be wary of fighting fire with fire: of meddling with the meddlers.

For example, we must never use government intervention for cheap “wins” against interventionists, for then we become what we hate.

And as Read stressed, we should even avoid “imposing” our explanations on those who have no interest in them. Sharing wisdom where it’s not welcome is its own kind of meddling. Rather than “casting pearls” at those incapable of appreciating them, we should address those who are open to learning.

Above all, Read stressed improving one’s own understanding, dedication to, and ability to explain the freedom philosophy, because the more you do that, the more you will attract students who are not only open to your teaching, but actively seek it.

As Lawrence Reed, President Emeritus of FEE, has stressed in his book Are We Good Enough for Liberty?, improving one’s character in general is also essential, because it greatly increases your influence with those who admire you.

Of course that shouldn’t be the main reason you pursue character development. Self-improvement becomes self-defeating when it becomes primarily about garnering influence, winning praise, and other forms of moral vanity.

The paradox of changing the world is that the best way to improve others is not to try to improve others. Instead seek self-improvement for its own sake, and you will inspire others to improve themselves as a natural and blessed byproduct.

As Leonard Read taught, the most powerful way to minister to the meddlers in our midst is to exorcize the meddlers within ourselves and devote our hearts to self-improvement, thereby leading the way to liberty by our example.

 

AUTHOR

Dan Sanchez

Dan Sanchez is the Director of Content at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and the editor-in chief of FEE.org.

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

Why Are Lawmakers Trying to Fast-Track Citizenship for Afghans We Can’t Properly Vet?

Amid a full-blown border crisis that threatens national security and public health — for which the Biden administration is wholly responsible — a bipartisan group of lawmakers has decided this might be a good time to fast-track citizenship for around 76,000 Afghan nationals who were lucky enough to force their way onto the last planes out of Kabul a year ago.

Republicans have been unanimous in their criticism of President Biden’s handing of the border and immigration enforcement overall, correctly noting the reckless nature of the administration in turning loose a million or so illegal border-crossers, whom we know little or nothing about. Yet, Republican Sens. Roy Blunt, Lisa Murkowski and Lindsey Graham are joining with their Democratic colleagues in sponsoring the Afghan Adjustment Act, a bill that would eventually make citizens of 76,000 people from a country now controlled by an antagonist terrorist theocracy. The proposal also seeks to expand additional pathways for Afghans to enter the country.

Most of the Afghans who were airlifted out of Kabul when the Biden administration bugged out with its tail between its legs are probably decent folks who, understandably, would rather not live under the Taliban. Given the nature of the regime, it is also possible, if not likely, that some of those who made it onto the tarmac at the Kabul airport last summer were intentionally placed there by the Taliban or al Qaeda. In fact, a Department of Defense whistleblower recently reported that 324 of the individuals the Biden administration evacuated have appeared on the Pentagon’s watch list, including known and suspected terrorists. Others may have been heinous criminals — but these are things we’ll never know until it’s too late.

Additionally, turning 76,000 random Afghans into U.S. citizens would serve as a further acknowledgment by our government that the Taliban is, and will remain, the unchallenged government of that country. The unmistakable signal will be that the United States holds out no hope that Afghans will be able to reclaim control of their country from the Taliban, further dispiriting those who might be brave enough to challenge the medieval theocracy from within.

Acceptance is one step short of the normalization of a regime that not only brutalizes its own people but serves as a haven and an incubator for global terrorism. If these members of Congress need any reminder of that, it is worth noting that Kabul was the last known address of Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Maintaining the status quo for the 76,000 Afghan nationals in question does not put them in harm’s way. On the other hand, rushing to turn them into citizens potentially puts everyone else in harm’s way. We have neither eyes, ears nor feet on the ground in Afghanistan. Not only can we not rely on the Taliban to provide us with background information about the people we are trying to vet (if those records even exist), we can safely assume that the regime will do all in its power to prevent us from identifying people who might pose a danger. Moreover, merely seeking that information could endanger family members who remain in Afghanistan. At the very least, maintaining people as parolees allows us to easily remove them when we uncover, through other means, that they pose some sort of threat.

