A Gallon of Gas Now Costs More Than the Federal Minimum Wage in These US Cities thumbnail

A Gallon of Gas Now Costs More Than the Federal Minimum Wage in These US Cities

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

High fuel prices are a painful reminder that there’s a price to overlooking secondary consequences, even in a country as wealthy as the United States.

As nearly 40 million Americans prepare to travel for Memorial Day weekend, they’re confronted with an unpleasant reality: gasoline prices are through the roof.

Last week, for the first time ever, gas prices topped $4 in every single state. On Wednesday, Florida hit a new record high—$4.57 a gallon. That’s a lot, but it pales in comparison to California, where the average price per gallon was $6.06 as of Monday. In some parts of the Golden State, however, prices are even much higher.

A CBS News article published Tuesday pointed out that the price of a gallon of gas at many California service stations was higher than the federal minimum wage. According to GasBuddy, the following locations were $7.25+.

Chevron at 901 N. Alameda St. in Los Angeles: $7.83 a gallon

Chevron at 51557 US-395 in Lee Vining: $7.39 a gallon

Chevron at 712 North CA-127 in Shoshone: $7.39 a gallon

Shell at 453 Main St. in Bridgeport: $7.39 a gallon

Valero at 377 Main St. in Bridgeport: $7.35 a gallon

Mobil at 8489 Beverly Blvd. in Los Angeles: $7.29 a gallon

Shell at 51424 US-395 in Lee Vining: $7.29 a gallon

Mobil at 22 Vista Point Drive in Lee Vining: $7.29 a gallon

Chevron at 3600 Alameda Drive in Menlo Park: $7.25 a gallon

Many people would look at the figures above and come to a simple conclusion: the federal minimum wage needs to be increased!

Unfortunately, it’s precisely that kind of economic thinking that landed Americans with $7.25 gasoline.

The urge to mandate “good” things and ban “bad” things is at the root of many of the greatest problems facing America today. Both of these actions share a common, unwelcome bedfellow: unintended consequences.

The historian Niall Ferguson has noted that “the law of unintended consequences is the only real law of history”—and for good reason. It’s an idea that stretches back to philosopher John Locke, economists Adam Smith and Frédéric Bastiat, and beyond.

When politicians raise the minimum wage, the intended consequence is clear: a higher wage for workers. The unintended consequences get less attention: less employment, higher consumer prices, reduced benefits, and in many cases lower compensation for workers.

Similarly, when politicians kill oil pipelines, restrict fracking, cancel drilling leases, and pass a slew of energy regulations that can hardly be counted, the intended consequence is (sort of) clear: less reliance on fossil fuels. The unintended consequences, however, are painful: higher energy prices.

This is why the great writer Henry Hazlitt, the author of Economics in One Lesson, said it was imperative to consider the secondary consequences of a given action, something people often fail to do.

“This is the persistent tendency of men to see only the immediate effects of a given policy, or its effects only on a special group,” Hazlitt wrote in his seminal work, “and to neglect to inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be not only on that special group but on all groups. It is the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences.”

High gas prices won’t stop my family from enjoying our annual Memorial Day mini-vacation.

We’ll be traveling to Appleton, Wisconsin for some R&R with friends and family. There will be lots of swimming, cornhole, meat sizzling on the grill, and some cold, frothy beverages for the adults. But we’re in the fortunate position; we don’t feel gasoline prices as much as the average American family. My wife and I both work and are in our prime earning years. Our cars and student loans are paid off. The kids are all out of daycare.

But I wonder how many families around the country will struggle to fill that tank this Memorial Day weekend, and how many might have to skip their vacation altogether because they just can’t make ends meet.

It makes me sad to think about it, frankly.

Still, it’s a good reminder that even in a country like the USA, which has so much, there’s a price to pay for overlooking secondary consequences. It’s also a good reminder that bans and mandates are not the path to a prosperous future.

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

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

The Devil Went Down to Texas: The Utter Evil of the Uvalde Massacre thumbnail

The Devil Went Down to Texas: The Utter Evil of the Uvalde Massacre

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

To massacre children is literally Satanic.

Paul Harvey: If I were the Devil…


It’s hard to know what to say in the wake of a heart-rending tragedy like Tuesday’s massacre in Uvalde, Texas. It would be easy—but irresponsible—to interpret the event conclusively when so little is known. It would be easy—but wrong—to try, in spite of that ignorance, to force one’s narrative framework on it in pursuit of an agenda.

But our attention is irresistibly drawn to such a horror. We are compelled to stop and silently reflect. But, after reflecting, it is imperative that we talk about it—to express condolences and outrage, yes, but also to learn from it as best we can. To truly honor the victims, we must figure out how to prevent similar atrocities from happening again.

Especially at this early stage, it is impossible to know exactly what would lead a person to do something so evil. But certain revelations about the 18-year-old killer raise societal issues that, even if they weren’t the decisive factors in this case, are tremendously important regarding the issue of violence—and evil—in general.

The Daily Beast reports:

Although Salvador Ramos was described as “quiet” by numerous people who knew him, a young woman who worked with him at Wendy’s until March detected an aggressive streak. Several former friends said he had stopped showing up at school and was not going to graduate with the senior class this year.

“He would be very rude towards the girls sometimes, and one of the cooks, threatening them by asking, ‘Do you know who I am?’ And he would also send inappropriate texts to the ladies,” said the former co-worker, who did not want her name used.

“At the park, there’d be videos of him trying to fight people with boxing gloves. He’d take them around with him.

Some would attribute such an “aggressive streak” to males being broadly socialized to be forcefully assertive and competitive. They largely blame this culture of “toxic masculinity” for mass shootings and violent crime in general, both of which are predominantly committed by men.

This blame is misplaced, however. As Jordan Peterson wrote in 12 Rules for Life:

“Those who put forward such theories assume, first, that aggression is a learned behaviour, and can therefore simply not be taught, and second (to take a particular example) that, ‘boys should be socialized the way girls have been traditionally socialized, and they should be encouraged to develop socially positive qualities such as tenderness, sensitivity to feelings, nurturance, cooperative and aesthetic appreciation.’ In the opinions of such thinkers, aggression will only be reduced when male adolescents and young adults ‘subscribe to the same standards of behavior as have been traditionally encouraged for women.’”

Peterson above quotes “Prescription for reduction of aggression,” a 1980 paper published by L.D. Eron in The American Psychologist.

But as Peterson points out, “it is not the case that aggression is merely learned.” Aggression is an innate part of human nature that can manifest very early in life (emphasis added):

“…it appears that a subset of two-year-old boys (about 5 percent) are quite aggressive, by temperament. They take other kids’ toys, kick, bite and hit. Most are nonetheless socialized effectively by the age of four. This is not, however, because they have been encouraged to act like little girls. Instead, they are taught or otherwise learn in early childhood to integrate their aggressive tendencies into more sophisticated behavioural routines. Aggression underlies the drive to be outstanding, to be unstoppable, to compete, to win—to be actively virtuous, at least along one dimension. Determination is its admirable, pro-social face. Aggressive young children who don’t manage to render their temperament sophisticated by the end of infancy are doomed to unpopularity, as their primordial antagonism no longer serves them socially at later ages. Rejected by their peers, they lack further socialization opportunities and tend towards outcast status. These are the individuals who remain much more inclined toward antisocial and criminal behavior when adolescent and adult.

“Outcast status”—the bottom of the pecking order—is a dreadful place to be trapped, especially for a young man. Judging from reported testimony, that is exactly where Ramos resided. As The Daily Beast related:

Former friend Santos Valdez Jr., told The Washington Post that the two had been close friends until Ramos’ behavior started to “deteriorate.” He said Ramos, who was often bullied over a speech impediment that included a stutter and lisp, once cut up his own face with a knife “just for fun.”

Some men become so resentful of their lowly place in “the order of things” that they seek to bring the whole structure crashing down, even if it means their own destruction. They are desperate for appreciation and respect: to feel high-status. But they have failed to learn how to earn it by channeling their assertive and competitive impulses in pro-social directions. So they decide to go out in a blaze of infamous “glory,” to, just for once and however fleetingly, feel “powerful,” even if they are too cowardly to assert their dominance over anyone other than little children.

Such a wicked deed is to say literally, “to Hell with it.” To Hell with society, with morality, with the structure of Being itself. It is to say, as Satan did in Paradise Lost when, resentful of his status, he tried to overthrow God, “Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.” To commit such nihilistic rebellion is to embody the archetype of the Devil, the Adversary, the Villain.

Again, I don’t know if that’s what happened in the case of Salvador Ramos. But I wonder if it is. And in any case, I do believe the potential for such evil is inherent to the human condition and must be guarded against by us all.

But the preventative for that evil is not to try to repress (or disarm) the assertive, competitive, and ambitious energies that can feed it, as many efforts to address so-called “toxic masculinity” end up doing. The solution, as Peterson explained, is to channel those energies toward the good: toward individual accomplishment, enterprise, great deeds, and heroic service.

If we want people—young men especially—to reject the role of the Villain, we must encourage them to embrace the role of the Hero.

AUTHOR

Dan Sanchez

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


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


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

Why Those Under 60 Are More Likely to Die if Jabbed thumbnail

Why Those Under 60 Are More Likely to Die if Jabbed

By MERCOLA Take Control of Your Health

Well, the COVID jab pushers have had to resort to all sorts of obfuscation to hide the fact that the injections don’t work, and now they’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel of excuses. According to a recent Reuters report,1 “Increased contact among vaccinated people can give the false impression that COVID-19 vaccines are not working.”

This irrational explanation has been levied in response to studies showing COVID-jabbed individuals are getting infected at higher rates than the unjabbed, and there are many such studies.

“These studies are likely to involve statistical errors, particularly if they did not account for different contact patterns among vaccinated versus unvaccinated people,” Korryn Bodner, a research associate in infectious disease modeling in Toronto, told Reuters. Bodner is the first author of a preprint study2 posted on medRxiv at the end of April 2022.

Bodner’s claim is that those who got the jab may be more likely to throw caution to the wind and mingle with others, hence getting infected more frequently, while the unjabbed may be more cautious because they know they’re vulnerable. This rationale is dubious at best, considering:

a)The unvaccinated have continuously been accused of not taking COVID seriously and going about their lives as normal

b)Those who have taken the jab are, by and large, a far more fearful lot; they tend to listen to the “authorities” and take all of their advice to heart, which would include avoiding large gatherings and close one-on-one interactions without wearing a face mask

Check out the following story, reported by Anchorage Daily News:3

“Arianne Bennett recalled her husband, Scott Bennett, saying, ‘But I’m vaxxed. But I’m vaxxed,’ from the Washington hospital bed where he struggled to fight off COVID-19 this winter … Bennett went to get his booster in early December after returning to Washington from a lodge he owned in the Poconos, where he and his wife hunkered down for fall.

Just a few days after his shot, Bennett began experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, meaning he was probably exposed before the extra dose of immunity could kick in. His wife suspects he was infected at a dinner where he and his server were unmasked at times …

‘He was absolutely shocked. He did not expect to be sick. He really thought he was safe,’ Arianne Bennett recalled. ‘And I’m like, ‘But baby, you’ve got to wear the mask all the time. All the time. Up over your nose.’”

Within days of his third dose, he got a serious case of COVID. Yet they blame it on hypothetical exposure to an apparently healthy food server. This kind of irrational reasoning is prevalent among those who got the jabs and who keep going back for more as they are part of the 30% of the population that have been completely brainwashed.

To reiterate what I’ve explained since 2020, asymptomatic spread is likely to be so rare as to be nonexistent.4 It was a lie perpetuated to drive up fear and prop up rising “case” rates that didn’t really exist. It’s basic virology that you cannot transmit a virus unless you have a “hot” infection, and if you have an active, transmissible infection, you have symptoms. The symptoms are a sign that your body’s defenses are kicking in to rid itself of the live virus.

No symptoms, no transmission. So, unless the server was feeling sick and went to work anyway, the simplest explanation for Bennett’s demise was the shot itself. And if the server was sick, the fact that Bennett got so ill suggests the shot is ineffective, even at two doses.

