Full disclosure: I’ve been a supporter of Apple for 45± years now.
Here’s an interesting bit of background: for a short time, I was actually an Apple employee! I called on Apple retail dealers (like Sears) in upstate NY and gave them technical assistance. It was an interesting gig.
As an employee, Apple assigned me an email (my first): “aaprjohn@…” which I still have today. What does it mean? Apple Authorized Product Representative. (BTW, I also bought shares of Apple stock – $$$.)
I was subjected to slings and arrows like “IBM will squash Apple like a bug,” “Apple will soon be out of business,” “Microsoft is the real leader in the computer industry,” etc. All of it was nonsense — and I said so at the time.
The stories about the IBM and MS connection have several fascinating aspects to it — too many to go into here. But here’s a tidbit…
How many people use MS Word or MS Excel (akaMS Office)? So what was the origin of MS Office? The Apple Mac! When MS Office was originally released, it was a Mac-only product! PC’s at the time didn’t have the power or interface to take advantage of MS Office. It was later ported to Windows.
The stories regarding IBM are also revealing. In the 1960s and 1970s, IBM was the world’s computer behemoth. Everyone else was like a bird on an elephant.
When desktop computers were first proposed, IBM had to make a momentous decision: 1) to get behind this radical change, or 2) to continue to push their forte, mainframe computers. They chose #2.
All the geniuses at IMB (they had some 300,000 employees) decided that: a) desktop computers would never have the power to do real work, so b) the future would be that everyone would have a terminal (monitor) in their home/office, connected to a powerful, regional mainframe computer.
This key decision had worldwide implications that still reverberate today.
Briefly, IBM also knew that they had to have some desktop machine, but because they didn’t really believe in it, they offered woeful hardware (IBM PC), and outsourced the software (pathetic DOS, to Bill Gates). The end product was really bad, but people robotically bought it because it said “IBM”.
Apple followed a visionary path: to make a powerful computer that was easy to use. I put my money where my mouth was, so my first computer was an Apple Lisa (the predecessor to the Mac) — clearly enormously better than the IBM PC. Yes, it was more expensive, but what is the value of your time?
Anyways, my point here is something no one else in the world seems to have noticed. In the late 1970’s the question was desktop computer or mainframe?
Right now we have a similar technical choice regarding Artificial Intelligence: desktop computer or enormous regional data centers.
Almost everyone is following the 1970’s IBM failed strategy. Meanwhile, a slew of red flags have gone up, but it seems full steam ahead.
(As an aside, there are a lot of similarities between data center issues and wind project issues (economic, environmental, etc.). In both cases, governments largely ignored the negative impacts on local communities.)
The Bottom Line
Now (finally) to my punchline…
Regarding AI Apple is one of the very few companies that is not following the crowd. See their current (very different) thinking: here, here, andhere.
My question: Is it wise to bet against Apple again?
Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:
I urge all readers to subscribe to AlterAI — IMO the absolute best AI option for subjective questions.
I will consider posting reader submissions on Critical Thinking about my topics of interest.
My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.
Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.
C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.
WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2026 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time!)
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Apple-AI.jpg360640John Droz, Jr.http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJohn Droz, Jr.2026-09-08 06:57:562026-09-08 07:00:26My 2¢ on Apple and AI: A perspective you will hear nowhere else!
Life is a gift from God. As a grandfather, some of my fondest memories recently come from time spent with my grandchildren. But there are some in our society who seem to be gleeful about killing babies up to the moment of birth, through abortion.
Case in point. Recently, the governor of Massachusetts signed the most radical abortion bill imaginable. Killing babies in the womb, even up to the very moment of birth. That’s infanticide. And the ladies surrounding the governor signing this bill were all smiles and joy, as if they were saying, “Isn’t this wonderful?”
In his End of Day report (8/20/26), Gary Bauer describes the signing ceremony this way: “There was a big celebration in the office of Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey recently. Over a dozen very happy ladies surrounded her desk at a bill-signing ceremony. Sadly, they were celebrating the deaths of innocent babies.”
There wasn’t even a hint that there might be anything wrong with what Healey was signing into law. Irony of ironies. The governor’s action does not jibe well with the official governing document of her state.
One of the oldest constitutions in the world still operating is that of Massachusetts, dating back to 1780, seven years before our national constitution was written. Theoretically, legislation from that state should comport at least with the spirit of that document.
John Adams was the chief author of the Bay State’s governing document, which includes these words: “It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation, and a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them.”
“Security”?—except for those who are unborn.
Our later second president continues: “We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other.”
So, with God’s help, we the people of this state are engaging in a “solemn compact” together. No “violence” —except for ripping out the unwanted baby in the womb?
Article I says: “All men are born free and equal.” But to Healey and company, they have to be born in the first place. The unborn or preborn seem to have zero rights there now.
Article II states: “It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe…in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience.”
Conscience rights and our duties to God are important here in this state. Well, not really these days, with this barbaric new law of abortion up to the moment of birth.
The Adams document goes on to say how, under God, the citizens are endowed to be their own rulers.
And Article VII notes, “Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men.”
The good? The protection? The safety? The prosperity and happiness? Only those born need apply.
Why all these quotes from the Massachusetts Constitution? Because, theoretically, its principles should have something to do with the legislation signed into law. But apparently not these days.
Later, when he was our second president, John Adams famously said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The ancient Hebrew prophet Isaiah declared, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.” Those 2700-year-old words still apply. Surely, they’re calling abortion good, not bad.
Meanwhile, some of the most vociferous voices against abortion come from those who used to be promoters of it. That includes the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a pioneer of the pro-abortion movement. But he came to have a change of heart when he realized the humanity of the unborn.
A co-founder of NARAL, he became aghast at the immorality he helped unleash—and that was already 40 years ago (with tens of millions of abortions in America since). In his book, The Abortion Papers (1983), Nathanson wrote, “I believe that an America which permits a junta of moral thugs to foist an evil of incalculable dimensions upon it, and continues to permit that evil to flower, creates for itself a deadly legacy: a millennium of shame.”
That shame continues in the recent “celebration” in the Massachusetts governor’s office.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Massachusetts-Gov.-Maura-Healey.jpg360640Jerry Newcombe, D. Min.http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJerry Newcombe, D. Min.2026-08-26 16:12:102026-08-29 04:37:05Calling Evil Good
Conservatives may be tempted to laugh at the absurdity of a breastfeeding organization featuring a man attached to breast pumps, but we shouldn’t simply move on—it reveals something important about the effect of transgenderism on America’s institutions.
First, what happened? The Maine State Breastfeeding Coalition, an organization dedicated to advocacy and training on lactation, in a social media post for National Breastfeeding Month featured the image of man attempting to breastfeed. After the conservative X account Libs of TikTok highlighted the image, the coalition apparently deleted it on Facebook but kept it up on Instagram.
The image reads, “Celebrating trans lactation, two-spirit & chestfeeding.” The Instagram post declares, “We’re proud to celebrate and uplift trans lactation, chestfeeding, and Two-Spirit families during National Breastfeeding Month.”
The post emphasizes “inclusive spaces” and declares that “every family deserves affirming, respectful, and evidence-based care.”
The Daily Signal reached out to the Maine State Breastfeeding Coalition, asking for any scientific studies demonstrating that male lactation can feed babies. The coalition did not provide a response.
Before delving into the incentives behind the post, I’d like to briefly address what happened here.
A state organization that claims to be dedicated to supporting human lactation—the process by which mothers provide infants with life-giving sustenance—promoted the notion of forcing babies to rely on males, who cannot provide enough calories to keep infants alive.
Activists have touted a few instances where men have secreted milk-like substances through their nipples. Yet, as Talia Nava at The Paradox Institute explained, it requires unsafe levels of drugs—which are passed through milk to babies—just to get men to produce a small amount of liquid, far less than babies need.
Most of us intuitively grasp that there is no point in trying to force men’s bodies to do something that women’s bodies are programmed for.
