President Joe Biden’s nominee to lead the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) was arrested for allegedly shoplifting merchandise at a TJ Maxx, according to a police report.
Cornell Law School professor Saule Omarova, who Biden picked to head the OCC in September, was arrested in 1995 for an alleged retail theft of $214 in TJ Maxx merchandise, according to police records posted by the American Accountability Foundation, a conservative watchdog group. Her arrest had previously been reported by Fox News, but the police report offers new details on the incident.
She asked to pay for the items, and cooperated fully with the security guard, according to the report. Her charges were later dropped through Wisconsin’s first offender program, Fox News reported.
Omarova’s Senate Banking Committee hearing is scheduled for Thursday, and she is likely to meet stiff opposition from Republicans who have harshly criticized her policy positions. She has called for the federal government to “bankrupt” the oil and gas industry in order to address climate change, and has also refused to hand over her thesis titled “Karl Marx’s Economic Analysis and the Theory of Revolution” to members of the banking committee.
BREAKING: AAF unearths Biden nominee Saule Omarova’s arrest records from 1995 when she stole hundreds of dollars in merchandise from a T.J. Maxx.
Omarova has no respect for our laws, system of government, or our economy.
Omarova also once praised the Soviet Union for its gender equality, remarking that there was no “gender pay gap” in the former socialist country.
Omarova allegedly stole several bottles of cologne, along with shoes, belts, and socks from a Wisconsin TJ Maxx, according to the police report. She reportedly placed the items in her bag and covered them with clothes before exiting the store, at which point she was confronted by a TJ Maxx security guard.
The White House did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment as to whether the incident affected Omarova’s nomination.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2021-11-18 16:51:472021-11-18 16:51:47Biden Treasury Nominee Saule Omarova Was Once Arrested For Shoplifting At TJ Maxx, Police Records Show
One-time notorious abortion doctor and key architect of the abortion movement, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, is speaking from the grave. His message: Embrace life.
Over the weekend, author Terry Beatley spoke at a local right-to-life event here in South Florida. Beatley had met with Nathanson in 2009 (about a year before he died), and he gave her a charge to continue spreading the pro-life message. He told her, “teach the strategy of how I deceived America” to accept abortion.
Nathanson’s message is most relevant these days, as the U. S. Supreme Court is possibly rethinking its infamous abortion decision from 1973, Roe v. Wade.
Bernard Nathanson, M.D. performed or oversaw some 75,000 abortions. After his conversion to the pro-life side—initially as an atheist, then later as a Catholic—he wrote the book, Aborting America, and made the film, “The Silent Scream.”
The recent 2021 film, Roe v. Wade, told the story of the push for abortion from Nathanson’s point of view. I saw a sneak peek of the entire film— watching the whole thing at my desk for two hours, mesmerized.
Nathanson was the “abortion king.” He was the architect of the abortion industry. He co-founded NARAL, which initially was called the National Association to Repeal Abortion Laws (now, National Abortion Rights Action League).
When Beatley met with Nathanson in his New York City home, it changed the trajectory of her life. He basically asked her to tell America how they sold abortion to us through a series of deceptions. She has since created the “Hosea Initiative,” based on the Bible verse in which God says, “My people perish for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6).
Beatley tells the story in her 2016 book, What If We’ve Been Wrong? Keeping My Promise to America’s “Abortion King.” Dr. Richard Land, president emeritus of Southern Evangelical Seminary, notes, “Dr. Bernard Nathanson left a very important mission for Terry Beatley.”
I interviewed Beatley on my radio show, exploring what Nathanson relayed to her.
She told me: “Dr. Bernard Nathanson is not just one of many former abortionists. I think one of the main things we should know is that he’s the father of the abortion industry in America. The idea of ambulatory, in-out, same-day service surgery abortions. That was a fairly new concept that he master-minded. This idea of having these so-called ’clinics‘ set up all across the United States.”
Beatley goes on, “After he initiated eight points of propaganda to deceive Americans and the courts of our land, Dr. Nathanson ended up becoming 100 percent, unequivocally pro-life. That was as an atheist, and later he became a child of God on December 8, 1996…It’s a story that every American should know.” Nathanson was baptized without fanfare at St. Patrick’s Cathedral after his conversion.
In his book, The Abortion Papers (1983), Nathanson wrote, “I believe that an America which permits a junta of moral thugs to foist an evil of incalculable dimensions upon it, and continues to permit that evil to flower, creates for itself a deadly legacy: a millennium of shame.”
Beatley relates the main points of Nathanson’s erstwhile strategy to deceive America, the first being: “They framed the debate, and they framed it around the word ‘choose.’” The use of euphemism, concealing the killing of a child under the positive word “choice,” was highly effective.
She continues with other points of Nathanson’s strategy: “They used the complicit media because Nathanson was quick to realize that most of the reporters were young and female, and he would tell them almost anything…and they would believe anything he’d tell them.”
And what did he tell them? “He’d tell them fabricated facts, i.e., lies. He would say that a million women a year were having back alley abortions. And 5,000-10,000 women a year were dying due to complications. Those were bald-faced lies.”
How else did Nathanson, by his own account, deceive America into accepting baby-killing? “Dr. Nathanson would say that 60 percent of Americans wanted abortion on demand legalized….The real percentage was one-tenth of one percent.”
Other parts of the strategy included:
Repeating the lies again and again so they become accepted as true.
Working to decriminalize abortion since many people assume something is acceptable if it is legal.
Implementing what they called “the Catholic strategy.” The overall goal was to neutralize and divide a major foe of the abortion industry–including massive support for “pro-choice Catholic” politicians.
Many of these lies are still with us. America has been sold a bill of goods by the abortion industry. We must admit, sadly, that too many Americans have unthinkingly bought them.
Beatley says Nathanson’s final charge was: “Love one another. Abortion is not love. Stop the killing. The world needs more love.” This story reminds me of the line: A lie travels half-way around the world, while truth is still putting on its boots.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2021-11-18 14:53:452021-11-18 14:53:45Former Architect of American Abortion Industry Speaks Out Against It
OK, I want to write this before the jury reaches a verdict.
From the closing arguments, I conclude:
The prosecutors are complete idiots.
The defenders are no prizes. They may have snatched defeat from the jaws of certain victory.
Here are the biggest errors that I thought the defenders made. (Keep in mind that I am not a criminal defense lawyer and I have never tried a case in court.)
They based the self-defense case re Rosenbaum on the premise that Rosenbaum “might have” taken Rittenhouse’s gun and used it against him. That should have been their secondary, backup argument. Their primary argument should have been “It is a myth that you cannot shoot an unarmed man.” The prosecutors made a huge deal about that, going on and on about how Rittenhouse brought a gun to a fistfight, and he was too cowardly to duke it out like a man, and even saying “you cannot shoot an unarmed man like that.” Right after the closing arguments ended, Katie Pavlich, on Fox News, pointed out that “more people are killed with hands and feet than with AR15s.” She was right, and the prosecutor was wrong, but the jury doesn’t know that, because the defenders didn’t tell them. The defenders should have had an expert witness telling the jury, “More people are killed with hands and feet than with AR15s.”
They should have emphasized that there is a difference between “deadly force” and a “deadly weapon.” The law says you can shoot somebody to protect yourself against “deadly force”; it says nothing about a “deadly weapon.” Defense lawyer: “Can an unarmed man kill you?” Expert witness: “Hell yes. Here are the stats.” That would also have neutralized the prosecutor’s assertion that Huber’s skateboard was not a deadly weapon because parents buying their children skateboards for Christmas are not buying them deadly weapons. We can hope that the jurors are smart enough to figure out that parents buy their children baseball bats (and many other things), which can be used as deadly weapons. The defenders should also have asked the jurors if they would be OK with being hit in the head with a skateboard swung full force. (And asked the prosecutors if they would like to demonstrate to the jury how harmless a skateboard is, by volunteering to be hit in the head with one.) However, “deadly weapon” is beside the point; the issue is “deadly force,” not “deadly weapon.” The defenders should have said that over and over. Rosenbaum and Huber were both quite capable of inflicting deadly force on Rittenhouse without taking his gun away.
Also, the definition of “deadly force” includes not only death but “serious bodily injury.” The defense needed to emphasize that. The expert witness should have told the jurors that people who get beaten with hands and fists sometimes die, but more often they get fractured skulls, permanent brain damage, loss of vision (or loss of an eye), broken jaws, crushed testicles, broken backs, lacerated livers, collapsed lungs, and occasionally they end up confined to wheelchairs as quadriplegics, being fed with a spoon for the rest of their lives. Let the jurors imagine themselves like that. That would have neutralized the prosecutor’s stupid “duke it out like a man” argument.
The defenders, in their closing argument, should have said the words “beyond a reasonable doubt” over and over. “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defense does not need to prove that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense; the prosecution needs to prove that Rittenhouse did not act in self-defense. And they need to prove that ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Of course, if you think Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, then your verdict is Not Guilty. But if you think there is at least a reasonable possibility that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, then your verdict is also Not Guilty. The only way to arrive at a verdict of Guilty is if you think that it’s ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ preposterous, outlandish, unreasonable to even think that Rittenhouse might have acted in self-defense; that no reasonable person could see anything that looked like self-defense.”
They could have done a better job addressing the “provocation” instruction that the prosecutors sneaked in at the last minute. “Imagine somebody who holds up a liquor store at gunpoint. A customer pulls a gun, but the robber shoots him first. Can the robber claim self-defense, because he only intended to rob, not shoot, and he was forced to defend himself against the customer? Of course not. That would be absurd. The provocation law was designed to avoid such absurd results. It certainly does not apply to Rittenhouse. And if Rittenhouse’s only “provocation” was having a gun, then why did all the many, many other people carrying guns not provoke many, many other attacks? You saw the videos. Did you see Rittenhouse provoke anybody? No, you didn’t. Did you see him provoke anybody beyond a reasonable doubt? No, you didn’t. This provocation business is a desperate, last-minute Hail Mary tactic by the prosecution. Not Guilty.”
When your enemy is destroying himself, don’t interfere. The prosecutor acted like a jerk, and surely alienated the jurors. But then the defenders came along and also acted like jerks. They got personal, for no good reason. Just point out that the prosecutor said the video would show Rittenhouse chasing Rosenbaum, but the video shows Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse. Leave it there. There is no reason to say “The prosecutor is a liar.” Let the jury figure that out for themselves.
You watched the trial; you know this is an open and shut case and that Rittenhouse should never have been charged, much less tried. But what about the jurors? Maybe they have the common sense to figure out for themselves that a skateboard can inflict deadly force, and so can an unarmed man. (“Poll the jurors, Your Honor. How many have been in bar fights?”) Maybe they will read the jury instructions and figure out the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard by themselves, without being reminded by the defenders. Maybe. But maybe not. The prosecutors’ arguments were foolish, but there are plenty of foolish people in the world who think it perfectly reasonable to say “A 17-year-old with an Assault! Rifle! automatically forfeits the right to claim self-defense. I mean, come on, it’s an Assault! Rifle! Guilty by reason of possession of an Assault! Rifle!” Are there such people on the jury?
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2021-11-18 08:24:002021-11-18 08:24:00Is The AR-15 on Trial or a Defendant?
The Democratic Party’s so-called moderates have had it with Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.; Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.; Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.; and other members of the “squad.” These “centrists” are laboring to separate themselves semantically from these neo-Marxists, although their differences end there.
These “middle of the road” Democrats call themselves “normal.” If they keep parroting that word, their feathers will turn green.
“If you want a senator who runs as a socialist, feeds the [Republican Party] attack ads, & didn’t help with infrastructure, I’M NOT YOUR GUY,” Rep. Conor Lamb, D-Pa., recently pleaded via Twitter. “I’m a normal Democrat who supports jobs & wins elections.”
Rep. Donald McEachin, D-Va., said voters want to “return to normal as quickly as possible.”
Speaking about President Joe Biden, Rep. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., said, “Nobody elected him to be [former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt]. They elected him to be normal and stop the chaos.”
