JetBlue Jihad: The Great Press Cover-up

Under Islamic law (sharia), any criticism of Islam of Muhammad is punishable by death. Anyone who questions the violent and genocidal Islamic texts and teachings that exhort and incite to jihad (holy war) are targeted for death. These sharia speech restrictions are now very much part of the media/ Associated Press Stylebook, the media usage guide created by American journalists .

A JetBlue Jihadist? The Great Press Cover-up

By Chris Farrell, October 23, 2021:

  • If we are trying to ascertain motive in a situation like this, shouting “Allah” would seem to be a key detail. That potentially moves the incident from “disturbed passenger freaks out over failed phone connection” to “jihadist tries to commit suicide attack.” It does not prove the latter case of course, but it does make it part of the conversation.
  • However, you would have to go to the FBI affidavit to get that detail. The Washington Post write up of the incident, clearly based on the affidavit, went so far as noting that El Dahr “yelled in Spanish and Arabic” but omitted that he was shouting about Allah — despite the obvious news value in that detail.
  • Granted there could be a variety of reasons why El Dahr was invoking his supreme being. But there is only one reason for not reporting it — deliberately to obscure a possible tie to Islamic radicalism.

If a radical Islamist hijacked an airplane, we might never know it was an act of terrorism. That is, if we rely only on the mainstream media. Case in point: On September 22, Khalil El Dahr, a passenger on JetBlue Flight 261 from Boston to Puerto Rico, suddenly rushed to the front of the aircraft, choked and kicked a flight attendant, and tried to break into the flight deck. (Image source: Anna Zvereva/Wikimedia Commons)

If a radical Islamist hijacked an airplane, we might never know it was an act of terrorism. That is, if we rely only on the mainstream media.

Case in point: On September 22, Khalil El Dahr, a passenger on JetBlue Flight 261 from Boston to Puerto Rico, suddenly rushed to the front of the aircraft, choked and kicked a flight attendant, tried to break into the flight deck, and urged crew members to shoot him. It took a half-dozen flight attendants to restrain El Dahr, tying him down with flex cuffs, seat belt extenders and a necktie. On landing in Puerto Rico, El Dahr was arrested and charged with interference with flight crew members and attendants, a federal crime.

What was El Dahr’s motive? Authorities have not released their findings yet, but we know some facts from an affidavit filed by FBI Special Agent William Lopez. El Dahr had attempted an in-flight phone call and “became angry about the call’s unsuccess.” About twenty-five minutes later he rushed the cockpit, struggled with flight attendants, speaking in “Spanish and Arabic,” and “one point during the incident, they were able to understand EL DAHR say Allah in a raised tone.”

If we are trying to ascertain motive in a situation like this, shouting “Allah” would seem to be a key detail. That potentially moves the incident from “disturbed passenger freaks out over failed phone connection” to “jihadist tries to commit suicide attack.” It does not prove the latter case of course, but it does make it part of the conversation.

However, you would have to go to the FBI affidavit to get that detail. The Washington Post write up of the incident, clearly based on the affidavit, went so far as noting that El Dahr “yelled in Spanish and Arabic” but omitted that he was shouting about Allah — despite the obvious news value in that detail.

Granted there could be a variety of reasons why El Dahr was invoking his supreme being. But there is only one reason for not reporting it – deliberately to obscure a possible tie to Islamic radicalism.

This is hardly the first time that the media and even the government have downplayed evidence of a motivation related to Muslim extremism. Take the “workplace violence” narrative that was pitched about US Army Major Nidal Hasan’s terrorist attack at Ft. Hood in 2009 in which he shot and killed 14 people and wounded 33 others. Despite describing himself as a “Soldier of Allah” and with copious evidence of the motivation and intent of his murderous plan, the official Defense Department review was silent on any factors related to his radicalization.

Earlier, when 2002 Washington, D.C. sniper John Allen Muhammad left a cryptic note to police saying “I am God … Allah” only the “I am God” part was reported. When married couple Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik shot up a San Bernardino Christmas party, killing 14 people and seriously wounding 22, headlines told us the motive was “unclear“– until it came out that they had spent a year planning the attack as a part of a commitment to “jihad and martyrdom.”

Again, we cannot jump to the conclusion that El Dahr was a terrorist motivated by radical Islamist ideology, even though his actions fit exactly the M.O. that Al Qaeda pioneered two decades ago. What is at issue here is the propensity for news organizations to conceal possible terroristic motivations — but only of a certain type. Naturally if El Dahr had been a white guy raving about election fraud, COVID vaccinations or Trump 2024, there would be 24-hour coverage of the threat posed by “white rage” and “domestic terrorism,” and calls for tight travel restrictions against real or suspected members of the opposition party.

Freedom of Information Act requests with the relevant government agencies will hopefully uncover more about this incident, including what the government knows about El Dahr, his background, his motives, and who he was trying to call while on JetBlue Flight 261. In other words, true investigative journalists will work to uncover facts that the Washington Post‘s “mainstream journalists” should be uncovering but do not, because they are apparently afraid of what they might find.

RELATED ARTICLE:  Muslim Screaming “ALLAH” Tries to Storm Cockpit On Jetblue Flight, Hero Attendants Block Jihadi

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

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

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

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

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

PURE EVIL: Fauci Under Fire For Puppy Experiments Using Disease-Causing Parasites

This isn’t medicine. This is Mengele.

Never forget that Fauci he is the highest-paid govt official, plus he has received several bonuses in addition to his almost $half a million salary.

‘Cruel’ Fauci is condemned for ‘paying Tunisian research lab $375,800 in taxpayer funds to clamp heads of de-barked beagle puppies in cages filled with flesh-eating flies that ate them alive’

  • A group of 24 bi-partisan lawmakers are demanding answers from Dr. Anthony Fauci after a nonprofit claims he permitted experimental drug testing on dogs
  • The White Coat Waste Project alleges that Fauci sent $375,800 to a Tunisian research lab where beagle puppies were force-fed a new drug
  • The report claims they were also locked in cages with sand flies that ate them alive and underwent a de-barking procedure to keep them quiet
  • The nonprofit has also revealed three other experiments involving beagles that were allegedly funded by Fauci
  • The lawmakers have called the experiments ‘cruel’ and a ‘reprehensible misuse of taxpayer funds’
  • They expect Fauci to answer to the alleged misdeeds by November 19

By Natasha Anderson, Daily Mail, 24 October 2021

Dr. Anthony Fauci is under fire over after the White Coat Waste Project exposed that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has spent millions of taxpayer dollars on four experiments involving beagle puppies.

One of the alleged experiments involved a painful and ‘unnecessary’ de-barking procedure called a cordectomy, while others used the dogs as bait for flesh-eating sand flies.

In response, a group of 24 lawmakers, led by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), are now demanding Fauci provide answers about the experiments they believe to be ‘cruel’ and a ‘reprehensible misuse of taxpayer funds.’
‘According to documents obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request by taxpayer watchdog group White Coat Waste Project, and subsequent media coverage, from October 2018 until February 2019, NIAID spent $1.68million in taxpayer funds on drug tests involving 44 beagle puppies,’ the letter from lawmakers reads.

That larger amount encompasses a wider experiment which saw the beagles force-fed drugs before they were killed and dissected.

‘While documents state that the ostensible purpose of this study was to ‘provide data of suitable quality and integrity to support application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other regulatory agencies,’ the FDA itself has recently stated that it ‘does not mandate that human drugs be studied in dogs.”