So, if the coalition does not readily have evidence for the effectiveness of male breastfeeding—the phenomenon Orwellianly named “chestfeeding” or “trans lactation”—why, on God’s green earth, did they promote it?
The coalition did not choose this image because male lactation is common or because most breastfeeding families face this issue. The image serves another purpose: signaling allegiance to a broader ideological project.
While the social stigma of opposing transgender ideology has increasingly diminished in recent years, many elite institutions still treat support for it as a marker of social responsibility.
According to transgender ideology, human beings have a gender identity that—on some undefined mystical plane—is somehow more real than our biological sex.
Transgender activists frame their demands to recognize one’s gender identity as a matter of politeness. In reality, these demands represent an attempt to force society to adopt the highly controversial view that our biological sex is interchangeable.
It’s not just that this is false. The ideology’s downstream effects—such as men being allowed to enter women’s restrooms, locker rooms, and prisons just by claiming to “identify” as women—are obvious and dangerous.
Furthermore, the claims are also patently absurd, and few images quite capture the absurdity as well as the man “chestfeeding” in Maine, with a smile on his face and a coffee mug in hand reading, “Milk Makes Families.” To think about that slogan is to realize how inane it is.
This image isn’t going to entice men into attempting lactation. Rather, it reveals how institutional leaders feel compelled to subordinate their core missions to ideological signaling that arguably undermines them.
A breastfeeding coalition should exist to help mothers feed babies. When it starts promoting the daft idea of “trans lactation,” it makes itself a laughing stock. Hopefully, this example will convince more leaders that the costs of kowtowing to this ideology far outweigh the rapidly diminishing benefits.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/What-a-Male-Breastfeeding-Image-Reveals-About-the-Transgender-Movement.png360640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2026-08-24 08:31:512026-08-24 08:50:48What a Male Breastfeeding Image Reveals About the Transgender Movement
Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal.
During this midterm summer and fall, don’t fall for the doom and gloom that we hear so often about America’s in decline or we’re bogged down in Iran. In actuality, due to new deregulation, emphasis on energy production, deregulation, pruning back the federal government, and winning over the confidence of our tech sectors, the United States is waging a quiet technological revolution.
And believe it or not, what people said 30 years ago that we would be a second-class power or just like all of the others is not true. We are more preeminent in key technologies than we have ever been.
Take, for instance, tech companies. One way we measure their influence and power is their market capitalization.
Of those tech companies in the United States that are worth over $1 billion, the number has grown to 850, and the aggregate value of them is $5.2 trillion. That means nationwide, people are buying their products and investing in them.
China, that has four times our population, only has 380 companies, and it has a market capitalization of only about 20%, $1.3 trillion.
Think of that. All of a sudden, our tech companies are just outpacing the Chinese and the Europeans in a way nobody had imagined. If you look at the market capitalization alone of SpaceX, $1.8 trillion. It is larger than the market capitalization of all the Chinese tech companies combined, as well as the European companies.
If you want to talk about satellites and space exploration, last year China put into space 400 satellites. That’s quite an achievement. SpaceX alone, that is not other competitors, just SpaceX alone launched 3,500, almost nine times the amount of the entire Chinese space consortium. If we look at rocket launches, the United States last year launched, depending how we calibrate the size of the rocket, about 190 launches.
That was more than all the space rocket launches combined in the rest of the world. For example, China only launched 93. Russia, 17. Europe, eight. India, five.
That is an incredible achievement what we have done. We’ve just sort of made a monopoly of sending rockets into space and satellites into the lower atmosphere of space.
One thing that everybody’s talking about is artificial intelligence. And so, there’s a variety of ways to gauge the influence of a particular AI company. But rather than just market capitalization, there’s a lot of rankings by global traffic. What are people in South America, what are people in Africa, what are people in Asia doing when they want an AI consultation?
Which platform do they go to? And it turns out that No. 1 was ChatGPT in terms of traffic. No. 2 was Google Gemini. No. 3 was Claude Anthropic. No. 4 was Microsoft Copilot. No. 5 was Perplexity AI. And No. 6 was Grok. No. 7 was Midjourney. Stop. They’re all Americans. And then we get the first number, eight, was Doubao that is Chinese, and Mistral that I think is French. And the final 10th is Notion AI.
What I’m getting at is, of the 10 top AI platforms that people use every day, eight of them, the top seven are all American.
Finally, another way of gauging American competitiveness, there’s a couple more, is software companies, and we can do that by market capitalization because they’re so different.
The No. 1 company in the world with $4.4 trillion in market capitalization is Apple. The No. 2 is Alphabet/Google with $4.17 trillion. No. 3, Microsoft, 3.5. No. 4, Meta, $1.4 trillion. No. 5, Oracle, $422 billion. No. 6, Palantir, $279 billion. No. 7, Palo Alto Networks, $118 billion.
And we come to No. 8, the first foreign company with $220 billion. Just a fraction of what the top three companies’ market capitalization is in SAP SE. No. 9, Salesforce. No. 10, Adobe. And what am I getting at? We have 10 companies and eight or nine of them are American, depending on how we gauge some of the foreign capital markets.
In other words, for the most exciting and most influential and most determinative technology of the future, the United States has captured, in terms of influence and value, about 85% to 90% of them.
Finally, people are talking about genetic engineering. This has become a very relevant topic to myself because after a health issue, I’ve discovered that with genetic engineering, they can take a tumor out of your body, biopsy it, chart your genetic mutations, give you blood tests every 90 days, and find one cell in your blood system that may have the same cancer tumor’s mutation, even though it will not show up on a scan for four or five months.
But they will give you warning that you may have a recurrence of a malignancy. So, how is the United States there? No. 1, Natera. No. 2, Illumina. No. 3, Crystal. No. 4, Crystal Ionis Pharmaceutical. No. 5, Genonomics. I could go on. There’s two that are not American and out of the top 10.
So, in genetic engineering, the same thing is true, 80% to 85%, 75%, 80%, 85% of the companies that are leading the field and what people wish to invest in are American. Add it all up.
As we look toward, as we’re finished the first quarter of the 21st century, if we had looked back at what people were saying in 2000, this was supposed to be a period of decline.
The United States GDP has leaped forward at $31 trillion, $10 trillion more than the Chinese and more than the Europeans as well by $10 trillion. But in all the key emerging technologies that are gonna determine our collective safety, security, and prosperity, that is satellites, space exploration, software engineering, genetic engineering, you name it, artificial intelligence, the United States is not just leading, but it has a greater grasp, control, monopoly of these emerging technologies than the Chinese, the Europeans, and the entire world put together.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/The-American-Tech-Boom-No-One-Is-Talking-About.jpg360640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2026-08-23 12:42:152026-08-23 12:48:05Victor Davis Hanson: The American Tech Boom No One Is Talking About
For generations, the local veterinarian held a revered position in American life. Alongside family doctors and local pharmacists, veterinarians were viewed as compassionate protectors of the bond between humans and their animal companions. Today, however, a growing chorus of pet owners, holistic animal advocates, and whistleblowing veterinary professionals are sounding the alarm over a shift in the pet healthcare industry: the transformation of veterinary medicine from a patient-centered practice into a high-margin, corporate-driven enterprise.
Unnecessary diagnostic tests, legal mandates, and corporate over-servicing creates a system of vaccination protocols that is nothing short of institutionalized fraud. Historically, pet owners were instructed to bring their dogs and cats in for annual booster shots. Over the past two decades, veterinary immunologists and major industry organizations, such as the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA), updated their guidelines, acknowledging that many core vaccines (such as canine distemper, parvovirus, and rabies) provide immunity that lasts far longer than a single year – often lasting three years, and in many cases, a pet’s lifetime.
Despite these established immunologic insights, many pet owners find themselves trapped in rigid legal and clinical requirements. Serum antibody titer tests – blood tests that measure a pet’s specific antibody levels against viruses like parvo and distemper — can scientifically prove whether an animal possesses robust immunity. Yet, state regulatory frameworks and municipal licensing laws rarely recognize titer tests as valid substitutes for compulsory booster shots.