The pro-pharma shills want you to believe there are so many confounding variables, we can’t possibly draw any conclusions from data showing the shots don’t work. Yet looking at data from a wide spectrum of sources, all show the same alarming trends. What “confounding factor” could possibly account for ALL of them being misinterpreted?

An Unproven Hypothesis

Reuters5 does note that Bodner’s simulations “do not prove that this type of bias affected studies of vaccine effectiveness versus the Omicron variant.” What it does show, according to Bodner, is that “even if vaccines work, increased contact among vaccinated persons can lead to the appearance of the vaccine not working.”

In other words, this is a hypothesis that has yet to be proven. Her modeling suggests it COULD make the jabs appear ineffective IF those who got the jab actually behave very differently from the unjabbed.

But again, it’s highly unlikely that the unvaccinated are avoiding exposure by steering clear of close contacts and crowds to a greater degree than those who got the jab. It’s far more reasonable to suspect that the shots don’t work.

On a side note, Bodner’s study was funded by the Canada COVID-19 Immunity Task Force.6 This task force is housed at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, and McGill University is a long-term recipient of grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.7,8,9,10

What Do the Data Say About COVID Jab Effectiveness?

Based on data from around the world, it seems clear that the COVID gene transfer injections are not working. In fact, they’re having the opposite effect of what you’d expect from a real vaccine. According to a Washington Post analysis of state and federal data,11 in September 2021, when Delta was most prominent, 23% of those who died from COVID in the U.S. had received the jab.

In January and February 2022, when Omicron started dominating, that percentage jumped to 42%. In December 2021 and January 2022, just under half of all the COVID patients in intensive care at Kaiser Permanente’s hospital system in Northern California had also received one or more shots.12

Many argue that Omicron was more contagious than Delta, hence the higher death toll. But Omicron was also far milder than Delta, so why would the jabbed die at a higher rate from a less lethal variant than a more lethal one?

One attempt at an explanation is that the fatalities are now occurring primarily among the elderly. Nearly two-thirds of those who died from COVID during the Omicron wave were 75 and older. During the Delta wave, 75-year-olds and older accounted for just one-third of the deaths.13

But that was the case from the beginning, and it still doesn’t answer the question: Why would old people be more likely to die from a milder virus than a more serious one? To answer that question, the injection pushers revert back to the argument of waning potency. Two-thirds of those who died in January and February 2022 did not have a booster shot. According to Anchorage Daily News:14

“Experts say the rising number of vaccinated people dying should not cause panic in those who got shots, the vast majority of whom will survive infections. Instead, they say, these deaths serve as a reminder that vaccines are not foolproof and that those in high-risk groups should consider getting boosted and taking extra precautions during surges.”

So, in other words, the jab only works for a handful of months, and then you have to take another. And another. And another. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,15 the first two doses wear off after five months, necessitating a third dose, and the third dose wears off in just four months, at which time you’re supposed to get dose No. 4.

Israeli data16 show the effectiveness of shot No. 4 in preventing severe disease declines by 56% in just seven weeks. So, it appears the protection you get from the shots keeps getting shorter with each dose. Meanwhile, data show the shots can render you increasingly susceptible to all manner of infection and disease, through a wide variety of mechanisms.

Moderna Trial Data Reveal Repeated Infections Are Likely

Among such data is a preprint study17 posted on medRxiv April 19, 2022, which found adult participants in Moderna’s COVID jab trial who got the real injection, and later got a breakthrough infection, did not generate antibodies against the nucleocapsid — a key component of the virus — as frequently as did those in the placebo arm.

Curiously, placebo recipients produced anti-nucleocapsid antibodies twice as often as those who got the Moderna shot, and their anti-nucleocapsid response was larger regardless of the viral load. As a result of this reduced antibody response, those who got the jab may be more prone to repeated COVID infections. As reported by The Defender:18

“[T]he authors found that using the presence of anti-nucleocapsid (anti-N) antibodies to determine whether a person was exposed to SARS-CoV-2 will miss some infections. Thus, the sensitivity of this kind of test, when applied to vaccinated individuals, is not ideal.

However, there are more important implications19,20 of these findings … Specifically, the study implies that the reduced ability of a vaccinated individual to produce antibodies to other portions of the virus may lead to a greater risk of future infections in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated.

It is important to note that this is not just another argument for the superiority of natural immunity. Rather, this is evidence suggesting that even after a vaccinated person has a breakthrough infection, that individual still does not acquire the same level of protection against subsequent exposures that an unvaccinated person acquires.

This is a troubling finding, and something investigators conducting the Moderna vaccine trial likely knew in 2020.”

UK Data Confirm Results

These findings are corroborated by data from the U.K. Health Security Agency. It publishes weekly COVID-19 vaccine surveillance data, including anti-nucleocapsid antibody levels. The report21 for Week 13, issued March 31, 2022, shows that COVID-jabbed individuals with breakthrough infections have lower levels of these antibodies — a finding they attributed to the protective benefit of the shot:

“These lower anti N responses in individuals with breakthrough infections (post-vaccination) compared to primary infections likely reflect the shorter and milder infections in these patients.”

However, this interpretation is likely flawed, because less severe infection is associated with lower viral load, and as the study above demonstrated, the “vaccinated” have lower anti-nucleocapsid antibody levels than the unvaccinated at all viral load levels, but especially so at the lowest viral loads. As noted by The Defender:22

“This is one of the most significant findings of the study because it overturns the heretofore unchallenged idea that decreased seroconversion in the vaccinated is due to less severe infection in this population — which is a benefit provided by the vaccine.

However, this new study shows that even at low viral loads, the unvaccinated are more likely to seroconvert than those who are vaccinated. In fact, the difference in seroconversion rates is the greatest at lowest viral loads. The decrease in conversion rates is not a result of a benefit from the vaccine. It is a consequence of it.”

Boosted Now Have Three to Four Times Higher Case Rates

The Defender also reviews other U.K. data showing the COVID case rate is three to four times higher among those who have received a booster shot, compared to the unvaccinated. This is true for all age groups with the exception of children under 18:23

“What could explain such a large increase in infection rates among the boosted? Interestingly, the authors … warn that the unvaccinated may have contracted COVID-19 prior to the observation period — in other words, they may have acquired natural immunity previously, giving them added protection …

But their own data tells the opposite story. The boosted are more likely to contract the disease — by a factor of 3 to 4. How do we know whether the larger infection rates in the boosted are due to more robust immunity in the unvaccinated because of prior infection or due to an immune deficiency in the boosted?

The question can be definitively answered by examining the trend of infection rates [using] … the equivalent table from two months earlier. There is still a greater infection rate among the boosted, but it is only two to three times higher. If the authors’ hypothesis was correct, the more recent data should have shown less of a difference, not more.

If anything, their data support the finding that the decreased seroconversion rates in the vaccinated may be causing a greater risk of repeated infections.”

Walgreens’ Data

Data from the pharmacy chain Walgreens in the U.S. also reveal the same trend — COVID-jabbed individuals are testing positive for COVID at higher rates than the unjabbed, and those who got their last shot five months or more ago have the highest risk.

As you can see in the screenshot from Walgreens’ COVID-19 tracker24 below, during the week of May 9 through 15, 2022, 21.4% of unvaccinated individuals who got tested for COVID got a positive result. Of those who had gotten just one COVID shot, the positivity rate was 26.3%.

Of those who received two doses five months or more ago, 31.3% tested positive, and of those who received a third dose five months or more ago, the positive rate was 32.7%. So, after the first booster shot (the third dose), people are at greatest risk of testing positive for COVID.

CLICK HERE FOR THE INFOGRAPHIC: POSITIVITY RATE BY VACCINATION STATUS 05/09/2022 – 05/15/2022

More Jabs, More COVID Deaths

Covid Deaths vs. Vaccination Status

🌍 Comparison of:

—Africa (Pop. ~1.37 Billion)

—Europe (Pop. ~748 Million)

—S. America (Pop. ~434 Million)

—N. America (Pop. ~596 Million)

Source: Our World In Data pic.twitter.com/srGwEkGKLF

— Lindsay (@TexasLindsay) April 23, 2022

Perhaps most disturbing of all are the data showing the COVID shots are raising mortality rates, both from COVID and other causes. Above is an animated illustration25 sourced from Our World In Data, first showing the vaccination rates of South America, North America, Europe and Africa, from mid-December 2020 through the third week of April 2022, followed by the cumulative confirmed COVID deaths per million in those countries during that same timeframe.

Africa has had a consistently low vaccination rate throughout, while North America, Europe and South America all have had rapidly rising vaccination rates. Africa has also had a consistently low COVID mortality rate, although a slight rise began around September 2021. Still, it’s nowhere near the COVID death rates of North America, South America and Europe, all of which saw dramatic increases.

Here’s another one,26 also sourced from Our World In Data, first showing the excess death rate in the U.S. (the cumulative number of deaths from all causes compared to projections based on previous years), between January 26, 2020, and January 30, 2022, followed by an illustration of the tandem rise of vaccine doses administered and the excess mortality rate. It clearly shows that as vaccination rates rose, so did excess mortality.

United States 🇺🇸

Source: Our World In Data pic.twitter.com/E2KCE9Si3o

— Lindsay (@TexasLindsay) April 25, 2022

Risk-Benefit Analyses

We also have the benefit of more than one risk-benefit analysis, and all show that, with very few exceptions, the COVID jabs do more harm than good. A risk-benefit analysis27 by Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and independent researcher Kathy Dopp, published in mid-February 2022, concluded that the COVID jab is deadlier than COVID-19 itself for anyone under the age of 80.

Another analysis,28 which relied on data in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), concluded that in those under age 18, the shots only increase the risk of death from COVID, and there’s no point at which the shot can prevent a single COVID death, no matter how many are vaccinated.

If you’re under 18, you’re a shocking 51 times more likely to die from the jab than you are to die from COVID if not vaccinated. In the 18 to 29 age range, the shot will kill 16 for every person it saves from dying from COVID, and in the 30 to 39 age range, the expected number of vaccine fatalities to prevent a single COVID death is 15. Only when you get into the 60 and older categories do the risks between the jab and COVID infection even out.

A third risk-benefit analysis by researchers in Germany and The Netherlands was published in June 2021, in the journal Vaccines.29 The paper caused such an uproar, part of the editorial board resigned in protest.30 The journal retracted the paper, but after a thorough re-review, it was republished in the August 2021 issue of Science, Public Health Policy and the Law.31

These researchers concluded that, “as we vaccinate 100 000 persons, we might save five lives but risk two to four deaths.”32 A fourth, still preliminary, analysis — based on more than 1,700 death reports collected by Steve Kirsch — shows the shots do more harm than good in anyone under age 60. Kirsch writes:33

“Figure 1 below is an analysis of survey data I collected. The analysis shows that the vaccines are harmful to those under 60. The red dots higher than the error bar means more vaccinated people observed dead than expected based on the population of vaccinated to all people.

In other words, if we vaccinated 60% of people (middle of the grey bar) and 70% (red dot) of the deaths are vaccinated, we have a serious problem. The precautionary principle of medicine suggests if you are under 60 and thinking of taking a vaccine, you shouldn’t. These preliminary results are both statistically significant …

The conclusion is very clear: nobody under 60 years old should get the vaccine because there is no evidence of a benefit. In fact, if you are between 40-60, it’s clear that vaccination makes it more likely you’ll die, not less likely.”

CLICK HERE TO VIEW FIGURE 1 – VACCINATED DEATHS

Figure 1. Red dot below error bar = vax works. Red dot above error bar = vax likely causes harm. Red dot inside the error bar = Insufficient evidence to justify taking a new, unproven vaccine. Conclusion: Vaccine shouldn’t be considered unless there is a clear benefit. 60 and older seems to justify use based on the data we have so far. Limitations: we are waiting for others to confirm / challenge the analysis. See text34 for more info. Joel Smalley did the analysis.