The experiments were done with funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, of which Fauci has been director since 1984.

The White Coat Waste Project claims the NIAID provided a $375,800 grant to a lab in Tunisia to drug beagle puppies and locked their heads in mesh cages so sand flies could eat the dogs filled with hundreds of infected sand flies

The sand flies would gnaw on the dogs’ ears, eating them alive

Two weeks ago, the White Coat Waste Project revealed that close to $1.68million was spent on experiments on a total of 44 beagles at Sri International in Menlo Park, California, in which the puppies received cordectomies and were force-fed drugs before being killed and dissected.

Another $375,800 was provided as a grant to a lab in Tunisia to drug beagle puppies and locked their heads in mesh cages so sand flies could eat the dogs filled with hundreds of infected sand flies, the group revealed in August.

Fauci’s team had previously, in 2016, strapped the infectious sand flies to beagles at the NIAID lab in Bethesda, Maryland, allowing them to feed on the dogs for 22 months.

The White Coat Waste Project alleges that the dogs developed infectious legions before researchers killed and dissected them.

This procedure cost $18,430,917.

The White Coat Waste Project also revealed that close to $1.68million was spent on experiments on a total of 44 beagles at Sri International in Menlo Park, California, in which the puppies received cordectomies and were force-fed drugs before being killed and dissected +11
The White Coat Waste Project also revealed that close to $1.68million was spent on experiments on a total of 44 beagles at Sri International in Menlo Park, California, in which the puppies received cordectomies and were force-fed drugs before being killed and dissected

In 2016, Fauci’s strapped sand flies to beagles at the NIAID lab in Bethesda, Maryland, allowing them to feed on the dogs for 22 months

The White Coat Waste Project alleges that the 2016 experiment caused the dogs to develop infectious legions before researchers killed and dissected them +11

In September 2020, Fauci’s agency reportedly authorized a $424,000 grant for animal experiments at the University of Georgia, where healthy beagles were drugged and then intentionally infested with parasite-carrying flies +11

Rep. Nancy Mace demands answers from Fauci on animal experiments

In September 2020, Fauci’s agency reportedly authorized a $424,000 grant for animal experiments at the University of Georgia, where healthy beagles were drugged and then intentionally infested with parasite-carrying flies.

Records show the dogs were ‘vocalizing in pain’ during the experiments, before being killed.

The group of legislators has asked Fauci and his researchers to answer the following by November 19:

How many drug tests involving dogs have been funded by NIAID since January 2018? How much taxpayer money has been spent on this testing?

Since the Food and Drug Administration has clearly stated that it does not require dog testing for new drugs, why has NIAID continued to commission testing on dogs?

What has NIAID done to explore the use of non-canine and non-animal alternatives to meet FDA data requirements?

Has NIAID ever made any dogs available for adoption after the conclusion of an experiment or testing? If so, how many? if so, why not?

‘De-barking beagles and poisoning puppies in experiments with our tax dollars is a national disgrace that’s uniting Republicans and Democrats, and we applaud Rep. Nancy Mace and her colleagues on both sides of the aisle for holding the NIH accountable for this government waste and animal abuse,’ Justin Goodman, Vice President of Advocacy and Public Policy at taxpayer watchdog group White Coat Waste Project, said in a statement provided to DailyMail.com.

Neither Fauci nor the NIAID immediately responded to our request for comment.

The animal testing allegations come after Fauci was accused of lying to Congress by claiming the US did not fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab blamed for creating COVID.

RELATED TWEET:

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

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

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

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

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

Israel: Police open criminal investigation against Facebook for jihad terror incitement

Shut it down! Not just in Israel, but everywhere!

Following PMW’s complaint, Police open criminal investigation against Facebook Israel for terror incitement

by Itamar Marcus, Palestinian Media Watch, October 21, 2021:

Palestinian Media Watch submitted a complaint on May 23, 2021 to Israeli police against Facebook Israel and its CEO for aiding and abetting Fatah incitement to terror, under clause 24(b)(1) of the Anti-Terror Law.

  • PMW has now been informed by Israeli police that it has opened an official investigation pursuant to our complaint. Conviction for someone who “publishes direct calls to commit acts of terror” is up to 5 years of imprisonment.

  • Background: In April and early May, Mahmoud Abbas’ PA and Fatah were actively inciting violence and terror. The Palestinian population was furious that Abbas had cancelled elections to prevent a Hamas victory, and Abbas was trying to distract them with a terror wave in defense of Jerusalem. With over a quarter of a million followers, the avenue of choice for the PA and Fatah to promote violence and terror was Fatah’s Facebook pages.

  • On May 9, 2021, PMW alerted Facebook, writing to the CEO of Facebook Israel Adi Soffer Teeni, that Fatah was using its many Facebook pages to publish calls to commit acts of terror. PMW demanded that Facebook close Fatah’s Facebook pages.

  • PMW warned Facebook: “If you fail to act as the violence [in Jerusalem] rages and as Fatah and its leaders continue to abuse the Facebook platform to spread violence, we will have no choice but to submit an official complaint to the Israeli police against Facebook in general and key personnel in particular, for the aiding and abetting the violence. We expect your quick and decisive response.”  [PMW letter, May 9, 2021]

  • However, Facebook continued its policy of allowing Fatah to post incitement to hate and terror, and to publish direct calls to commit acts of terror, thus fanning the terror in Jerusalem and the rest of Israel throughout the Gaza war with Hamas.

  • PMW submitted the complaint to Israeli police against Facebook Israel and its CEO for incitement to terror on May 23 and recently was notified by the police that a formal investigation of PMW’s complaint was opened. Given the clear evidence (see below), we hope that the police will act swiftly against Facebook to determine if prosecution is warranted against the Israeli Facebook staff who made the decision to enable Fatah to use Facebook to promote terror. In addition, we hope the police will demand the closure of the Fatah’s Facebook pages that, as PMW has shown, have been actively fanning the flames of terror for many years.

Palestinian Media Watch submitted a complaint to Israeli police against Facebook Israel and its CEO Adi Soffer Teeni on May 23, 2021 for incitement to terror under clause 24(b)(1) of the Anti-Terror Law. PMW has been warning Facebook for years that it is a fundamental part of Fatah’s terror promotion, and has supplied Facebook with hundreds of examples of hate and terror promotion on Fatah’s Facebook platform as documented in numerous PMW reports. Facebook claims to be very strict about eliminating hate speech and promoting violence and closing other hate disseminating Facebook accounts. However, Facebook has made a decision to keep open the official Fatah page, thus allowing Fatah to disseminate hate speech against Israel, glorify terrorists who murder Israelis and even be a platform for Fatah’s calls to violence and terror. Given the importance of social media as a disseminator of incitement to violence, Facebook’s behavior has been life-threatening and places them as a central cog in Fatah’s terror infrastructure.

In PMW’s complaint to the police against Facebook Israel, we noted that on May 8, with Arab violence raging in Jerusalem including attacks on police and on Jews walking in the streets of Jerusalem, Fatah used 9 different Facebook pages, including its official Facebook page with 234,305 followers, to disseminate its call for violence, including…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Germany: Muslim migrant who murdered three while screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ is not guilty, not an ‘Islamist’

Spain: Muslims gang-rape woman after telling her to take off her t-shirt with emblem of anti-immigration party

France: ‘F*** the Islamophobes,’ ‘To all teachers, I’ll behead you’

Islamic scholar hits Taliban for focusing on Afghanistan alone, compromising on goal of global Islamic caliphate

France: Imams told to feign support for the French after beheading of teacher for showing Muhammad cartoon

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

Progressive Politics Don’t Define The ‘Righteous Gentile’

The Jewish concept of righteousness cannot be molded to fit a preoccupation with “social justice” that threatens the Jewish future.