“People are fatigued and confused, and they want to get back to their normal lives,” observed New Jersey state Sen. Loretta Weinberg, a Democrat.
Democrat campaign operative Howard Wolfson prescribed a “course correction” and an embrace of “bipartisan normalcy.”
When these allegedly moderate Democrats call themselves “normal,” this suggests that those further left are abnormal. How insulting! The squad should demand an immediate apology. Indeed, it is the Democrats’ new normal.
The American Conservative Union’s recently modernized website makes it a snap to review senators’ and House members’ votes clear back to 1972. Running from zero for most liberal to 100 for most conservative, the ideological spectrum cleaves into thirds: left (zero to 33 American Conservative Union ratings), middle (34 to 66), and right (67 to 100). Moderate Democrats should inhabit this center slice.
Good luck finding them there.
“Normal” Democrats who loudly claim to be in the middle are on the left—often deeply so.
Lamb, for starters, has a 9.04 lifetime American Conservative Union rating—24.96 points from the centrist border.
The aforementioned McEachin clocks in at 5.68. Spanberger? 10.53. Weinberg votes conservatively 1.98% of the time.
The New Democrat Coalition styles itself as the natural home of centrist House Democrats. Nonsense. This group’s leadership is planted firmly, solidly, deeply left:
New Democrat Coalition Chairwoman Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., rates 3.48. She stands left of Ocasio-Cortez, who sports a more conservative 5.23 American Conservative Union rating.
“Centrist” Whip Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., votes in precise, North Korean-style lockstep with Ocasio-Cortez at 5.23.
Vice Chair for Policy Scott Peters, D-Calif., is New Democrat Coalition’s most right-wing leader, with a whopping score of 8.2.
All eight non-freshmen New Democrat Coalition leaders are within American Conservative Union’s farthest-left decile. Those who represent moderate House Democrats vote conservatively less than 10% of the time. In what world does this put them at the center of anything?
Historically, Democrats have marched further left than Republicans have headed right.In 1980, House Democrats averaged a 26 American Conservative Union rating. In 1990, 20. In 2000, 16. In 2010, six. And in 2020, three.
Republicans began at 68 in 1980, peaked in 2010 at 89, and fell back to 74 last year. Across 11 years that I sampled, Democrats averaged 17 and Republicans 76. Democrats were closer to zero than Republicans were to 100.
For 2020, three Republican Party senators and 34 Republican House members rated in the middle third versus zero Democrat senators and only one House Democrat: New Jersey’s Jefferson Van Drew with a 46. He since has defected to the Republican Party.
Meanwhile, “centrist” Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., is not. The West Virginian has a 26.55 rating. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., has a mere 14.59. Phony supposed middle-roader Biden earned a 13.
American Conservative Union ratings confirm that Republicans are America’s more moderate party.
“The data speak for themselves,” American Conservative Union Chairman Matt Schlapp told me. “The most radical elements of the left have hijacked the Democrat Party.”
Moderate Democrats are now mythical creatures, like dragons and unicorns. Nothing remains but leftists and far leftists. Your father’s normal Democrat Party is far, far away.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2021-11-18 02:05:002021-11-18 02:05:00This Is Not Your Father’s Normal Democratic Party
Top Arizona law enforcement officials say Sen. Mark Kelly (D., Ariz.) is “completely absent” on public safety and border security, a situation that one police representative says “scares the hell” out of his officers.
Kelly has repeatedly criticized President Joe Biden’s lack of urgency on the southern border crisis as a record number of illegal immigrants attempt to cross into the country. For National Border Patrol Council president Brandon Judd and Arizona Police Association president Justin Harris, however, Kelly has failed to match his rhetoric with action. Both Judd and Harris said Kelly has never reached out to their respective organizations, a snub that Judd called “concerning.”
“It appears that he’ll give lip service to a topic, but then when push comes to shove, he’s right in step with his party. And we know that as far as his party goes with border security, they’re missing in action,” Judd told the Washington Free Beacon. “He’s never reached out to us, and that is what’s concerning, because we have people reaching out to us all the time on both sides of the aisle.”
Harris accused Kelly of playing politics with the border crisis as he looks to secure reelection in 2022 in a state that has soured on Biden and his policies. Just 36 percent of Arizona voters approve of the president, according to a November Civiqs survey, and 63 percent “hold the Biden administration and its policies responsible for the current immigration and border crisis,” a July Federation for American Immigration Reform poll shows. Kelly’s own approval rating has taken a 12-point hit among the state’s suburbanites, a general voting block that has already helped deliver double-digit Republican gains in Virginia and New Jersey.
“Mark Kelly scares the hell out of us, because it looks like he’s doing this for Mark Kelly,” Harris said. “My membership is scared that we’re one or two elections away from Arizona turning into a Chicago or a New York or a California. So when it comes to my association and our law enforcement communities and families, Mark Kelly scares the hell out of us.”…..
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2021-11-18 02:00:002021-11-18 02:00:00‘Completely Absent’: Arizona Law Enforcement Leaders Slam Mark Kelly
Longtime Democratic state Rep. Ryan Guillen of Rio Grande City announced Monday he is switching to the Republican Party of Texas.
He made the announcement at a news conference with Gov. Greg Abbott and House Speaker Dade Phelan of Beaumont, both Republicans.
“Friends, something is happening in South Texas, and many of us are waking up to the fact that the values of those in Washington, D.C., are not our values, not the values of most Texans,” Guillen said. “The ideology of defunding the police, of destroying the oil and gas industry and the chaos at our border is disastrous for those of us who live here in South Texas.”
“After much consideration and prayer with my family, I feel that my fiscally conservative, pro-business, and pro-life values are no longer in-step with the Democrat Party of today, and I am proudly running as a Republican to represent House District 31,” Guillen said.
Abbott praised Guillen’s decision, using the opportunity to talk about President Joe Biden’s and Democrats’ policies that he said will lead lead to fewer oil and gas jobs in Texas.
“Ryan Guillen talked about the importance of oil and gas jobs. They are good-paying jobs here in Texas. The Republican Party will not allow the Democrats to crush the oil and gas jobs with the Green New Deal,” Abbott said. “We do not support lawless open borders in the state of Texas. We will step up and support our border.”
Guillen was one of the youngest ever elected to the Texas Legislature at age 24. He comes from a family of public school teachers, war veterans, and cattle ranchers. A sixth-generation South Texan, he grew up working at his family’s feed store and as a ranch hand on the family farm. He later received a degree in Agriculture, and was a local high school Ag teacher before he ran for office.
Guillen has been considered the least liberal of Democrats in the state House. He voted for open carry. He’s been a staunch advocate for creating jobs, cutting taxes and red tape, maintaining Texas’ position as an energy leader, protecting property rights and the rural way of life, fostering greater efficiency and transparency in government, among other initiatives, according to his official House bio.
Guillen is actively involved in the community, hosting a seasonal Dairy Queen Listening Tour in every county in the district, a Weekly Coffee during legislative sessions, and a Virtual Community Summit to be available and accessible to constituents. He also hosts a Student Legislative Session and a Legislative Internship Program to educate and inspire young adults.
The last state lawmaker to change parties was also a South Texas Democrat who switched to the Republican Party in 2012, Rep. JM Lozano, R-Kingsville.
Democrats supporting Israel’s self-defense against the “Palestinian” jihad? That isn’t allowed. Hamas-linked CAIR is ensuring that the miscreants get back in line, and pronto. Independent thought? Pshaw! That’s only for “right-wingers.”
A Muslim advocacy group is accusing the College Democrats of America of “Islamophobia” for harassing one of their officers on social media over pro-Palestinian comments she made online as a child.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) this week called in a letter for the Democratic Party-affiliated group to open an “independent investigation” with the intent of disciplining or expelling the unnamed members who “repeatedly harassed” Rollins College senior Nourhan Mesbah on social media when she ran successfully for national vice president in August.
The harassment includes the members’ “liking” a social media comment that read in part: “Boot this jihadist out, no room for racist totalitarianism,” CAIR says.
In the letter sent this week to College Democrats President Jalen Miller, CAIR’s national deputy director Edward Mitchell also accuses the CDA members of “weaponizing” an “anti-Muslim” political ad against Ms. Mesbah over the pro-Palestinian comment she said she regretted making online as a 13-year-old.
“Anti-Muslim bigotry is not unique to any particular party, and no party is immune to it,” Mr. Mitchell told The Washington Times on Friday.
“The perception is that only the Republicans have a problem with Muslims, but the truth is that you find Islamaphobia [sic] on the Democratic side, too,” he added.
Ms. Mesbah declined to discuss the incident, which erupted after the ad featuring her childhood comment prompted fellow College Democrats to accuse her of antisemitism and push for her censure.
The letter includes testimony from several Muslim members of the organization, including College Democrats Muslim Caucus Chair Tyrese Rice, who complained on Ms. Mesbah’s behalf about the “bigoted and imbalanced implications of the organization” at both the state and national levels.
“There was a lack of Muslim representation and an underlying stigma against discussion [of] related topics and concepts,” Mr. Rice said about the College Democrats when he first joined them.
Another comment in the letter from an anonymous student says CDA perpetuates a culture of hostility toward “Palestinian liberation” and silences Muslim students who speak up about it.
“By creating a space to allow Muslim members to be called ‘jihadist[s]’ among other names, we have abandoned our progressive ideals,” the student writes.
The College Democrats have not responded to Mr. Mitchell’s letter, and their spokesman did not respond Friday to telephone and email requests for comment.
Reached Friday afternoon, a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee declined to comment on the dispute….
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2021-11-17 16:52:002021-11-17 16:52:00Hamas-linked CAIR accuses College Democrats of America of ‘Islamophobia’
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jamie Glazovhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJamie Glazov2021-11-17 08:37:212021-11-17 08:37:46Watch Mike Lindell’s Historic Interview With President Donald J. Trump.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2021-11-17 13:52:062021-11-17 13:52:06Watch Mike Lindell’s Historic Interview With President Donald J. Trump.
Rather than relying on climate change models that could be the basis of expansive and costly regulations, policymakers should instead question those models, focusing on the legitimacy of their underlying assumptions.
So said The Heritage Foundation’s chief statistician at a recent climate change conference in Las Vegas that preceded the international summit in Glasgow, Scotland, that concludes today.
While the Biden administration continues to pursue regulatory policies based on a concept known as the “social cost of carbon,” increased carbon dioxide emissions have led to a “greening of the planet,” Kevin Dayaratna, principal statistician and data scientist for The Heritage Foundation said in his presentation at the Heartland Institute’s 14th International Climate Change Conference.
The nonprofit, Illinois-based free-market think tank attracted dozens of scientists, economists, and academics from across the globe to the conference, which ran from Oct. 15 to 17.
The Heartland Institute is a co-sponsor of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, which has brought together scientists, researchers, and scholars from across the globe who dispute U.N. findings that point to catastrophic climate change. Dayaratna is among the researchers who have advised policymakers to refrain from enacting anti-carbon measures in the name of averting climate change.
“Regardless of one’s predictions on the extent of human influence on climate change, commonly proffered solutions by lawmakers here, such as carbon taxes and ‘cap and trade,’ will have no meaningful impact on altering the climate anyway, as we’ve demonstrated in prior Heritage Foundation research,” Dayaratna told The Daily Signal, the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.
Dubious Assumptions on Social Cost of Carbon
The social cost of carbon is typically defined as “the economic damages per metric ton of carbon dioxide emissions,” according to Dayaratna’s slide presentation at the Heartland conference.
There are three statistical models the Obama administration used to measure the long-term economic impact of carbon dioxide emissions over a particular time horizon, Dayaratna explained. They are the DICE model, the FUND model, and the PAGE model.
The Biden administration recently reinstituted Obama-era climate-modeling exercises that attempt to calculate the social cost of carbon. But an “honest cost/benefit analysis” of carbon dioxide emissions is not possible under current modeling practices, Dayaratna said. That’s because the assumptions built into the climate models overstate recent warming trends while failing to account for the positive attributes of carbon dioxide, the data analyst told his audience.