Context is also important. And the context in which this legislation is being offered is a full-blown border crisis that is being deliberately perpetrated by the Biden administration. The last thing the country needs at this point is a bill that would divert the attention of the resource-starved and dispirited agencies attempting to cope with the Biden border crisis toward rubber-stamping the citizenship applications of people they know nothing about.

The wrong proposal at the wrong time — that’s the Afghan Adjustment Act in a nutshell.

AUTHOR

Dan Stein

Dan Stein is president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

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

Here’s Why Democrats Are Not Worried about 2020—The Fix Is In—And the GOP is Silent!

As the mid-term elections  near the Biden regime is completing another one of their agenda items, the permanent weaponization of the U.S. Postal Service.

According to FTR, , the USPS is reporting it delivered more than 135 million ballots in 2020, and has already delivered another 40 million so far this year during the primaries.

The USPS should be relegated to the dustbin of history, it is an ancient relic of a bygone, pre-technological era. Instead the Biden regime is revolutionizing it into the illegal election arm of the party of treason.

Further, the democrats just passed an almost trillion dollar spending bill at the height of a recession and 9% inflation.

‘The new spending bill will force middle-class Americans to pay $20 billion more in taxes.
The bill will create 87,000 new IRS agents to harass Americans and target their political enemies.

And Democrats did all of this less than three months before an election.

Democrats are NOT worried about the midterms. ‘

This is Why Democrats Are Not Worried about 2020 — The Fix Is In…

Postal Service Institutionalizes Ballot Interference Scheme with New Mail-in Ballot Division

By Jim Hoft, The Gateway Pundit, August 16, 2022:

Democrats just passed a $700 spending bill — during a recession — with record 8.6% inflation.

The new spending bill will force middle class Americans to pay $20 billion more in taxes.
The bill will create 87,000 new IRS agents to harass Americans and target their political enemies.

And Democrats did all of this less than three months before an election.

Democrats are NOT worried about the midterms.

Biden Creating Permanent U.S. Postal Service Division to Deliver and Return Ballots in US Elections

The fix is in.

A major part of their election scheme is the work done by the US postal service with mail-in ballots.

Democrats NEED mail-in ballots and Democrats NEED the assistance of the US postal service.

Chuck DeVore published this warning to the nation on the Democrat’s mail-in voting scheme at The Federalist.

The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) announced on July 28 that it was creating the Election and Government Mail Services division. Adrienne E. Marshall, a USPS veteran, was named as the division’s first director, with Marc Elias, the Democrat’s foremost lawfare professional and longtime proponent of elections by mail, tweeting out his approval.

The rationale for this new division is that the growing use of mail-in ballots requires extra attention to ensure the greater volume of mailed ballots can be handled by an increasingly overburdened USPS.

The USPS reported it delivered more than 135 million ballots in 2020, with 40 million delivered so far this year during the primaries.

Elections conducted by mail have been a longtime goal of Elias and others since long before public health fears over in-person voting during the Covid-19 pandemic. It is instructive to note that most European nations found mail-in ballots to be susceptible to fraud and limited their use.

Among other problems, mail-in ballots can be cast by someone other than the voter, voter ID measures are harder to ensure absent in-person voting with a government-issued ID, and the secret ballot is more easily compromised by professional ballot traffickers who “help” the voter fill in their ballot. Thus, mail-in ballots will be an increasingly important part of the Democratic election playbook.

And once again, the GOP, a subsidiary of the DNC is completely silent.

AUTHOR

RELATED VIDEO: Americans highly impacted by inflation, ready for Trump 2024

RELATED ARITICLES:

Until Election Integrity Issues Are Fixed, Conservatives CANNOT Stop Talking About The 2020 Election

Traitor Cheney’s Concession Speech To Trump-Backed Challenger Was a Mentally Ill Cry for Help

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