While some analyses present a direr picture than others, taken together, it’s clear that there appears to be no long term benefits to the COVID jabs. We’re consistently ending up with a higher cost than can conceivably be considered reasonable. The pro-pharma side will likely continue to lob flimsy excuses at the data, but at some point, the truth will be so clear that even the blind will see it. Until that day, continue to inform yourself and share what you find.

Sources and References

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

Our Open Borders Crisis thumbnail

Our Open Borders Crisis

By Jerry Newcombe

Biden’s border crisis is dangerous enough already, and it may soon get worse.

But his Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandra Mayorkas, paints a rosier picture, “We are preparing for the end of Title 42….We continue to enforce the laws of this country.”

Title 42 from the Trump era stipulates that until potential immigrants are tested and shown to not have the virus, they should remain in Mexico.

Title 42 is scheduled to expire 5/23/22. The Center for Immigration Studies notes, “Title 42 is the only thing standing between the current chaos at the Southwest border, and no border there at all.”

Biden has promised repeatedly to lift this provision, abandoning testing and opening the floodgates for illegal immigrants. But for now, his plan to abolish Title 42 has been blocked by a Trump-appointed judge.

Meanwhile, Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) told Maria Bartiromo of Fox News Channel’s Sunday Morning Futures on 5/22/22 that the border crisis is acute. Marshall has visited the border and wants the president to do the same.

The senator said: “Maria, this is a human tragedy here…At nighttime, it looks like a war zone. There’s a sea of humanitarian crises here every evening. And every day, it’s lived out as well.”

The numbers of illegal immigrants swarming in is staggering. Writing in the Washington Examiner (5/19/22), Paul Bedard observed: “Last year’s 1.7 million border encounters is expected to reach 2.1 million, according to Princeton Policy Advisors, an economic analysis outfit that has correctly predicted recent border surges.”

The Constitution says it exists to “insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.” Do open borders for any nation help achieve such lofty goals?

On a recent radio segment, I spoke with former Congressman, Allen West, who has seen the border crisis first hand more than ten times. He told me, “Government is supposed to protect people within [our national] borders. That’s their Number 1 duty and responsibility. If we’re not going to follow the rule of law, then what are we supposed to base the Constitutional republic on?”

He added, “America is not just a piece of land in between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and Canada and Mexico. It is a sovereign nation, and it should be regarded and treated as such.” How can a nation remain sovereign if it has no borders?

Some open borders advocates imply that it’s the “Christian thing to do” to just let everyone in—yet surely these same people lock their doors at night.

Rev. Erwin Lutzer, the author of We Will Not Be Silenced, recently told our D. James Kennedy Ministries television audience: “One of the big mistakes that Christians sometimes make is that they want to apply the ethics of the church to the state. I heard a pastor saying–I’m sure that he was compassionate and meant well–when he said, ‘Of course, we should invite people into America and basically have open borders because after all the gospel is for everyone.’ Yes, of course, the gospel is for everyone, but that’s not the role of the state. The role of the state is to keep order, to punish crime, and to keep its citizens safe. That’s the role of the state.”

Lutzer added, “It is important that the church welcomes everyone. That’s the ministry of the church, but that is not the ministry of the state.”

Meanwhile, critics of Biden’s open border crisis note that known terrorists are sneaking into the country—more than 40 on the terrorist watch list slipped into the US last year alone.

Also, human trafficking is taking place, and drugs are pouring in in record numbers. In fact, Chinese-produced fentanyl and other drugs are being smuggled in through the southern border, and the results are making headlines.

Earlier this year, The New York Times reported (2/13/22), “Drug overdoses now kill more than 100,000 Americans a year—more than vehicle crash and gun deaths combined.” The open borders cause this problem, or at least greatly exacerbate it.

Kerby Anderson, the host of the syndicated radio program “Point of View,” recently told our D. James Kennedy Ministries television audience why he thinks the left pushes for open borders:

“I think the hope is that these might be future Democratic voters. And so what we’ll do is we’ll just kind of incrementally allow non-citizens to vote.”

Anderson points to the recent move by New York City to allow 800,000 noncitizens to vote as an example.

Sen. Marshall, who said our border is like a “war zone” right now, noted that the public safety department of Texas is trying to hold the line: “All of those people are doing their best, but they’re just simply overwhelmed. This is an unsustainable crisis.”

©Jerry Newcombe. All rights reserved.

Truckers Speak Out over Proposed Rule That Could Impose Speed Limits as Low as 60 MPH on Rigs thumbnail

Truckers Speak Out over Proposed Rule That Could Impose Speed Limits as Low as 60 MPH on Rigs

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

If you’ve ever been stuck behind a transport truck on a highway, you know how annoying it can be. The worst part is when trucks are trying to pass each other. A line of cars builds up behind them as they drive side-by-side for what seems like an eternity.

That problem may be about to get a whole lot worse in the coming years. On April 27, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) issued a Notice of Intent stating they are planning to pursue new rules that would require the use of speed limiters for trucks. The limiters would be set up on a truck’s internal computer and would make it impossible for the driver to exceed a certain maximum speed.

“The National Roadway Safety Strategy identified speed as a significant factor in fatal crashes and speed management as a primary tool to reduce serious injuries and fatalities,” the FMCSA said in the Notice. “FMCSA is moving forward with this rulemaking because of concerns about the number of CMV [Carrier Motor Vehicle] crashes and fatalities traveling at high speeds…The rule will help reduce crashes and save lives on our nation’s roadways.”

The Notice of Intent does not propose what the maximum speed should be. It’s still early in the process, and at this point the FMCSA is mostly looking for public comments on the idea.

There is one hint about what it might be, however. April’s Notice of Intent is a follow-up on a similar proposal made back in 2016, and that proposal sought comments on maximum speeds of 60, 65, and 68 miles per hour, so it’s likely the FMCSA is thinking of something in that ballpark.

The reaction to the Notice has been mixed. Some industry groups are applauding the agency for taking action, but others are raising concerns.

“Studies and research have already proven what we were all taught long ago in driver’s ed classes, that traffic is safest when vehicles all travel at the same relative speed,” said Todd Spencer, president of the ​​Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA). “Limiting trucks to speeds below the flow of traffic increases interactions between vehicles which can lead to more crashes.”

Spencer also noted that traffic congestion caused by slow trucks could become a much bigger problem under the new rule.

There are also other concerns with the proposed rule beyond safety and congestion. As trucker Jaxon Allen explains in an Instagram video, mandated speed limiters would likely have a negative impact on supply chains, because trucks would take longer to reach their destination. Of course, having to go a few miles per hour slower doesn’t sound like much, but the extra time for trips would add up. Truckers’ wages may also take a hit, since they wouldn’t be able to cover as many miles.

So, are speed limiters a good idea? Is 60 or 65 or 68 mph the right limit? It’s tempting to take a side on these questions, but there’s a more fundamental question here that needs to be asked first. Namely, who should get to decide?

The current decision mechanism, where the bureaucrats at the FMCSA make the call, has a serious problem. Since bureaucrats look good when roads are safer and get blamed when there are more accidents, they have an incentive to be cautious (we’ll assume, for the sake of argument, that imposing speed limiters would in fact make roads safer). The problem is, they have no counterbalancing incentive to consider opposing concerns like efficiency or congestion. They lose nothing if traffic congestion becomes intolerable or if supply chains get strained, but they stand to lose a lot in terms of reputation if traffic accidents increase. As a result, they have an incentive to be overcautious, making rules far more stringent than what’s appropriate for the circumstances (this parallels the incentive problem with the FDA).

So, how can we create a better incentive structure? One way would be to privatize roads, and let each individual road owner make the rules for their road.

Unlike government bureaucrats, private road owners have an incentive to make rules that strike the best balance between safety and other factors, as determined by their customers, drivers. Rules that are too loose would lead to more accidents, which would tarnish the reputation of the road, causing fewer people to drive on it and leading to lower profits for the owner. On the flip side, rules that are too stringent would also turn away drivers, perhaps because there’s too much congestion.

Thus, with private roads, the rules that are created would gravitate toward the rules that drivers think are best. Road owners would have a strong financial incentive to avoid rules that are too dangerous and rules that are too safe. In other words, while bureaucrats are constantly veering into the ditch of being too cautious, private roads would keep their rules in the middle, away from the ditch of extreme caution on the one side and the ditch of extreme danger on the other side.

Contrary to popular belief, libertarianism is not about having no rules on the road. Rather, it’s about reimagining the way that these rules are formed. By privatizing roads, we can create an incentive structure that rewards the best rules and weeds out the ones that don’t make sense. Since road owners have to be responsive to drivers to make profits, the rules that emerge will reflect the values and concerns of drivers, rather than the values and concerns of bureaucrats.

In fact, for all we know, roads may actually get safer under private management, because entrepreneurs will be experimenting with various rules and design features to this end. It’s counterintuitive, but moving away from safety regulations might just be the best way to save lives.

Perhaps it’s at least worth an experiment?

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

AUTHOR

Patrick Carroll

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

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

Trump’s Endorsements Are Inflating The Swamp thumbnail

Trump’s Endorsements Are Inflating The Swamp

By Kelleigh Nelson

“True discernment means not only distinguishing the right from the wrong; it means distinguishing the primary from the secondary, the essential from the indifferent, and the permanent from the transient. And, yes, it means distinguishing between the good and the better, and even between the better and the best.” – Sinclair B. Ferguson

“Know your HOLY GOD intimately. (When you have seen His glory, His holiness and His love – by drawing close to Him in prayer – then you can usually see through any counterfeits because you know the “real thing” so well).” – Andrew Strom

“The difference between genius and stupidity is . . .genius has its limits.” – Albert Einstein

“Trust a politician just as you would trust a rattlesnake: only when he is dead!” – Bud Hancock


The latest rage is Dinesh D’Souza’s movie, 2000 Mules.  As with Mike Lindell’s massive voter fraud exposes, mainstream media won’t utter a word, but then neither will Fox News nor Newsmax.  When Fox’s Tucker Carlson interviewed Catherine Englebrecht of True the Vote, Carlson and his team explicitly told her not to mention the movie 2000 Mules.

D’Souza also tweeted that he was booked on Newsmax’s Grant Stinchfield show and then the network cancelled on him.  Why isn’t the movie national news?  The same reason Mike Lindell’s My Pillow advertisements have been eliminated from every conservative news source.  The left’s Pravda media destroys and marginalizes those who speak the truth.

The propaganda mill churns on.  Right now, the only programs speaking the truth are Steve Bannon, One America News, and some absolutely amazing radio hosts and journalists.

Vote Fraud is Old News

Vote fraud is nothing new.  In 1948, Lyndon Baines Johnson lost the Texas Senate election to the beloved former Texas Governor Coke Stevenson.  Fraud and corruption changed the election to a win for LBJ, and it was sanctioned by Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black.  Yes, the high court wasn’t any better in the 40s than it is today.

In the 2018 election many republicans won, only to see their wins slip away weeks later after recounts.  In 2020, we saw massive fraud throughout the country, especially in the swing states.  Eric Holder traveled the country for two years assuring state attorney generals and legislatures were amenable to changes that would help democrats. Holder was also chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, using racism, the gender impact of voter suppression, redistricting and the Census. Link

The Democrats work hard to swindle and cheat the American people, while the Republicans sit back and twiddle their thumbs.

Trump Endorsement Advisors

And here we are at the 2022 midterm elections and former President Trump is endorsing the candidates his “advisors” have told him will win.

President Trump has apparently become a full-fledged neo-con politician listening not to his gut and the American people, but to deep state advisors who are telling him to choose winners, not those who love the Republic and want to restore her greatness, but only those who can win. In doing so, he has alienated the masses in order to be able to say, “Look, all my endorsements won, MAGA is still strong.” That is political deep state bull hockey.

Hasn’t President Trump learned by now that electing neo-con Trotskyite Republicans does nothing to save the Republic?  Reps like Romney, Collins, Murkowski and others are not going to stop the left; neither will they support constitutional conservatism.

According to a January 2022 article from NBC, “A small set of advisors, led by longtime counselor Susie Wiles, vets candidates seeking Trump’s endorsement. The group includes Bill Stepien, who managed Trump’s 2020 campaign; Brian Jack, the White House political director under Trump; and Donald Trump Jr., according to people familiar with the process.”

