Marijuana And Other Drugs Can Kill Babies In First Year Of Life

Drug-related deaths among US infants
For the first time, researchers find that during the first year of life, even infants can die from exposure to addictive drugs, either directly or indirectly. They defined “drug-involved deaths” as those deaths due to underlying or contributing causes. Drugs most frequently mentioned on death certificates included methamphetamine, opioids, opioid treatment drugs like methadone or naloxone, cocaine, and cannabis.
Nearly 92,000 Americans died of a drug overdose in the one-year period ending in October 2020. More than 823,000 Americans have died of an overdose since 2000. Infant deaths comprise less than 1 percent of those deaths, according to the study.
Read CDC interview with the author of the study here.
Read full text of the study here.
©National Families in Action’s The Marijuana Report. All rights reserved

Repudiating Roe: The Most Important Abortion Case in 30 Years

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is a signal moment in America’s constitutional history.

For the first time in a generation and a half — nearly 30 years — there is a realistic chance that the Supreme Court might overrule Roe v. Wade, the Court’s 1973 decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. The Court has agreed to hear a case next fall that presents a direct challenge to the foundations and validity of Roe.
This is a signal moment in America’s constitutional history. One of the most notorious decisions in the Court’s history is likely either to be repudiated and overruled — discarded, finally and definitively — or else reaffirmed and entrenched, perhaps permanently. The case is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. And the stakes could not possibly be higher.
My discussion of Dobbs proceeds in two parts. In this article, I explain why Dobbs is the most important abortion case to reach the Court in nearly thirty years — since Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the case in which a splintered Court, by the narrowest of 5-4 margins, reaffirmed Roe, not because a majority of the justices thought Roe was right, but on the basis of the judicial doctrine of “stare decisis.”
Dobbs is important because it frames a direct challenge to Roe and Casey, forcing the Court to confront the legal indefensibility and radicalism of the Court’s pro-abortion jurisprudence. Dobbs poses the enormously important question whether Roe and Casey, two of the worst constitutional decisions of all time, were wrongly decided and should now, finally, be overruled. On the merits, I submit, the answer must be yes.
Later on, I will take up the somewhat peculiar-sounding question whether the judicial doctrine of “stare decisis” — the (inconsistent) judicial practice of generally adhering to precedents — can properly require the Court deliberately to reaffirm precedents that it is persuaded are egregiously and atrociously wrong. That, I maintain today, is the only true question remaining at issue in Dobbs. And the answer is emphatically no.

Roe’s wrongness

Start with Roe v. WadeRoe is regarded, rightly, as one of the most consequential and controversial — and one of the very worst — constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court in its history.
In simplest terms, Roe created a constitutional right to abortion of the life of a living human fetus. That result, and Roe’s reasoning in support of it, are indefensible from a legal standpoint. No plausible argument from the constitutional text, no rule or principle fairly derived from its structure or internal logic or deducible from other propositions contained therein, and no credible argument from historical understanding or intention remotely supports the abortion right created in Roe.
Roe v. Wade is simply a lawless decision. I know of no serious constitutional scholar who defends Roe’s result as a faithful interpretation of the Constitution’s language, understood according to its natural and original meaning, as understood at the time of its adoption, or as consistent with the original intent of its adopters in 1868.
To be sure, a small cottage industry of legal academics has grown up around the enterprise of attempting to concoct “alternative” legal theories to support the result in Roe. These theories range from the merely strained and historically insupportable — the claim that abortion restrictions constitute sex discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is the most common — to the comically absurd and outlandish.