“The benefits of CO2 may outweigh the damages,” Dayaratna said.
“In fact, when more realistic assumptions about how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide emissions are plugged into the climate models, many of the damages disappear from the forecasts,” he added.
“Is global warming necessarily a bad thing?” he asked, answering his own question: “CO2 in the atmosphere can increase agricultural productivity.”
One of Dayaratna’s slide presentations included a satellite image of “the Greening of the Earth” that occurred from 1982 to 2009. The Heritage Foundation statistician also cited a newspaper article in The Guardian dating back to 2004 that described how Pentagon officials told then-President George W. Bush that climate change over the following 20 years could “bring the planet to the edge of anarchy” and that “nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine, and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.”
The fact that those predictions of a catastrophe have not materialized demonstrates that there’s still much to learn about climate change and that climate models such as those used to calculate the social cost of carbon are “highly sensitive to assumptions” that may not be accurate, Dayaratna warned.
“‘Settled science’ is an oxymoron,” he said. “Science is never settled.”
Understating Benefits of Carbon Dioxide
Dayaratna is the co-author of a peer-reviewed research article that explores “the implications of recent empirical findings about CO2 fertilization and climate sensitivity on the social cost of carbon in the FUND model.”
He and his colleagues selected the FUND model because, unlike the other models, the FUND model accounts for the possibility of agricultural benefits.
Nevertheless, they conclude that even the FUND model understates the benefits of carbon dioxide.
There is “overwhelming evidence that CO2 increases do have a beneficial effect on plant growth, so models that fail to take these benefits into account overstate the [social cost of carbon],” the research article says. “The recent literature on global greening and the response of agricultural crops to enhanced CO2 availability suggests that the productivity boost is likely stronger than that parameterized in FUND.”
After making “reasonable” adjustments to “agricultural productivity specifications” in combination with “moderate warming” forecasts that can be plugged into climate models, Dayaratna finds that there are “social benefits” to what he describes as the “lukewarming” the planet has experienced.
“There has indeed been man-made global warming, but the extent to which humans have contributed to it over the last century has been vastly overstated,” Dayaratna told The Daily Signal in an interview.
To use a term coined by Pat Michaels of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I like to refer to it as ‘lukewarming.’ The climate models also greatly overstate the amount of warming that is likely to occur going forward. Human CO2 emissions are indeed responsible for some warming, but much of it is the result of natural influences and this ‘lukewarming’ we have experienced, which is fairly mild, has benefits that are overlooked.
Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring, colorless, odorless, nontoxic gas. It is a key element of photosynthesis and thus has agricultural benefits, and to consider it only as a pollutant that solely has deleterious effects is a mistake.
Dayaratna offered some advice for policymakers and the public at the conclusion of his Oct. 16 presentation.
“Models are highly sensitive to assumptions, and the Biden administration is using these same models,” he said. “We need to think seriously about the administration’s estimates, and the assumptions that went into producing them.”
If not, Dayaratna cautioned, predictions as inaccurate as those provided to Bush in 2004 could beguile the public into accepting costly regulatory policies that do not square with scientific observations.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2021-11-17 02:00:002021-11-17 02:00:00Climate Models Overlook Benefits of CO2 and ‘Lukewarming,’ Data Scientist Says
The Glasgow climate summit and recent bold climate proposals are more about politics and do little to actually help the global environment.
The recent climate summit in Glasgow saw world leaders gather together to unanimously declare—as articulated by U.S. President Joe Biden himself—climate change as the “[paramount] challenge of our collective lifetimes.” Calling on the world community to devote themselves to confronting this “existential threat,” Biden cited his own administration’s lofty goal of reducing carbon emissions by at least 50 percent in the lead up to 2030.
“High energy prices only reinforce the urgent need to diversify sources, double down on clean energy development, and adapt promising new clean energy technologies.” This will ostensibly manifest through the type of long-term development envisioned in the massive infrastructure bill currently making its way through Congress.
As previously stated in this publication, the United States—as well as the developed economies of Western Europe—is hardly the primary cause of concern for those who would wish to see lower carbon emissions on a global scale. Substantial growth projected in greenhouse gas emissions is largely due to developing countries, such as India and China, which are poised to continue increasing their reliance on coal. The latter country has already set plans in motion to build increased capacity for the high carbon-emitting fuel, while the former currently sees about 70 percent of its electricity output derived from coal.
That does not mean that the United States needs to simply disregard its levels of carbon emissions. The U.S. still relies on dirtier forms of petroleum for 35 percent of its energy consumption, and coal for 10 percent. Prioritizing a transition to natural gas, in addition to the energy security made possible through independence from imports, would see real movement in measurable reductions to U.S. emissions. Instead, with the price of natural gas doubling in part due to the Biden administration’spolicy choices, the use of coal has subsequently increased by 22 percent in 2021. Despite upending U.S. energy independence, the president apparently sees no irony in shamelessly asking for OPEC to increase production in an effort to reduce gas and oil prices.
The attempts of developed Western nations to subsidize policy that radically overhauls the energy landscape have a less than stellar record. Echoes of the Obama-eraSolyndra scandal still reverberate in the energy industry. Germany’s attempt to heavily subsidize wind and solar in the 2010s led to a significant increase in burning coal, due to the inability of the former two to provide energy without interruption. Although the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline may imply a more realpolitik approach in Berlin to ensuring a stable and clean source of fuel, coal burning still tops wind as the country’s primary source of electricity.
While U.S. renewable energy investment continued to rise by significant amounts throughout the Trump administration—despite claims that the former president heavily favored the oil and gas industries—frozen windmills in Texas this past winter, although not responsible for blackouts, displayed the danger of relying entirely on fickle renewables. The impact of the weather freezing the turbines led to a 60 percent drop in wind-energy production compared to the previous week.
These facts, however, are all irrelevant to those attempting to place climate as the central axiom around which to enact a new green-centric policy agenda. That is because their true goal is radical social reorganization based on equity-based notions of justice. The acolytes of transformational programs such as the Green New Deal are not interested in pragmatic, if gradual, steps that would allow the United States to practically and effectively become more energy efficient; rather, they are interested in recasting society according to ideological principles.
This is not the rambling of conspiracy theorists who envision an underground lair of technocratic elites laying the foundations for a one-world government—it is the words of the agenda’s own proponents. Vice President Kamala Harris, in collaboration with Green New Deal champion Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, last year introduced the Climate Equity Act (CEA) in the Senate, in order to “center [the fight against climate change] in justice and equity.” Equity, as aptly described by James Lindsay, is shifting resources and shares in a system so as to ensure that outcomes proportionally resemble the envisioned conception of fairness.
Harris’s cosponsoring of the CEA is not an aberration in an otherwise moderate climate policy; it is rather a testament to the Biden administration’s wholesale buy-in to the radical green agenda. The 46th president has additionally created the new Office of Domestic Climate Policy, headed by chief of staff Maggie Thomas who has previously stated that there is “no role for natural gas” in the nation’s energy mix, short-term or otherwise. Instead, she supports a goal of 90 percent of electricity production coming from renewables by the year 2035. Another new establishment under the Health and Human Services Department is the Office of Climate Change and Health Equity, tasked with the stated mission of “protecting vulnerable communities” from the impact of climate change. It is easy to see how these vaguely defined executive appointments not beholden to an electorate could morph into centralized authorities for enforcing a radical equity-based agenda—in fact, they would likely welcome the task in their mission statement.
During the Glasgow summit, President Biden additionally took it upon himself to apologize for the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords during the Trump administration. Trump had originally withdrawn from the pact under the auspices of its disadvantageous impact on U.S. industry. Citing a commitment to the American workers, Trump criticized the deal as resulting in “lost jobs, lowered wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.” Considering the achievement of (now eliminated) energy independence, the United States becoming a net exporter of oil in 2019 for the first time in its history, a continued growth in renewables, and all while still managing a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, one has to question how exactly participation in the Paris Accord was in the national interest of the United States.
The answer is that it wasn’t. It wasn’t even really advantageous to the interest of reducing global carbon emissions. As previously stated, if multilateral agreements such as the Paris Climate Accord actually wanted to invest resources in the areas which are most crucial to reducing carbon emissions—in other words, where they would receive the greatest return on investment—they would focus almost exclusively on the challenges posed by developing countries.
This, however, is not the concern of those who seek to overhaul the world economy and hamstring western industry along the way. Those interested in a recasting of society are not concerned with actual concrete steps that would practically allow the United States to approach reductions in carbon, as well as more energy efficient solutions, through innovation and ingenuity. They are also not interested in prioritizing energy security for American citizens.
At the summit, Prince Charles called for a “war-like footing” on the climate issue, proclaiming the need of a “Marshall-like plan.” Another Brit, much greater and deserving of our attention, previously stated that there are those who will seek to perpetuate a sense of crisis in times of peace, so as to justify the individual citizen’s subjugation to the state. “The argument…that economic crises are only another form of war, such that we must live our lives in a perpetual state of war…this, of course, is the socialist view.” These words were written by Winston Churchill in defense of the U.S. Constitution, as a response to (ironically) the big-government views of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt.
According to Churchill, once the government found a seemingly just cause that it could utilize to incite the passions of its people, it would then be able to manipulate their desire to do good for its own purposes. After the individual is brought under the “subjugation of the executive government,” Churchill continued, “socialism…[allows] the rulers to demand of him in time of peace sacrifices only tolerable in a period of national self-preservation.”
Those who wish a radical overhaul of society—whether out of a genuine belief in the greater good or from a selfish desire for power—have found an issue that allows them to invoke a sense of moral superiority. What higher duty is there than responsible stewardship of our natural home, the earth? We must be on our guard that our desire to live up to this task does not blind us to the schemes of those who would seek personal advantage from our goodwill.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2021-11-17 01:55:002021-11-17 01:55:00Environmental Solutions, Not Social Overhaul
A new TV ad that spotlights Pfizer vaccine-related injuries suffered by 13-year-old Maddie de Garay was killed Friday late afternoon by Comcast attorneys after initially accepting the ad on Thursday. The ad was slated to run multiple times before and during the FDA’s VRBPAC Meeting on Pfizer Data on its COVID-19 Vaccine for Children 5-11.
After initially accepting the 60 Second TV Ad, Comcast attorneys killed it at the last minute.
Live Journal reported in an article titled “Maddie de Garay” reported:
Twitter censored a video from Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson’s Monday press conference that depicts a mother discussing her daughter’s adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine.
Maddie de Garay, a 12-year-old girl from Cincinnati, Ohio, was hospitalized several times after receiving her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. She participated in a clinical trial from December 2020 to January 2021. In a now-censored clip shared on Twitter, Maddie’s mother Stephanie discussed what happened after Maddie was vaccinated.
“On January 20th, Maddie received her second dose of the Pfizer COVID vaccine as a participant in the clinical trial for 12 -and -15-year-olds. Stephanie said. “All three of our kids volunteered and were excited to participate in the trial as a way to help us all return to normal life. My husband works in the medical field and I have a degree in electrical engineering. We are pro-vaccine and pro-science — which is why we agreed to let Maddie and her two older brothers volunteer for the trial.”
“She had painful electrical shocks down her neck and spine that forced her to walk hunched over,” Stephanie said. “She had extreme pain in her fingers and toes, and it actually made them turn white, and they were cold whenever you touched them.”
12-year-old Maddie was enrolled in the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial.
“I’ve waited 7 months for Pfizer or the FDA to acknowledge what happened to my daughter and they haven’t. They tried to ignore her injuries. With these ads, she will finally have the chance to be in the room with them, to be seen by them, and for her voice to be heard.”
Despite almost no publicity, the public can submit public comments to the FDA for its VRBPAC meeting on Pfizer Data taking place 10/26 for Children ages 5-11.