The concept of the “Righteous Gentile” is originally rooted in the Torah’s recognition that members of other nations can serve the G-d of Israel by accepting and faithfully observing the Noahide Commandments. Known as “Gerei Toshav” (resident foreigners) in ancient Israel, “pious people of the world” were honored for renouncing idolatry and attaching their destiny to the Jewish nation.

In modern times, the term was applied to people who saved Jews from genocide during the Holocaust, regardless of whether they accepted the seven laws of Noah; but more recently it has been imbued with political connotations by those seeking Jewish validation for partisan agendas. For many secular liberals, the term refers to those who embody progressive ideals that are often inconsistent with or extraneous to Torah values.

To determine who can truly be called a Righteous Gentile, one must understand the scriptural basis and historical evolution of the concept and the character of those to whom it traditionally applied.

Given its classical meaning, the term would certainly include Noahides who reject idolatry and embrace the Torah. Their virtue is reflected not only in their faith, but in their recognition of the Jews as a “light unto the nations” and passionate belief in Jewish spiritual and national integrity. Many of today’s B’nai Noach are outspoken in their support for Israel and opposition to the growing evangelical threat against Israeli and Diaspora Jewry.

During and after the Second World War, the title “righteous among the nations” was conferred upon those who saved Jews from the Nazis and their collaborators. It was not based on religious belief but on commitment to saving Jews from extermination. Raoul Wallenburg and Oskar Schindler were among those who acted at great personal risk – and without ulterior motive – to rise above a common European culture steeped in ancestral antisemitism. And they were not alone. Yad Vashem in Jerusalem honors more than twenty-seven thousand non-Jews for acts of bravery and moral courage during the war.

But did simply saving Jews physically constitute a righteous act? If this were the only criterion, those who saved Jews for impure reasons would be honored as righteous. This was certainly a concern with respect to Jewish children who were taken in by convents, monasteries, and churches, baptized against their will or without understanding, and then effectively kidnapped after the war pursuant to a 1946 Vatican directive forbidding their return to surviving family members. The Church’s motivations were rooted in the same doctrinal hatred that paved the way for the Nuremburg Laws and Holocaust; and the complicity of priests, nuns, and laypeople who exploited parental anguish excludes them from honorable recognition. They may have saved children from the gas chambers, but they crippled them spiritually.

Catholic apologists engage in historical revisionism to suggest that the Church worked to save Jews during the Shoah – despite much evidence to the contrary – and some even argue against all reason that Pope Pius XII should be considered a righteous gentile. Such sophistry is understandable coming from an institution attempting to conceal its past sins. It is unfathomable when spouted by social and political activists who apply the term to people who supported the Nazis, but whose descendants are now allied with the progressive left in its fight against western values and Israel.

It has become increasingly common to hear progressive rabbis praise Arab or Muslim efforts to save Jews during the Holocaust, though such instances were extremely rare, especially when compared to the myriad acts of heroism that occurred throughout Europe. They often expound thus in broad strokes without providing specific examples in a pattern that seems to parallel their embrace of the Palestinian national myth or relationships with putative human rights groups that have covert extremist or Islamist sympathies.

These tales are exaggerated at best.

The real history is far less noble than they would have their audiences believe. Saving Jewish lives was not generally a priority in the Arab-Muslim world, much of which approved the German war effort. Rather than empathize with Hitler’s victims, many chose to serve German interests, e.g., by joining Waffen-SS Hanjar units that were personally recruited by the Mufti of Jerusalem and instrumental in the extermination of Balkan Jewry. Their complicity was consistent with the Mufti’s desire to implement the Final Solution throughout the Mideast, which likely would have happened had Rommel not been defeated at El Alamein.

Equally catastrophic was the collusion of Arab leadership in preventing the escape of Jews from Europe by influencing the British to block refugees from immigrating to their ancient homeland and thus condemning men, women, and children to the death camps. This complicity is glossed over by revisionists seeking to obfuscate the cultural past of people whose social and political causes are now advocated by the liberal mainstream.

The sparse representation of Muslims in Yad Vashem says more about the reality than the stories told in many nontraditional congregations. The roster of more than twenty-seven thousand gentiles recognized as “righteous among the nations” includes only a few Muslims, mostly from a single country – Albania.

Progressives who deny the complicity of Arab leadership during the Shoah often demean the memory of its victims by frivolously branding all political opponents “Nazis” or using the Holocaust as partisan metaphor, e.g., comparing illegal immigrants to Jews trying to escape genocide, equating southern border detention centers to death camps, or analogizing the abrogation of Jewish civil rights in prewar Germany to the struggle for gender equality in the US.

Immigrants fleeing poverty or political unrest in South America cannot be compared to Jews who were marked for death. False analogies are particularly shameful when voiced by liberal rabbis or communal leaders whose statements provide cover for left-wing antisemites.

Such sentiments and platitudes are now used within the mainstream establishment to define righteousness and glorify ideologues whose platforms threaten Jewish continuity and the State of Israel. Possible explanations for this sad state of affairs include an alarming rise in Jewish illiteracy among the non-Orthodox, the false conflation of Jewish tradition with progressive politics, and pathological self-loathing.

But just as traditional values and history cannot be rewritten to legitimize ideologies that disparage both, neither can the Jewish concept of righteousness be molded to fit people whose values, priorities, and preoccupation with “social justice” threaten the Jewish future.

The mantle of righteousness cannot be bestowed on churches that exploited the Holocaust to steal children from their families and suppress their heritage. Neither can it be conferred upon those among the evangelicals who claim to love the Jews and their nation while surreptitiously seeking their spiritual destruction by preying on the educationally weak and vulnerable. And it certainly cannot be applied to activists who endorse political agendas that delegitimize Israel and imperil Jewish continuity.

If the concept of the Righteous Gentile was originally associated with salvation and based on the premise that non-Jews have a place in the world to come, then it is inextricably linked to the belief in messianic redemption. And if the concept as defined after the Holocaust was predicated on the Jews’ physical deliverance, then it presumes a recognition that Jewish continuity is vital to the world and must be preserved.

Consequently, the concept of the Righteous Gentile – whether defined by adherence to the Noahide laws or commitment to preserving Jewish life – is connected to the Jews’ yearning for the messianic age. Indeed, this was prophesied by Zechariah ha-Navi after the return from the Babylon more than 2,500 years ago, when he wrote: “Thus said the Lord of Hosts: In those days, ten men from nations of every tongue will take hold—they will take hold of every Jew by a corner of his cloak and say, ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that G-d is with you.’” (Zechariah, 8:23.)

In contrast, the values that progressives use to define righteousness today – when analyzed against the spectrum of history – would ultimately lead to a future in which the Jewish people and nation would cease to exist.

Those who are obsessed with redefining the Righteous Gentile as a political exemplar devoid of traditional meaning or historical context would do well to discover and embrace the Righteous Jew first. It takes one to recognize the other.