This article, tells us more about Susie Wiles, who is the co-chair of a public affairs firm where she works with a recent Pfizer vice president.  Wiles also recently joined Mercury Public Affairs in February as co-chair, shortly after former Democrat congressman Toby Moffett became a Mercury partner.  Remember California Dem Senator Barbara Boxer?  She and other lefties have also recently worked for Mercury, a subsidiary of the company Omnicom.  The new managing director at Mercury is Robert Jones who spent the previous 19 years serving as senior vice president of government relations and public affairs at Pfizer.

It appears that our former president hasn’t a clue of the evils perpetrated by the pharmaceutical companies over the years, and especially with their Covid jabs. Trump has ignored the fact that FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) given to Pfizer, Moderna and J&J has caused countless deaths and adverse effects worldwide.  Here is a website listing all pharmaceutical companies and their horrible histories. The actual statistics are mind boggling and he’s still promoting the inoculations!

Bill Stepien is a U.S. political consultant who has worked for President George W. Bush in 2004, former New Jersey Governor Abu Chris Christie, and former Arizona Senator John McCain.  Stepien went on to serve as deputy chief of staff and political adviser to Governor Christie until his removal in January 2014 following the September 2013 Lane closures on the George Washington Bridge.

These are the people choosing who Trump should endorse!

Dr. Mehmet Oz

Numerous Trump endorsements were questioned by his supporters, but the one most talked about was Dr. Mehmet Cengiz Oz, a Turkish Muslim.

Dr. Oz holds dual citizenship in Turkey and the United States.  There appears to be no dispute that Oz voted in the 2018 Turkish election.”  Former Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo warned Pennsylvania voters that Dr. Oz voted in Turkey’s elections, and works for state entities in the country, and that makes Oz a threat to national security.

As attorney and former JAG Corps officer, Joanna Martin wrote, “Oz is an ineligible candidate.  Article I, Sec. 3, clause 3, US Constitution, sets forth the qualifications to be a United States Senator: among other things, one must have been for nine years a Citizen of the US.   A Citizen of the United States doesn’t vote in Turkish elections.”

Dr. Oz has made countless television statements that prove he is not at all conservative, socially or otherwise.

Videos are included in this link where Dr. Oz promotes transgenderism as well as surgery for children.  In 2019, he argued for upholding Roe v. Wade, and back in 2009, he bragged on CNN that he had helped to bring Obamacare to fruition.  (And what a mess our medical system is only 13 years later.)  In another video, Dr. Oz says we should have Red Flag Laws that take people’s firearms away by surveilling their social media posts.  Oz also believes Critical Race Theory should be taught in our government schools inasmuch as he sees racism as a problem.

And, from the Miami Standard, “Dr. Oz was photographed in April of this year with ‘Spirit Cooking’ specialist Marina Abramovic, who infamously appeared in the emails of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign boss John Podesta, who scored an invitation to a ‘Spirit Cooking’ ritual with Abramovic. The occultic symbolism evident in Abramovic’s work has been scrutinized for years. And yet Dr. Oz and Abramovic apparently had a very engrossing conversation with one another. The two mingled closely at the American Turkish Society Gala at New York’s The Plaza on October 26 of the year 2021.

Hatchet Job on Kathy Barnette

There were three top people running for Senate in Pennsylvania, Dr. Mehmet Oz, David McCormick and Kathy Barnette.  The election as of May 22nd is still not decided between Oz and McCormick. Malicious verbal attacks in an attempt to destroy her reputation were launched against Kathy Barnette by conservative hosts, media outlets, and politicians.  As such, the people of Pennsylvania apparently believed the lies and Kathy came in third.

Barnette delivered a powerful pro-life message during the debate with the four other candidates.  She also told both McCormick and Oz that she knew they belonged to the World Economic Forum and were globalists.  Oz is bad enough, and David McCormick isn’t any better. McCormick is pro-China, pro-forever wars and pro-trade deals; he’s just another globalist.

Sadly, America loses again; the end result is between two men who will ultimately vote to destroy even more of our liberties and freedoms.  Perhaps the elite noticed that after the 2020 election, Kathy hit the road in Pennsylvania to alert the citizenry of massive voter fraud in their state. She was loud and outspoken against it.  She drove all over the state repeatedly the past couple of years speaking out against it. She became well known to the grassroots.

Kathy was slandered, libeled and had her reputation bludgeoned prior to the primary vote.  Look familiar?  It’s the same thing the media did to Donald Trump, and he too jumped on the bandwagon to sabotage her campaign.  First up was Ric Grenell, a diplomat who had served as Acting Director of National Intelligence in Trump’s administration.  Sean Hannity took plenty of shots at her, as did Newsmax’s Greg Kelly and neo-conservative Breitbart, all of whom supported Oz.  Kathy doesn’t support BLM or defunding the police, despite the lies told by these neo-cons.

But Dr. Oz went even further. Because of something Barnette said in 2015, Dr. Oz wanted Barnette barred from the race for a thought crime.  Oz claimed she was an Islamophobic and should be barred for not having a positive view of Islam.  Shariah Law and the U.S. Constitution are not compatible.  Judaism and Christianity can be slandered and it’s just fine with our Pravda media, but never ever say a word against George W. Bush’s “Religion of Peace.”

Laura Ingraham revealed that a number of Kathy’s videos were doctored in an attempt to smear her reputation. Steve Bannon had Kathy on his show and let her speak freely.  In fact, Bannon has stopped endorsing the same people President Trump endorses.

Both Jack Posobiec and Colonel Lawrence Sellin (Rtd) checked Kathy’s credentials and they were factual and stellar.  Colonel Sellin stated, “It was all dirty politics by those with more power and money. Oz is a Democrat running as a Republican and a mole for Turkish Islamist dictator Erdogan. Trump made a terrible mistake endorsing Oz. It has permanently changed my view of Trump.”

Ohio Senate – J. D. Vance

Dr. Oz certainly is one of the worst candidates endorsed by Trump, but when he endorsed J.D. Vance in Ohio, I was shocked.  Vance had actually voted for former CIA agent and Never -Trumper Evan McMullen in the 2016 election. He called Trump’s policies immoral to absurd and publicly stated that Trump would become either another Nixon or America’s Hitler.  Of course, Vance back peddled on these statements to gain Trump’s endorsement for his Ohio Senate race.

Arizona Gubernatorial Race – Kari Lake

Former news anchor for Fox 10 in Phoenix, Kari Lake was endorsed by President Trump for the Arizona gubernatorial race.  She is a registered republican, but was a democrat voter in 2008 for Barack Hussein Obama.  She has also been registered as an independent.  She is a constant guest on Fox News, and will likely be the next governor of Arizona.  In 2004, she donated to then candidate, John Kerry, and in 2008 to Obama.  When reporters ask her about this, she gets angry and either trashes the reporter and/or walks off the set.  The very same thing happened when she was asked by Australian reporter, Liam Bartlett, if she agreed with President Trump that the January 6th Trump supporters should be pardoned…she not only trashed the reporter, but his country as well. Link

Unfortunately, Trump should have called Congressman Andy Biggs before endorsing her, because the word is, Kari Lake is another John McCain and is far worse than their present governor, Doug Ducey.

Indiana Congressman Greg Pence

When an Indiana friend told me Trump had endorsed Mike Pence’s brother Greg for his second term in the House, I wondered why he didn’t just keep his mouth shut.  It took him forever to endorse Doug Mastriano for Governor of Pennsylvania, but right out of the box he endorses the brother of his former vice president who not only stabbed Trump in the back, but the Republic in the heart.  (See this three-part expose on Mike Pence.)

What the hell was he thinking?  Oh, I know, Republicans at all costs, and only those who can win will he endorse.  Ultimately, we will end up with a slew of McConnells and McCarthys! Well, thanks Mr. President, but you’re feeding the swamp.

Conclusion

Trump’s choice of unvetted Deep Staters in his administration, his “Operation Warp Speed” death jabs, and now his candidate endorsements, leave me cold.  I agree with Colonel Lawrence Sellin.  All of these things have permanently changed my view of Trump.

©Kelleigh Nelson. All rights reserved.

Assassination in Tehran thumbnail

Assassination in Tehran

By Kenneth R. Timmerman

The motorcycle killers who got to the Quds Force Colonel were playing hardball.


The motorcycle killers who assassinated a senior Quds Force officer in Tehran on Sunday knew what they were doing.

According to Iranian media accounts, accomplices blocked the street behind the target’s car by double-parking and raising their trunk, clearing the way for the motorcycle killers who shot Colonel Hassan Sayyad Khodaei five times as he was about to drive off in his Kia Pride.

The feat was even more brazen since the Colonel’s street led directly to the Iranian parliament, one of the most secure areas of Tehran. The assassins hit Khodaei from behind in the head and the heart, blowing out both the driver and the passenger side windows of his car, according to photos subsequently released to the Iranian media.

The Iranian regime immediately blamed Israel for the assassination, referring to Khodaei as a “defender of the shrine,” a reference to Quds Force officers engaged in the fight against ISIS in Syria.

Khodaei, whose real name was Bahram, was one of three brothers who joined the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps in the 1980s and fought in the war against Iraq. All three brothers, and four more Khodaei cousins, later became officers in the elite Quds Force, Iranian sources said.

Israeli media initially identified Khodaei as a senior officer in charge of Quds Force expeditionary forces inside Syria. Subsequent reports said he was in charge of Hezbollah missile bases inside Syria, and tasked with “attacking Israeli interests and citizens abroad as deputy commander of Unit 840.”

The Israel Defense Force spokesman identified Unit 840 eighteen months ago as the Quds Force group that had been placing mines and IED’s in the Golan Heights along Israel’s border with Syria.

An Iranian source told me, Khodaei supervised deliveries to Syria of advanced targeting kits for Hezbollah missiles.

Most intriguing, however, are suggestions that Khodaei was fingered by an alleged Quds Force assassin named Mansour Rasouli, who was captured and interrogated by Mossad operatives last month.

Mossad reportedly captured Khodaei inside Iranian Kurdistan while he was en route to Turkey to assassinate three Western targets, including an Israeli consular official in Turkey. The opposition Iran International television network posted what it claimed were audio recordings of Rasouli’s confessions, where he expressed remorse over his mission.

Iranian Telegram channels said that Khodaei’s nickname was “hunter,” a reference to this alleged role in luring and attacking Israelis, Iranian dissidents, and anti-Iran regime activists overseas.

Earlier this month, the Times of Israel reported that Israel’s security service, Shin Bet, had foiled an effort by the Iranian regime to lure Israeli academics, business people, and former defense officials to Europe, to attend a phony security conference in Zurich, Switzerland.

The report showed an email, purportedly signed by a Swiss researcher named Oliver Thränart, inviting an Israeli intelligence reporter to an annual “Zurich Strategic Dialogue,” scheduled for January 14, 2022.  The email requested that the guest fill out an application form and comply with Swiss Covid-19 requirements.

I received an identical email from that same Oliver Thränart last October, inviting me to the same January 14, 2022, conference. After a couple of exchanges, Thränart droped off the radar until Christmas, when he said that the conference had been cancelled because of the Omicron variant.

I have long been targeted by the Iranian regime, as I reveal in a new memoire of my exploits as a war correspondent and investigative reporter that will be released on August 31.

Initially, the Iranians targeted me because I was investigating their clandestine nuclear weapons program – more than a decade before it was exposed to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA. Later, they attempted to lure me to phony opposition “conferences” because of my role as the founder and CEO of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI), iran.org.

Hassan Shariatmadari, the editor of the regime daily Kayhan and a IRGC brigadier general, regularly attacked FDI as a CIA-funded anti-regime organization.

In a Dec. 8, 2007 column, he absurdly claimed that FDI had a “four-layer plan” to topple the Iranian regime, led by yours truly, “who heads the Iran desk at CIA.”

In a series of articles in September 2009, Shariatmadari claimed that I was spearheading the latest wave of anti-regime demonstrations inside Iran. “While we would be happy to accept such an honor,” I replied in the name of the foundation, “neither I nor my board can take credit for such power or influence.” The full statement is here.