This is Maddie – she’s 13 and wants to be a pediatric nurse.
When the COVID vaccine became available she volunteered to test it. She said she wanted to help other kids.
(pause)
This is her now.
(pause)
There are thousands of others like her. They are ignored by the FDA, by the media. She believed it when they said it was safe.
Stephanie, Maddie’s mother, who has voted Democratic in the last two elections narrates the ad.
“She wanted to help others, to help the world get back to normal,” said Stephanie. “She now has lost the ability to walk and relies on an NG tube for all of her nutrition.”
The new physicians treating Maddie asked her about her “anxiety” that was put in her charts in March of 2021, two months after her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Maddie looked them straight in the eye and said, “I did not have anxiety before and do not have anxiety now other than from the doctors who have not believed me.”
“She received her vaccine on January 20 and came into our room in the middle of the night, she said she didn’t feel right and couldn’t sleep. She has been waiting 8 months to be acknowledged by Pfizer, the FDA, and CDC and has not even received acknowledgment from any of them, not an email, a phone call, or a text. Nothing. At least with this ad, we know that Maddie will be in the room with the decision-makers and if that can help innocent children in the future not become victims injured by the Pfizer covid vaccine then that is a win in our minds.”
“I’ve waited 7 months for Pfizer or the FDA to acknowledge what happened to my daughter and they haven’t. They tried to ignore her injuries. With these ads, she will finally have the chance to be in the room with them, to be seen by them, and for her voice to be heard.”
Despite almost no publicity, the public can submit public comments to the FDA for its VRBPAC meeting on Pfizer Data taking place 10/26 for Children ages 5-11. A link to submit a public comment can be found here.
The video is just one in a series named “The Unacknowledged – the Victims of the Vaccine.” And is a component of a national education effort organized by the not-for-profit organization, the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation.
According to the FDA and CDC, the government’s only way to record injuries and deaths attributed to vaccines is the website called the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System or, VAERS by self-reporting or by a healthcare professional reporting. According to VAERS, which is overseen by the FDA and CDC, there have been:
55,821 Post-COVID Vaccine Reported Hospitalizations/133,592 Total VAERS Reported Hospitalizations,
623,341 COVID Vaccine Adverse Event Reports
Maddie de Garay volunteered for the Pfizer trial for 12–15-year-olds and received her first dose on 12/30/20 and her second dose on 1/20/21. At free the approval for the Pfizer vaccine for 12–15-year-olds in May, she was unblinded and confirmed that she got the vaccine.
Maddie’s symptoms occurred almost immediately after the second dose in the Pfizer trial. For example, according to medical records and her mother’s documentation, within 12 hours Maddie experienced:
Fever 101-102
Electric shocks up and down spine to neck
Fingers/hands turned white, were swollen and were ice cold when you touched them
Tachycardia (she said her heart felt like it was being ripped out through her neck)
Severe abdominal pain
All over body muscle/nerve pain and spasms – you couldn’t touch her anywhere and she said it even hurt to lay down
She walked hunched over and with her toes up
Severe headache
Nausea
Blood in her urine
CRP was 2.90
Maddie continued to decline over the following 3 months and developed these symptoms:
Unable to walk
Lost feeling below her waist
Tremors
Convulsions/Passed out
Nausea, vomiting, difficulty swallowing and eventually unable to swallow any liquids or solids (Ng tube placed which she still has)
Gastroparesis, stool blockage that she was hospitalized for a clean out
Urinary retention requiring a catheter that is still a problem today
Brain fog, mixing up words, memory loss
Muscle weakness throughout body to the point she could not even bathe herself
Loss of neck control and muscle spasms
Rash all over her arm
White tongue
Throat pain
Bone pain in arm where she got injection
Feet peeling
Skin peeling on head
Reflux, feeds even come up through her Ng tube
Weight gain (only getting feeds so not overeating)
Heavy periods with clumps of blood
Inability to sweat or control her body temperature
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2021-11-17 00:51:372021-11-17 00:51:37VIDEO: Comcast Censors VAXX Injured 13-Year Old Girl Who Volunteered for Pfizer Trial
“We talk about price tags. It is zero price tag on the debt. We’re paying — we’re going to pay for everything we spend.”— President Biden, remarks to reporters, Sept. 24
“My Build Back Better Agenda costs zero dollars.”— Biden, in a tweet, Sept. 25
TOPLINE: We as congressional Republicans have an urgent duty to tell the truth about what’s REALLY in the Democrats’ $3.5T big government socialist takeover and warn the American people what’s coming.
Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN), the chairman of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), released an exhaustive list of some of the most radical aspects of the Democrats’ “socialist takeover bill.”
Perpetuates labor shortage: Continues welfare benefits without work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents at a time where there are 10.1 million job openings—more openings than there are people looking for work.
Commissions a climate police: Democrats stuffed $8 billion into the bill to commission a cabal of federally funded climate police called the Civilian Climate Corps (CCC) who will conduct progressive activism on taxpayers’ dime (pages 8, 21, and 926).
Pushes Green New Deal in our public schools: Requires funding for school construction be used largely on enrollment diversity and Green New Deal agenda items (page 55).
Pushes Green New Deal in our universities: Democrats include a $10 billion “environmental justice” higher education slush fund to indoctrinate college students and advance Green New Deal policies (page 1,935).
Forces faith-based child care providers out: The bill blocks the ability of many faith-based providers from participating in the childcare system and will lead to many of their closures (page 280).
Hurts small and in-home daycares: Requires pre-K staff to have a college degree. (page 303)
Includes new incentives for illegal immigration: Illegal immigrants will be eligible to take advantage of Democrats’ new ‘free’ college entitlement (page 92) as well be eligible for additional student aid (page 147) and the enhanced child tax credit (page 1,946).
Includes legislative hull for Biden’s vaccine mandate: Increases OSHA penalties on businesses that fail to implement the mandate up to $700,000 per violation and includes $2.6 billion in funding for the Department of Labor to increase enforcement of these penalties (page 168).
Gives unions near-total control: The bill includes insane prohibitions that would bind employers’ hands in union disputes and dangerously tilt the balance of power, subjecting employers to penalties that exempt union bosses and officials… among other things this bill would prevent employers from permanently replacing striking workers (page 175). It coerces businesses to meet union boss demands by increasing Fair Labor Standards Act penalties by an astronomical 900% (page 168).
Makes unions bigger and more powerful: The bill would subsidize union dues that would only serve to strengthen the influence of union bosses and not American workers (page 2323).
Pushes Democrats’ wasteful and confusing school lunch agenda: $643 million for, among other things, “procuring…culturally appropriate foods” (page 333).
Furthers radical abortion agenda: Does not include the Hyde amendment and would mandate taxpayers pay for abortions (page 198) & (page 336).
Drives up costs on Americans’ utility bills: Issues a punitive methane tax (page 367) and includes a tax on natural gas up to $1,500 per ton that could cost the American economy up to $9.1 billion and cost 90,000 Americans their jobs (page 368).
Includes dangerous & deadly green energy mandate: Effectively forces Americans to get 40% of their energy from wind, solar and other unreliable forms of energy within 8 years (page 392). Reliance on these energy sources has proven deadly.
Includes kickbacks for the Left’s green energy special interest network: $5 billion for “environmental and climate justice block grants” (page 377) and another $100 billion in green energy special interest subsidies, loans and other carve outs.
Gives wealthy Americans tax credits: $222 billion in “green energy” tax credits will be given to those who can afford expensive electric vehicles and other “green” innovative products (page 1832).
Furthers Democrats’ social justice agenda: Includes “equity” initiatives throughout the bill and, in one instance, Democrats inserted “equity” language into a title which should have been focusing on the maintenance of the United States’ cyber security efforts (page 897).
Grants amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants: House Democrats have included in their reconciliation bill a plan to grant amnesty to around 8 million illegal immigrants at a cost of around $100 billion over ten years that would largely be spent on welfare and other entitlements (page 901). Trillions more would be spent long term on their Social Security and Medicare.
Opens border even wider: The bill would waive many grounds for immigration inadmissibility, including infection or lack of vaccination status during a Pandemic, failure to attend removal proceedings in previous immigration cases, and the previous renouncement of American citizenship. DHS may also waive previous convictions for human trafficking, narcotics violations, and illegal voting (page 903).
Increases visa limit: At least 226,000 family-preference visas would be administered each year (page 905).
Grants fast-tracked green cards for those seeking middle-class careers in America: Language included in the bill exempts certain aliens from the annual green card statutory limits and has been described as a “hidden pipeline for U.S. employers to flood more cheap foreign graduates into millions of middle-class careers needed by American graduates” (page 910).
Includes pork for Nancy Pelosi: $200 million is earmarked for the Presidio Trust in Speaker Pelosi’s congressional district (page 933).
Increases energy dependence on OPEC, Russia and China: The bill prohibits several mineral and energy withdrawals (page 979). It overturns provisions included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that authorized energy production in the Arctic that will result in 130,000 Americans losing their jobs and $440 billion in lost federal revenue (page 983) and the mineral withdrawals it prohibits would, ironically, include minerals necessary for renewable energy sources (pages 934, 940, 943).
Exacerbates the chip shortage: The bill would mandate the conversion of the entire federal vehicle fleet from internal combustion engines to electric engines at a time when there is a global microchip shortage and crippled supply chains (page 1,043).
Democrats’ feckless China bill is included: Concepts from the insanely weak Endless Frontier Act included, including $11 billion in research funding that will likely result in American intellectual property going to China (page 1079 – 1081).
Chases green energy pipe dreams: $264 million to the EPA to conduct research with left-wing environmental justice groups on how to transition away from fossil fuels (page 1063).
Fixes “racist” roads and bridges: Adds a nearly $4 billion slush fund that would help left-wing grassroots organizations that, among other things, want to tear down and rebuild or otherwise alter infrastructure deemed “racist” (page 1183).
Punishes red states for failing to adopt Green New Deal provisions: Mandates “consequences” for conservative states that don’t meet the radical Left’s “green” climate standards while at the same time adding nearly $4 billion for “Community Climate Incentive Grants” for cooperating states (page 1179).
Includes new massive, bankrupting entitlement: The new paid leave entitlement would mandate workers get 12 weeks of paid leave and would cost $500 billion over ten years according to the CBO (page 1245). It would apply to those making up to half a million dollars a year (page 1254).
Advances a totalitarian and paternalistic view of the federal government: Includes grants for organizations to treat individuals suffering from “loneliness” and “social isolation.”
Further detaches individuals from employment and more reliant on government handouts: The bill spends $835 billion on welfare through manipulating the tax code [not including the expansions of Obamacare subsidies] (page 1943).
Tax benefits for the top 1%: The bill will possibly lift the SALT deduction cap meaning many of the top 1% wealthiest Americans would pay less in taxes.
Tax credit for wealthy donors who give to woke universities: The bill creates a new tax credit program that gives tax credits worth 40% of cash contribution that are made to university research programs (page 2094).
Expands worst parts of Obamacare: Obamacare’s job-killing employer mandate will become more severe by adjusting the definition of “affordable coverage” to mean coverage that costs no more than 8.5 percent of income rather than current law’s 9.5 percent of income (page 2041).
Increases taxes on Americans at every income level: $2 trillion in tax hikes will fall on those making under $400,000 per year, contrary to what the White House says. Individuals at all income levels will be affected (Ways and Means GOP).
Lowers wages for working families: The corporate tax rate will increase by 5.5%, meaning American companies will face one of the highest tax burdens in the world. According to analysis, two-thirds of this tax hike will fall on lower- and middle-income taxpayers (page 2110).
Penalizes marriage: The bill would permanently double the EITC’s marriage penalty on childless worker benefits (page 2036).
Imposes crushing taxes on small business: Guts the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act small business deductions that reduced pass-through entity taxes to keep them comparable to taxes imposed on corporations (page 2235) as well as hammer small businesses that file as individual tax earners with the 39.6% rate (page 2221) and Obamacare’s 3.8% tax on net investment income.