©Matthew Hausman, J.D. All rights reserved.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clyburn: There’s ‘No Way to Pay’ for Biden’s ‘Zero Cost’ Spending Plan

Friday on MSNBC’s Craig Melvin Reports, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn confessed that “there’s no way to pay” for President Joe Biden’s $3.5 trillion “Build Back Better” spending package, which the Biden administration ludicrously claims will come with “zero cost” to the American people.

“I don’t think that anyone ever thought that after doing the rescue plan of over a trillion dollars, that we would come back with a $6 trillion program,” Clyburn stated. “The question is, how do you pay for that? Because we’re committed, Democrats are committed to paying for what we do. We saw the Republicans do a nearly $2 trillion tax cut and pass it onto our children and grandchildren to pay for it sometime in the future. That’s not our philosophy. Our philosophy is, let’s do what we need to do, but let’s pay for it. And so, there’s no way to pay for a $6 trillion program.”

He continued, “And you may recall, I questioned as to whether or not $3.5 trillion could be paid for. In fact, I said at the time that I thought that somewhere between $1.5 and $3.5, we’ll be able to find a sweet spot. And that, it seems to be what’s taking place now. We are close to finding the sweet spot. And it will be between those two numbers.”

Regardless of the final number, the Democrat spending agenda will be disastrous for the country, because it will be oriented toward a far-left, social justice agenda, including the environmentalist boondoggle, the “Great Reset.”


James Clyburn

39 Known Connections

Contempt for President Trump

In an August 16, 2017 interview on CNN, Clyburn said that the United States was becoming more like Nazi Germany with a Hitler-like Donald Trump as president. “We are approaching a place that we’ve been before,” he stated. “We remember from our studies what happened in the 1930s in Germany. I told a business group down at Hilton Head several weeks before the election, that what I saw coming was a replay of what happened in Nazi Germany.” Clyburn then asserted that both Trump and Hitler were elected by the people: “The fact of the matter is Hitler was elected as chancellor of Germany. He did not become a dictator until later when people began to be influenced by his foolishness. We just elected a president and he’s got a lot of foolishness going on, and I’m afraid that too many people are being influenced by that foolishness.”

To learn more about James Clyburn, click here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

New Study Finds Electric Cars Cost More To Refuel Than Gasoline Powered Cars

Anderson Economic Group EV Transition Series: Report Comparison: Real World Cost of Fueling EVs and ICE Vehicles compared the actual costs of fueling normally asperated cars and trucks versus all electric vehicles. Read the full study here.

The Anderson study noted that Electronic Vehicles (EVs) are, “often presumed to be less expensive to fuel than their ICE counterparts. There is a rationale in physics for this: due to greater thermal efficiency, electric motors convert energy more efficiently than combustion engines. However, this cost is only one of five.”

For a complete picture, Anderson notes that we consumers must consider:

  1. Commercial and residential electric power/fuel costs.
  2. Registration taxes.
  3. Equipment (e.g., chargers) and installation costs.
  4. Deadhead miles incurred driving to a charger or fueling station.
  5. The cost of time spent refueling

The study found:

  • There are four additional costs to powering EVs beyond electricity: cost of a home charger, commercial charging, the EV tax and “deadhead” miles.
  • For now, EVs cost more to power than gasoline costs to fuel an internal combustion car that gets reasonable gas mileage.
  • Charging costs vary more widely than gasoline prices.
  • There are significant time costs to finding reliable public chargers – even then a charger could take 30 minutes to go from 20% to an 80% charge.

In the Anderson Economic Group’s October 21, 2021 column “Real-World Electric Vehicle Fueling Costs May Surprise New EV Drivers” they wrote:

6 months of independent research finds fueling costs for electric vehicles (EV) are often higher than for internal combustion engines (ICE)

East Lansing, MI–October 21, 2021: Anderson Economic Group released today the first in a series of analyses examining the transition from ICE vehicles to EVs.

This initial 36-page study is the culmination of comprehensive research comparing the “apples-to-apples” costs involved in fueling both EVs and ICE vehicles. AEG undertook this study after noting that many commonly cited figures did not account for the true costs associated with EV charging.

AEG calculated the cost of chargers, additional road taxes, commercial charging fees, and “deadhead” miles for three different EV driving scenarios and compared these with 3 analogous ICE vehicle scenarios. The research found that fueling an EV is often more expensive than fueling an ICE vehicle. It further found that fueling costs are far more variable for EVs. The authors go on to note the significant time costs imposed on EV drivers as a result of both inadequate infrastructure and wait times associated with fueling, which can be five to ten times the cost for ICE drivers.

According to study author Patrick Anderson, “These numbers may be surprising to those who haven’t relied upon an electric vehicle, but it’s important we safeguard the public from ‘charger shock.’ Before consumers can feel comfortable buying EVs in large numbers, they need to understand the true costs involved.”

Read the full article.

About the Authors

Mr. Patrick Anderson is Anderson Economic Group’s principal and CEO. His company is one of the most recognized boutique consulting firms in the United States, with years of expertise in the US automotive industry. The company has consulted for manufacturers that include General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Honda, and others, along with nearly 200 automobile dealerships representing virtually every brand in the market.

Mr. Alston D’Souza works in Anderson Economic Group’s strategy and business valuation practice area, where he serves as senior analyst and data scientist. While at AEG, Mr. D’Souza’s work has focused on damages and market analysis. He holds a master’s degree in econometrics and quantitative economics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and a Bachelor of Technology degree from the National Institute of Technology Karnataka (India).

ABOUT THE ANDERSON ECONOMIC GROUP

Founded in 1996, Anderson Economic Group (AEG) is one of the most recognized boutique consulting firms in the United States. The company has offices in East Lansing, Michigan and Chicago, Illinois. The automobile industry is a primary area of specialization for the experts at AEG, who approach this critical automotive transition from a perspective that recognizes the role everyday consumer choices will play in driving EV market trends.

AEG’s automotive clients include manufacturers, suppliers, trade associations, and dealers and dealership groups.

©All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: The biggest mistakes buyers make when shopping for an electric car.

Biden’s ‘Jabs Not Jobs’ Policies.

“If getting vaccinated is simply a matter of individual health, there is little reason for planners to exercise control over the public.” – Jon Miltimore


QUESTION: Are Personal Heath Decisions Yours or the Biden Administrations?

Biden and his administration are all in to force you to get jabbed, even our military. If you don’t then, well, you can lose your job. In the military you could be court marshalled and/or dishonorably discharged. Watch Tucker Carlson’s exposé of a propaganda PowerPoint used by U.S. Army to justify mandatory vaccines.

There is growing evidence that clearly shows deaths are increasing worldwide after COVID-19 shots. Fox News’ Tucker Carlson reported, through June 11, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), a US Health and Human Services Department division, recorded 358,379 adverse events after vaccinations, including 5,993 deaths and 29,871 serious illnesses.

Dr. Robert Wachter, chairman of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, stated in a New York Times column, “Remember when the early vaccine studies came out, it was like nobody gets hospitalized, nobody dies. That clearly is not true.”

Some Governors are having none of these vaccine mandates. Governor Ron DeSantis has called for a special session of the Florida legislature to address this issue of personal health decisions. Watch:

Business Insider reported the following about the side effects of getting jabbed:

Dose 2 usually comes with more severe side effects

The most common side effect for all three authorized US vaccines is pain or swelling at the injection site: Nearly 92% of participants in Moderna’s clinical trial developed this side effect. in Pfizer’s trial, 84% of participants reported that, as did 49% in Johnson & Johnson’s.