The latter include wild assertions that abortion laws violate the Constitution’s prohibition of slavery or interfere with the guarantee to women of the right to vote. (I address and refute these theories in a book chapter of a volume collecting many of the most “creative” such contrivances, and also in an academic article.)
The Court has never adopted any of these alternative theories for abortion as a constitutional right. Nor has it come anywhere close to doing so. Instead, it has left the right to abortion where Roe purported to find it, in the guarantee that government not deprive persons of life, liberty, or property “without due process of law.”
That’s the same bogus legal reasoning on which the Supreme Court had rested its infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857, holding unconstitutional Congress’s law prohibiting the introduction of slavery into federal territories. This reasoning, if one can call it that, goes by the oxymoronic label “substantive due process.” It is gibberish, as most sensible people recognize.
In Casey, the Court, while nominally reaffirming Roe’s substantive due process holding, could not bring itself actually to embrace Roe’s reasoning as correct. Indeed, a majority of justices seemed to indicate they believed that the case was wrongly decided. Casey left Roe in place almost purely on the basis of the doctrine of stare decisis. In other words, the justices concluded the Court should stick to Roe “whether or not mistaken,” simply because it was a precedent on which the Court had staked its authority, and it might look bad if it were to reverse itself.
In tomorrow’s essay, I will attack this craven, unprincipled reasoning. For now, my point is simpler: Roe is a relic of abandoned reasoning that almost no one — including the Court itself — any longer thinks correct on its own terms. If Roe retains any legitimacy at all, it is only because it is a precedent and for no reason moored to the text of the Constitution.
It is important to grasp this. Roe v. Wade’s rule no longer rests on any provision of the Constitution. It rests on Roe’s rule being Roe’s rule. The constitutional right to abortion has been cut loose from any tether to the Constitution’s text. It now depends, essentially entirely, on the force of Roe’s status as a precedent and the doctrine of stare decisis.
Roe’s indefensibility as a matter of faithful constitutional interpretation is, frankly, almost no longer a matter of serious dispute. The incorrectness of Roe as a matter of first principles is practically a point of common ground, certainly so for the principled constitutional conservatives that now compose the majority of the justices on the Court. Bluntly put: Roe is as wrong as wrong can be, and everybody knows it.

Roe’s extremism and its human consequences

Roe’s formulation of the abortion right is also quite extreme. In a nutshell, Roe established a constitutional right to abortion of a living human fetus for essentially any reason that a pregnant woman chooses. Under the Court’s decisions, the right to abort exists throughout all nine months of pregnancy, albeit in slightly varying forms depending on the stage of pregnancy.
Prior to fetal “viability” — that is, the point when the child could live outside his or her mother’s womb, now around twenty-four weeks — the right to abort is explicitly plenary. There is no ground on which states may prohibit an abortion from being obtained. This includes, as I have recently written, eugenic reasons — aborting an unborn child because of his or her race or sex, or on account of disability.
After viability, an abortion may be had for any “health” reasonbut “health” is defined broadly (and misleadingly) to embrace emotional, psychological, age, or “familial” considerations. This loophole is big enough to make the right to abortion functionally absolute, even when the child could live outside the womb.
The Court’s opinions concerning “partial-birth” abortion, in 2000 and 2007, bear this out. They uphold a right to kill a fetus capable of living independently of the mother, under the rubric of the need to permit late abortions on “health” grounds. Thus, partial-birth abortion — the gruesome technique of inducing labour, delivering all of the body except the head, puncturing the skull and vacuuming out the child’s brain, collapsing the head, and then completing removal of the dead child — can be prohibited as an abortion method, even after viability, only if there is available some equally safe (to the pregnant woman) alternative method for killing the fetus.
The right to abortion is thus essentially absolute. This is especially clear for pre-viability abortions. State governments may adopt certain informed consent and waiting-period requirements, and they may enforce some (but not many) regulations of abortion clinics. But they may not prohibit abortion itself, for any reason, prior to viability.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey tinkered slightly with Roe’s framework but did not alter its essentials. It retained the absolute right to pre-viability abortion and it retained the “health” right to abortion of even viable unborn babies.
It is worth pausing briefly to reflect on just how radical the RoeCasey abortion-rights legal construct is. It is no cautious “balance” of interests. It is almost unreservedly pro-abortion. It adopts one of the most extremely lenient pro-abortion legal regimes anywhere in the world. It fails to recognise any legal rights of the unborn human fetal children, in any respect, at any stage of pregnancy.
It does not recognise them as legal persons in their own right, entitled to the equal protection of the laws from private violence (a debatable but infinitely more plausible legal understanding of the common law and of the Constitution’s guarantees than is Roe’s creation of a constitutional right to abortion). Nor, short of that, does it recognise the unborn as members of the human species meriting protection by the state, whether or not they possess a constitutionally recognised legal “right to life” of their own. The living human fetus is treated, absurdly, as “potential life.”
In short, if Roe were an act of legislation, a bill passed by a legislature, it would be extremist pro-abortion legislation. And, not to put too fine a point on it, Roe is an act of legislation. (As is Casey — a modest, friendly amendment to Roe.) That Roe and Casey are acts of extremist legislation, adopted by a runaway judiciary, only makes matters worse.
The most important point about Roe’s extremism is, of course, its human toll. Roe’s practical and moral consequences have been truly stunning. Roe sanctioned, and Casey perpetuated, in the name of our fundamental law, the killing of over sixty million human beings.
This is not rhetorical overstatement but simple description. That abortion kills should not be a controversial proposition. There is no doubt that abortion results in the death of a distinct living being — an organism that was alive before is now dead. And there is no doubt that the living being killed by abortion is a human living being, distinct from the mother.
Abortion thus ends a human life. To be sure, it is a human life at an early and vulnerable stage in its development. But it is the same human life it will be at all stages of its life cycle, as an embryo, fetus, infant, child, and adult.
Roe created a right of some human beings to kill other human beings. It is important to be clear about that. Since Roe, the running human death toll from abortion in America has exceeded that of the Nazi Holocaust, Stalin’s purges, and the Rwandan genocide combined. Our familiarity with Roe has led to a strange acceptance of, or numbness to, its shocking, murderous radicalism and the scale of its havoc.
Roe is both a constitutional monstrosity and a moral atrocity.  As I wrote in these pages nearly a decade ago, Roe is simply unbearably wrong. It is time — long past time — to overrule Roe v. Wade.