Crushes family businesses and farms: The bill would impose a 25% capital gains rate (page 2226) and makes alterations to the Death Tax including cutting the Death Tax exemption in half (page 2240).
Violates Americans’ financial privacy: $80 billion slush fund to hire an 87,000-IRS-agent army to carry out the Biden administration’s plan to review every account above a $600 balance or with more than $600 of transactions in a year. (page 2283).
Increases out of pocket costs for those who rely on prescription drugs: The bill repeals the Trump-era Rebate Rule which passes through rebates directly to consumers at the point of sale (page 2465).
Imports policies from countries with socialized medicine: The bill includes healthcare policies imported from systems in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom—all countries that have government-run healthcare systems (page 2349).
The bill also has other lesser-known provisions, including:
$5 million per year for the Small Business Administration for an entrepreneurial program for formerly incarcerated individuals.
$2.5 billion for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to award competitive grants or contracts to local governments, community-based organizations, and other groups to support “intervention strategies” to reduce community violence.
Banks charged in the RSC release,
“Each of these 42 bullets is enough to vote against the bill. Taken together—it’s mind-blowingly corrupt. We need to loudly oppose it.”
Banks added,
“Democrats are scattered. The Biden agenda is in question. It’s the perfect opportunity to build public sentiment against this bill. The American people need us to be the vanguard against the Left’s radical plans.”
Banks concluded,
“It’s not an understatement to say this bill, if passed, will fundamentally change our country forever—Americans will wake up in a few years and wonder what happened to their freedom. We can’t let that happen . “
26 state school board associations distance themselves from national group
More than half of state school board associations have distanced themselves from the national association after it sent a letter to President Joe Biden asking for federal intervention to investigate parents who protest at local meetings.
Of the 26 that have repudiated the letter, 11 have discontinued their membership with the National School Boards Association (NSBA) after Kentucky did so Wednesday.
In the Sept 29 letter, the NSBA likened parents protesting the teaching of critical race theory, mask mandates and other local school decisions to domestic terrorists and sought federal help.
The NSBA is a national association that state school board associations are members of and pay dues to.
In response to NSBA’s letter, the U.S. Justice Department and Merrick Garland instructed the FBI to monitor and investigate parents protesting at local school board meetings.
Parents Defending Education emailed 47 state school board associations for comment on the NSBA’s Sept. 29 letter. Hawaii and Washington, D.C. associations are not NSBA members and Virginia and Louisiana had already made public statements by the time PDE sent the letter.
PDE asked the associations to confirm or deny if they were in agreement with the NSBA’s position, to state how they define “intimidation,” “harassment,” and “threat,” and if they planned on reporting individuals in their states to the U.S. Department of Justice. It also published their responses online.
As of Wednesday, 26 states have distanced themselves from the NSBA’s letter: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
Among them, 11 states have taken action by withdrawing their membership, participation, or dues from NSBA: Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.
Several states did not respond to PDE’s letter at all: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia. California replied by stating that it declined to respond to the questions.
“We believe the letter from NSBA leadership demonstrated how out of touch the national association is with the concerns of local school boards and the principle of local control,” Ohio’s association said. “Because of that, OSBA no longer sees the value of continued NSBA membership.”
Pennsylvania’s association said NSBA’s letter saying comparing upset parents to domestic terrorists “was the final straw” after the organization had already been questioning the value of keeping its NSBA membership. It added that NSBA had “fomented more disputes and cast partisanship on our work on behalf of school directors, when we seek to find common ground and support all school directors in their work, no matter their politics.”
The New Hampshire School Boards Association said it plans on withdrawing its membership but has not yet done so officially.
The Montana School Board Association will formally leave the NSBA in July 2022, as it already renewed its membership in July of this year.
Alabama withheld its dues to NSBA and plans to vote on whether to leave in December. Florida did not submit dues to NSBA and expressed its opposition to the NSBA’s position. Kentucky’s association leadership is currently evaluating the benefits of continued membership in NSBA. Mississippi says it doesn’t support NSBA’s action and will be meeting to address the situation.
Many of the associations that responded to Parents Defending Education said they had not been asked or informed by NSBA before it sent the letter. In fact, the letter was sent without their knowledge or input from the state associations it is supposed to represent, they added.
Delaware’s association said NSBA’s letter “was a clear overreach” and “violates the fundamental principle of local authority, upon which the Delaware public education system is founded and structured.”
Idaho’s association said, “Had we been asked, we would have readily pointed out the mischaracterization of parents and patrons in our communities as domestic terrorists who merited federal investigation. We want parents and patrons engaged in our public schools – we have sought that for years.
Illinois’ association said, “This is not the first disagreement that IASB has had with NSBA. Prior to this incident, the IASB Board of Directors was evaluating its relationship with NSBA. IASB previously expressed concerns to NSBA about problems related to governance, transparency, and financial oversight. IASB suspended payment of dues to NSBA for 2021-2022 and sought to address these concerns through changes to the governance structure of the national association.
“IASB disagrees with NSBA’s decision to request federal intervention, and the decision by NSBA leadership to tie the request to claims of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”
New Jersey’s association said it doesn’t endorse the letter, and NSBA’s position doesn’t “reflect the beliefs and policies of NJSBA.” It said it has expressed its disapproval of the letter and “strongly supports the ability of parents and citizens to voice their opinions at board meetings, which is a fundamental principle of our democracy.”
Big political moves are afoot in the People’s Republic of China. A critical Politburo meeting is set to begin on November 8 but, as in Joseph Stalin’s time, it will effectively be a meeting of one, with everyone else merely playing the political equivalent of a movie extra. It is the latest development, reported Katsuji Nakazawa, “connected to the bid by Xi Jinping, the country’s president, and the party’s general secretary, to become leader for life.” This will be bad for the U.S., but it will be much worse for China.
Some Americans appear to believe that the Chinese Communist Party has already won. The dubious bromides are many. The Chinese think long-term. The Chinese leaders are knowledgeable technocrats. The Chinese Communists have transcended the vagaries of democracy.
In fact, the People’s Republic of China faces enormous challenges. Economic growth has been built on feet of, if not clay, then a soft metal, such as tin. Heavily indebted state enterprises owe big bucks to overextended state banks. Expensive ghost cities await new residents. Repeated property bubbles have swallowed enormous wealth. Rising state interference in business discourages outside investment. The population will soon begin shrinking, leaving an aging populace and diminishing workforce with a surplus of unmarried young males. Even if the long forecast Chinese economic collapse never occurs, the PRC might not escape what has been called the middle-income trap.
However, an even bigger problem for China may be its political weaknesses. No doubt, America has put the failures of democracy on dramatic display. Nevertheless, the U.S. political system, despite its many flaws, retains a rough form of accountability. Presidents are defeated and Congresses change party control. Similar shifts occur at the state level. Moreover, politicians whose grandiose plans fail generally face a cascade of criticism even as their supporters attempt to circle the wagons. With a constitutional commitment to civil and political liberties, though much tattered after decades of assault by illiberal forces on both right and left, America retains a creative spark so often crushed elsewhere, like in the People’s Republic of China.
Imperial China existed for thousands of years, but faltered when it turned isolationist around the 15th century. The once great empire’s lassitude was most evident in what the Chinese call the “Century of Humiliation,” during which the country was effectively dismembered. Japan took Taiwan; the United Kingdom grabbed what became Hong Kong; Portugal gained Macau; Tokyo and various Western powers, including America, created territorial “concessions” within the country which operated outside of China’s control. For instance, in Shanghai the US, UK, and France enjoyed favored status; the waterfront Bund still showcases European-style structures dating back to that time.
The Communist revolution ended foreign control. Mao Zedong rose to lead the CCP. He understood nothing about economics but had a preternatural instinct for wielding power—brutally but effectively. The communists largely allowed the nationalists to exhaust themselves resisting the Japanese invasion and then with Soviet aid won the ensuing struggle after Tokyo’s surrender.
Mao cared nothing about the human cost of victory, so long as others did the dying. Julia Lovell, at Birkbeck, University of London, explained: “To conquer key cities in the industrial northeast, Communist commanders laid siege to civilian populations. ‘Turn Changchun into a city of death,’ proclaimed Lin Biao, one of Mao’s most successful strategists, in 1948. By the time the metropolis fell five terrible months later, 160,000 non-combatants had died of starvation.”
This strategy was terribly cruel, but it worked. On October 1, 1949 Mao Zedong proclaimed the new PRC government in Tiananmen Square. He famously announced that “the Chinese people have stood up.” In theory, that should have been good for the Chinese people. Alas, liberation meant tyranny, which benefited only those at the top.
The resulting chaos, injustice, and bloodshed was barely imaginable, and it was overwhelmingly the responsibility of the new Red Emperor. Mao sought to destroy the existing order and expected, even desired, enormous slaughter. Millions died as the CCP consolidated power. Wrote Frank Dikötter, who documented many of Mao’s greatest abuses, the CCP leader targeted pre-revolutionary relationships “so that nothing would stand between the people and the party … Nobody was to stand on the sidelines. Everybody was to have blood on their hands.”
Then came the misnamed Great Leap Forward, which collectivized agriculture and built backyard steelworks, among other lunatic schemes. Tens of millions died, with estimates topping out at an astonishing 55 million, most starved to death. His power was such that even other Politburo members, though aware of the disastrous impact of his policies, refused to challenge him as millions of their countrymen died horrid deaths. His colleagues eventually pushed him aside, causing him to unleash the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution—part party purge, part civil war, part insane paroxysm of violence—which dramatically upended the social order. Chinese citizens high and low alike were imprisoned and killed prodigiously.
Relief came only when this most terrible tyrant died in 1976. Almost immediately Mao’s most fervid supporters, the so-called Gang of Four, were arrested. Deng Xiaoping returned to the fore and began the process of economic liberalization. The totalitarian society relaxed its grip over people’s personal lives. Although hope for equivalent political reform died along with hundreds of protestors in the 1989 crackdown after widespread protests in Tiananmen Square and elsewhere, even that was a closely run affair, with significant support for a freer China within the CCP. Moreover, the resulting authoritarian system remained loose, with veiled debates over policy, independent journalists critical of local officials, human rights lawyers fighting in court, NGOs urging political reform, extensive academic cooperation with the West, presidential term limits and rotation in office, and more.
This all meant that there were extensive information flows, competition in ideas, and political turnover. Indeed, Deng and his successors sought to restrict the retention of power in a Communist system of unlimited political authority which is no easy feat. The constitution held the president to two terms; the party informally applied the same restriction on the general secretary, a position more important than the president.
The result was not perfect, certainly, but was an extraordinary improvement over the Mad Mao era, with policy emanating from one demented mind and demotion if not prison awaiting anyone brash enough to challenge the emperor reborn. No doubt, economic reform was key to the PRC’s growth, but so was the end of Mao, who was treated as near divine even as he grew mentally and physically enfeebled. That one man could cause so much social devastation and death highlighted the dramatic human price often paid by dictatorships.
The new system appeared to work reasonably well as China grew economically. Alas, of late the future doesn’t look so bright. Some mistakes mirror those in America—wasting vast amounts of money on unproductive security and military outlays. Result-oriented, politicized regulation. Continuing political pressure to intervene in economic policy. Dubious foreign economic adventures.
Presently, a huge and growing problem is the current president and general secretary, Xi Jinping, who is remolding himself as Mao II. He ruthlessly deployed a widespread anti-corruption campaign against his political rivals. He removed presidential term limits from the constitution. He has even instituted a China-wide campaign to impose Beijing’s will on industry. Business entrepreneurs and corporate titans like Alibaba’s Jack Ma have been brought to heel.
Xi’s insistence on greater political hegemony is intensifying the PRC’s ongoing economic problems. Grotesque economic inefficiency is embedded within the Chinese system. For instance, state enterprises are still used to provide employment, irrespective of the economic consequences. Moreover, businesses must surmount the great firewall and other controls to gain access to the world’s information, people, markets, and more. Now, however, ever more economic decisions are being decided by the CCP leadership.