Other common side effects include fatigue, headache, and body or muscle aches. About 65% of vaccine recipients in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s trials, and 38% in Johnson & Johnson’s, developed fatigue.

For those who haven’t had COVID-19 before, side effects tend to be more numerous and severe after the second dose.

How many Americans have lost their jobs due to Biden’s jabs mandate?

The GOP Times reported:

  • According to the Associated Press, “Advocate Aurora Health has fired about 440 employees for not abiding by the company’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.”
  • A total of 1,887 Washington state employees have either quit their jobs or been fired for failing to comply with Gov. Jay Inslee’s (D) coronavirus vaccine mandate amounting to approximately 3% of the workforce of the state as reported by The Hill.
  • GOP Newsfeed reported that 117 nurses of the Houston Methodist Hospital system filed a wrongful termination suit against the hospital due to their vaccine mandate, however, a total of 153 employees were terminated.
  • According to Reuters, “New York State’s largest healthcare provider, Northwell Health, has fired 1,400 employees who refused to get COVID-19 vaccinations, according to a spokesman, Joe Kemp.”
  • The Intelligencer reported that the impact is being felt keenly in New York City where about 10% of approximately 5,000 of the city’s public hospital workforce “remained unvaccinated and were not allowed to work.”’

Matthew Holloway in his article This is How Many Americans Have Been Forced Out of Work Because of Jab Mandates notes:

Conservatively speaking 8,880 Americans are without work today as a direct result of the Biden-Harris vaccine mandate. However, many thousands still are conducting work actions such as Boeing employees such as in Everett, Washington where hundreds of employees walked off the job in protest of the mandate. And in New York City and Chicago where anywhere up to 31% of New York’s Police officers and up to 40% of FDNY employees could find themselves unemployed. Or similarly in Chicago where so far 21 officers have been suspended without pay, a number that could grow to almost 2,000 officers

Read the full article.

These numbers will only increase as more government entities enforce Biden’s jab mandates. We are beginning to see more and more Americans not going to work in protest against being forced against their wills to get jabbed. The most recent example was when Southwest Airlines pilots stayed home after their CEO announced a policy that they get jabbed or get fired.

Civil disobedience is on the rise and Biden’s approval ratings are falling like a rock.

As Bill Clinton said, “It’s the economy stupid.”

To Get Jabbed or Not To Get Jabbed

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

I have been through four pandemics. The most recent were SARS and H1N1 under the Obama administration. This is the first time that anyone has “mandated” that individuals be jabbed, i.e. take the Covid vaccines.

Here’s an October 19, 2021 video from The Olympian showing how jabbed tyranny is being implemented by the governor of Wisconson:

Conclusion

Watch Tucker Carlson discuss the ramifications of vaccine mandates.

Healthcare is strictly a doctor and patient issue. Government intervention “literally hurts” and does not help patients, healthcare workers and employers. You and your doctor know best what is good for you and your long term health.

Once  you government can mandate that you must get jabbed or else, then what other powers will they take from you?

Many American’s are asking what’s next?

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

1 Horrifying Discovery Forced the Swedes to Bar Their Young People from Taking Moderna’s Vaccine

Kerry Promises to Create Auto Jobs IN MEXICO as Part of Biden’s Green New Deal

COVID-19: The Weaponization Of Fear

NIH Confirms It Funded Wuhan Gain-of-Function Research, Now Fauci Could Spend 5 Years in Jail

VIDEO: Florida Man Who Became a Congressman Signs Off House Speech With ‘Let’s Go, Brandon!’

My latest in PJ Media:

On the House floor Thursday, a Florida man named Bill Posey, a Republican who has represented the Sunshine State’s 8th Congressional District since 2009, had a great deal to say about the dumpster fire that is Joe Biden’s handlers’ presidency, but his speech is much more likely to be remembered for how he ended it than for what he actually said: Posey concluded his remarks by saying, “Let’s go, Brandon!”

By now the whole world knows that “Let’s go, Brandon!” really means “F*** Joe Biden,” a secret code that everybody is in on, born when an NBC reporter tried vainly to cover for a NASCAR crowd that was chanting “F*** Joe Biden” while she interviewed driver Brandon Brown by claiming that it was chanting “Let’s go, Brandon.” Now “Let’s go, Brandon” has become a chart-topping rap hit and a wry expression of Americans’ dissatisfaction with the corrupt gang of socialists, internationalists, open-borders advocates, and worse that is running things, fronted by a man who, it is increasingly obvious, is barely even there.

Posey surveyed the way things are going as Biden’s handlers’ Build Back Better slogan has become Destroy More Things More Quickly, and said the regime’s program could not “pass a straight-face test.” Posey added: “Based on the false promise that he would unify America, President Biden got into the Oval Office. And my friends on the other side of the aisle gained a razor-thin majority in the House and Senate. But you know, we know, we all know, everybody knows the unification promise was a lie, and your majority is going to be short-lived. So you must feel compelled to rush through a radical agenda before the midterms.”

As a result, Posey said, Americans are “understandably frustrated” and “actually very angry,” and cannot be counted on to “sit back and take it much longer.” He said that Americans want Democrats “to help put America back where you found it and leave it the hell alone.” And then: “Let’s go, Brandon!”

Posey explained to Fox News: “Listen to my speech – like many Americans, I’m frustrated seeing the country quickly decline and the erosion of our civil liberties due to Washington’s policies designed to turn America upside down like the vaccine mandates, silencing parents at school board meetings, rampant crime, broken borders, rising gas and food prices, the weaponizing of the IRS, and a $5 trillion Green New Deal to restructure our lives.”

Indeed. Biden’s handlers have made a mess of things with remarkable speed, and the Florida Congressman didn’t even come close to mentioning all of them. He didn’t say anything about the Afghan refugees who are coming into the country by the tens of thousands despite the fact that no one knows who many of them are, and coming as they are from a jihadi hotspot, it is only reasonable to conclude that at least some of them could be jihad terrorists.

There is more. Read the rest here.

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

TAKE ACTION To Impeach Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin – Sign The Petition

Instead of fighting the enemy, he was fighting Americans.


Sign the Freedom Center’s petition to Remove Secretary Austin NOW! –  CLICK HERE.


Americans are dead and our credibility is in ruins. Meanwhile the man at the top of the military chain of command is blaming everyone else while using the dead for political cover.

When Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he suggested that any criticism of his disaster in Afghanistan would impugn the heroism of American soldiers who fought and died in the war. It was a shameless performance in which Austin blamed everyone else while using the soldiers he sacrificed as human shields.

Indian intelligence sources revealed that the ISIS-K suicide bomber who murdered 13 American military personnel at the Kabul airport had been released from Bagram Air Base by the Taliban.

The decision to pull out of Bagram had been reached at a secret meeting in the Pentagon’s “extreme basement” attended by Austin, Gen. Milley, and Secretary of State Blinken.

Any final decision would have had to be signed off by Biden and by Austin.

It’s understandable that Austin keeps coming up with excuses for the disaster that led to the death of more American personnel in one day than in the last two years of war in Afghanistan.

Austin is at the top of the military chain of command and answers only to the man in the Oval Office. No one is more responsible for the military disaster in Afghanistan than Austin except for the man who gave him his orders. But it was Austin who promised Senate members that if he were confirmed, he would speak his mind and stand up to Joe Biden.

“I certainly wouldn’t be here if I believed the last four years of my life left me too familiar with current operations to change course when needed, too close to scrutinize people with whom I once served, or too afraid to speak my mind to you or to the President,” Austin had assured the Senate Armed Service Committee during his confirmation hearing.