This disconnect is not born out of medical necessity, but rather out of liability aversion, regulatory inertia, and financial incentives. Repeatedly administering vaccines to an animal that already possesses full, demonstrable immunity offers no additional protective benefit, yet it poses potential risks of adverse reactions, such as allergic responses, autoimmune triggers, or localized injection-site reactions. For veterinary clinics, however, mandatory annual revaccination requirements guarantee a steady stream of recurring revenue — not just from the vaccine administration itself, but from the required office visits, exam fees, and ancillary upsells attached to the visit.
To understand how pet care reached this point, one must examine the dramatic shift in veterinary clinic ownership over the past fifteen years. Independent, practitioner-owned veterinary practices — where a local doctor owned the building and knew every animal by name — are rapidly becoming an endangered species.
Private equity firms and large consolidated corporations have aggressively purchased thousands of veterinary clinics across the United States. By acquiring independent practices and keeping the original local doctor’s name on the sign, corporate conglomerates maintain a veneer of community trust while overhauling the underlying business model.
When corporate entities take over, revenue optimization often becomes the key metric. Practicing veterinarians — many of whom enter the profession carrying massive student loan debt — are frequently subjected to strict Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). These can include:
Production Targets: Pay structures tied directly to a percentage of the revenue generated per patient visit.
Mandated Diagnostic Bundles: Pushing routine, extensive blood panels, imaging, and preventive treatments regardless of the animal’s presenting symptoms or age.
Marked-Up Pharmaceuticals: Inflating prices on prescription diets, flea/tick correctives, and basic medications compared to open-market pharmacies.
When a veterinarian’s compensation and job security depend on average transaction values (ATVs), the line between clinical recommendation and defensive, profit-maximizing over-servicing becomes perilously thin.
Another mechanism driving up costs in modern veterinary medicine is the rise of “defensive practice.” In an increasingly litigious environment, clinics often run comprehensive diagnostic batteries for mild, self-limiting issues. A dog presenting with minor, acute upset stomach — once managed with simple dietary rest — might now be met with mandatory blood tests, abdominal X-rays, anti-nausea injections, and prescribed specialized food, leaving the owner with a bill running into hundreds or thousands of dollars.
While some of these measures stem from a genuine desire to exclude rare, severe conditions, the veterinary businesses leverage pet owners’ emotional vulnerability. Because pet parents view their animals as family members, they are uniquely susceptible to fear-based selling. Frame a test or booster as a “life-saving necessity,” and few owners will risk saying no.
Addressing systematic over-servicing in veterinary medicine does not mean abandoning standard medical care or essential preventive measures. Vaccines have saved millions of animal lives, and advanced diagnostics are crucial when treating complex illnesses. However, restoring integrity to the industry requires systemic reform:
Legislative Modernization:States must update animal control and public health laws to recognize antibody titer testing in place of mandatory revaccination where scientifically appropriate.
Corporate Transparency:Requirements for clinic ownership transparency so pet owners know whether their local vet is independent or controlled by a private equity group.
Informed Consent and Pricing:Mandating clear, itemized estimates prior to non-emergency procedures, empowering pet parents to seek second opinions or ask whether specific tests are strictly necessary.
Ultimately, protecting animals requires protecting the ethics of the veterinary profession. When clinical decisions are governed by immunologic science and compassionate care rather than quarterly profit margins, both pets and their owners win.
This podcast episode with Tucker Carlson and Joe Spector directly discusses the consolidation of independent veterinary clinics by private equity firms, the financial pressures pushing unnecessary treatments, and the structural issues facing American pet owners.
From water pulled out of thin air to meat grown without animals, Israeli innovations are reshaping the future.
These 10 breakthroughs are transforming medicine, energy, food, and more, showing how bold ideas from a tiny country are solving global problems in big ways.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/10-Israeli-inventions-that-are-changing-the-world.jpg358640NEWSRAEL Telling the Israeli Storyhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNEWSRAEL Telling the Israeli Story2026-08-23 05:51:142026-08-23 05:53:46WATCH: 10 Israeli inventions that are changing the world
On July 14, the UN’s Adaptation Committee put fund managers, negotiators, and development bankers on a video call to work through a problem that clearly has them rattled. The money is drying up.
The Green Climate Fund, the Global Environment Facility, and the Adaptation Fund all sent people to explain how developing countries can tap them for cash. What they mostly did was ask for more. The reason they are running short, though, is news that ought to please anyone who pays U.S. taxes. In February 2025, the United States rescinded roughly $4 billion in outstanding pledges to the Green Climate Fund. We were the first country to do it. This spring, the United Kingdom followed, halving its pledge from £1.6 billion to about £815 million.
The people on the call treated this as a crisis. For anyone who works for a living and pays the bills, it looks more like a rescue.
It’s worth being clear about what these funds are. They hand out grants, not loans. Hansol Park of the Green Climate Fund said about 80% of its public-sector adaptation money is grant based, and the Adaptation Fund gives grants exclusively. Grant means gift — no repayment, no return, nothing back. When Washington pledged $4 billion, it was pledging to give $4 billion away and call it climate policy.
Where does the money go? The funds prefer to answer that in their own vocabulary. Ask what they finance, and you get “readiness,” “institutional capacity,” “capacity building,” “accreditation support,” “project preparation,” and “locally led adaptation.” Some of it does buy physical things, water systems and farms and flood defenses. A good deal of it, though, pays to build and staff the offices that write the grant applications in the first place.
The Green Climate Fund has placed outside experts inside developing-country governments, with more on the way. It runs multi-year “readiness” programs to prop up national agencies, with eight approved and 93 countries waiting in line. Over at the Adaptation Fund, staff run proposal-writing workshops and report that the workshops produce stronger proposals, which tells you the process is complicated enough to need a training seminar just to fill out the forms. Roxanne Valentine-Donegan of the Development Bank of Jamaica, one of the few speakers who had actually tried to pull money through the system, said getting it is “genuinely difficult,” slowed by shifting requirements and document-heavy applications.
So the recipients themselves say the system is too slow, too technical, and too expensive to navigate. And the answer on offer is not less paperwork; it is more staff and more workshops to process the paperwork. That is how bureaucracies grow. Every new hurdle becomes the reason to hire someone to help you clear it.
“Institutional capacity” is the polite expression that makes reference to the permanent layer of coordinators, accredited entities, and consultants standing between a donor’s check and an actual project on the ground. The Adaptation Fund alone works through roughly 62 accredited entities. The NDC Partnership, which helps developing countries navigate climate finance, says it has received more than 7,000 requests for support since 2016. Yet after nearly a decade and tens of billions of dollars, the people running this system are still saying they need more funding, more staff, and more capacity. The bureaucracy never seems to reach the point where it decides it has enough.
The Adaptation Fund reported an active pipeline worth about $1.9 billion with an appetite that seems to have no ceiling.
Adaptation Fund specialist Alyssa Gomes said flatly, “We do need more finance.” The Green Climate Fund talked up a board decision that could unlock roughly $4 billion in new programming capacity. No number is ever sufficient, because the demand is set by the funds themselves, not by any budget a taxpayer ever approved.
No number is ever sufficient, because the demand is set by the funds themselves, not by any budget a taxpayer ever approved.
The dialogue ended the way these things invariably do, with appeals for donors to give more, at a faster pace, with fewer strings attached. The honest answer from the American side is already on the record. We are keeping the $4 billion.