The Dobbs case

That brings us to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Dobbs case poses a direct, head-on challenge to Roe’s framework and, by necessary implication, its legitimacy. Here’s how: As noted, Roe and Casey hold that abortion cannot be banned for any reason before the point of fetal viability, when the child would be capable of living outside his or her mother’s womb, currently at about twenty-four weeks of pregnancy.
Dobbs involves a legal challenge to a Mississippi law forbidding abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy. This is more than two months before the point of viability. Simply put, if Roe is right, Mississippi’s law is “unconstitutional” (to accede, for purposes of argument, to an inaccurate characterisation). And conversely, for Mississippi’s law to be upheld, Roe and Casey must be rejected.
The Dobbs case thus squarely presents the issue of whether Roe v. Wade is wrong and should be overruled. Given what Roe and subsequent abortion decisions hold, and what the Mississippi law in question provides, the issue is practically unavoidable. And the Court’s order granting review shows no desire to avoid it. The legal question on which the justices granted review was stated as follows: “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.” That’s another way of asking whether Roe v. Wade is rightly or wrongly decided and should remain the operative legal rule.
What will the Court do? A solid majority of justices now on the Supreme Court clearly believes that Roe is unequivocally wrongly decided, as flagrant a departure from constitutional text, structure, and history as any precedent in the Court’s history.
There is no doubt in my mind that six of the nine sitting justices firmly believe Roe is wrong. They are, in rough order of certainty: Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice John Roberts.
In truth, I believe Justice Elena Kagan in her heart of hearts is unpersuaded of Roe’s legal correctness, too. But she and fellow liberals Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor can be counted on to vote for unrestricted abortion rights no matter what.

The stakes and snare of “stare decisis

Everything — everything — thus depends on the Court’s treatment of the legal doctrine of “stare decisis.” “Stare decisis” is a fragment of the Latin phrase taken to stand for the general rule of practice and judicial policy, drawn from the common law, that courts tend to follow their own precedents unless they have a good and sufficient legal justification for departing from them.
Significantly, the doctrine has never been thought to be constitutionally required. It is a rule of judicial policy and usual practice only. Nor has the doctrine ever been thought absolute. There are literally hundreds of examples of cases that have been overruled. Even at common law, courts could overrule prior decisions demonstrated to be unsound.
Moreover, the doctrine’s roots in common-law adjudication — where the law actually consists of general principles discerned from the overall course of judicial decisions — mean that it does not transpose neatly (if at all) to constitutional interpretation, where the relevant law consists of an authoritative, written legal text.
Simply put, if the text is the touchstone, judicial precedents contrary to the text are simply not faithful understandings of the relevant law. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in constitutional cases has consistently affirmed that core principle, leading the Court repeatedly to emphasise that adherence to precedent is “not an inexorable command.”
Nonetheless, the doctrine retains some intuitive appeal, especially for “conservatives,” as it purports to advance conservative-sounding values of stability, predictability, consistency, humility, and restraint. And it does advance these values, at least to some extent. But the doctrine is slippery, deceptive, and readily manipulated.
In practice, the doctrine often disserves the very policies it claims to serve, undermining predictability and stability and disguising judicial discretion. There is a strong claim that it is not “conservative” at all — that faithful adherence to the Constitution requires just that: faithful adherence to the Constitution, not to faithless departures from its text, structure, history, and original meaning.
Ironically, the staunchest defenders of stare decisis today are liberal, activist judges, who invoke it selectively and perhaps a bit cynically, as a tool for entrenching liberal decisions that are not defensible under the Constitution. That is, they invoke stare decisis precisely to preserve such faithless departures from the text itself.
Like the apple in the Garden, then, the doctrine of stare decisis can be deceptively enticing. Dangled by the devil for evil purposes, the doctrine has an enormous capacity to mislead and deceive. Some nominally “conservative” members of the Court have succumbed to its appeal in the past, including in abortion cases, substituting a corrupted version of the doctrine for constitutional principle.
That is what happened in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision in which a 5-4 majority of the Court voted to reaffirm Roe v. Wade on the supposed basis of the doctrine of stare decisis — even while changing Roe’s standards and framework and overruling two cases.
Is there a risk that something like this could happen again in Dobbs? Is there a risk of another Casey? Might the Court hold, in the name of stare decisis, that Roe and Casey should be upheld, no matter how wrong they were, how extreme they are, and how atrocious their consequences, simply because they were decided before?
I take up that question next: Does the doctrine of stare decisis require adherence to an egregiously wrong, legally indefensible precedent, in conflict with a proper understanding of the Constitution, simply because it is a precedent?
Republished with permission from The Public Discourse.