It was one of the many broken promises that Austin left in his wake during his brief tenure. The Secretary of Defense had promised to end the war in Afghanistan “on terms favorable to the United States”, had assured that, “Afghan security forces have the capability and capacity to project security and stability in Afghanistan in 2021 and beyond”, and that he would work to “ensure that the U.S. military and our Afghan partners have the capacity and capability necessary to protect U.S. personnel, our allies and partners, and our interests.”

Austin vowed to represent national interests, to be independent and flexible, and to keep American soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan and in the United States safe.

As the Afghanistan disaster unfolded, Austin showed off all of his abandoned promises.

He explained that he could not rescue the Americans trapped behind enemy lines. “I don’t have the capability to go out and extend operations currently into Kabul.” Austin acknowledged that Americans were being assaulted by the Taliban. “We’re also aware that some people, including Americans, have been harassed and even beaten by the Taliban.” he admitted, but all he had to offer was a protest that he had registered with “the designated Taliban leader.”

In eight months under Austin’s leadership, U.S. military forces had gone from a dominant force to being unable to stop the Taliban from beating Americans in the streets of Kabul.

This disgraceful betrayal was implemented by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.

No single military figure had done as much to radicalize the military, undermine military readiness, shatter international alliances, and destroy America’s credibility abroad.

Austin’s opening statement at his confirmation hearing made no mention of Afghanistan or the Taliban, or even Al Qaeda, ISIS, and terrorism. Instead he vowed to fight the “enemies” that “lie within our own ranks” and “rid our ranks of racists and extremists” by which he meant anyone who wasn’t on board with critical race theory and the rest of his radical leftist agenda.

In February, Austin held his first press conference at which he discussed the Biden administration’s illegal military occupation of Washington D.C. He also mentioned that, “I told our allies that no matter what the outcome of our review, the United States will not undertake a hasty or disorderly withdrawal from Afghanistan.”

NATO allies were promised that, “There will be no surprises. We will consult each other, consult together and decide together and act together.” As the British and other NATO allies have made clear, there was no consultation and there were no joint decisions. Instead Biden and Austin made disastrous unilateral moves while leaving the nations that had aided us holding the bag.

But Austin was spending far more time fighting conservatives in the military than fighting the enemy. While white personnel were being told that they were oppressors, and minority personnel were encouraged to believe that they were victims of white racism, the planning for a full evacuation from Afghanistan was being pushed off as it was an unimportant matter.

Defense Secretary Austin kept sloganeering about “a responsible and sustainable end to this war” and promised, “we want to do this methodically and deliberately”. Instead, he abandoned Bagram Air Base, cutting off the only safe evacuation route, and pulled all but 600 military personnel out, only to rush troops back at the last minute for a “hasty” and “disorderly withdrawal”.

Austin had also promised that U.S. military weapons wouldn’t fall into the hands of the Taliban.

“We’re going to responsibly retrograde all of our capabilities,” Austin had falsely promised.  “We’re going to account for all the people and resources that are working with us.”

Instead, Austin left the Taliban as the best armed Sunni Jihadist group on the planet.

While Austin was vowing to fight all the “racists and extremists” in the military, he was ignoring a report to the Pentagon’s Inspector General which warned that “Al Qaeda is gaining strength in Afghanistan while continuing to operate with the Taliban under the Taliban’s protection” and that “Al Qaeda capitalizes on its relationship with the Taliban through its network of mentors and advisers who are embedded with the Taliban, providing advice, guidance, and financial support.”

Al Qaeda functioned in relation to the Taliban the way that America did to the Afghan government as an embedded supportive force providing money and strategic insights. The Taliban had not only failed to turn on Al Qaeda, but the terrorist group that had attacked America on September 11 was playing the role of the wizards behind the Taliban curtain.

In response to Senate questions, Austin wrote that the “Taliban have agreed to take concrete steps to ensure that al Qaeda never again is able to use Afghanistan’s soil to threaten the security of the United States or our allies. If confirmed, I will review the Taliban’s progress toward implementing their commitments with regard to al Qaeda.”

The Taliban implemented their commitments to Al Qaeda, not to Austin. The Haqqani Network, longtime Al Qaeda allies, control Kabul and the terrorist group freely operates in Afghanistan.

“We are committed to a responsible and sustainable end to this war while preventing Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for terrorist groups that threaten the interest of the United States and our allies,” Austin had said. But the report to the Pentagon IG had already made it clear that Taliban control over Afghanistan would mean the return of Al Qaeda.

What happened wasn’t a surprise, it was inevitable.

“The whole community is kind of watching to see what happens and whether or not al Qaeda has the ability to regenerate in Afghanistan,” Austin told reporters during his post-defeat tour.

As usual, he was late to the party.

“We put the Taliban on notice that we expect them to not allow that to happen,” he said, referring to Al Qaeda using Afghanistan to launch attacks against the United States. The “notice” will be as effective as the one about the Taliban beating Americans at checkpoints.

But Austin had made it his priority to use the military against fellow Americans, whether in Washington D.C. or within the ranks of the military, while betraying Americans to the Taliban.

“This all occurred in a span of about 11 days. Nobody predicted that, you know, the government would fall in 11 days,” Austin whined during an ABC News interview.

Every Biden administration official had latched on the same dishonest talking point.

As the Washington Post noted, “On Sept. 27, 1996, Taliban forces captured Kabul overnight, flooding in from all directions after a 15-day sweep of the country.” There were plenty of intelligence estimates warning of a rapid Taliban takeover. But Austin didn’t have to wait until there were only 11 days left. What was he doing since Kamala Harris swore him in on Jan 25?

Where were all those “responsible” and “methodical” plans he had been promising all along?

Instead of planning how to keep Americans safe, Austin spent those months waging war on Americans with a militarization of Washington D.C. and with a purge of the military. And when 13 American military personnel died because of his actions at the Kabul airport, the dead heroes proved to be men and women, white and Latino, who represented the spectrum that Austin was trying to divide with the big lies of critical race theory and a hunt for “extremists”.

The real extremists were Austin, Milley, and Biden.

Like most leftists, Secretary of Defense Austin could not take the idea of an external enemy seriously. Radicals striving to take power focus all their efforts on fighting internal enemies. And while Austin fought other Americans, Al Qaeda and the Taliban claimed Afghanistan.

Along with untold billions in military equipment, including Black Hawk helicopters, drones, armored vehicles, and a treasure trove of assault rifles and heavy weaponry.

On his post-defeat tour, Austin has claimed that the disaster, “will be studied in the days and months ahead”, and admitted that, “No operation is ever perfect, there are lessons to be learned.” What those lessons are, he hasn’t bothered sharing with the rest of the country.

Austin may not be especially bright, but he is a career military man who reached the pinnacle of his profession. He knew that the Afghanistan withdrawal would be a disaster and that is why he reportedly advised Biden to conduct it in stages, instead of in one fell swoop. Biden ignored his advice and Austin shrugged because he didn’t care about Afghanistan, he cared about “racism”.

The real lesson here is on the dangers of putting radicals with racial grudges in charge of the United States military. The Afghanistan rout was not an unexpected surprise, it was the cumulative effect of radicalism, incompetence, and apathy by a politicized and disloyal brass.

While Austin was fighting enemies at home, he enabled enemies abroad. He made fellow American military personnel into his enemies and they died at the hands of true enemies.