Melanie Collette is a CFACT Policy Analyst. She comes to CFACT (Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow) with a background in environmental/energy policy work, especially in combatting the offshore wind turbine groups and green organizations in their plans for northeast construction of wind farms up and down the Atlantic coast. As a policy analyst for CFACT and host of the podcast How Money Works with Melanie Collette, she’s made it her mission to speak out against harmful or inadequate social and public policy issues, simplify economics and energy issues, and empower others with practical financial wisdom. Before stepping into the national spotlight, Melanie spent over 24 years in education, with 12 of those years dedicated to teaching business and technology. Her background as a former educator and current Cape May County Commissioner in New Jersey speaks to her deep commitment to serving her community. Beyond her local leadership roles, she’s also a former Vice Chair of the New Jersey Federation of Republican Women and now serves as Vice Chair of the Cape May County GOP. When she’s not analyzing policy or sharing money tips, Melanie is a regular face on television, known for her sharp, thought-provoking commentary on today’s hottest issues. With more than 400 on-screen appearances—and adding 3 to 5 new segments weekly—her voice has become a trusted resource on the intersections of media, education, and policy. Melanie’s public policy work and her passion for financial literacy has made her a sought-after speaker nationwide. Whether delivering keynote addresses or joining panel discussions, she inspires audiences with her unique blend of experience, insight, and unwavering dedication to empowering others.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Green-Climate-Fund-Logo.jpg360640Committee For A Constructive Tomorrowhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCommittee For A Constructive Tomorrow2026-08-13 12:32:072026-08-13 12:34:44The Green Climate Fund ran short of other people’s money
A former AI industry executive warned me this month: “Massive culture shock is coming.” He did not mean job losses or new regulations. He meant a collision between what artificial intelligence may soon be able to do and what people believe about themselves.
That warning came to mind as I read what the architects of artificial intelligence are now saying publicly. They are no longer talking about better software or faster computers. They are describing a new age for civilization itself.
Consider three of the most influential AI voices.
Demis Hassabis, the Nobel Prize-winning scientist who leads Google DeepMind, told Fortune that humanity stands on the edge of a “golden era of discovery” and “radical abundance,” with AI curing major diseases, solving the energy crisis, and letting humanity “travel the stars and explore the galaxy.”
Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, wrote in his essay “The Intelligence Age” that the coming years would bring “massive prosperity,” with “fixing the climate, establishing a space colony, and the discovery of all of physics” becoming ordinary.
Dario Amodei, co-founder and chief executive of Anthropic, describes a “country of geniuses in a data center” — AI systems carrying the combined brainpower of 50 million Nobel laureates — that he says could remake the world within a few years, for good or ill.
These are not science fiction writers speculating about a distant century. They lead organizations building the world’s most powerful AI systems, and their predictions — right or wrong — are already shaping the future.
That alone should get our attention. But amid the excitement about what artificial intelligence may soon accomplish, a more fundamental question receives little consideration: What will all this mean for being human?
First, Christians should resist both panic and hype.
The acceleration in AI capabilities is real. This week, scientists at Stanford and the Arc Institute used an AI model to design new viral genomes from scratch, and 16 proved viable, infecting and killing bacteria. It is a concrete sign AI is moving from analyzing biology to designing it, with real promise and real risk. Johns Hopkins biosecurity researchers warned that the ability to compose viral genomes with AI “now exists,” while “the governance to safely steer it does not.”
But forecasts of “artificial general intelligence” (AGI) arriving in 2028, 2029, or 2030 remain forecasts. A self-sustaining intelligence explosion has not occurred. Human beings set objectives, validate results, supply enormous computing resources, and decide what the machines are supposed to do.
So, three things can be true simultaneously: The acceleration is real. The timetable is uncertain. And the rhetoric is racing ahead of both.
That rhetoric deserves particular scrutiny — and it is close to what my executive friend meant by culture shock.
When AI leaders speak of a golden era, a renaissance, or a country of geniuses that could remake the world within years, they have moved beyond engineering specifications. They are describing a destination — and doing so in language that sounds less like technological progress and more like human deliverance.
The storyline is difficult to miss. Humanity suffers disease, scarcity, and short lives. Artificial intelligence supplies greater intelligence, which accelerates medicine and discovery. Old limitations fall away. Abundance follows. A new civilization emerges.
Curing cancer is good. Christians can welcome much in that vision. But technology crosses an important line when it moves from promising better tools to offering a vision of human destiny.
That is where Christians must offer a different account.
The technological diagnosis of our predicament focuses on limitation: we do not know enough, produce enough, live long enough, or possess enough intelligence to solve our problems.
Christianity gives a far less flattering diagnosis. Our fundamental problem is not insufficient computing power. It is sin. The deepest human crisis is not ignorance but alienation from our Creator. No increase in intelligence, however extraordinary, can repair that breach.
Intelligence is not righteousness. Knowledge is not wisdom. Abundance is not redemption. Longevity is not eternal life. And artificial intelligence, regardless of how powerful it becomes, cannot change the human heart.
There is another danger as machines grow more capable. We may begin measuring ourselves by the standards of the machines we created.
If an AI system writes faster than we do, remembers more than we do, analyzes more information than we can, and eventually outperforms many highly educated professionals, where does that leave human worth?
The Christian answer is indispensable precisely because it refuses the premise.
Human dignity has never depended on IQ, productivity, memory, or economic usefulness. Scripture locates it beyond any machine’s reach: when the Lord sent Samuel to anoint Israel’s next king, He said, “Man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7, ESV). That worth comes from the Creator, not from our capabilities.
Our worth is bestowed, not computed.
That means the brilliant scientist, the disabled child, the elderly patient, the unborn baby, and the productive executive possess the same fundamental human dignity before God. Each bears a dignity no benchmark can measure, and no machine can acquire by growing more capable.
This is why the debate over AI cannot be left exclusively to Silicon Valley.
Hassabis, Altman, Amodei, and their colleagues are extraordinarily accomplished people. They may prove correct about much of the change they foresee. But technical expertise does not confer authority to define human purpose.
If artificial intelligence reshapes work, education, medicine, relationships, and warfare, then choices made in a handful of laboratories and corporations will shape how society understands freedom, responsibility, dignity, and personhood.
Those questions belong to families, churches, citizens, and governments — not engineers or corporate boards — because they concern not what our machines can do, but what civilization we intend to become.
Building artificial intelligence may be an engineering problem. Deciding what human beings are for is not.
Christians have no reason to retreat from the AI revolution. We should welcome technologies that heal disease, reduce suffering, expand knowledge, and steward creation responsibly. But we must also refuse to confuse progress with salvation.
For all AI may accomplish, the decisive contest of this new era may have little to do with which laboratory reaches AGI first. It may be whether a civilization dazzled by artificial intelligence remembers what a human being is.
“It is he who made us, and we are his” (Psalm 100:3, ESV). That truth cannot be revised by an algorithm, surpassed by a benchmark, or patented by a laboratory.
Artificial intelligence may help write the next chapter of human history. It will never become history’s author — and it will never be history’s Lord.
That is the truth Christians must carry into the culture shock now coming.
Robert Maginnis is a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, senior fellow for National Security at Family Research Council, and the author of 15 books. His latest, “The Final Algorithm,” releases in July 2026.
The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/When-AI-Architects-Promise-a-New-Age.jpg336640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2026-08-12 12:12:442026-08-12 12:15:11When AI’s Architects Promise a New Age
Foreign donors have poured over $130 million into U.S.-based climate activist nonprofits, according to a new database tracking over $5 billion in foreign funding.
“Our database makes it clear foreign cash is bankrolling much of the extremist climate activist movement in America,” Caitlin Sutherland, executive director of Americans for Public Trust, told the Daily Signal. “Radical activist groups dedicated to undermining American energy dominance, like Energy Foundation China, Sierra Club, and League of Conservation Voters, are recipients of vast sums of foreign money.”
While the law prohibits foreign donations to political candidates, foreign donors can legally contribute to U.S. groups organized as tax-exempt entities under the IRS code. Many foreign foundations already disclose their funding to U.S.-based groups, but Americans for Public Trust claims that disclosure is inadequate.
The database, available at FollowForeignMoney.org, presents information from the annual reports of foreign foundations, involving 523 groups and 12,094 records. Most of the U.S. recipients of foreign funds advocate for causes on the Left. Americans for Public Trust filtered out traditional charitable causes, such as children’s hospitals and the Meals on Wheels Program, to focus on activism. It currently includes funding sources from Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.