Michael Stokes Paulsen

Michael Stokes Paulsen is Distinguished University Chair & Professor of Law, at the University of St. Thomas, in Minneapolis. More by Michael Stokes Paulsen
EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

What is China doing?

On May 26, 2021, President Joe Biden announced that he had asked the U.S. intelligence community to redouble its efforts to determine the origins of the COVID-19 virus. The U.S. findings are expected in about 90 days. So now we know what the Biden administration is doing, but what will the Chinese government, or the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), do? In light of China’s obfuscation so far, it is absurd to imagine that it will be cooperating with the U.S. investigation. Neither will it be sitting idly by waiting to learn of the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusions. Instead, the CCP will be doing everything it can to shape the report and ensure that the findings will be released in a context saturated by Chinese propaganda.
What does China want the narrative to be? The ideal outcome would be that the virus originated outside of China. Failing that, an acceptable outcome would be, as highlighted in a recent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article, that the virus “that killed millions of people and shattered the global economy” would be “among the world’s most consequential mysteries.”
There is one outcome that would be unacceptable to the CCP: China will do almost anything to keep the U.S. from concluding that the virus was developed in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The CCP is already taking steps to encourage the U.S. to reach “the right” judgment, and it appears to have people in the West, including in the U.S., who are willingly supporting those efforts.
On July 5, 2021, The Lancet published “Science, not speculation, is essential to determine how SARS-CoV-2 reached humans.” This letter was written by the same “reputable” experts who in early 2020, shortly after the outbreak of the pandemic, hurried to state — despite egregiously insufficient evidence — that the virus developed naturally and could not have been manufactured in a lab. That false narrative set the tone for more than one year.
Now, one-and-a-half years later, The Lancet has again come out with an unjustified dismissal of the lab leak theory, couched in support for the G7’s call for a new COVID origins study, led by the World Health Organization (WHO). Among repeated affirmations of “solidarity… with those in China who [have] confronted the outbreak,” the letter piously cautions that “it might take years of field and laboratory study to assemble and link data essential to reach rational and objective conclusions…” This type of delay, strategically accompanied by a strong but carefully hedged reassertion of the original claim that “we believe the strongest clue from new, credible, and peer reviewed evidence in the scientific literature is that the virus evolved in nature, while suggestions of a laboratory leak source of the pandemic remain without scientifically validated evidence that directly supports it in peer-reviewed scientific journals,” is exactly what the WSJ warned might happen. More significantly, it is exactly what China wants. Nothing could be better for China than having The Lancet as the messenger, lending scientific credibility to what the CCP wants the world to believe.
Click HERE to read more.
Originally published by the Gatestone Institute

 Pete Hoekstra

Pete Hoekstra is a former Representative in Congress from Michigan. He served as the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. More recently he was U.S. Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