The most recent Shariatmadari screed dates from December 4, 2019, when he linked my alleged efforts to overthrow the regime to similar efforts by then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. “Kenneth Timmerman, former CIA member and currently director of the American Institute NED [National Endowment for Democracy], acknowledged that the CIA has not only helped the Iranian rioters with software systems, but also delivered to them the hardware.” (I have had no association with NED since 1997, and have no idea what software systems he is referring to).

This is a regime that never gives up, and that spends enormous sums of money to track its opponents and hunt them down. In the 1990s, they sent hit teams across Europe, where they assassinated more than 200 top leaders of the opposition in exile. In the 2000s and beyond, they have snatched opponents in Iraq and elsewhere and hustled them back to Tehran, where they have been summarily executed.

In a particularly egregious case, they have also enlisted the intelligence and judicial authorities of a friendly state, the Republic of Georgia, to frame a defector from Iranian intelligence who became a witness in a civil lawsuit by families of 9/11 victims against Iran. Falsely sentenced to 17 years for a crime he did not commit nor even imagine, Hamid Reza Zakeri continues to languish in a Tbilisi jail.

It’s still early to know the bill of particulars that led Israel – or someone else – to assassinate a Quds Force Colonel in Tehran. But one thing is certain: the Iranians play hardball. And so do the Israelis.

©Kenneth R. Timmerman. All rights reserved.


Ken Timmerman’s 12th book of non-fiction, And the Rest is History: Tales of Hostages, Arms Dealers, Dirty Tricks, and Spies, will be released by Post Hill Press on Aug. 31. His website is kentimmerman.com.

How to Assassinate a Former President: Open the Border thumbnail

How to Assassinate a Former President: Open the Border

By The Daily Skirmish – Liberato.US

You may have heard in the news the FBI foiled an Islamic State-connected plot to assassinate former President George W. Bush.  What you might not have heard is how Joe Biden’s open borders policies made the plot possible.

The plot involved smuggling four Islamic State-linked terrorists from Iraq across the southern border, a border now leaky as a sieve under Biden.  The plot mastermind entered the U.S. on a visitor visa, then applied for asylum.  Under Trump, he most likely would have been detained, then deported if his claim failed.    But under Biden, illegal aliens filing asylum claims are routinely released into the interior of the country and told to show up in court years later.  Surprise, surprise – not everyone does.  What self-respecting terrorist would?

FBI Director Christopher Wray just testified to Congress yesterday, “any porous point of entry is a potential vulnerability that bad actors of all sorts, including national security threats, can seek to exploit.”  And so they do.  Recently, it was reported 42 illegal aliens on terrorist watch lists have been caught at the border since Biden took office.   Nobody knows how many more suspected terrorists are among the 600,000 known ‘gotaways’ now freely roaming the U.S. after entering the country on Biden’s watch.   We do know the Border Patrol released a suspected terrorist from Colombia into the U.S. in April who was not apprehended for three weeks.  It doesn’t take three weeks to travel from the border to Dallas, where the plot to assassinate George W. Bush was to take place.

It’s undeniable the Biden administration has opened the border to a considerable degree.  I’ve documented and compiled in previous commentaries the numerous policy changes the Biden administration has instituted to open the border [Daily Skirmish – 4/28/22].  But all we get out of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is gaslighting.  He’s on record telling the nation “The border is closed, the border is secure.”  In reality, accommodating new arrivals and moving them through the asylum pipeline as quickly as possible is the plan and will remain the plan when the rush to the border begins after COVID restrictions there end.

One interesting feature of the plan is the increasing reliance of the Biden administration on left-wing activist groups to perform governmental functions to alleviate the problems Biden’s loose immigration policies have caused.  The DHS is giving out $150 million in grants to outside groups to deal with the increasing numbers of new arrivals.  Full employment for Lefties – that’s just great, and you’re paying for it.

Undoubtedly, some of this money will find its way to left-wing groups in D.C. meeting the buses Governor Greg Abbott is sending from Texas.  These groups are providing new arrivals with food, clothing, shelter, and medical care.  One account portrays all this as being done by volunteers taking action because the government has done nothing in response to the buses.  But it won’t be long before these groups pick up the scent of government grant money, if they haven’t already.  The pattern is likely to repeat, once Florida starts sending illegal aliens to Biden’s home state of Delaware when COVID restrictions at the border end.

So, the Biden administration gets to pay a little money and avoid responsibility for the immigration mess it has created.  In fact, Biden and Mayorkas come out ahead because they get to reward their Lefty friends with government contracts, thus ensuring their loyalty and making the Left stronger all around.

Cronyism and terrorism, just two of the consequences of Joe Biden’s ruinous open borders policies.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

If I Were the Devil I Would Vote Democrat to Keep Public Schools Gun Free Zones and Disarm Every Single American thumbnail

If I Were the Devil I Would Vote Democrat to Keep Public Schools Gun Free Zones and Disarm Every Single American

By Dr. Rich Swier

After the sad yet predictable massacre in Uvalde, Texas I was reminded of ABC Radio commentator Paul Harvey’s April 3, 1965 radio commentary titled “If I Were The Devil.”

If I Were The Devil

If I were the devil I would:

  1. Make public schools gun free zones and not allow principals, law enforcement officers, teachers to be trained and armed to defend themselves and their students.
  2. I would use every school shooting to make America a gun free zone, using the myth that guns kill people, not evil people kill people.
  3. I would use people like Golden State Warriors basketball Coach Steve Kerr who “joined dozens of Oakland Unified School district parents and students who are calling for the district to dismantle its internal police force.”
  4. I would shout from the roof tops and in front of news cameras and from the school house to the White House “gun control, gun control, gun control and more gun control.”
  5. I would use filmmakers like Michael Moore to state on television, “We will not acknowledge that we are a violent people, to begin with. This country was birthed in violence with genocide of the native people at the barrel of a gun. This country was built on the backs of slaves with a gun to their backs to build this country into the country that we got to have. We do not want to acknowledge or two original sins here that have a gun behind the ability behind our ability to become who we became.”
  6. I would create a black Eve like racist propagandist Joy Reid to call for Canada, and Mexico to build walls in response to U.S. mass school shootings.
  7. Then I would get actors like Rob Reiner to blame the killing of innocent children by a deranged boy on my political opponents. I would put these word into Reiner’s mouth, “The blood of every child that dies of gun violence in this country is on the hands of the Republican Party.”
  8. Of course, I would have my servant from CNN Wolf Blitzer to state without proof that guns are “weapons of mass destruction” and are too easy to get in America. “Every time there is an incident like this, you hear about efforts to deal with mentally unstable people who can certainly go out there and buy a weapon of mass destruction, go out there and buy a gun or rifle or some sort of assault-type weapon and go to there and eventually start killing wonderful, wonderful, people,” Blitzer blathered for me, the devil.
  9. I would have the president of these United States call for totally disarming citizens while the blood of the Uvalde, Texas children is still fresh, the flags at half staff and their young  bodies not yet put in consecrated ground.
  10. Finally, I would have Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. unveil his Anti-Policing Policy on May 25, 2022, the 2nd anniversary of George Floyd’s death. Just a few days after a boy named Salvador Ramos massacred 19 children and two teachers.

But I wouldn’t stop there for if I were the Devil I would also:

  1. Worship the earth as an “environmentalist” and not God the creator of the heavens and earth.
  2. I would destroy our culture by allowing LGBTQ+ teachers to groom our youth. I would teach them that sex between men is good and not sinful and unnatural. I would put this in the public schools classrooms, in textbooks and in the media centers across America.
  3. I would have films, TV shows and even cartoons made that promote homosexuality and evil.
  4. I would dedicate myself to destroying America because it is evil, racist and promotes white supremacy by creating books, theories and school programs from K-16 to shame white children.
  5. I would create groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa to carry out the devil’s work day in and day out.
  6. I would cheat to win elections and thereby win offices of power.
  7. I would promote myths like diversity, inclusion and equity from the classroom to the board room to the halls of Congress.
  8. I would legalize drugs like marijuana and decriminalize the use of other drugs in the name of social justice.
  9. I would embrace the ideals of Marx, Hitler, Stalin, Mohammed and Mao to further my political agendas.
  10. I would go woke to further my cultural war against God, the traditional family and my Constitutional Republic.
  11. I would create viruses and diseases in foreign laboratories and then spread these viruses and diseases globally in order to mandate to my citizens what they can and cannot do with their healthcare.
  12. I would allocate millions for COVID relief but then send the money to museums and university programs that are pushing “social and climate justice.”
  13. Finally, I would use my governmental powers to destroy any and all who oppose my devilish pogrom’s. Thus I would literally create hell on earth.

The Bottom Line

If I were the Devil I would vote with the Democrat Party up and down the ticket and continue to have them to do my bidding which is to enslave thee the people.

I would have the Democrat Party keep doing exactly what’s doing as they pray to me these words “our father who art in Washington, D.C.”

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Heroic Border Patrol Agent WITH A GUN Ends Texas School Shooter’s Murderous Rampage

Did Biden’s Appeasement of China Cause a Communist Church Shooting?

Planned Parenthood CEO is on Board of Private All-Girls School thumbnail

Planned Parenthood CEO is on Board of Private All-Girls School

By Discover The Networks

Alexis McGill Johnson, the CEO of Planned Parenthood, whose husband Rob Johnson has extensive ties to leftist billionaire financier George Soros, is on the Board of Trustees at the National Independent Schools Association (NAIS)-affiliated Spence School, an all-girls school in New York City, according to Breitbart News.

McGill Johnson previously founded the Perception Institute, which offers specialized trainings with titles such as “How to Talk to Your Kids About Race,” “Anti-Racism,” “Resilience & Accountability: Responding to Microaggressions,” and “Equity Strategy at the Board/Senior Leadership level.”

Among the Perception Institute’s partners are Soros’s Open Society Foundation (OSF), the Ford Foundation, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, and other leftwing activist groups that push the racist, neo-Marxist ideology of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in K-12 schools.

The Spence School’s professional development programs directly involve multiple organizations that push extreme leftwing gender ideology onto children through the education system and encourage transgenderism among youth. Faculty at the Spence School attend conferences that teach CRT such as the White Privilege Conference, which leads conversations about the ways “white privilege, white supremacy, and oppression affect life.”

OSF has given $10 million to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in 2017 and $250,000 to the International Planned Parenthood Federation Western Hemisphere Region in 2016. Additionally, the organization has given $200,000 to NARAL Pro-Choice America to “support policy advocacy related to the anti-abortion movement’s ties to white supremacist movements.”

Planned Parenthood CEO McGill Johnson is married to Rob Johnson, an economist who was previously a managing director at Soros Fund Management and is now on the board of directors for Campaign for America’s Future, a leftwing nonprofit that has received donations from OSF.

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

Former Israeli U.N. Ambassador Accuses Rep. Tlaib of ‘Pure Hate’ thumbnail

Former Israeli U.N. Ambassador Accuses Rep. Tlaib of ‘Pure Hate’

By Discover The Networks

Appearing on Fox News Live with Eric Shawn on Saturday, former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon accused Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) of espousing “pure hate” and “antisemitism” over her recent resolution calling for the recognition of the Palestinian “Nakba” (Catastrophe) — a term used by Palestinians to refer to the creation of the Jewish state.

“We have no problem with criticism. We actually welcome criticism,” the former Israeli envoy said. “But what we have heard from Rashida Tlaib is not criticism, it’s pure hate. Basically she calls to promote hatred in the US… but she’s not helping the Palestinians, she’s not sending more support to them. She’s basically attacking Israel.”

Danon also said that figures such as Tlaib remind him of “many radical leaders in the Muslim world that use Israel as their platform.”

“It’s the same over here,” he asserted. “She is not constructive; she’s promoting hate and antisemitism against Jews.” He concluded, “I expect the Democratic leaders to condemn those radical voices — [Tlaib] does not represent the Democratic Party or the American people.”