The betrayal in Afghanistan began with a betrayal at home.

COLUMN BY

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ilhan Omar Wants State Department to Fight ‘Islamophobia’

UC Berkeley study claims that ‘Islamophobia undermines and weakens women’s rights’

UK: Three children from jailed Islamic State families handed to families in Britain to start new life

India: 3200 Islamic State sleeper cells with 32000 jihadis active in Kerala, with Pakistani support

Afghanistan: Shia community fearful amid deadly mosque attacks and ongoing persecution from Sunnis

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

The Troubling Ramifications of the Aborted Baby Parts Scandal.

Today I am publishing a post on a matter close to my heart. The evil of the multi billion dollar abortion industry and their sale of aborted baby parts. You need to all become very aware of this filthy satanic industry and understand their statement – my body, my choice – is about as stupid and hypocritical as they are evil. As you know that saying doesn’t apply to the vaccine mandate!! Just to the wholesale slaughter and genocide of millions. Pictures I have posted in this blog appear below and are graphic. They show you exactly what is acceptable to the evil left in this country. It surely separates them from us.

Political leaders, Media, Educators and the General public need to wake up to the shocking reality of the abortion issue. The heroine of the left and their friends, Mary Sanger, a true evil Nazi, created Planned Parenthood to remove the scourge of black peoples from the face of America and the world. She was a racist in the uttermost extreme way. Yet the Dems love her, black women who flock to their clinics using abortion as birth control, love her. Ignorance is bliss. Selfishness rules. Uneducated people who are destroying morals, ethics and sensibilities and destroying life as if these aborted, murdered innocents, are trash like wrappers on a chocolate bar. Sad.


The Democrats: Killing the American Family, One Baby at a Time : By ERIC MARTIN.

Margaret Sanger, who founded the Birth Control League, opened the first abortion clinic in America in 1916. She was a disciple of Eugenics, which advocated the racial superiority of the white European peoples over all others, especially over the Blacks, Orientals, and of course, the Jews. Hitler’s racial policies were rooted in the Eugenics Movement, and he was a great admirer of Margaret Sanger.

He came to power in 1933 and fulfilled many of her diabolical aspirations—he exterminated six-million Jews, millions of Gypsies, the physically handicapped, and “mental degenerates.” He also hated Africans, whom he often referred to as mere animals. Margaret Sanger referred to Afro-Americans as “…human weeds, reckless breeders, spawning human beings who should never have been born.”

Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control League became Planned Parenthood in 1942. Since then, the Democratic Party has been the main force behind the killing of over 61,628,584 unborn babies in America. The toll of Black babies has been a holocaust—over 20 million. That was the number of the entire Black population of America in 1960! The Black pastor, Reverend Johnny Hunter, stated on June 20, 2020,

The weapon of mass destruction is the suction machine in Planned Parenthood.”

He went on to raise the alarm amongst the Afro-American community:

If we look the other way while our smallest brothers and sisters are being lynched in the womb, we lose the right to be outraged that we were once lynched by the Klan.”

Hilary Clinton was given the Margaret Sanger Award by Planned Parenthood in 2008. In her speech to thousands of pro-abortion supporters, she said of Margaret Sanger, “I am really in awe of her.”

The Democratic Party is the party of infanticide. They have extended the tongs, the forceps, and the suction machines to babies who are about to be born, babies who are born alive, only to be exterminated by having their heads bashed in and their brains sucked out. Their murderers are now protected by laws enacted by Democratic law makers in Congress. The right to life of the innocent, to the full protection of the Constitution and laws of the United States, has been callously trampled by the Party of Death.

Planned Parenthood is the creation of a twisted Nazi—a depraved racist who hated Judeo-Christian civilization and who worked all her sordid life to destroy respect for human life. She was the enemy of the weak and the infirm, of the poor and deprived.

And yet, Margaret Sanger is the undisputed Queen of the panoply of satanic gods who are worshipped by the Democratic Party and its leaders. These moral perverts claim to be champions of the middle class and of the American family. But as Jesus Christ said, “By their deeds you shall know them.”

They are killing the American family, one baby at a time.

About this author:

Eric Martin

Contributor at America’s Civil War Rising. Eric Martin is a British-born American patriot, who at 75 years of age continues his fight against the enemies of democracy and Judeo-Christian civilization. He was an officer in the Biafran diplomatic corps during the Biafra War of 1967 to 1970 and had close escapes from the Islamic regime of Nigeria and their allies, the KGB. He is a friend of Israel, having volunteered in the Six-Day War, and has also worked with The Friends of Israel for her security. His first allegiance is to the God of Israel and His People, both Jewish and Christian. In 2007, he was chosen by Israel National Radio to announce the station to the world. He believes that it is the duty of all freedom-loving Americans to fight the Marxist barbarians who are now trying to destroy America—with all means possible.

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES ON: Margaret Sanger.

Putin Warns Wokeness Is Destroying The West: It Happened In Russia, It’s Evil, It Destroys Values

Russia schooling America on freedom and democracy. You can’t make this stuff up. WATCH:

Putin Warns Wokeness Is Destroying The West: It Happened In Russia, It’s Evil, It Destroys Values

By Ryan Saavedra • Oct 22, 2021 DailyWire.com •

Russian President Vladimir Putin slammed during a speech on Thursday the far-left woke ideology that he said is causing societal ills throughout the Western world, saying that it is no different than what happened in Russia during the 1917 revolution.

Putin made the remarks during a plenary session of the 18th annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi where the topic was “Global Shake-up in the 21st Century.” Putin’s remarks were translated by an interpreter and that video was uploaded to the Russian government’s website.

“We see with bemusement the paralysis unfolding in countries that have grown accustomed to viewing themselves as the flagships of progress,” Putin said during an event where he spoke for a few hours. “Of course, it’s none of our business or what is happening, the social and cultural shocks that are happening in some countries in the Western countries, some believe that aggressive blotting out of whole pages of your own history, the affirmative action in the interest of minorities, and the requirement to renounce the traditional interpretation of such basic values as mother, father, family, and the distinction between sexes are a milestone … a renewal of society.”

Putin said that Western nations had a right to do whatever they wanted to do but that “the overwhelming majority of Russian society” rejected these new ways of thinking.

“The preparedness of the so called social progress believe that the bringing a new conscience, a new consciousness to humanity, something that is more correct,” Putin said. “But there is one thing I would like to say: The recipes they come up with are nothing new. Paradoxical as it may seem, but this is something we saw in Russia. It happened in our country before after the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks followed the dogmas of Marx and Engels. And they also declared that they would go into change the traditional lifestyle, the political, the economic lifestyle, as well as the very notion of morality, the basic principles for a healthy society. They were trying to destroy age and century long values, revisiting the relationship between the people, they were encouraging informing on one’s own beloved, and families. It was hailed as the march of progress. And it was very popular across the world and it was supported by many, as we see, it is happening right now.”

“Incidentally, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of other opinions, different from their own,” Putin continued. “I think this should remind you of something that is happening. And we see what is happening in the Western countries, it is with puzzlement that we see the practices Russia used to have and that we left behind in distant path, the fight for equality and against discrimination turns into an aggressive dogmatism on the brink of absurdity, when great authors of the past such as Shakespeare are no longer taught in schools and universities because they announced as backward classics that did not understand the importance of gender or race.”