IT WAS ALWAYS ABOUT THE KIDS: Gay Men’s Choir Video Unvarnished

“You think that we’ll corrupt your kids if our agenda goes unchecked. Just this once … you’re correct. We’ll convert your children, happens bit by bit, quietly and subtly. We’ll convert your children, reaching one and all. There’s really no escaping it. We’re coming for your children! We’re coming for your children! We’re coming for your children!”
Creepy or what? You’re probably wondering where I found this terrifying threat. An early episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer? The trailer to Blumhouse Productions’ latest horror blockbuster, perhaps? A dream journal lifted from an insane asylum?
Nope. These are song lyrics from an organization more sinister and frightening than any scary movie you had in mind: the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus (SFGMC), a crying circle for Bay Area pederasts. It’s what happens when clerical sexual abuse meets soullessness, joylessness and tunelessness. The song, which keeps disappearing from YouTube because even leftists are shocked by its accidental truthfulness, cannot be unseen. Musically, it is terrible, and of course boring — because ideas this ugly cannot be expressed in beautiful words or melodies. The singers look haunted — because they are. The message is unvarnished, explicit, unequivocal: It was always about the kids.
The ugliest hues in the gay rainbow are the nebulous pastels of transgenderism, because trans ideology compels mothers to sacrifice their own children, just as pagan cults promised fertility through blood sacrifice. At its heart, homosexualism is a form of demonic grasping for transcendence, a perversion of our natural longing for our Almighty Father, which follows naturally from these pagan origins. But gay men are nothing if not competitive, and this video represents male homosexuality’s attempt to reclaim the top spot of terror from the Korybantic priests of trans acceptance.

The “message from the gay community” 

The shabby, earthly cult of homosexualism has always been laser-focused on children because it is really a reimagining of a very old, pagan form of worship: blood sacrifice, especially of children by their own kin, in the hope of supernatural reward. It is also, as betrayed by the chillingly robotic performances from these spiteful Californian songbirds, an inversion of divine joy. Everything they do is a pathetic inversion of the good, the whole and the true — even their wretched rainbow, a reappropriation of the symbol of God’s covenant with Noah, explicitly associated with fertility because the ark was populated by heterosexual pairs of animals.
The immediate physical objectives of the LGBT movement are diabolical because they militate against human fertility. Sterile homosexual congress, castration and the corruption of children stand in defiant opposition to the fertility of Christianity. Believing in Jesus Christ requires an act of faith in a Holy Patriarch and a rejection of the demonic terror of transsexualism. Trannies are the castrated priests of Cybele whom Augustine saw dancing in the streets of Carthage, dressed like women but not women.
And yet, the blinding light of eternal truth makes man’s defiance look tiny. In Christianity, we embrace a longing for the “gender fluidity” of the incarnation, of the marriage of human and divine. This is a more dangerous ambition than anything the squalid bedwetters of trans Twitter can conceive: Our God became incarnate — wedding his divinity to our humanity in Mary’s womb — to become the sacrifice.
Against my Christian instincts, I want to summon hatred for the smug, gyrating malefactors of the SFGMC. But I can’t. These men aren’t pedophiles — though many of them were turned into homosexuals by pedophiles. For the most part, they are simply misguided, afraid and damaged children who have no clue how to behave or who to be because they have never experienced an authentic, platonic relationship with another man. They are hopelessly disconnected from their ordained purpose, seized by fear, sprinting as fast as their legs will carry them from their responsibilities and the growing suspicion that they were destined for leadership and fatherhood.

Milo Yiannopoulos

Milo Yiannopoulos is a New York Times-bestselling author, an award-winning investigative reporter, a reformed sodomite, a global political sensation, a free speech martyr, an accomplished serial entrepreneur, a hair icon, a penitent, and, to the annoyance of his many enemies, a happy person. Nicknamed the “pop star of hate” by jealous fatties in the media, Milo is the most censored, most lied-about man in the world, banned from entire continents for his unapologetic commitment to the sound of his own voice. His first book, Dangerous, sold over 200,000 copies despite never being reviewed in any major publication. Milo lives in Florida, where he is preparing to open a reparative therapy clinic for men plagued by same-sex attraction. He welcomes letters from readers, and can be reached at
RELATED ARTICLE: San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus sings ‘We’re coming for your children’
EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Ivy League Study Shows How U.S. Media Created a Climate of Fear Over COVID-19

A new NBER paper titled “Why Is All COVID-19 News Bad News?” shows how US media fanned the flames of public panic.

n February 18, the Oxford Mail published an article headlined “Scientists working on a coronavirus vaccine in Oxford.”
The article explained that Sarah Gilbert, a British vaccinologist and professor at the University of Oxford, was leading a team of scientists at Oxford’s Jenner Institute in rapid development of a vaccine.
The article was short (less than 200 words), featured a quote from Gilbert, and was reported without any predictions on possible death tolls.
For months, Gilbert’s research was not covered in the US. And when US media did cover it months later, the successful track record of the Oxford researchers was downplayed, as was the possibility of getting a vaccine developed quickly.
“The earliest available (major outlet) U.S. story is from CNN on April 23rd and begins with a quote from England’s Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty saying that the probability of having a vaccine or treatment ‘anytime in the next calendar year’ is ‘incredibly small,’” authors of a new National Bureau of Economic Research paper explain.