Foreign Funds for Climate Activism
The database shows more than $130 million in foreign funding going to climate activist groups based in the United States.
The Sierra Club, one of America’s oldest and largest environmental groups, began as a conservation-minded organization but has increasingly championed restrictions on traditional forms of energy, particularly fossil fuels. The Sierra Club received $50,000 from the Switzerland-based Berger Action Fund in 2014. It also received $1.8 million from the Swiss-based Wyss Foundation from 2004 to 2024. Hansjörg Wyss, a Swiss citizen who now lives in the U.S., set up both foundations. The Sierra Club also received $600,000 from the Swiss-based Oak Foundation in 2009.
Environment America, another left-leaning climate activist nonprofit, received $1 million from the Oak Foundation in 2009. The foundation awarded the grant “to persuade the U.S. Congress and the president to pass a national cap on global warming pollution with a near-term cap of 35% by 2020 and long-term reductions of at least 80% by 2050.”
This grant appears to match the activist campaign supporting the American Clean Energy and Security Act, HR 2454, which failed in the Senate.
The League of Conservation Voters, another influential climate activist group, also received $28 million from Berger Action Fund from 2016 to 2024, according to the database. The league’s PAC, the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund, received $400,050 from the Oak Foundation in 2010 and $3.2 million from the Wyss Foundation from 2002 to 2024.
Energy Foundation China, a U.S.-based nonprofit that funds climate change projects and focuses on China, received $85 million from the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, based in the United Kingdom, from 2014 to 2024. The foundation received $14.4 million from the Oak Foundation between 2012 and 2023. It received $4 million from the U.K.-based Quadrature Climate Foundation in 2022.
A Defense of Climate Activism
Environment America Executive Director Lisa Frank defended climate activism when reached for comment.
“America is blessed with abundant solar and wind power that shows up for free and doesn’t pollute,” she told the Daily Signal. “On the other hand, coal, oil and gas dirty our air and water, harm our health and worsen climate change. As Americans suffer from heat waves, fires, and floods, it’s clear we need to act on climate.”
Criticism
Foreign funding does not necessarily change the priorities or goals of climate activist groups. Even so, it may raise questions about the forces assisting the climate activist movement.
Critics claim that China benefits from climate activism in the U.S., and have pointed to ties between climate groups and Chinese entities. Climate activists say they work with China because China emits a large percentage of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.
The conservative-leaning American Lands Council praised the Americans for Public Trust database.
“Americans for Public Trust has done a fantastic public service by amassing this database of foreign contributions to nonprofit groups,” American Lands Council Chairman Myron Ebell told the Daily Signal. “Climate and environmental groups have done tremendous damage to the economy by promoting policies that raise the price of energy.”
“This new database from Americans for Public Trust exposes what many of us have been warning about for years … namely, billions in foreign cash flooding U.S. nonprofits through gaping loopholes,” Craig Rucker, president of the free-market group Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, told the Daily Signal.
“These groups work overtime to kneecap U.S. oil, gas, and reliable energy while foreign adversaries and competitors smile,” Rucker said. “Americans deserve to know who’s really paying for the green agenda.”
Sutherland, the leader behind the database, called for Congress to prevent foreign funding for American nonprofits.
“We must close the loopholes that allow this money to flow into our system and influence U.S. policy and politics,” she said.
The Daily Signal reached out to Energy Foundation China, the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Natural Resources Defense Council for comment, but did not receive responses by publication time.
Dr. Anthony Fauci’s words are coming back to haunt him after resurfaced comments from a 2022 interview with CNN showed a complete 180 on his attitude toward testifying before Congress. “I am very happy to testify before any congressional oversight committee,” Fauci told CNN in 2022.
Fauci, under his lawyers’ guidance, did not answer a single question from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., or others on the committee about his COVID-19 pandemic response or gain-of-function research, instead invoking the Fifth Amendment 111 times. “I have nothing to hide. I can explain and validate everything that I’ve done… I’m going to do what I need to do, and that is cooperate fully, because we have nothing to hide at all,” he added in the CNN interview roughly four years ago.
Fauci argued during Wednesday’s hearing that Paul, who recently released more than 1,000 pages of his personal diary entries, has an “obvious obsession” with pushing for his prosecution. He said the diary release was designed to “get me to say something, anything, that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up, in his words, quote, behind bars, unquote.”
“Although it pains me to do so because of the respect I have for the legislative branch of government, and my decades-long record of cooperating with Congress, under the advice of my attorneys, I will invoke my right under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to refrain from answering your questions,” Fauci told the Senate committee before invoking the Fifth Amendment 111 times.
Meanwhile, Rand Paul, who has spearheaded the investigation of Fauci, is looking to challenge whether the COVID leader was legally justified in pleading the Fifth Amendment, given that he is a recipient of a presidential pardon. “The legal question is, if you’re pardoned, can you really claim the Fifth?” he said on “The Will Cain Show” on Wednesday. “The Fifth Amendment is to claim immunity from self-incrimination. But if you’ve already been given immunity, you can’t self-incriminate unless you lie.”
Paul is seeking a vote to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress after the former public health official pleaded the Fifth 111 times at Wednesday’s contentious congressional hearing.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/podcast-2659476_640.jpg360640Conservative Commandos Radio Show and AUN-TVhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngConservative Commandos Radio Show and AUN-TV2026-08-12 03:43:512026-08-12 03:57:00Fauci Knew the Dangers
President Donald Trump will sign an executive order Monday aimed at increasing confidence in the childhood vaccination schedule through greater flexibility for families, according to a fact sheet obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Trump’s recommendations to align the childhood vaccination schedule with “gold standard science” involves three policies. White House officials told the DCNF the new executive order builds on the prior ones in large part because Trump himself will educate the public from the bully pulpit about the changes.
First, the order better educates states to harmonize their policies with a Health and Human Services (HHS) study finding that America’s 18-disease childhood vaccination schedule is more crowded than those in other high income nations in Europe and Asia. The order grants families greater allowance to space out childhood vaccines into separate medical visits and to separate the combined measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine into three single-disease shots.
Second, the order calls on the HHS Task Force on Safer Childhood Vaccines — first created by a 1986 law but fallen into neglect in 1999 — to generate a report in 90 days on how to implement the EO, including ways the commercial sector can produce individual MMR shots and recommend research studies on how to optimally space out shots. The task force includes the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Third, the EO directs the Department of Justice to investigate where states are in violation of parental authority, religious freedom, disability accommodations, and religious and medical exemptions.
Other high income countries implement vaccine mandates but nevertheless do not enjoy high vaccination rates.
SCOOP: Trump To Sign Executive Order Calling For More Vaccine Flexibility And Research
Trump will use the bully pulpit to pivot to gold standard science on vaccines this afternoon, according to a fact sheet I obtained. https://t.co/XkGCqDGacP
“By signing this executive order the president is helping Americans who are asking questions, especially post COVID, about vaccine requirements, and opening up a dialogue to encourage public trust,” a White House official said. “We are still recommending the measles and the polio vaccine.”
“On this topic in particular there’s been a lot of media misinformation and misreporting,” said another White House official. “If you read the EO there is nothing not grounded in data and gold standard science. We’re taking an evidence-based approach, but a lot of the reporting is not evidence-based.”
Detailed polling conducted in October 2025 by Trump’s longtime pollster Tony Fabrizio found that 73% of voters expressed concern about childhood vaccine mandates, while a whopping 90% of voters expressed concern about the pharmaceutical industry’s corrupting influence.
The Wall Street Journal reported on July 27 that Trump was turning up the heat on Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to do more on vaccines.
HHS first reported in a metaanalysis last year that America’s chockablock vaccination schedule was out of step with many other wealthy countries and recommended 11 critical vaccines for which broad international consensus exists.
In December 2025, President Trump signed a presidential memorandum directing his health department to align U.S. core childhood vaccine recommendations with best practices from peer, developed countries.
And in May, President Trump signed an Executive Order realigning United States core childhood vaccine recommendations with best practices from peer, developed countries.