Rashida Tlaib

66 Known Connections

Blaming “White Supremacy” for Mass Shooting in Buffalo, NY

On the afternoon of May 14, 2022, an 18-year-old white man shot and killed 10 people in a Buffalo, New York supermarket located in the heart of a predominantly black community. Eleven of the 13 people who were shot, were black. The following morning, Tlaib tweeted: “Heartbreaking that Black folks can’t grocery shop, go to church, march against police brutality w/o being targeted by white supremacists. White supremacy gets a pass in our country. Prayers are not enough. We need courage + the will to take on white supremacy as the threat it is.”

To learn more about Rashida Tlaib, click here.

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

FBI Deceived Its’ Agents: Bombshell Document shows Trump-Russia Collusion Claims came from the DOJ thumbnail

FBI Deceived Its’ Agents: Bombshell Document shows Trump-Russia Collusion Claims came from the DOJ

By The Geller Report

It’s Long Past Time For Congress To Break Up The FBI

The FBI is irretrievably broken. Having weaponized its immense power against law abiding Americans, It is a threat to our democracy. And the Trump Russia hoax was one step further – it was treason.

FBI wrongly told its agents Trump-Russia collusion claims had come from DOJ: document

Hillary Clinton OK’d sharing Trump-Russia ‘data,’ campaign manager says

  • Clinton campaign aides try to ‘protect the queen’ at ex-lawyer’s trial: legal expert
  • Sen. Johnson says Sussmann trial reveals corruption of Clinton’s 2016 campaign
  • Elon Musk calls out old Clinton campaign tweet as ‘hoax,’ asks Twitter for answers
  • Clinton lawyer hid Trump-Russia ‘data’ tie to ‘Steele dossier’ firm: FBI official

By Ben Feuerherd and Mark Moore, NY Post:

WASHINGTON — FBI agents probing since-debunked claims of a secret back channel between Donald Trump and a Russian bank believed that the allegations had originated with the Department of Justice — when in fact they came from Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann, who had shopped them to the bureau’s then-general counsel days earlier.

In the latest revelation to emerge from Sussmann’s trial in DC federal court on a count of lying to the FBI, special counsel John Durham’s prosecutors revealed that investigators had received an electronic communication citing a referral from the DOJ “on or about” Sept. 19, 2016, the same day Sussmann met with James Baker, then the FBI’s top lawyer.

The document, a record of the investigation being opened by agents Curtis Heide and Allison Sands and dated Sept. 23, 2016, did not mention Sussmann as the source of the allegations.

“In that referral, the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE provided the FBI with a white paper that was produced by an anonymous third party,” the communication said, before adding: “According to the white paper, a U.S.-based server that is owned by the TRUMP ORGANIZATION has been communicating with the Russian-based ALFA BANK organization in Moscow, Russia.”

The document was circulated to several top FBI officials — including Peter Strzok, who oversaw the probe of Clinton’s email server as well as the Trump-Russia investigation, and was famously fired from the bureau in 2018 after the emergence of text messages he sent to his colleague and mistress Lisa Page in which he vowed to help “stop” Trump from winning the White House.

Sands, who testified late Monday afternoon, told jurors that she believed Heide had told her the referral came from the Department of Justice.

The error was seized on by Sussmann’s defense attorney Michael Bosworth, who grilled Sands about whether Heide had lied to her — or if someone had lied to him about the source of the material.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hillary Clinton-hired opposition research firm must turn emails over to Durham probe, judge rules

Biden’s Taiwan Policy: Overruled by China—and the White House

Biden Takes World Trade Center Bombing Mastermind Terror Group Off Terror List

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

New Shooting, Same Old Bag of Tricks thumbnail

New Shooting, Same Old Bag of Tricks

By The Daily Skirmish – Liberato.US

Biden and Democrats use mis, dis and malinformation to politicize the Uvalde, Texas tragedy.


It didn’t take more than a few minutes after the Texas school shooting was reported yesterday for Democrats to start howling for gun control.  ‘Never let a good crisis go to waste’ is a favorite motto of the Left.  This is what the Democrats and the Left do.  It’s how they roll.

That’s not the only cynical ploy of the Left.  Learn some of the others and you will no longer be taken in by the Left’s despicable tactics.  Today, we expose their methods.

The D.C. government received $750,000 in settlement money from the Trump organization and inaugural committee in a lawsuit over supposedly improper use of the Trump Hotel during Trump’s inauguration.  Now the D.C. government is channeling that money to two left-wing groups.  One preaches antiracism and is associated with a bevy of left-wing causes like lowering the voting age and providing government housing to all.  The other pushes abortion and income redistribution.  See how this works?  Extort money in court cases and spread the wealth around to your leftist buddies.  The Obama Justice Department excelled at this, extorting settlements in the billions of dollars that floated many a leftist boat.

Federal COVID relief money was handed out to schools based on enrollment.  The Los Angeles Community College District kept the money flowing by not looking into reports of thousands of fake ‘bot’ students – computer programs that imitate human users.    Another strategy used by leftist institutions of higher learning is to charge outrageous overhead on federal grants and use the extra cash to finance their diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.  Not to be outdone, House Democrats recently loaded up the China bill with all kinds of money for completely unrelated diversity, equity, and inclusion hiring in federal agencies.

Another favorite parlor trick of the Left is cancel culture.  Don’t like what somebody is saying?  Just shout them down or, better yet, get their events canceled completely.  Transgender activists planned to disrupt an event at Texas A&M in February featuring Matt Walsh, author of a book warning of the dangers of gender transitioning young children.  But the activists’ entire plan leaked online.  It called for dressing normally then, 20 minutes into the event they were to stand up, raise their left fist, and start chanting ‘Stand Up, Fight Back’ as a large group.  For anyone who doubts left-wing cancel culture is real, I recommend you watch a truly stunning video of what happened to Jeff Younger, invited by a conservative student group to speak at the University of North Texas in March.  In the video, you will see an entire room full of activists pounding on the table, shouting slogans in unison, flipping the bird, and otherwise being as obnoxious as possible to prevent Younger from speaking.  I’m only 15 minutes into the video, but the activists are literally going insane right in front of your eyes the entire time.  Younger, you might know, waged a custody battle with his ex-wife over her gender transitioning of one of their kids.

When all else fails, they just lie.  Why not?  It sounds good and a lot of people will believe you.  I’m sure a lot of people believed Elizabeth Warren when she claimed earlier this year Elon Musk paid zero in taxes.  In fact, he paid the largest income tax bill in U.S. history – $11 billion.  See, it starts with small lies, like claiming you’re part Indian.  Before long, you’re telling whoppers.  The bigger the lie, the more people will believe you.  That’s a basic operating principle on the Left.  They got it from their socialist buddy Hitler.

Then there’s the House Democrats allegedly using privately funded staff to investigate oil companies for spreading ‘disinformation’ on climate change possibly in violation of federal law and House rules.  The Democrats deny they did anything wrong, but Virginia’s previous Attorney General, a Democrat, got called out when he brought in Michael Bloomberg-funded staff to pursue the billionaire’s personal agenda on climate change through official means.

Finally, there’s my personal favorite: The Dependency Machine.  The Democrats cause a problem, then turn around and say, ‘Oh, but we’ll HELP you.’  They did it with Obamacare.  They made insurance really expensive and handed out subsidies to help people afford it.  A recent example is the Biden administration deliberately making energy prices go up, then doling out $4.5 billion to help low-income families cover higher heating bills the Democrats caused in the first place.   The whole racket is designed to make as many people dependent on government and the Democrats as possible.  It’s called buying votes.

So, when you hear Democrats howling for gun control today, just remember that never letting a good crisis go to waste is just part of their bag of tricks.  You have to wonder, where would the Democrats be without their bag of tricks?

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.


It’s Time to Start Defending our Children

 Arm Teachers and Harden Our Schools


RELATED ARTICLE: NBA’s Steve Kerr called a ‘hypocrite’ after TX school shooting rant; he backed removing cops from schools

The Greatest Number of Global Conflicts are in Asia, Middle East, North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa thumbnail

The Greatest Number of Global Conflicts are in Asia, Middle East, North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa

By Dr. Rich Swier

There is growing concern that Biden and his Department of Defense are more concerned about gender identity than dealing with the the twenty-six current conflicts around the world. Two of the conflicts are in our back yard.

  1. Criminal Violence in Mexico
  2. Instability in Venezuela

The instability and violence in Mexico is part of Biden’s open borders policy that is causing massive numbers of illegals to travel from Central and South America via Mexico where the drug cartels are involved in illegal drugs and human trafficking.

To date the media is not covering these 26 conflicts, with the exception of the Russia-Ukraine debacle which Biden started with his weak comments on Russian invading Ukraine. Biden predicted that Russia ‘will move in’ to Ukraine, but called it a ‘minor incursion’. This was a dog whistle to Putin to begin the invasion. Watch:

The Council on Foreign Relations (COFR) has created a Global Conflict Tracker MapAccording to the The Center for Preventive Action website:

The Center for Preventive Action (CPA) aims to help policymakers devise timely and practical strategies to prevent and mitigate armed conflict around the world, especially in places that pose the greatest risk to U.S. interests.  CPA accomplishes this by commissioning in-depth reports, convening meetings of experts, and consulting with representatives of governments, international organizations, civil society groups, corporations, and the media. The center’s Global Conflict Tracker informs the general public about threats to international peace and security by providing a reliable and regularly updated online source of information about ongoing conflicts.

CURRENT CONFLICTS BY CONTINENT:

Americas

Criminal Violence in Mexico

Criminal violence in Mexico criminal violence significant unchanging

Instability in Venezuela

Instability in Venezuela Americas political instability significant unchanging

Asia

Europe and Eurasia

Conflict in Ukraine

Conflict in Ukraine Europe and Eurasia territorial dispute critical worsening

Middle East and North Africa

Conflict in Syria

Conflict in Syria middle east and north Africa civil war significant unchanging

Who Is Seizing Control Over the Next Pandemic Plan? thumbnail

Who Is Seizing Control Over the Next Pandemic Plan?

By MERCOLA Take Control of Your Health

In “The Corbett Report” above,1 independent journalist James Corbett reviews the contents of Bill Gates’ book, “How to Prevent the Next Pandemic.”

Another reviewer of Gates’ book, economist Jeffrey Tucker, offered similarly negative feedback:2

Corbett goes through Gates’ book chapter by chapter, so if you’re short on time, you can review the ones that interest you the most:

Chapter 1: Learn from COVID (timestamp: 12:58)

Chapter 2: Create a pandemic prevention team (timestamp: 18:23)

Chapter 3: Get better at detecting outbreaks early (timestamp: 26:21)

Chapter 4: Help people protect themselves right away (timestamp: 31:01)

Chapter 5: Find new treatments fast (timestamp: 37:26)

Chapter 6: Get ready to make vaccines (timestamp: 39:46)

Chapter 7: Practice, practice, practice (timestamp: 47:06)

Chapter 8: Close the health gap between rich and poor countries (timestamp: 50:49)

Chapter 9: Make — and fund — a plan for preventing pandemics (timestamp: 57:40)

Afterword: How COVID changed the course of our digital future (timestamp: 1:03:00)

Gates GERM Team

By now, you’ve probably heard that the World Health Organization is attempting to seize control over global pandemic monitoring and response, and ultimately, all health care decisions. But did you know Bill Gates, the largest funder of the WHO (if you combine funding from his foundation and GAVI), also intends to play a key part in this takeover?

As Gates explains in a video at the beginning of Corbett’s report, he’s building a pandemic response team for the WHO, dubbed the “Global Epidemic Response & Mobilization” or GERM Team. This team will be made up of thousands of disease experts under WHO’s purview, and will monitor nations and make decisions about when to suspend civil liberties to prevent spread of an illness.3

Alas, as noted by “Rising” host Kim Iversen in the video compilation above, if COVID-19 has taught us anything, it’s that stopping the spread of a virus is more or less impossible, no matter how draconian the rules. Meanwhile, the side effects of lockdowns and business shutdowns are manifold.