The authors of the NBER paper—titled “Why Is All COVID-19 News Bad News?”—use media coverage of Gilbert’s vaccine research as a case study to highlight a larger trend: the unique way US media covered the coronavirus pandemic.
The authors of the paper—Bruce Sacerdote, Ranjan Sehgal, and Molly Cook, who hail from Dartmouth College and Brown University—analyzed the tone of COVID-19 related news articles written since January 1 and found a striking difference in the way US media covered the pandemic compared to media in other countries.
“Ninety one percent of stories by U.S. major media outlets are negative in tone versus fifty four percent for non-U.S. major sources and sixty five percent for scientific journals,” the authors concluded.
To be sure, pandemics are hardly a cheerful topic. We’re not talking about a firefighter rescuing a kitten from a tree or a local man winning the lottery. But that wouldn’t explain the discrepancy in media coverage or the fact that positive developments do occur in pandemics.
This invites an important question: how did US media respond to positive developments?
“The negativity of the U.S. major media is notable even in areas with positive scientific developments including school re-openings and vaccine trials,” the authors found. “Stories of increasing COVID-19 cases outnumber stories of decreasing cases by a factor of 5.5 even during periods when new cases are declining.” (emphasis added)

The trend toward pessimistic news coverage was so acute, James Freeman noted in the Wall Street Journal, that the media mostly missed the amazing vaccine development story that took place right under their nose.
As the NBER report states, US media stories discussing President Donald Trump and hydroxychloroquine alone outnumber all the stories on vaccine R&D media produced during the pandemic.

In his classic book Dune, Frank Herbert wrote about the power of fear.
“Fear is the mind-killer,” wrote Herbert. “Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.”
For many, 2020 has been the most fearful year of their lives. The coronavirus pandemic has brought uncertainty, change, and deadly risk. A certain amount of fear during a pandemic is warranted, of course. But there are rational ways to respond to threats and irrational ways, and that is a line America crossed in 2020.
Indeed, new research developed by scientists working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests the virus appears to have arrived in the US in December 2019. This would mean the coronavirus was in the US for months and Americans didn’t even know it.
But once the media caught wind of the disease and fanned the flames of public panic, the fear took on a life of its own. Americans and, worse, lawmakers, began to respond to the virus in irrational ways. Basic virology went out the window as 15 days to flatten the curve devolved into a mad idea that we must close down society and shelter from the virus, unleashing unprecedented restrictions on economic freedom and destroying untold numbers of lives and livelihoods in the process.
This is the power of fear. It caused many rational people, such as Rich Lowry of National Review who in April called opponents of lockdowns “absurd,” to suddenly view the sacrifice of timeless civil liberties as entirely reasonable because they believed it would save lives.
Today, of course, we know the lockdowns were worse than useless. While they did little to nothing to slow the spread of the virus, their collateral damage speaks for itself. A global collapse in economic output. A projected 150 million people falling into extreme poverty. A historic surge in depression and social isolation that will have consequences that reverberate for decades. Millions of children thrust into learning environments that appear to be even worse than their previous situations, despite the fact that health officials have for months said closing schools is not an effective way to curb the spread of the virus.
Again, this is the power of fear, and it caused Lowry and lockdown proponents to forget an age-old truism from Benjamin Franklin.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety,” Franklin once observed.
Sadly, that is usually what they get.


Jon Miltimore

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

5 Charts That Show Sweden’s Strategy Worked. The Lockdowns Failed
WHO Reverses Course, Now Advises Against Use of ‘Punishing’ Lockdowns
4 Life-Threatening Unintended Consequences of the Lockdowns
Lockdown Despotism and the “Control Panel” Delusion
Harvard Researchers: Nearly Half of Young Adults Showing Signs of Depression Amid Pandemic
Why Sweden Succeeded in “Flattening the Curve” and New York Failed
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Facts About SLÁVERY They Don’t Teach You at School

For a deeper look into the real history of slavery, read ‘Black Rednecks and White Liberals‘ by Thomas Sowell.

©All rights reserved.

Democrat Mandated COVID-19 Lockdowns Caused More Deaths Instead Of Reducing Them, RAND study finds

The Democrat media complex was an accomplice to this mass murder.