Internal documents from the maker of Tylenol and from the FDA show evidence was accumulating about a potential link between exposure to the drug in utero and neurological damage, the DCNF reported. Other studies have pointed to exposure to the drug in early childhood as problematic.
A 2017 survey shows that 64% of families administer Tylenol to treat side effects from childhood vaccines.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Trump-To-Sign-Executive-Order-Calling-For-More-Vaccine-Flexibility.jpg339640The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2026-08-10 14:53:152026-08-10 14:55:53EXCLUSIVE: Trump To Sign Executive Order Calling For More Vaccine Flexibility And Research
I know, I had said that there would only be Part 1 and Part 2…
But as I went along I thought of something that warrants an additional write-up. It’s this: one of the primary deceptions used by Dr Fauci and his minions, is to make technical references that he knows that very few citizens really understand.
One of the most frequent deceptions used is to cite statistics. For example, regarding medical issues, the decision as to whether or not a treatment is desirable comes down to two issues: Effectiveness and Safety. (After these, other matters might then come into play, e.g., cost, availability, etc.)
A “treatment” could be a vaccine, mechanical therapy (radiation), surgery, prescription medication, supplements, dietary changes, lifestyle changes, etc.
But let’s just think about COVID-19. Dr. Fauci (and other healthcare “experts”) had these treatments to evaluate: vaccine, prescription medication, supplements, dietary changes, lifestyle changes, etc
Accurately Explaining Effectiveness</h4
How Dr. Fauci and his allies (e.g., pharmaceutical companies) portray effectiveness (of drugs, vaccines, etc.) to the public was deceptive. The “effectiveness” that was almost always shown was relative risk.
A more meaningful number would have been to show absolute risk. Here are two independent citations where others have (so far unsuccessfully) made a case for the same thing:
Example 1:This is the position stated in an important FDA advisory publication. A key conclusion (see page 60) was that the public is: “unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used.”
Since statistics are over most people’s heads, I’ll try to explain the difference in layperson terms. I’ll use COVID-19 vaccines as a telling example…
Here are three tables based on two studies: here and here. (If you’d like further elaboration, here is an MD’s good discussion about those two studies.)
The first table shows the relative risk reduction (relative effectiveness) of several popular COVID-19 vaccines:
Most people would say that these look like good numbers — and the ones above 90% are VERY good. That’s exactly what Dr. Fauci, etc. want us to think… Now let’s fill out the next column: absolute risk reduction (absolute effectiveness) …
Whoa! The absolute effectiveness numbers are radically different — and MUCH less! What does this mean in the real world?
A third variable might be the easiest to understand: how many people need to be treated (injected) to prevent ONE case of COVID-19?
This is called NNT (Number Needed to Treat = 1/ARR). Here are two studies (here and here) that delve into the merit of using NNT. The table below shows what NNT is for the same COVID-19 injections:
NOTE: The exact numbers here may be slightly different due to several variables, and are not important. What is significant here is to see the extraordinary differences between Relative and Absolute Risk Reductions.
NNT Observation —
Let’s look at a real-world example… If citizens realized that roughly one hundred people had to be injected before ONE case of COVID-19 was prevented, how many people would have said:
“I’m willing to risk the known potentially serious side-effects of these injections, plus accept the fact that zero long-term studies have been completed — all hoping that I’ll hit the jackpot and be the lucky one in 100± people who is prevented from getting COVID-19”?
An Even Better Analysis —
Some very smart people said let’s take the NNT data one step further — and add the treatment COST to it! In other words, if two treatments have the same NNT, but one costs 10 times the other, shouldn’t we factor that in? Look at this fabulous COVID-19 table:
Compare two popular COVID-19 early oral treatment competitors: Ivermectinand Paxlovid. To get the same end result (save one life from COVID-19) we can spend $26 for Ivermectin or $881,260 for Paxlovid!
Note also that cost and impacts of side effects are NOT taken into account here. The side-effects for taking Ivermectin are very low, while the potential side-effects for Paxlovid are rather high. In other words, the cost difference between Ivermectin and Paxlovid is likely MUCH more than what is shown in this table!
The Bottom Line — Part 3
Dr. Science (Fauci) — and his expert allies — KNEW all this information.
As such, they should have prominently shown the public BOTH Relative and Absolute numbers, as well as NNT. This is not some academic matter, as it has SUBSTANTIAL bearing on assuring that Americans are able to make an informedchoice when they agree to an injection or to take a drug.
Without these facts, citizens are not only severely handicapped, but are almost totally incapable of making an appropriate decision for themselves and their loved ones. Dr. Fauci could have fixed this, but chose not to.
PS — Here is an excellent two-minute video that explains the difference between Absolute and Relative Risk reduction…
Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:
I urge all readers to subscribe to AlterAI — IMO the absolute best AI option for subjective questions.
I will consider posting reader submissions on Critical Thinking about my topics of interest.
My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.
Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.
C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.
WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2026 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time!)
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/FAUCIS-FRAUD-covid-4948866_640.jpg360634John Droz, Jr.http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJohn Droz, Jr.2026-08-07 14:16:112026-08-07 14:34:42Critically Thinking about Dr. Fauci — Part 3
“The mainstream media and social media giants are imposing a totalitarian censorship to prevent public health advocates, like myself, from voicing concerns and from engaging in civil informed debate in the public square.” — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman, Children’s Health Defense
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.” — Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism
“Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.” — Potter Stewart, Dissenting to Ginsberg v. United States
“It happened. Therefore, it can happen again. It can happen everywhere.” — Primo Levi, Italian Jewish survivor of Auschwitz
“Indifference and the silence of people led to the Holocaust. To remain silent and indifferent is the greatest sin of all.” — Elie Wiesel, Holocaust survivor
:Dr. Joseph Goebbels wrote that ‘A lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth.’ Tragically for humanity, there are many, many untruths emanating from Fauci and his minions. RFK Jr. exposes the decades of lies.” — Luc Montagnier, Nobel Laureate
The Daily World of November 8, 1975 carried a very interesting article entitled “Planning is Socialism’s Trademark” by Morris Zeitlin. The Daily World (newspaper of the Communist Party USA) was formerly known as The Daily Worker and was founded in 1924. The importance of this article lies in its blatant admission that regionalism, which is gradually becoming the accepted method of unelected governance in the United States (unelected councils and task forces, participatory democracy, public-private partnerships, etc.) is the form of government used in democratic socialist and communist countries.
Throughout the country from federal agencies down to local city and county boards, all of the decisions regarding C-19 were made by unelected heads of agencies which affected every American. Those choices were followed by state governors, city and county mayors, heads of police and fire departments, hospital administrators, etc. They all loved their totalitarian control and then the mandates! Get the clot shots!
Except of course for those Biden deemed exempt.
The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) is a drug regulatory, drug safety watchdog agency. The FDA doesn’t tell doctors how to treat patients.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), is a government funded research organization. The NIH doesn’t tell doctors how to treat patients.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is an infectious and chronic disease, epidemiologic and analytic organization. The CDC doesn’t tell doctors how to treat patients.
A lot of these quasi-governmental agencies that people think are governmental are actually front groups for the pharmaceutical industry.
Not one of these federal agency leaders was elected, and not one of them ever treated a C-19 patient. Yet, every one of them told America what we could and could not do and then destroyed the ability of physicians to properly treat patients other than with their deadly protocols. Their goals were the money-making deadly inoculations for C-19.
When hospitals followed those protocols they collected beaucoup tax-payer dollars from the federal government, with the highest payments for patients who died. The following chart shows the monies each state received for each C-19 patient.
Remember that the PCR tests were not valid tests for COVID and the Nobel Peace Prize inventor, Kary Mullis, told us it was improperly used and would give far too many false positives.