“In Hollywood there are leaflets reminding what you should do in the cinema, in the films, how many personalities and actors you’ve got, what kind of color, what sex, and sometimes it’s even even tighter and stricter than what the Department of Propaganda of the Soviet Communist Party Central Committee did,” he said. “And the fight against racism, which is a lofty goal, turns into a new culture, cancel culture, and into reverse discrimination, racism on the obverse. And it brings people apart, whereas the true fighters for civic rights, they were trying to eliminate those differences. I asked my colleagues to find this quote from Martin Luther King, and he said, ‘I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.’ That is a true value.”

“You know, the Bolsheviks were speaking about nationalizing not just the property, but also women,” Putin continued. “The proponents of new approaches go so far as they want to eliminate the whole notions of men and women, and those who dare say that men and women exist and this is a biological fact, they are all but banished. Parent number one, parent number two, or the parent that has given birth, or instead of breast milk, you say human milk. And you say all of that, so the people who are not sure of their sexual agenda are not unhappy.”

“And I would like to say that this is not something new, and the 20s and the 1920s, the Soviet couture Tagore came up with the so called ‘Newspeak’, and they thought that thereby they were building a new consciousness and coming up with new values, and they went so far that we feel the consequences up until now,” he concluded on the matter. “There are some monstrous things when from a very young age, you teach to children that the boy can easily become a girl and you impose on them this selection, this choice. You push the parents aside and make the child take this decisions that can destroy their lives. And if we call the spade a spade, this is nigh to crime against humanity and all of that under the banner of progress, while some people just want to do that.”

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

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

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

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

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

Why the Push Is on to Make Pandemic Life ‘Permanent’

COVID-19 is new. But the reaction to the crisis is starting to look familiar.


One year after Americans were ordered to close down society for “two weeks to flatten the curve,” Bloomberg columnist Andreas Kluth warned, “We Must Start Planning for a Permanent Pandemic.”

Because new variants of SARS-COV-2 are impervious to existing vaccines, says Kluth, and pharmaceutical companies will never be able to develop new vaccines fast enough to keep up, we will never be able to get “back to normal.”

“Get back to normal” means recovering the relative liberty we had in our already overregulated, pre-Covid lives. This is just the latest in a long series of crises that always seem to lead our wise rulers to the same conclusion: we just cannot afford freedom anymore.

Covid-19 certainly wasn’t the beginning. Americans were told “the world changed” after 9/11. Basic pillars of the American system, like the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, were too antiquated to deal with the “new threat of terrorism.” Warrantless surveillance of our phone, e-mail, and financial records and physical searches of our persons without probable cause of a crime became the norm. A few principled civil libertarians dissented, but the public largely complied without protest.

“Keep us safe,” they told the government, no matter the cost in dollars or liberty.

Perhaps seeing how willingly the public rolled over for the political right during the “War on Terror,” authoritarians on the left turbocharged their own war on “climate change.” Previously interested in merely significantly raising taxes and heavily regulating industry, they now wish to ban all sorts of things, including air travelgasoline-powered cars, and even eating meat.

Since Covid-19, however, even the freedom to assemble and see each other’s faces may be permanently banned to help the government “keep us safe.”

Assaulting our liberty isn’t the only characteristic these crisis narratives have in common. They share at least two others: dire predictions that turn out to be false and proposed solutions that turn out to be ineffective.

George W. Bush warned Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” capable of hitting New York City within 45 minutes. He created the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA to prevent, among other things, a “mushroom cloud” over a major American city.

Twenty years later, we know there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the terrorist threat was grossly exaggerated, and the TSA has still never caught a terrorist, not even the two people who tried to set off explosives concealed in their shoes and underwear, respectively.

The only effective deterrent of terrorism so far has been the relatively calmer foreign policy during the four years of the Trump administration, during which regime change operations ceased and major terrorist attacks in the United States virtually disappeared.

Predictions of environmental catastrophe have similarly proven false. Younger people may not remember that in the early 1970s, long before Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was born, environmentalists were predicting worldwide disasters that subsequently failed to materialize. In 1989, the Associated Press reported, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” The same official predicted the Earth’s temperature would rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years.

Ocasio-Cortez is famous for predicting in 2019, “The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” But Al Gore had warned in 2006 that “unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.” So, isn’t it too late anyway?

As with the war on terrorism, the war on climate change asks us to give up our freedom for solutions that don’t work. Assuming climate change proponents have diagnosed the problem correctly and haven’t exaggerated the threat—huge assumptions by themselves— implementing their proposed solution won’t solve the problem, even by their own standards.

Its proponents know this. The U.S. has already led the world in reducing carbon emissions without the draconian provisions of the Green New Deal. If you listen to them carefully, the Green New Deal’s proponents propose the U.S. give up what freedom and prosperity remain to them merely as an example to developing nations, whom they assume will forego the benefits of industrialization already enjoyed by developed countries because of the shining example of an America in chains and brought to its economic knees to “save the earth.”

Fat chance, that.

The latest remake of this horror movie is Covid-19. While undeniably a serious pathogen that has likely killed more people than even the worst flu epidemics of the past several decades (although this is hard to confirm since public health officials changed the methodology for determining a virus-caused death), the government and its minions have still managed to grossly exaggerate this threat.

Gone is any sense of proportion when discussing Covid-19. Yes, it is certainly possible to spread the virus after one has been vaccinated or acquired natural immunity. But how likely is it? Is it any more likely than spreading other pathogens after immunity?

If not, then why are we treating people with immunity differently than we have during more dangerous pandemics in the past? Similarly, it is likely possible for asymptomatic people to spread the virus—a key pillar of the lockdown argument—but again, how likely is it?

The theory Covid-19 could be spread by asymptomatic people was originally based on the case of a single woman who supposedly infected four other people while experiencing no symptoms. Anthony Fauci said this case “lays the question to rest.”

The only problem was no one had asked the woman in question if she had symptoms at the time. When it turned out she did, the study on her was retracted. A subsequent study “did not link any COVID-19 cases to asymptomatic carriers,” and yet another after that concluded transmission of the disease by asymptomatic carriers “is not a major driver of spread.” Yet, policies based on this falsehood, like lockdowns and forcing asymptomatic people to wear masks, remain in place.

Most importantly, none of the government-mandated Covid-19 mitigation policies work. No retrospective review conducted with any semblance of the scientific method has found a relationship between lockdowns, mask mandates, or social distancing and the spread of Covid-19. In fact, the most recent study suggests lockdowns may have increased Covid-19 infections, in addition to all the non-Covid excess deaths they caused.

Over and over, authoritarians overhype crises to scare the living daylights out of the public and propose solutions that have two things in common: they demand more of our freedom and they don’t work. It’s always all pain and no gain. One wonders how many repetitions of this crisis drill it will take before the citizens of the so-called “land of the free” finally think to ask:

Why is freedom always the problem?

This article was republished with permission.

COLUMN BY

Tom Mullen

Tom Mullen is the author of Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? and A Return to Common  Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. For more information and more of Tom’s writing, visit www.tommullen.net.

RELATED VIDEO: Michael Palmer MD, Asst. Prof Biochem U Waterloo: “This is a technology designed to poison people.”

RELATED TWEET:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COLUMN BY

Aadi Golchha

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

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

VIDEO: Biden Mocks People Who Support Medical Freedom — ‘I Have the Freedom to Kill You With My COVID’

Watch as Biden mocks people who support medical freedom stating,  “I have the freedom to kill you with my COVID”

©. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden Mocks Vaccine Skeptics: ‘I Have the Freedom to Kill You With My COVID’