COVID-19 lockdowns caused more deaths instead of reducing them, RAND study finds

By: Michael McKenna,  June 30, 2021 Washington Times,:
COVID-19 lockdowns caused more deaths instead of reducing them, study finds
Those who pushed ‘shelter in place’ policies share the blame, but everyone feels the consequences
As we begin to pick through the rubble of the early days of the coronavirus that started in Wuhan in an effort to determine with some specificity the origins of COVID-19, and whether it was accidentally or purposefully released from a Chinese lab, it is important, too, that we assess the wisdom of our public health approaches to the disease.
Chief among those approaches was the institution of lockdowns across a broad range of populations.
The pathologies of the lockdowns are clear and have been both predicted and recorded. They include increased risk of preventable deaths from cancer, heart disease, etc., as well as psychological trauma, resulting in increased homicides, accidents and suicidal ideations, caused by long periods of isolation.
What is less clear is whether the lockdowns served any useful medical purpose.
Fortunately, two researchers at the RAND Corporation and two researchers from the University of Southern California have done an analysis of the medical value of the lockdowns (which they refer to as “sheltering in place,” or SIP, policies). They looked at 43 countries and all of the states in the union, and published their assessment in June as a working paper of the National Bureau for Economic Research.
Shelter-in-place orders didn’t save lives during the pandemic, research paper concludes
You may have missed the report. It has not received much coverage from the media, who must be busy with some incredibly important and hard-hitting story about Dr. Anthony Fauci or the first lady.
Let’s remedy that oversight.
The RAND/USC team is unsparingly direct: “[W]e fail to find that SIP policies saved lives. To the contrary, we find a positive association between SIP policies and excess deaths. We find that following the implementation of SIP policies, excess mortality increases.”
So, the lockdowns didn’t reduce the number of deaths, failed to prevent any excess deaths, and in fact resulted in increased deaths.
Additionally, countries that locked their citizens in their homes were experiencing declining — not increasing — excess mortality prior to lockdowns. In other words, lockdowns probably made the situation worse.
The researchers were again direct. “If SIP were implemented when excess deaths were rising then the results … would be biased towards finding that SIP policies lead to excess deaths. However, we find the opposite: countries that implemented SIP policies experienced a decline in excess mortality prior to implementation compared to countries that did not implement SIP policies.”
Moreover, unless you lived on an island, it did not seem to make any difference when the lockdowns were implemented. They were ineffectual at best and led to increased mortality at worst.
From the study: “It is also possible that the average effects in our event studies might hide heterogeneity (differences) in the impact of policies across countries and U.S. states. For example, SIP policies might be more effective when implemented early in the pandemic or SIP policies might work better when community transmission is high. … Overall, we find little evidence of heterogenous effects except that SIP policies seem to be more effective in island nations or … Hawaii.”
Finally, there was no advantage to locking down early or staying locked down longer. The researchers noted: “We failed to find that countries or U.S. states that implemented SIP policies earlier, and in which SIP policies had longer to operate, had lower excess deaths than countries/U.S. states that were slower to implement SIP policies.”
So, the duration of the lockdowns made no difference.
The simple fact is that COVID-19 was and is a highly infectious respiratory disease to which everyone is eventually going be exposed either naturally or through vaccines. The disease tends to kill older people and those with preexisting respiratory challenges or who are obese.
The RAND/USC study makes it clear that all the lockdowns accomplished was to add personal, psychological and economic devastation to the terrible personal and societal toll of illness and death.
Everyone involved — from President Trump and his public health advisers who initiated the first lockdown (remember “15 days to slow the spread”), right on through to those who continue to insist that isolation for everyone, even those not at risk, is the correct course of action — share the blame.
But all of us share the consequences.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.
Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permanently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Help us fight the great fight.
And if you can, please contribute to Geller Report. YOU make the work possible.

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Gender Case, Gives Up On Protecting Basic Values

Our elected representatives and their appointees need to do their duties, even when it isn’t politically expedient. That’s why the Supreme Court’s recent actions are cause for concern.
Earlier this week, the court announced that it wouldn’t review a 2019 ruling by a lower court that granted a gender-confused female high school student in Virginia the right to use male restrooms. Notably, none of the three justices appointed by President Donald Trump argued in favor of considering the appeal. Last December, the court declined to review a similar case, when parents in Oregon tried to challenge school policies allowing gender-confused students the right to use opposite-gender restrooms.
The Supreme Court’s submission on this issue is deeply troubling. Six of the nine justices are supposedly principled conservatives who should recognize the risks of normalizing gender confusion. Girls and young women across the country will have to endure humiliating privacy violations, and free speech will be at risk if public schools cannot state simple realities about biological sex. Perhaps the heightened agitation around the issue during “pride” month made the justices too wary of a backlash. If so, they are abandoning their responsibility to protect basic freedoms to appease a small group of activists who will never be appeased either way.
This dangerous trend hasn’t just taken root in Virginia. In 2016, the Obama administration tried to force public schools across the country to let boys into girls’ private spaces or risk losing funding. And when North Carolina passed a law protecting the rights of private businesses – not government – to affirm the reality of biological gender, activists pressured corporations to boycott the state, and the Obama administration sued.
The Supreme Court must protect the right to call a man a man and a woman a woman. And it needs to ensure that the wellbeing of children – including young people driven to gender confusion – is protected by not normalizing transgender ideology.
EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