Nor should we look to other unelected parties to tell us what to do, and that includes our local health departments who advocated mandates that are destructive not only to children, but to all citizens. And the latest is the euphemistically named Congressional bill H.R.550 (Immunization Infrastructure Modernization Act of 2021) which paved the way for state and local health departments, as well as public and private health care providers, to share personal health data with the federal government. The bill has hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars allocated to the tracking system’s success. The bill passed it the House, but thankfully failed in the Senate.
The Wentworth Report stated, “In 2000, Dr. Fauci, who Dr. Joseph Mercola calls a sociopathic bureaucrat, met with Bill Gates, who asked to partner with the NIH in an agreement to vaccinate the entire population of the world with a battery of new vaccines. In 2009, this agreement was rebranded as ‘The Decade of Vaccines,’ the objective of which was to implement mandatory vaccinations for every adult and child on the planet by the year 2020. Link
“Gates calls what he does ‘philanthropy capitalism,’ the idea that you can use philanthropy to make money. He has a foundation where he shelters $89 billion in tax-free money. He continues to have absolute control over it. He uses that money to gain control of public health agencies in our country and the World Health Organization.”
Portions of the following info come from The Real Anthony Fauci movies. Copies of these two films are still available.
Willowbrook State School
In 1965, Robert F. Kennedy, Sr. visited Willowbrook State School in Staten Island, New York and was appalled at the situation and called it a snake pit, similar to the 1948 movie by the same name. The institution’s medical personnel were conducting US Army funded experiments on the children. These children had been abandoned by their parents in dilapidated institutions.
Children housed at Willowbrook were intentionally given hepatitis in an attempt to track the development of the viral infection. The study lasted for 14 years. It wasn’t until 1987 that Willowbrook was shut down.
One of the horrid experiments was the deliberate injection of Hepatitis during 1964. From 1958-1964 feces were taken from children who had Hepatitis, put in milkshakes and fed to newly admitted children for experimentation purposes.
The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments were conducted between 1932 and 1972. The Willowbrook experiments started in 1956.
The Nuremberg Codes were formulated in August of 1947, yet these experiments on Americans were never prosecuted under the Codes. The question remains, “Why not?”
Far worse has happened.
Fauci and AIDS
In the late 1980s, foster children in seven states were enrolled in experiments of HIV and AIDS drug trials. Fauci called them studies, but they were invasive experiments. Fauci arranged for the drug companies to get access to these experiments. Merck, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Glaxo Wellcome and others were involved.
The Wentworth Report stated, “AZT was a chemotherapy formulation that was so toxic it killed all the rats when they gave it to them. The inventor of AZT, Jerome Horwitz, felt that it was unsafe for any human use, so he didn’t even patent it …
“Very early on, the National Cancer Institute had found that when you put AZT in a culture of HIV, it killed the HIV, not surprisingly. It killed anything it touched. And so, Fauci partnered with the manufacturer of AZT. He guided that formulation through the regulatory process and tried to fast track it. He cheated terribly on the clinical trials.”
The same PCR tests used during COVID were used to determine positive AIDS in children. The tests were just as unreliable with AIDS as with C-19. Many of the children were not even HIV positive.
Fauci, together with the pharmaceutical companies, sponsored these AZT experiments. Many of the children died. In Hawthorn, New York there is a cemetery where these children are buried. Journalist Celia Farber, who is featured in The Real Anthony Fauci movies, tells of the burial site of at least 80 children, perhaps more, their bodies in metal caskets, many with more than one body per casket.
Farber commented, “Fauci’s reign has elements to totalitarian societies and it also has the theme of mafioso velvetiness to it.”
“…Dr. Fauci copied the choreographed script for winning remdesivir’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the worn rabbit-eared playbook that he developed during his early AIDS years, and then used repeatedly across his career to win approvals for deadly and ineffective drugs,” writes Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. “Time and again, he has terminated clinical trials of his sweetheart drugs the moment they begin to reveal cataclysmic toxicity. He makes the absurd claim that his drug-du-jour had proven so miraculously effective that it would be unethical to deny it to the public, and then he strong-arms FDA to grant his approvals.”
Vera Sharav, Holocaust survivor and President of the Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP.org) stated, “Most people cannot imagine that there are people, especially medical doctors, which Dr. Fauci is, who would disregard the humanity of people including children. There was horrific abuse and because it was government sponsored, together with pharmaceutical companies, they had free rein. New York State and New York City provided the children for the government experiments. New York Administration for Services’ documents confirmed there were 80 deaths and many others suffered serious harm.”
Reagan’s Injury Compensation Act
In 1986, Reagan signed into law a bill that gave compensation to children for drug exports and vaccine injuries. It was meant to make vaccines safer, but it gave virtual liability protection to vaccine manufacturers and health care providers who were providing vaccines.
Mary Holland, general counsel and President of Children’s Health Defense states, “The 1986 Act was created and signed into law by Reagan. It allegedly created a program for compensation of children who were injured by their vaccines or who died and they would get some level of compensation.”
Dr. Sherry Tenpenny said, “The 1986 Injury Compensation Act was a real game changer because all of the drug companies who were making vaccines were deciding that they were not going to do vaccines anymore unless they got liability protection because they were getting sued at every turn.”
Mary Holland said, “The blanket liability protection created a boon town, a gold rush. The sad reality is a whole new industry of highly profitable but recklessly developed vaccines was created, and it did not lead to compensation to children who are injured and it absolutely did not lead to safer vaccines.”
“That’s one of the tragedies that is across the board when it comes to public health. Because you see, when doctors join forces with government, they no longer comply with medicine’s mission which is the sacred oath to do no harm to the individual patient. They become agents of government and they do what they’re told,” added Vera Sharav.
This is exactly like the physicians who work for a corporation. They do what they’re told or they lose their jobs, and the corporation or group invariably gets their instructions from the CDC, NIH and FDA.
John D. Rockefeller
“In 1910, John D. Rockefeller took over medicine, particularly the medical schools. And they redirected medicine to be totally focused on pharmaceutical interventions and various surgical procedures, to make it a real business.
John D. Rockefeller was not just interested in oil, but in medicine, in education and in retaining his massive earnings via tax free foundations.
Britannica states, “He made possible the founding of the University of Chicago in 1892, and by the time of his death—from a heart attack in 1937, shortly before his 98th birthday—he had given it some $35 million. In association with his son, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., he created major philanthropic institutions, including the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (renamed Rockefeller University) in New York City (1901), the General Education Board (1902), and the Rockefeller Foundation (1913). Rockefeller’s benefactions during his lifetime totaled more than $500 million.”
Vera Sharav’s insight on foundations is exact, “The very wealthy foundations were formed to eliminate their tax requirement. Foundations don’t have to pay taxes. So, they simply move their business under the flag of foundations and then they’re exempt from taxation and they gain huge control because they’re distributing money to all sorts of non-government agencies. They get to decide exactly who to give money to, what kind of policies to support. In the meantime, they’re shoveling in money for themselves.”
This is one of the tragedies of public health.
NIH Payments
Robert Kennedy Jr. tells us, “One of the secrets that they’ve tried to keep hidden at NIH are these direct payments from the pharmaceutical company not only to the agency, but to hundreds if not thousands of scientists and officials within those agencies for royalty payments for the drugs that that agency has partnered with the pharmaceutical company to develop and market.
“The agency has become a big marketing arm for Big Pharma. And they don’t want the American public to know that that is the ultimate object of this terrible devolution. And one of the big emblems of that devolution are the payments that are being made to Tony Fauci, to his deputies, to his scientists. We’ve made FOIA requests and inquiries and the NIH has stonewalled us.”
They’ve had hundreds of FOIA requests and are being sued over those requests, but as of yet, little has been forthcoming. This is an important portion of the last 25 minutes of the second Fauci video.
Dr. Pierre Kory says, “To call Fauci ‘America’s doctor’ is such a misnomer. He’s essentially a mafia don who runs all three agencies. He rules science and the practice of medicine.”
Vera Sharav calls Fauci, “a shyster, a man without scruples of any kind.”
Dr. Paul Marik says, “He should be charged with the crimes he’s responsible for which go back to the HIV era. He did some terrible experiments in Africa. He’s resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of patients.”