This problem almost certainly will grow worse. Indeed, one of Xi’s latest ideological jihads was against those who reject his godlike aspirations. After a decade he should be firmly in power, but apparently resistance to his rule continues within the top leadership. The recent publication of his “selected discourses” included an attack “on what he called ‘discordant and cacophonous voices’ in the party. He cited unnamed cadres saying that, ‘we have for the past five years sufficiently stressed concentration [of powers] and unity in the party… [and] from now on we must put the emphasis on developing democracy within the party.” He attacked his critics’ “political obfuscation and mental obtuseness” and use of “ulterior motives to push through [evil] agendas.”
Xi’s extraordinary power trip is not good for China’s future. Like Mao, Xi has become a Red Emperor, though with even more people, 1.4 billion, subject to his every whim. And, like Mao, he is surrounded by sycophants, suspicious of criticism, protected by enforcers, shielded from reality, and absolved from accountability.
If lucky, the PRC will avoid the catastrophe of rule by Mao—and such counterparts as Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Nicolae Ceausescu, and lesser avatars of evil. Even then, however, China is unlikely to escape the more mundane failings of a system that combines the inherent flaws of original sin with the inevitable corrupting influences of power. The PRC will continue to pose a serious challenge to America and the West. However, Xi’s war on liberty will give the U.S. an important and enduring advantage in the contest for the future.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy and civil liberties. He worked as special assistant to President Ronald Reagan and editor of the political magazine Inquiry.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2021-11-16 01:55:002021-11-16 01:55:00China is About to Make a Huge Mistake: Make Xi Jinping Dictator for Life
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of a higher obligation…To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus, absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.” – Thomas Jefferson, Letter to J.B. Colvin, September 20, 1780
“The masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed.” ― George Orwell, 1984
“A fascist is one whose lust for money or power is combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures, regions or nations as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends.” – Henry A. Wallace, 33rd VP of the United States.
“If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States.” – Henry A. Wallace
Book Burning – On May 10, 1933, university students in 34 university towns across Germany burned over 25,000 books. The works of Jewish authors like Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud went up in flames alongside blacklisted American authors such as Ernest Hemingway and Helen Keller, while students gave the Nazi salute. They called it “purging.”
Digital book burnings are happening in America with Amazon, Target and other superstores dropping books deemed inflammatory or “racist.” History has no part in America if it offends the minds of snowflakes and race baiters.
Book burning is also happening in 21st Century Canada as reported by the WSJ on October 7th, 2021. More than 4,700 children’s books from 30 schools across CSC Province were targeted. The list included old encyclopedias, biographies of French explorers Jacques Cartier and Etienne Brule, and even French and Belgian comics including Tintin, Asterix, Obelix and Lucky Luke. All were destroyed in a “flame purification” ceremony.
Canada claims they’re purging the ashes of racism, discrimination and stereotypes in an inclusive country where all can live in prosperity and security. This is a lie, a scandal and an evil unto itself. The destruction of history is the willful destruction of the records and the knowledge that can help humanity better understand itself.
Just what is a “flame purification” ceremony when the destruction is of historic documents? The banned documents in America include Disney’s “The Song of the South,” now considered “racial discrimination.”
Where books are burned, people will also be burned.
American Education – Americans who have studied the decline of education in our country know that academic education has been deleterious since 1880 when John Dewey’s progressive (read socialist) education was used on the four sons of John Rockefeller Jr. All four of them, including Vice President, Nelson Rockefeller, who was one heartbeat from the presidency under Gerald Ford, were dyslexic and functionally illiterate. Nelson hired Henry Kissinger to read to him.
Buffalo Public Schools go on to suggest that George Washington, the man who founded this country, was a fraud; that Colin Kaepernick is a moral hero; and that we should celebrate Indigenous Peoples Day instead of Columbus Day. Apparently, we have no right to give thanks for a country that isn’t ours. The Marxist revisionist history taught in our schools today is anathema to the truth of the founding of this nation…it is apostate. Historic truth is reported in the books, Dogs of God The Inquisition and Defeat of the Moors and Simon Wiesenthal’s Sails of Hope.
America’s education is steeped in deviate sexual training. Government schools are barren academic education. Long gone is the teaching of American and world history, phonics and the ability to read past a third-grade level, cursive writing, easy and understandable simple math and of course, civics. Race baiting exists throughout the country with critical race theory taught in every school and the Marxist Black Lives Matter groups are within 20 of the largest school districts in America…now probably far more.
New York City is one of many school systems in the United States set to roll out BLM-themed lesson plans this fall. According to the NYC Department of Education, teachers will delve into “systemic racism,” police brutality, and white privilege in their classrooms. Their site lays out a cult-like recruiting process for students to follow. Step one: Recognize your white privilege. Step two: Learn the dos and don’ts of being an ally. Step three: Recruit more members to learn steps one and two.
End result is to hate whitey just as the end result in Nazi Germany was to hate Jewish friends and neighbors and worship the state.
Prayer in School – Prayer in America’s schools was eliminated in 1962 by the same leftist Warren Supreme Court who destroyed states’ rights for slander and libel. Obtain a copy of Charlotte Iserbyt’s magnificent book, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America for the entire evil machinations of those in power who desired the elimination of academic education.
The gradual transformation of our once academically successful educational system into one devoted to training children to become compliant human resources to be used by government and industry for their own purposes has succeeded. This is how fascist-socialist societies train their children to become servants of their government masters.
All financed through your own taxes! One out of 12 children are now home schooled.
Two-Tiered Society – The 1935 Nuremberg Race Laws served as the legal cornerstone of Jewish persecution by the Nazis. Hitler publicly presented the Laws at the Nazi party’s annual rally in Nuremberg, Germany. The Laws consisted of two directives: (1) Law of the Reich Citizen, and (2) Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor. Each part of the Laws controlled the Jewish population in a different way.
The Laws stripped Jews of their German citizenship. As such, each Jew was made a subject of the German state, meaning that such person was considered a second-class citizen and belonged to the state. Since a Jew belonged to the state, the state could decide what such person could do professionally and what he or she could own. Therefore, the Nazis were able to use the Laws to push Jews out of certain professions such as those of doctors and lawyers. They were also able to dis-enroll Jews from educational programs that required its pupils to be German citizens.
Compare this to America’s two-tiered society of Covid vaxxed and non-vaxxed. How many educators, first responders, healthcare providers and even prison guards are out of a job for refusing an untested inoculation for a virus with a 99.8% recovery? How many employees of corporations with more than 100 employees are demanding the jab or your job? (Biden is now threatening an unconstitutional vax mandate on businesses with less than 100 employees.)
How many of our military are going to be dishonorably discharged by Biden if they refuse an untested and Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) jab? Watch the three-minute video of two nurses and a doctor being escorted from hospitals for being unvaxxed. And the unvaccinated may soon face steep financial penalties. Link
America’s society allows full freedom only for those who accepted the government jab mandate. For those who preferred medical freedom, according to our Fourth Amendment which is “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” you are banned from many societal enjoyments.
Aaron Rogers of the Green Bay Packers contracted the virus and treated it with ivermectin. He refused to be inoculated. He now has to wear a yellow wristband around his teammates to show he is not vaxxed, whereas everyone who is vaxxed wears a red wristband.
A few months ago, we bought tickets to the Righteous Brothers and Chicago at our wonderful Tennessee Theatre. After the purchases, we received notice that we had to present vax papers, or a negative Covid test taken within 72 hours of the show to get into the theatre and we had to wear face diapers during the concerts! No allotment was made for natural immunity from Sars-coV-2. I called the theatre and we got our money back.
“Your papers please” is already here.
Your Papers Please – After the events of Kristallnacht of November 9-10th of 1939, the German authorities implemented a new set of identity papers for its citizens: ID cards for its “German” citizens and a set of papers for non-Aryan citizens, or to be more precise, for the Jews which carried a large red “J” for Jew on the paper. Non-Jews had the Swastika affixed ID card. (The ID cards would also have a large yellow J imprint inside the left part of the document.)
The Rise, Align, Ignite, Reclaim (RAIR) Foundation exposed that in 2018 the European Union already planned vaccination certificates, monitoring vaccine status and combating vaccine hesitancy. In 2018, a year before the coronavirus outbreak, the European Commission released a document already addressing plans to combat vaccination hesitancy, monitoring citizens’ vaccination status, squashing vaccine dissent, and European vaccination certificates.
Euthanasia
As mentioned in Part One of this article, euthanasia was common in the early 20th century of America. Deaf children were sterilized believing they were mentally deficient and should not bear offspring. In 1935, Hitler’s Nuremberg Laws provided for the forced sterilization of the unfit. Not only did Hitler have in mind such “inferior races” as Jews and Gypsies, he also included unfit Aryans—the mentally defective, severely handicapped, the incurably insane and the incurably sick. Anyone considered “genetically inferior” was put to death by inoculation or Zyklon-B to “purify” Hitler’s master race.
At least five states culled their elderly “useless eaters” by sending Covid patients into nursing homes where comorbidities were high. Decades old safe generic drugs would have kept them alive, but hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were disallowed. Thousands upon thousands died.
In America, Bill Gates has his fingers in the sterilization/depopulation/UN Agenda 21 pie, hoping to cull the “useless eaters” from society and massively downsize our population. Gates has used his largesse for vaccines that have sterilized women in various countries and we’re seeing the same thing happen with the Sars-coV-2 jabs.
As if that’s not evil enough, the Covid jab has been approved for children ages five to eleven. Only 330 children have died in the US from Covid and all of them had high risk comorbidities. Giving children this untested vaccine is, at the least, negligent homicide.
Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of messenger RNA said, “There is no reason to vaccinate children. They don’t have a risk of disease. Natural immunity is superior to vaccine immunity; don’t vaccinate those who have full immunity. Don’t interfere with physicians who are providing lifesaving medications to their patients. Stop it!”
Dr. Joseph Mercola reported that a heart attack ingredient has been added to the Pfizer jab for children. It is a blood acid reducer which is used intravenously to stabilize people with heart attacks and during cardiac surgery. Lord help us!
Tony Fauci held people hostage unto death waiting for the money-making cure-all vaccine and Dr. Ezekiel Immanuel, advisor to illegitimate President Biden on Covid, spouts the rhetoric that none should live after age 75. All of them have been instrumental in the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
America has physician assisted suicide (PAS) in nine American states; the first being Oregon in 1994. After 48 years of legalized abortion in all fifty states at any time for any reason throughout pregnancy, there have been over 63 million abortions that have destroyed the lives of unborn children in their mother’s wombs. Massive amounts of money are being made selling the bodies of these unborn children to various labs and they are being used for the most macabre and evil scientific experiments, including the creation of vaccines.
Conclusion
Nazi ruthlessness was murder for a lie. European Jews were robbed of their human and civil rights and then murdered. History is repeating itself in the “land of the free.”
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2021-11-15 11:52:562021-11-15 11:52:56THE GATHERING STORM AND ITS HISTORIC PRECEDENT: Part Three – America
This year has seen the largest increase ever in the number of concealed handgun permit holders—more than two million, for a total of 21.52 million. That is a 48 percent increase since 2016. On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of NYSRPA v. Bruen, which has a chance to further increase this total and make permitting rules more similar across states.
Six states now have more than 1 million permit holders: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Florida is the first state to have more than 2.5 million permits. Alabama has the highest rate of adults with permits, at 32.1 percent. Indiana is second, with 21.6 percent. By contrast, New Jersey and Hawaii both have rates of less than 0.1 percent.
The statistics don’t even account for the vast numbers of Americans who carry without permits. Twenty-one “constitutional carry” states no longer require people to have a permit to carry. Those who want to carry out of state may still get a permit, but many don’t bother.
Women and minorities (blacks and Asians) are driving the increase in permits.The growth in permits for women was 109 percent faster than for men, and 136 percent faster for blacks than for whites. As a result, women now make up 28.3 percent of permit holders, and black Americans make up 11 percent, close to their share of the population.