People’s health has suffered from lack of health care. Depression and suicide have skyrocketed. Economies have gone bust. Violent crime has risen. Tucker also points out the false premise behind Gates’ pandemic prevention plan, stating:4

“This theory of virus control — the notion that muscling the population makes a prevalent virus shrink into submission and disappear — is a completely new invention, the mechanization of a primitive instinct.

Smallpox occupies a unique position among infectious diseases as the only one affecting humans that has been eradicated. There are reasons for that: a stable pathogen, a great vaccine, and a hundred years of focused public health work. This happened not due to lockdowns but from the careful and patient application of traditional public-health principles.

[T]he attempt to crush a respiratory virus through universal avoidance could be worse than allowing endemicity to it to develop throughout the population.”

Gates’ Destructive Greed

During COVID, we basically traded false protection against one thing for a multitude of other ills that are far worse in the long run. Now, Gates and the WHO want to make this disastrous strategy the norm.

Once again, we see Gates is basically paying the WHO to dictate what the world must do to make him a ton of money, because he’s always heavily invested in the very “solutions” he presents to the world. While he’s built a reputation as a philanthropist, his actions are self-serving, and more often than not, the recipients of his “generosity” end up worse than they were before.

Case in point: After 15 years, Gates’ Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) project has now been proven an epic fail.5 Gates promised the project would “double yields and incomes for 30 million farming households by 2020.”

That false prognosis was deleted from the AGRA website in June 2020, after a Tuft University assessment revealed hunger had actually increased by 31%. February 28, 2022, the first-ever evaluation report6 confirmed the failure of AGRA.

The Globalists’ Double-Prong Attack on National Sovereignty

But getting back to the globalists’ plan to seize global control through biosecurity governance, they are attempting to do this using two different avenues. If we fail to fight off both attacks, we’ll end up under totalitarian governance.

The first attack comes in the form of amendments7 to the International Health Regulations (IHR). The second attack comes through a new international pandemic treaty with the WHO.

Starting with the first takeover strategy, as you read this, countries around the world are in the process of voting on amendments to the IHR.8 By May 28, 2022, the World Health Assembly will have concluded their vote on these amendments and, if passed, they will be enacted into international law in November 2022.

The IHR, adopted in 2005, is what empowers the WHO to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).9 This is a special legal category that allows the WHO to initiate certain contracts and procedures, including drug and vaccine contracts. While the IHR grants the WHO exceptional power over global health policy already, under the current rules, member states must consent to the WHO’s recommendations.

This is one key feature that is up for revision. Under the new amendments, the WHO would be able to declare a PHEIC in a member state over the objection of that state. The amendments also include ceding control to WHO regional directors authorized to declare a Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern (PHERC).

In summary, the IHR amendments establish “a globalist architecture of worldwide health surveillance, reporting and management,” Robert Malone, Ph.D., warns,10 and we the public have no say in the matter.

We have no official avenue for providing feedback to the World Health Assembly, even though the amendments will give the WHO unprecedented power to restrict our rights and freedoms in the name of biosecurity. There’s not even a publicly available list of who the delegates are or who will vote on the amendments.

Summary of Proposed IHR Amendments

A summary of the proposed changes to the IHR was recently provided by Malone.11 In all, the WHO wants to amend 13 different IHR articles (articles 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 48, 49, 53 and 59), the end result of which is the following:12

1.“Increased surveillance — Under Article 5, the WHO will develop early warning criteria that will allow it to establish a risk assessment for a member state, which means that it can use the type of modeling, simulation, and predictions that exaggerated the risk from COVID-19 over two years ago. Once the WHO creates its assessment, it will communicate it to inter-governmental organizations and other member states.

2.48-hour deadline — Under Articles 6, 10, 11, and 13, a member state is given 48 hours to respond to a WHO risk assessment and accept or reject on-site assistance. However, in practice, this timeline can be reduced to hours, forcing it to comply or face international disapproval lead by the WHO and potentially unfriendly member states.

3.Secret sources — Under Article 9, the WHO can rely on undisclosed sources for information leading it to declare a public health emergency. Those sources could include Big Pharma, WHO funders such as the Gates Foundation and the Gates-founded-and-funded GAVI Alliance, as well as others seeking to monopolize power.

4.Weakened sovereignty — Under Article 12, when the WHO receives undisclosed information concerning a purported public health threat in a member state, the Director-General may (not must) consult with the WHO Emergency Committee and the member state. However, s/he can unilaterally declare a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern.

The Director General’s authority replaces national sovereign authority. This can later be used to enforce sanctions on nations.”

Once the amendments are adopted by the World Health Assembly, nations will have only a limited time — six months — to reject them. That would put us into November 2022. Any nation which hasn’t officially rejected the amendments will then be legally bound by them, and any attempt to reject them after the six-month grace period will be null and void.

Attack No. 2: The WHO Pandemic Treaty

The second attempt to gain global control is through an international pandemic treaty with the WHO. An intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) was established as a subdivision of the World Health Assembly in December 2021,13 for the purpose of drafting and negotiating this new pandemic treaty.

In summary, the WHO wants to make its pandemic leadership permanent. It can then extend its power into the health care systems of every nation, and eventually implement a universal or “socialist-like” health care system as part of The Great Reset.

While a WHO-based universal health care system is not currently being discussed, there’s every reason to suspect that this is part of the plan. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has previously stated that his “central priority” as director-general is to push the world toward universal health coverage.14

And, considering the WHO changed its definition of “pandemic” to “a worldwide epidemic of a disease,”15 without the original specificity of severe illness that causes high morbidity,16,17 just about anything could be made to fit the pandemic criterion.

The problem with this treaty is that it simply cannot work. The whole premise behind this pandemic treaty is that “shared threat requires shared response.” But a given threat is almost never equally shared across regions.

Take COVID-19 for example. Not only is the risk of COVID not the same for people in New York City and the outback of Australia, it’s not even the same for all the people in those areas, as COVID is highly dependent on age and underlying health conditions.

The WHO insists that the remedy is the same for everyone everywhere, yet the risks vary widely from nation to nation, region to region, person to person. They intend to eliminate individualized medicine and provide blanket rulings for how a given threat is to be addressed, and this can only result in needless suffering — not to mention the loss of individual freedom.

Are You Ready to Cede All Authority to Gates-Led Group?

In closing, Gates’ GERM team would be the ones with the authority to declare pandemics and coordinate global response.18 Are you ready to cede all authority over your life, health and livelihood to the likes of Gates? I hope not.

In the video above, Del Bigtree with “The Highwire” provides poignant examples where Gates is now admitting what “The Highwire,” I and many others have been saying since the earliest days of the COVID pandemic, and getting censored and deplatformed for it.

Gates is two years behind everyone else, yet despite his apparent inability to interpret the readily available data, he now wants power to dictate health rules to the whole world. We can’t let that happen.

Join the Global #StopTheWHO Campaign

It’s going to require a global response to prevent these two power grabs, starting with the IHR amendments under vote by the World Health Assembly. To that end, the World Council for Health has launched a global #StopTheWHO campaign. Here’s how you can get involved:19

Speak — Raise awareness on the ground and online. Use articles, posters, videos
Act — Campaign through rallies, political mobilization, legal notices and cases and similar campaigns
Collaborate with health freedom coalitions such as the World Council for Health
Explore activist toolboxes such as: www.dontyoudare.info and stopthewho.com
Engage global indigenous leadership to take a united stand against the WHO’s IHR
Notify World Health Assembly country delegates to oppose the IHR amendments
Activate people’s parliaments, legislatures or referendums to oppose power grabs

Sources and References

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

Three Mistakes about the Common Good thumbnail

Three Mistakes about the Common Good

By The Catholic Thing

Michael Pakaluk: The idea that the common good can be found in Roe v. Wade is gravely mistaken, since it subordinates the good of the unborn to the born.


Iwant to draw attention to three mistakes about Aquinas’ teaching on the common good which are encouraged by some presentations today of so-called “common good” jurisprudence. If we take Aquinas to represent “the classical view,” then these are mistakes, too, about classical thought.

Begin with Aquinas’s famous, four-part account of the essence of law: any law, he says, is:

(1) a precept of reason,

(2) directed to the common good,

(3) set down by a competent authority, and

(4) promulgated.

Because this is an account of the essence of something, you simply can’t have that thing at all, Aquinas thinks, unless all the parts of the account are somehow verified in it.

What this means is that anything that can in any way count as law, by definition – by its very essentia – is directed to some conception of a common good.  Aquinas remarks that even the laws of a tyrant promote a common good: they propose in effect that the citizens should together find their good in promoting the personal good of the tyrant.

This is the first mistake, then: it’s misleading for any party, or school of interpretation, to claim that they are offering something distinctive or different, because they favor connecting the law to the common good.  All law does that, of necessity.  Nothing can count as “law” unless it is ordered to a common good.

All the interesting questions, then, involve what conception of the common good is implicit in a law.  Does it promote what Aquinas calls “the true good” (verum bonum) or something else?  Is its implicit conception something we can really embrace?  Is it perhaps incoherent, or self-defeating, or calculated to lead to bad things despite someone’s good intentions?

Even Roe v. Wade contained conceptions of the common good, of course:  a conception of the autonomy of the professions (the inviolability of “a decision made in consultation with one’s doctor”); of the equality of women, and what is necessary for that; and a conception of the limits of government’s power to proscribe.

These conceptions were and remain gravely mistaken.  Certainly they are disputable by fair-minded persons and cannot be held to be built into the very social compact of the United States. Obviously, too, any “common good” implicit in Roe includes the good only of born human beings, subordinating the good of the unborn to the born. In that sense, Roe’s conception of the common good is tyrannical.

But the point is that both sides claim to promote the common good.  The debate hinges on what that truly is, not whether it is invoked.  To say that the master key is to introduce the premise that the law should be ordered to the common good is a mistake and a diversion.

The second mistake as regards “the classical view,” is to describe the common good of human law without reference to the virtues and to God, but to regard it as a social system of economic and political instrumentalities, even construing classical language such as “public peace” and “public order” in this way.

Aquinas does not do this.  In his discussion of human law specifically, he does not separate peace from virtue: “in order that man might have peace and virtue, it was necessary for laws to be framed.”  Indeed, making those subject to it good, he says, following Aristotle, is the goal of law: “if the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on true good, which is the common good regulated according to Divine justice, it follows that the effect of the law is to make men good simply.”

Again, because piety is a central human virtue for Aquinas, not surprisingly he approves of Isidore’s claim that a chief purpose of human law should be “to foster religion.”

On “the classical view” one cannot avoid these matters by saying, as Adrian Vermeule does, that it’s possible to confine one’s discussion to “the order of nature” and avoid “the order of grace.”  On Aquinas’s view, human beings precisely as natural creatures, cannot attain even “temporal happiness” except through exercising the virtues – and as rational creatures they are ordered to God, who is the ultimate common good of society.  As John Paul II liked to emphasize, it’s inherent in the human person to have a transcendent character, and the common good of human society must be framed correspondingly. Religion after all is a pagan virtue.

The great theologian, Johannes Messner, writing in his 1949 Social Ethics after the horrors of World War II, comments, “Only if a personal God is recognized as creator and lawgiver can the idea of the ‘might of right’ possess its quite definite authority; otherwise, there can be no compelling reason why the principle ‘might is right’ should not in one way or another prevail.”

This brings me to the third mistake, which is that current presentations of the common good seem to downplay the necessity of liberty, identifying liberty with libertarianism and individualism.

This third mistake follows from the second.  Liberty is necessary for genuine virtue and for our response to God.  Downplay virtue, and liberty is easily lost from sight.  Moreover, as James Madison emphasized in his Memorial and Remonstrance, the relationship which a human being has to his creator, prior to political society and government, is a fundamental safeguard of liberty.  Prescind from our relationship to God, and how else are fundamental liberties secured?

Let Messner have the last word here: “full humanity depends essentially on [man’s] personal responsibility and self-reliant activity in carrying out the demands of his being. . . .the common good means that social cooperation makes it possible for the members of society to fulfill by their own responsibility and effort the vital tasks set for them by their existential ends. . . .although a domestic animal is not harmed in its essential nature by being provided for, the ‘provider state’ does impair man’s natural status because it takes away from him a sphere of self-determination and personal responsibility.”