Global leaders have united in an urgent call for an international pandemic treaty to be headed by the World Health Organization (WHO). The loss of American sovereignty has been nibbled away at for decades, but this kind of treaty would eliminate American citizens’ freedoms to choose their own health care and would be forced to abide by the dictates of the WHO.
Vera Sharav was to give the following speech in Brussels but because of protestors, it was given in a local restaurant. She outlines the parallels of today with the German Holocaust of European Jewry.
She states exactly what we’re facing because she’s been through it before and quotes Primo Levy, Elie Wiesel and more while discussing the psychological weapons of fear and propaganda. Don’t miss it!
The vaccine program was betrayal.
Conclusion
Many consider Dr. Anthony Fauci a sociopathic murderer of the masses.
Joe Biden gave him a presidential pardon.
Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment 111 times in the Senate hearing.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/FAUCI-I-AM-THE-SCIENCE.png359638Kelleigh Nelsonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngKelleigh Nelson2026-08-05 04:46:102026-08-05 04:59:40From, “I Am The Science” To ” I Plead The Fifth”
When it comes to assessing the responsibility that Dr. Fauci has on just America (he actually had a very negative impact on the entire world), it’s very difficult to get our heads around the horrific impact this one person has had. Read Part 1 to get a good start.
As I wrote there, I am pointing out four (4) MAJOR liabilities that don’t seem to be getting the proper attention they deserve. Here are two more biggies…
3 – Undermined Trust in Science
I have repeatedly pushed back when people say things like they object to “bad science.” Science is a process, and the process is effective — so there is no such thing as “bad” Science!
What laypeople are doing is conflating/confusing Science with scientists. They are NOT one and the same!
EVERY time I see and hear things like “bad science” and similar, it is ALWAYS bad scientists who are really the culprits. Nothing that happened in COVID-19 was due to “bad science.”Nothing. It was ALL due to bad scientists, whom Dr. Fauci seems obsessed with being the leader of.
So, another result of Dr. Fauci’s irresponsible COVID-19-related behavior is that millions of people had their trust in Science severely undermined. After all, Dr. Fauci did say that attacks on him are “attacks on Science.” He is arrogantly claiming that his utterances are synonymous with Science — which is beyond ludicrous. However, due to his authoritative position, it likely was taken at face value by tens of millions of trusting layperson Americans.
We live in an advanced society that is almost entirely attributable to Science. A primary distinction between the U.S. and third-world countries, is that we have successfully implemented thousands of scientific advancements into our daily life.
This is one of several subtle attacks on America. Our enemies know that if Americans distrust and then disavow Science, then our societal collapse will accelerate. Remember that our opponents are playing the long game…
—> There is a fine discussion of this by Ben Shapiro (start at 3:45).
Regretfully, Dr. Fauci’s misrepresentation and perversion of Science is not an outlier. As I have written before, almost all of U.S. K-12 students (50± million) are purposefully being fed second-rate “science”: the NGSS. For example, its authors have knowingly scrapped the traditional Scientific Method.
The impact of the NGSS on America is very much like the severe damage done by Dr. Fauci — yet I do not see anyone making this critical connection…
4 – No Accounting for the Co-Conspirators
As bad as Dr. Fauci’s advice was, it wouldn’t have amounted to a hill of beans if other so-called “science-based organizations” did not endorse it. I am talking about the AMA, CDC, FDA, NIH, WHO, State Health Departments, our universities, etc.
This is very much like the tale of the emperor (Dr. Fauci) with no clothes. He can stupidly parade around nude all he wants, but it only becomes a problem when almost every supposedly competent healthcare or Science organization goes along with the charade.
These organizations have tens of thousands of scientists and medical professionals. Considering that Dr. Fauci wasn’t remotely engaged in actual Science regarding almost every aspect of COVID-19 policies (masks, vaccines, treatments, immunity, etc., etc.), why wasn’t there an official public outcry from many of them? From ONE of them?
The crickets from so-called prestigious U.S. universities is particularly telling. The fact is that essentially zero of the 4000± American “higher education” institutions spoke up about the reality that COVID-19 policies had little (if anything) to do with real Science. (See this AlterAI assessment.)
I understand that Dr. Fauci was motivated by fame and greed, but what about all these groups? If their main concern is to be politically correct, then they are absolutely NOT an institution of higher learning! Hopefully some of those weak-kneed organizations will be officially exposed and penalized.
It’s also extremely disturbing (and telling) that almost none of the many organizations that were complicit in advocating unscientific COVID-19 policies have yet to publicly acknowledge their grievous error.
For example, they now know that there are 40± scientific studies that have concluded that Ivermectin early treatment of COVID-19 is 62%± effective. They also know that there are 65± scientific studies that have concluded that Paxlovid early treatment of COVID-19 is 16%± effective!
For example, they now know that there are 71± scientific studies that have concluded that Remdesivir late treatment of COVID-19 is -4%± effective! Where is their public acknowledgment of these scientific realities?
What confidence do their actions during and after COVID give us that: 1) they know anything about real Science, or 2) they know the difference between political science and actual Science, or 3) they have our best health interest at heart, or 4) they have actually learned from their catastrophically bad response to COVID-19, so will do MUCH better in the future?
The Bottom Line – Part 2
Again, forget the business of where the COVID-19 virus started, etc., and let’s focus on the REALLY major harms caused by Dr. Fauci and others of his ilk. Watch this video of Dr. Scott Atlas (who was there) to see how most “top-level” people quickly and easily capitulated to Fauci’s unscientific leadership.
Is there really any difference when we ask “why didn’t more good people and quality leaders in Germany stand up to Hitler, early on?”
That said, I continue to assert that we MUST fix our K-12 Science education immediately. EVERY year we graduate 4± million students from U.S. high schools. These miseducated, non-critically thinking children will soon be VOTERS, parents, doctors, lawyers, scientists, legislators, etc.
Since their innate critical thinking skills have been purposefully squashed in K-12, they will be easy targets for pied-pipers like Dr. Fauci.
PS — If there is any remaining credibility to what Dr. Fauci says, consider that when interviewed by 60 Minutes a while back, he stated on the record:
“I am very happy to testify before any Congressional oversight committee. I have nothing to hide… I can explain everything I have done. I will cooperate fully, as we have nothing to hide, at all.”
Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:
I urge all readers to subscribe to AlterAI — IMO the absolute best AI option for subjective questions.
I will consider posting reader submissions on Critical Thinking about my topics of interest.
My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.
Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.
C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.
WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2026 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time!)
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Critically-Thinking-about-Dr.-Fauci-2.jpg360640John Droz, Jr.http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJohn Droz, Jr.2026-08-04 11:45:532026-08-04 11:47:16Critically Thinking about Dr. Fauci — Part 2
Please use social media, etc. to pass on this Newsletter to other open-minded citizens…If you’d like to be added to (or unsubscribe from) the distribution of our popular, free, worldwide Media Balance Newsletter, simply send me an email saying that.
Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone, as some documents (e.g., PDFs) are much easier to read on a large computer screen… We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize display issues.
Note 2: For past Newsletter issues see the archives from 2023, 2024, 2025 & 2026. To accommodate numerous requests received about prior articles over all fifteen plus years of the Newsletter, we’ve put this together — where you can search ALL prior issues, by year. For a background about how the Newsletter is put together, etc., please read this.
Note 3: See this extensive list of reasonable books on climate change. As a parallel effort, we have also put together a list of some good books related to industrial wind energy. Both topics are also extensively covered on my website: WiseEnergy.org.
Note 4: I am not an attorney or a physician, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or any of my websites) should be construed as giving legal or medical advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent, licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues, and consult a competent physician regarding medical matters.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/AWED-The-Media-Balance-Newsletter-LOGO.jpg360640John Droz, Jr.http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJohn Droz, Jr.2026-08-03 05:11:232026-08-03 05:17:35AWED MEDIA BALANCED NEWS: We cover Energy to Education to Elections — and more!