The lockdowns and related social unrest have something to do with this increase. As prisoners were released and police faced new restrictions and budgets cut, many people took responsibility for their own safety. But, last year, 20 states either stopped or virtually stopped issuing permits. After the process opened this year, applications were made in record numbers.
The current Supreme Court case has to do with the seven “may issue” states, which require applicants to provide “proper cause” with “good justification.” The court is considering replacing this discretionary process with objective rules. That way, someone can’t be denied a permit as long as she reaches a certain age, doesn’t have a criminal background, pays the fees, and completes any required training.
Chief Justice John Roberts and others expressed skepticism for requiring this. Roberts asked if you don’t have to justify what you are going to say “when you’re looking for a permit to speak on a street corner . . . why do you have to show in this case, convince somebody, that you’re entitled to exercise your Second Amendment right?”
After Brian Fletcher, the principal deputy solicitor general of the United States, said people had to prove a “demonstrated need” was consistent with the Second Amendment, Roberts responded: “I’m not sure that’s right. . . . regardless of what the [constitutional] right is, it would be surprising to have it depend upon a permit system.”
Only about 1 percent of adults in these may-issue states have permits. In the other 43 “Right-to-Carry” states, almost 11 percent of adults have permits.
Whenever states have eliminated “proper cause” requirements, gun-control advocates have predicted disaster, with blood-in-the-streets and irresponsible behavior by permit holders. But in state after state, concealed handgun permit holders have proved them wrong by being extremely law-abiding. Indeed, none of the right-to-carry states have even held a legislative hearing, let alone held a vote, to move back to requiring “proper cause.”
Those same fears were raised again and again during Wednesday’s oral arguments. Justice Stephen Breyer raised fears such as: “People of good moral character who start drinking a lot and who may be there for a football game or — or some kind of soccer game can get pretty angry at each other. And if they each have a concealed weapon, who knows?”
So many of these kinds of claims by gun control advocates are about things that might go wrong, but we don’t need to guess what happens. The data shows that this fear is unfounded.
For example, in Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of firearms-related violations at one-twelfth of the rate at which police officers are convicted. In the 19 states, where the revocation rate for permits for any reason is available, the average rate is one-tenth of 1 percent, with the most common reasons including a person moving or dying or simply forgetting to have his permit with him while carrying.
A federal court already forced Illinois to become a right-to-carry state, but Illinois responded by making it as difficult as possible to get a permit. While almost 22 percent of adults have permits in neighboring Indiana, the percentage stands at only 4 percent in Illinois. There’s a simple reason: obtaining a five-year permit costs more than $400 in Illinois and only $12.95 in Indiana.
Chicagoans have faced other obstacles. The city banned permitted concealed handguns on public transportation, created gun-free zones, and prohibited training facilities until a federal circuit court decision prohibited these measures in 2017.
This discretion also affects the type of people who get permits. In 2013, Los Angeles Weekly obtained a list of the 341 concealed-carry permit holders in Los Angeles County, California. Internet searches indicated the list was disproportionately wealthy, politically connected, white, and male, with only 7.6 percent female and 5 percent black. The numbers are very different in “shall-issue” states, which issue permits to anyone who is legally eligible.
Suppose that New York, California, and the six other may-issue states start following objective rules instead of arbitrarily denying the vast majority of applications. Presumably, they would follow Illinois’ approach and make the process very difficult. But assuming they equal Illinois’ 4 percent rate, that would still mean 2.3 million more American adults with permits.
If the Supreme Court rules against arbitrary and unfair permitting processes, even the media centers of New York City and Los Angeles might finally get to see for themselves that their fears of concealed carry are unjustified.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2021-11-15 02:05:002021-11-15 02:05:00Data Disproves Left’s Fear Of Adhering To The Constitution On Guns
The mandate to require employers to force employees to take an experimental vaccine, which at best seems to provide protection from severe symptoms for a limited amount of time, was struck down by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The full ruling can be found here.
The Court makes a number of salient observations, basically saying OSHA does not have such power, and the mandate is flawed on its own terms. Below are some short quotations from the ruling.
These are selective quotes to provide you with a gist of the argument. Readers can read the entire finding hyperlinked above. We think it fair to say the Administration gets rebuked rather badly by the Court.
On the dubious assumption that the Mandate does pass constitutional muster—which we need not decide today—it is nonetheless fatally flawedon its own terms. Indeed, the Mandate’s strained prescriptions combine to make it the rare government pronouncement that is both over-inclusive (applying to employers and employees in virtually all industries and workplaces in America, with little attempt to account for the obviousdifferences between the risks facing, say, a security guard on a lonely nightshift, and a meatpacker working shoulder to shoulder in a crampedwarehouse) and under-inclusive (purporting to save employees with 99 or more coworkers from a “grave danger” in the workplace, while making noattempt to shield employees with 98 or fewer coworkers from the very same “grave danger”. The non-delegation doctrine constrains Congress’s ability to delegate itslegislative authority to executive agencies. See, e.g., Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 371–72 (1989): “The Constitution provides that ‘[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States’ . . . and we have long insisted that ‘the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordered by the Constitution’ mandate that Congress generally cannot delegate its legislative power to another Branch.”
The Mandate’s stated impetus—a purported “emergency” that the entire globe has now endured for nearly two years and which OSHA itself spent nearly two months responding to—is unavailing as well. And its promulgation grossly exceeds OSHA’s statutory authority
But the Mandate at issue here is anything but a “delicate exercise”of this “extraordinary power.” Cf. Pub. Citizen, 702 F.2d at 1155. Quite the opposite, rather than a delicately handled scalpel, the Mandate is a one-size fits-all sledgehammer that makes hardly any attempt to account fordifferences in workplaces (and workers) that have more than a little bearingon workers’ varying degrees of susceptibility to the supposedly “gravedanger” the Mandate purports to address.
Equally problematic, however, is that it remains unclear that COVID 19—however tragic and devastating the pandemic has been—poses the kind of grave danger § 655(c)(1) contemplates. See, e.g., Int’ Chem. Workers, 830 F.2d at 371 (noting that OSHA itself once concluded “that to be a ‘gravedanger,’ it is not sufficient that a chemical, such as cadmium, can cause cancer or kidney damage at a high level of exposure” (emphasis added)). For starters,the Mandate itself concedes that the effects of COVID-19 may range from“mild” to “critical.” As important, however, the status of the spread of thevirus has varied since the President announced the general parameters of theMandate in September. (And of course, this all assumes that COVID 19 poses any significant danger to workers to begin with; for the more than seventy-eight percent of Americans aged 12 and older either fully or partially inoculated against it, the virus poses—the Administration assures us—little risk at all.)
We next consider the necessity of the Mandate. The Mandate isstaggeringly overbroad. Applying to 2 out of 3 private-sector employees in America, in workplaces as diverse as the country itself, the Mandate fails to consider what is perhaps the most salient fact of all: the ongoing threat of COVID-19 is more dangerous to some employees than to other employees. All else equal, a 28 year-old trucker spending the bulk of his workday in the solitude of his cab is simply less vulnerable to COVID-19 than a 62 year-old prison janitor. Likewise, a naturally immune unvaccinated worker is presumably at less risk than an unvaccinated worker who has never had thevirus. The list goes on, but one constant remains—the Mandate fails almostcompletely to address, or even respond to, much of this reality and commonsense.
If the deficiencies we’ve already covered aren’t enough, other miscellaneous considerations seal the Mandate’s fate. For one, “[t]he Agency cannot use its ETS powers as a stop-gap measure,” Asbestos Info., 727F.2d at 422, but concedes that that is precisely what the Mandate is intended to do here. See 86 Fed. Reg. 61,402, 61,434–35 (admitting that “[c]rafting a multi-layered standard that is comprehensive and feasible for all covered work settings, including mixed settings of vaccinated and unvaccinated workers, is an extraordinarily challenging and complicated undertaking, yet the grave danger that COVID-19 poses to unvaccinated workers obliges the agency to act as quickly as possible”). For another, courts have consistently recognized that the “protection afforded to workers [by an ETS] should outweigh the economic consequences to the regulated industry,” Asbestos Info., 727 F.2d at 423, but for all the reasons we’ve previously noted, theMandate flunks a cost-benefit analysis here.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2021-11-15 02:00:002021-11-15 02:00:00Pertinent Passages from the 5th Circuit Ruling Stopping the Vaccine Mandate
Note: This article was written before closing arguments.
If facts mattered, the jury would find Rittenhouse not guilty on all counts, except for possession by a minor. However, facts don’t matter. If facts mattered, he would not have been charged in the first place. So, there is always the possibility that the jurors are a bunch of nitwits who believe in their hearts that possessing an AR15 is prima facie proof of homicidal intent, or that going into a danger zone with a gun is prima facie proof of homicidal intent. (Except for Grosskreutz, of course. Rittenhouse’s lawyer never asked him why he brought a gun into the situation. Why not?)
There is a fairly high likelihood that the jury will find him not guilty on all counts (except for possession by a minor), for two reasons:
The verdict needs to be unanimous, and although I believe there are many stupid people in the world, and some on the jury, I think it unlikely that all 12 would be that dumb. So worst case, hung jury, which is the same as acquittal except the prosecutor could refile the charges. (Unless the judge grants the motion for dismissal at that point.)
The prosecutor needs to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Rittenhouse was not acting in self defense. If a juror says “I think Rittenhouse may not have been acting in self-defense, but I admit it’s at least plausible that he was acting in self-defense,” then that is supposed to be a not guilty verdict. For a verdict of guilty, the jurors would have to believe “No reasonable person could possibly think this was self-defense. Self-defense? That’s crazy talk. That’s like claiming space aliens pulled the trigger.”
However, at the last minute, the prosecutor proposed reduced charges, so jurors could feel sorry for the prosecutor, and want to give him a consolation prize. Or they could be afraid of rioters/retribution, and want to throw the wolves a bone to take heat off themselves. Or they could think “I think he’s not guilty, but surely the DA would not have brought this case if there was nothing there, right? My government would never do such a thing. He must be guilty of something.” It’s easy for them to say “I don’t think he’s guilty, but let’s give him ‘only’ ten years in prison instead of life in prison. He’ll only be 28 when he gets out, so no big deal.”
About the Prosecutor
It’s hard to believe he is that incompetent. Any lawyer knows Thou Shalt Not bring up the subject of invoking the right to remain silent. You can get suspended for that. And on and on. This guy is stunningly horrible. But, is he really that bad, or is he throwing the case on purpose? It’ll be interesting to see if he brings up verboten material in his closing argument, causing the defense lawyer to object (something rarely done) or more likely, causing the judge to interrupt him.
About the Defense Lawyer
Not bad, but not great. Did a good job getting the witnesses to say the right things. (Especially Grosskreutz.) Did a great job prepping Rittenhouse. But there are a couple of things I think he could have done better.
The self-defense case re: Rosenbaum is based on whether a reasonable person could believe that Rosenbaum was (a) grabbing for the gun and (b) would have used it to shoot Rittenhouse if he had gotten it — versus he was not grabbing for the gun, or he was grabbing for the gun just to disarm Rittenhouse and he would not have used the gun himself. In other words, was the unarmed Rosenbaum defending himself against the armed Rittenhouse? (Will the prosecutor lay it out like that in his closing argument?) That’s a good argument, because it is not clear “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Rosenbaum was not grabbing the gun or would not have used it. Nevertheless, the defense should have had a backup plan – having an expert witness dispel the myth that you can’t shoot an unarmed man because an unarmed man does not present “deadly force.” The expert should have educated the jury that 600-700 people a year are killed by people who are unarmed vs. maybe half that many by people with AR15s. Because the defense did not bring it up, the prosecutor is likely to raise it in his closing argument.