You may also enjoy:

+James V. Schall, S.J.’s Common Good/Uncommon Evil

Stephen P. White’s Catholic Schools and the Common Good

AUTHOR

Michael Pakaluk

Michael Pakaluk, an Aristotle scholar and Ordinarius of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas, is a professor in the Busch School of Business at the Catholic University of America. He lives in Hyattsville, MD with his wife Catherine, also a professor at the Busch School, and their eight children. His acclaimed book on the Gospel of Mark is The Memoirs of St Peter. His new book, Mary’s Voice in the Gospel of John: A New Translation with Commentary, is now available.

EDITORS NOTE: This The Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2022 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Biden Admin Allies Contemplated Using National Guard at School Board Meetings thumbnail

Biden Admin Allies Contemplated Using National Guard at School Board Meetings

By Jihad Watch

How deep in authoritarian fascism was the Biden administration last year?

Faced with parental protests in schools, the Biden administration coordinated with the National School Boards Association to intervene. Here’s an earlier draft of what that might have looked like.

Early demands from the National School Boards Association to the White House included calling for the deployment of the Army National Guard and the military police to monitor school board meetings, according to an early draft letter the organization’s independent review released Friday.

In contrast to the final version, the draft of the NSBA letter said, “We ask that the Army National Guard and its Military Police be deployed to certain school districts and related events where students and school personnel have been subjected to acts and threats of violence.”

Did the NSBA realize it went too far, did someone in the Biden admin pull the plug on a proposal to deploy the National Guard?

Consider the atmosphere.

The Biden administration had engaged in an extended and unprecedented military occupation of Washington D.C. in response to the Capitol Riot despite condemning the much lesser response to Black Lives Matter assaults on the White House and D.C. landmarks. Forced to eventually shut down the occupation, someone in the administration may have contemplated using the National Guard to regularly shut down opposition political protests. This would have been the logical next step.

Sending in the FBI was bad enough, but the Biden admin was playing at full-fledged fascism in ’21.  to Black Lives Matter assaults on the White House and D.C. landmarks. Forced to eventually shut down the occupation, someone in the administration may have contemplated using the National Guard to regularly shut down opposition political protests. This would have been the logical next step.

Sending in the FBI was bad enough, but the Biden admin was playing at full-fledged fascism in ’21.

AUTHOR

DANIEL GREENFIELD

RELATED TWEET:

27 state school boards associations have distanced themselves from the National School Boards Association.

17 of those states (purple) have discontinued membership, participation, and/or dues because of the NSBA’s actions. pic.twitter.com/YfyGwNKCpA

— Corey A. DeAngelis (@DeAngelisCorey) December 3, 2021

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

Massive Sexual Abuse in the Southern Baptist Convention thumbnail

Massive Sexual Abuse in the Southern Baptist Convention

By Save America Foundation

I have written much about sex abuse of children by people placed in positions of trust. The other day I showed the problems with our public school system which has abused so many kids as to make the Catholic sex abuse scandal look small.

Let me be clear. No abuse of children is acceptable by anyone. Parents, teachers, family, priests or politicians! The evil must be rooted out. However, with a hatred of the Catholic Church the political movement and their close allies the MSM, tried hard to make it look like a Catholic only issue. It was not. It is not. It’s just that they are huge and extremely rich with deep pockets.

An investigative report on the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), Americas largest Protestant organization, found massive sexual abuse took place among parishioners kids and the clergy. Just like what the Catholic Church did, these evil Southern Baptist leaders did the same bad thing. They stonewalled the victims and in many cases leadership presented the victims with outright hostility. The suspected perpetrators were allowed to stay in their positions, ready and able to carry on with their disgusting pedophilia agenda.

The May 22nd, 2022 288-page investigative report from Guidepost Solutions was initiated at an SBC National meeting when outsiders demanded action and investigation.

The report very clearly shows that the presumed innocent perpetrators were given autonomy by the church. Even allowed to stay on as clergy.

Victims however and their families, were ignored, disbelieved and met with action by the SBC that never allowed justice. It was found that the SBC hierarchy considered they had full autonomy over the church and that allowed molesters and other perverts to stay on in their jobs and no warnings given to the congregations of these evil doers.

On Sunday, SBC President Ed Litton. Released the following message :

Fellow Southern Baptists,

In a short time, the report from Guidepost Solutions will be released. We’ve been awaiting this day for many months, and in another sense, for many years. As we review the report today, let me encourage you with the words of James, “be slow to speak, quick to listen.” Today important facts will be revealed. And as a result, many of us across our Convention will feel a torrent of emotion. This is not a time for hot takes or armchair quarterbacks. This is a time for us to listen, lament, assess, and prepare to respond. In a few weeks, we will gather together in Anaheim, where we will have the opportunity to act and ensure the appropriate reforms are implements. We must be ready to take meaningful steps to change our culture as it relates to sexual abuse.

Today is likely to be a painful day. In the midst of that pain, I pray that you remember those whose lives have been so deeply damaged by the sin of sexual abuse. I believe this report represents an honest look at our Convention’s actions and failures. I believe it represents the courage of survivors who have come forward and told their stories. I am praying that God will grant each of us the wisdom and courage to respond with godly courage and Spirit-driven determination to make our future better than our past.

Ed Litton

Many victims were harassed with hate mail and phone calls which made them feel even more victimized.

The SBC will hold its national meeting at the Anaheim Convention Center on June 14-15. If anyone out there wants to attend and protest peacefully outside this huge and expensive national meeting, feel free.

Total giving to Southern Baptist churches, according to the report, was $11.5 billion in 2020. There are over 47,000 churches in this organization. Total membership is 14,089,947. These were 2020 figures. Here is a link to what the convention is all about. Money.

My wife and I are Baptist. Formerly Catholic. We belong to an independent Baptist church where the pastor is a true man of God, who preaches the Bible as it was written. He is not politically correct. He is not afraid to talk about abortion, child slavery, perceptions, the LGBTQUI agenda. You need to all find a church like mine. For those interested it is :- Victory Baptist Church, located on South MacDill in Tampa. It is not fancy. It is not huge. It is not a rich church. It is a place for believers and conservatives to meet and worship God.

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Guidepost Solutions’ Report of the Independent Investigation

The Rich and Fabulous Lifestyles of Southern Baptist Conference Culture

Cost of Guidepost Solutions Report on SBC Leaders’ Alleged Mishandling of Sexual Abuse Surpasses $1.7 Million

VIDEO: Governor Ron DeSantis to Block WHO Treaty in Florida which violates the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights thumbnail

VIDEO: Governor Ron DeSantis to Block WHO Treaty in Florida which violates the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights

By Dr. Rich Swier

It appears that Biden and his administration are willing to turn over our sovereignty to the World Heath Organization in violation of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

We are now going back to the future.

Our Founding Fathers faced a very similar threat from the English monarchy which led them to the write the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence states:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

America is facing yet another crisis in course of human events, namely the World Health Organization’s with the help of Biden and his administration, to take over of all of our medical decisions.

The Declaration then states:

…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The WHO’s changes to the International Health Regulations (IHR) weaken our sovereignty. IHR’s Article 12 states:

When the WHO receives undisclosed information concerning a purported public health threat in a member state, the Director-General may (not must) consult with the WHO Emergency Committee and the member state. However, s/he can unilaterally declare a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern.

America and Americans’ freedom and liberties are being given away without a fight to a foreign entity that will ultimately have complete control of our healthcare decisions when it comes to dealing with future any current or future pandemic. This power impacts the safety, health and happiness of every American citizen.

The only strong voice in defense of our national sovereignty is Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis.

the World Health Organization is attempting to seize control over global pandemic monitoring and response, and ultimately, all health care decisions.

Bill Gates is the largest funder of the WHO (if you combine funding from his foundation and GAVI) and Democrats. Gates appears to be playing a key part in this takeover.

According to MERCOLA Take Control of Your Health:

  • The World Health Organization is attempting to seize control over global pandemic monitoring and response and, ultimately, all health care decisions
  • Bill Gates intends to play a key part in this takeover. He’s building a pandemic response team for the WHO, dubbed the “Global Epidemic Response & Mobilization” or GERM Team, which will have the authority to monitor nations and make pandemic response decisions, such as when to suspend civil liberties to prevent spread of an illness
  • The globalist cabal plans to seize control through biosecurity governance, and they’re attempting to do this using two different avenues. If we fail to fight off both attacks, we’ll end up under totalitarian governance
  • The first attack comes in the form of amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), which are currently being voted on by the World Health Assembly. These amendments will strip member nations of their sovereignty and give the WHO unprecedented power to restrict your medical freedoms and civil liberties in the name of biosecurity. Get involved and urge your nation’s leaders to reject the amendments if passed. Unless rejected, they will become binding law in November 2022
  • The second attack comes through a new international pandemic treaty with the WHO. They intend to eliminate individualized medicine and provide blanket rulings for how a given threat is to be addressed, and this can only result in needless suffering — not to mention the loss of individual freedom

The Bottom Line

Biden is the head of a regime, not the presidency of these United States of America.

First it was Obama via Obamacare who gave our federal government power over our healthcare. Now it is Biden given the WHO power our our healthcare.

No previous president has given this kind of power control of our his citizens in our nations history.

We now have fundamentally transformed our healthcare system from Obamacare, to Bidencare and now to WHOcare.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: The Great Reset- You Will Own Nothing and Be Happy

House Republicans Press Biden Admin For Answers Over Elon Musk’s Attempted $44 Billion Twitter Purchase thumbnail

House Republicans Press Biden Admin For Answers Over Elon Musk’s Attempted $44 Billion Twitter Purchase

By The Daily Caller

Republican Wisconsin Rep. Scott Fitzgerald sent a letter Tuesday to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairwoman Lina Khan demanding answers about Elon Musk’s attempt to purchase Twitter for $44 billion, saying the review process must be done fairly and without partisanship.

The Daily Caller first obtained the letter, which was signed by four other Republicans. In the letter, the lawmakers expressed their concerns with “politicization seen at the FTC” during the Biden administration, saying they worry it will delay or halt Musk’s attempt to lead Twitter.

They also mentioned issues they have with the FTC under Biden, such as “suspending early termination of merger review transactions with no competitive concerns for well over a year, using a zombie vote to adopt prior approval for merging parties and divestiture buyers on future transactions for 10 years” and more.

“Big Tech is no friend of conservatives and neither is the President Biden’s FTC. The Left has made clear its discontent with Elon Musk’s attempt to restore free speech on Twitter. We must ensure that his bid to purchase the social media company receives a fair review well above the partisan fray by the Commission,” Fitzgerald told the Daily Caller before sending the letter.

The group of Republicans also called for a number of documents and communication, such as:

  • All documents and communication between or among the Federal Trade Commission and any third-party organizations referring or relating to Mr. Musk’s purchase of Twitter
  • All documents and communication between or among the Federal Trade Commission and members and staff of the White House Competition Council referring or relating to Mr. Musk’s purchase of Twitter
  • All documents and communications, including all plans, proposals, or other communications, referring or relating to the FTC’s purpose in making inquiries related to Mr. Musk’s purchase of Twitter that deviate from typical reviews

READ THE LETTER HERE: 

(DAILY CALLER OBTAINED) — … by Henry Rodgers

The lawmakers asked for a response to their inquiry no later than May 31, 2022.

The other Republicans who signed the letter were Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs, North Carolina Rep. Dan Bishop and Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert.

The Daily Caller contacted the FTC about the letter, to which the Office of Public Affairs replied by saying: “I’m sorry but the FTC does not comment on letters it receives from members of Congress. The agency will respond, and when it does, the recipients may or may not choose to make the response public.”

AUTHOR

HENRY RODGERS

Senior congressional correspondent. Follow Henry Rodgers On Twitter

RELATED ARTICLES:

EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Jim Banks Urges Elon Musk To Overhaul Twitter’s Content Policy

Female SpaceX President Stands By Elon Musk Amid Sexual Misconduct Allegations

Elon Musk Says Twitter Deal ‘Cannot Move Forward’ Until CEO Proves One Thing

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