The prosecutor intends to make a big deal about Rittenhouse using FMJ (full metal jacket) ammunition, which is supposed to be evidence that Rittenhouse recklessly disregarded the risk of bullets over penetrating and hitting a bystander. Because the charge of reckless endangerment was added at the last minute, that gives the prosecutor an opening. The defense lawyer should have gone after that in the argument for jury instructions. “Your honor, there are only two kinds of ammunition: hollow point and non-hollow point. If a defendant uses hollow point ammunition, the prosecutor can use that as evidence that the defendant wanted to inflict maximum pain and death. If a defendant uses non-hollow point ammunition, the prosecutor can claim that the defendant recklessly disregarded the risk of overpenetration. There was no evidence presented at trial to show that FMJ ammunition fired from an AR15 penetrates more (or significantly more) than hollow point ammunition, so the prosecutor should not be able to make that argument.” Alternatively, the defense lawyer should have gotten an expert to talk about the likelihood of overpenetration of that brand of ammunition from that barrel length, in comparison with other types of ammunition. At the very least, the defense lawyer better be prepared in closing argument to tell the jury that there was no such testimony, but that in any case, they could interpret the use of FMJ as evidence that Rittenhouse did not want to use “more deadly” hollow point ammunition. Remember how Harold Fish got screwed when the prosecutor raised the subject of hollow point ammunition for the first time in his closing argument, and how the judge let it go, and Fish’s lawyer let it go? I hope the prosecutor doesn’t get away with it this time.
There was a better answer to “Why did you have a gun?” Answer: “I thought it would be a deterrent. I assumed rioters and arsonists were reasonable people, who would see people with guns and decide to go somewhere else and leave that business alone. I never thought I would actually have to shoot somebody.” “Then why did you load the gun?” “Just in case I ran across some psychotic violent criminals, off their meds, who would be crazy enough to try to kill me while I was carrying a gun.” (“OBJECTION!” “Sustained. The jury will disregard the statement about psychotic violent criminals off their meds.”)
About the Judge
He knows that this is a bulls__t case, which never should have been brought. He has left open the defense motion to dismiss. I would not be too surprised if, after closing arguments, the judge says “I have made a decision regarding the motion to dismiss. The prosecutor’s conduct has been so egregious that I grant the motion to dismiss, with prejudice. Rittenhouse is a free man, and I will be recommending that the Wisconsin Bar investigate the prosecutor’s unethical misconduct.” I would especially expect that if the prosecutor steps over the line again during his closing argument.
The judge really would prefer to pass the buck to the jury, and let them come back with a not guilty verdict. So, if he reads the jury as being inclined to not guilty, he may let the jury decide the case, knowing that if they do find Rittenhouse guilty, he has that motion to dismiss in his back pocket, and he knows he can issue a “judgment notwithstanding the verdict” – effectively overruling the jury. That is almost never used, but I’m thinking this guy is 75 years old. He is ready to retire, and he is pissed off at what he sees as a gross miscarriage of justice. “Let the heathen rage” – his pension is secure. He can move to Florida, and he can supplement that fat pension with consulting expert fees on Fox News and elsewhere.
Because of the recently introduced lesser charges, I revise my prediction: the jury finds Rittenhouse guilty on a lesser charge. In my opinion, that would be a terrible injustice; this is as clear a case of self-defense as ever there was. But, sometimes injustice prevails. Sometimes the bad guys win.
Now let’s just wait and see how wrong I was.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2021-11-14 15:56:002021-11-14 15:56:00The Rittenhouse Case: Observations and Predictions
Not too long ago, we wrote a satirical piece about the disappearance of Sweden.
For all intents and purposes, when it comes to public policies towards the Wuhan virus, Sweden is just ignored. Why? Their story is an important one and could inform our own debate about what policies make sense.
Sweden you may recall had perhaps the lightest touch in dealing with Covid of any of the major industrialized countries. They did not force quarantines, mask mandates, vaccination mandates, or severely curtail personal liberty. Nor did they spend themselves into oblivion, jeopardizing the future of their country. They did not use a medical crisis to attempt to impose socialism on their people as the Democrat Party has in the U.S.
Nor have they forced children, who rarely get Covid and almost never die from it, to be subjected to the side effects of an experimental vaccine that did not pass through normal medical protocols. They have not divided their population into tribes based on mask-wearing or vaccination status.
In short, they have not done any of the unreasonable and unjustified things so common in other countries.
You don’t see people being beaten in the streets of Sweden as we see in so-called democratic Australia. The results are summed up in the chart above. Yet for all their hands-off attitude, it does not appear their outcomes are worse than ours. Quite to the contrary, their results are better than just about any other country and certainly better than the USA.
Whether one looks at deaths or the rate of infection, Sweden ranks very well.
It is said a picture can say a thousand words. The same goes for a good chart.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2021-11-14 13:32:002021-11-14 13:32:00Seriously, Why Is Sweden Always Left Out of The Discussion?
“The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.” – Josef Stalin
“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.” ― George Orwell, 1984
Definition of Death by a Thousand Cuts:
If something is suffering the death of a thousand cuts, or death by a thousand cuts, lots of small bad things are happening, none of which are fatal in themselves, but which add up to a slow and painful demise.
Requiring All Employers with 100+ Employees to Ensure their Workers are Vaccinated or TestedWeekly.
Requiring Vaccinations for all Federal Workers and for Millions of Contractors that Do Business with the FederalGovernment
Requiring COVID-19 Vaccinations for Over 17 Million Health Care Workers at Medicare and Medicaid Participating Hospitals and Other Health CareSettings
Calling on Large Entertainment Venues to Require Proof of Vaccination or Testing forEntry
Requiring Employers to Provide Paid Time Off to GetVaccinated
Requiring Staff in Head Start Programs, Department of Defense Schools, and Bureau of Indian Education-Operated Schools to beVaccinated
Calling on All States to Adopt Vaccine Requirements for All SchoolEmployees
Using the Department of Education’s Full Legal Authority to Protect Students’ Access to In-PersonInstruction
Continuing to Require Masking for Interstate Travel and DoubleFines
Continue to Require Masking on FederalProperty
QUESTION: Are Biden’s Pandemic Plan’s requirements death by a thousand cuts?
Jabbing Americans to death
We have been receiving from our readers articles about people who have died after getting jabbed. The following is a compilation of some of them.
As of Oct. 12, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had reports of 7,178 deaths from COVID-19 breakthrough infections. That represents 0.004% of the more than 187 million fully vaccinated Americans.
Of those, 85% were aged 65 or older, like Powell. As we age, our immune response weakens and is less well-regulated. Additionally, like Powell, they may have suffered from other immune-related illnesses. Perhaps they took immunosuppressant drugs for diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis.
Pfizer says it is investigating the death of a Florida doctor who had received one dose of the company’s COVID-19 vaccine.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is also looking into the death of Gregory Michael, a 56-year-old obstetrician who had taken the shot 16 days earlier.
Neil Astles, a 59-year-old lawyer died after suffering from bad headaches and nausea after receiving a first dose of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. He received the first dose of the vaccine on March 15 but began suffering from a “thunderclap headache” 11 days later. He started vomiting on April 2 and and died two days later of cerebral thrombosis.
More than 2,500 double vaccinated over 50s have died from COVID-19 in the past month in England, new data shows.
In a report published by the UK Health Security Agency analysis revealed 2,683 double vaccinated over 50s have died within 28 days of positive COVID test in the last four weeks.
Some 511 unvaccinated people died in the last four weeks of COVID-19.
The figures reflect the fact that the vast majority in this age group has had at least two COVID vaccines.
In an effort to be more transparent, the Minnesota Department of Health on Friday released new data for how many vaccinated Minnesotans have been hospitalized and died from COVID-19.
[ … ]
The 483 deaths of vaccinated people represent 5% of the 8,996 COVID-19 deaths in Minnesota since the beginning of the pandemic, and 11.1% of the 4,338 COVID deaths since the first Minnesotan was vaccinated in mid-December.
However, there has been a recent rise in deaths among the vaccinated, who made up 41% of the deaths between Sept. 5 and Oct. 9, and around 30% of the hospitalizations. It was always going to be the case statistically that the number of breakthrough COVID deaths would rise the greater the proportion of Minnesotans got vaccinated, but there have been some concerns that those who got their vaccines early on may be experiencing waning immunity, leading to calls for them to get booster shots. [Emphasis added]
More than 600 people have died with Covid-19 while being fully vaccinated, but doctors have revealed the important reasons for that statistic.
Across England, 640 people who were fully vaccinated died from coronavirus, according to the latest figures from the Office of National Statistics, which stretch from January 2 to July 2 of this year.
Conclusion
The Left said they wouldn’t get a vaccine that President Trump developed.
Then they said if you were vaccinated, you didnt need to wear a mask.
Then they said they wouldn’t implement vaccine mandates.
According to adverse incident reports collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 966 individuals have died after having received an mRNA vaccine for COVID-19.
Between Dec. 14 and Feb. 19, 19,769 reports were made to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) following immunizations with either the Moderna or Pfizer BioNTech mRNA vaccines (the only two vaccines given during the time period assessed). At this time, VAERS data is not available after Feb. 19.
The 966 deaths represent 5 percent of the total number of adverse events reports. Of those who died, 86, (8.9 percent) died on the same day they got the shot. An additional 129, (13.4 percent) died within one day. An additional 97 died within 2 days, and 61 within 3 days.
A total of 514 (53.2 percent) died within a week. 173 died within 7-13 days. 106 within 14-20 days.
85 percent of deaths occurred in individuals over 60; below 60 there were five deaths among those aged 20-29; 8 aged 30-39; 20 aged 40-49; and 57 aged 50-59.
On July 23, 2021 VAERS confirmed over 6000 additional COVID-19 vaccine death reports.
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed an increased number of deaths reported after a COVID-19 vaccination. Between December 14, 2020, through July 19, 2021, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) received 12,313 reports of death among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.
Additionally, VAERS had received 1,148 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis among people ages 30 and younger who received a COVID-19 vaccine as of July 19th. The CDC and its partners are investigating these reports to assess whether there is a relationship to COVID-19 vaccination.
If you search for “deaths from Covid vaccines” you will find how wonderful the vaccines are but no definitive data on deaths caused by taking any of the Covid vaccines now available.
This week, the Biden administration rolled out its federal vaccine mandate, affecting 100 million workers. Is it needed? Or have politicians been too quick to press the panic button over COVID-19? John Tamny thinks so. He’s the director of the Center for Economic Freedom at FreedomWorks and author of the book, “When Politicians Panicked: The New Coronavirus, Expert Opinion, and a Tragic Lapse of Reason.”
And in America Q&A, we ask if you think D.C. is overspending or are bigger budgets needed to tackle big issues.
Next, as it gets harder to refuse the vaccine, those who’ve suffered from it just want to be heard and cured. This week, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) hosted an Expert Panel on Federal Vaccine Mandates and Vaccine Injuries to bring attention to the widely ignored issue. We hear two of the many stories shared that day, from people who’ve suffered life-altering damage after volunteering for a vaccine trial. They say not only are they being ignored by the agencies that promised to look after them, but if their data isn’t being captured, that affects all of us.
What is becoming clearer about getting jabbed are:
You can die from getting jabbed.
Getting jabbed does not prevent you from getting Covid.
Natural immunity lasts longer than getting jabbed.
We don’t know enough about the jab to truly understand its long term health impacts.
Getting jabbed is becoming more a “mandate” than a personal healthcare choice.
The Biden administration’s “mandated jabs” are causing the truth about how Americans are dying from the various Covid vaccines to disappear from the media and medical websites. The legacy media and social media platforms are deadly silent on this topic. Those news outlets like the Epoch Times, once they actually provide data on deaths by a thousand jabs, they get fact checked. Of course the fact checkers aren’t interested in the actual facts about jab deaths. Sad but true.
This is the world we live in today. Telling the truth about the negative effects of getting vaxxed is a revolutionary act.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2021-11-14 12:52:312021-11-14 12:52:31Biden’s Death by a Thousand Jabs