As Biden’s Dementia Worsens, What’s Next?

If the Democrats has taught us one thing it’s – it can always get worse. And under their stolen regime, it will.

If Joe Goes, What Next?

By Jack Cashill, The American Thinker, June 26, 2021:
Everywhere other than in Big Media newsrooms, Americans speak openly of President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline and wonder whether he can last out his four-year term.  If he cannot last, there are certain things we can be confident will happen and other things about which we can only speculate.  The latter will be much more intriguing.
Should Biden leave office, willingly or otherwise, Kamala Harris will become president.  This is a given.  Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution makes clear that in “case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President.”
The Constitution, as written, did not address what happens next.  The 25th Amendment, adopted after the assassination of President Kennedy, answered that question, at least in principle.  It reads, “Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.”
In recent memory, there have been two precedents, both involving Richard Nixon.  On October 10, 1973, Vice President Spiro Agnew pleaded no contest to charges of tax evasion and money-laundering and resigned.  Despite Nixon’s landslide victory in 1972, Democrats retained firm control of Congress, with a 50-seat majority in the House and a 14-seat majority in the Senate.  This mattered.  The Democrats all but dictated Nixon’s choice of the congenial, moderate House minority leader, Gerald Ford, to assume the vice presidency.  Ford was nominated two days after Agnew stepped down and confirmed by overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Congress.
At the time of Ford’s confirmation, Democrats had good reason to suspect that Nixon would soon be forced out himself.  The coordinated Democrat-media plot to oust Nixon as a result of his presumed involvement in the Watergate affair was well underway.  The plot climaxed on August 9, 1974, with Nixon’s resignation.  Ford was sworn in later that same day.
It now fell to Ford to choose his vice president.  Given the composition of Congress, he excluded any conservatives from consideration and settled on the GOP’s most prominent liberal, former New York State governor Nelson Rockefeller.  For Rockefeller, the confirmation hearings were considerably rougher than they had been for Ford — less for ideological reasons than for personal ones — but he was eventually confirmed despite opposition from conservatives in both parties.
As history shows, the “when” of a vice presidential opening can determine the “who.”  Right now, Big Media remains deeply in denial that there will ever be a “when.”  In his well-sourced book on the 2020 campaign, Battle for the Soul, Edward-Isaac Dovere makes only one reference to Biden’s mental state and suggests that the dementia rumor was a conspiracy theory cooked up somewhere deep in a Bernie Sanders soup kitchen.
Last week, White House physician turned Republican congressman Ronny Jackson forced the mental health issue into the news.  He challenged Biden to undergo a cognitive assessment, much as President Trump had successfully done.  Rushing to Biden’s defense, the Washington Post recruited a professor of public health — his Ph.D. is in sociology — to assure Post readers, “With Biden, not only are there not warning signs, the signs that you see show he’s in exceptional health.”  In truth, the warning signs for Hurricane Katrina were less obvious.
In the movie version, reporters with access to the White House would be showing their audiences evidence of Biden’s mental meltdowns and probing their sources to find out what happens next.  In real life, they take their own cultish vows of omertà more seriously than did the Corleones.  Their emperor remains fully clothed.
Those insiders who do talk, like Dr. Jackson, get punished.  The fact that President Obama appointed Jackson admiral for his service as White House physician won him no reprieve.  Although entirely irrelevant to the state of Biden’s mind, the Post reminded its readers that, according to the Defense Department, “[Jackson] had bullied and intimidated staff and made inappropriate sexual remarks.”
Lacking access to the White House, I take my cues from presidential history and the extensive research I have done on Barack Obama, including his presumed third term through proxy Joe Biden.  One historical given is that timing matters.  During the 2020 campaign, having finessed Bernie Sanders out of the race, the Democrats’ leaders knew they had to ride the seemingly moderate Biden as far as he could take them.  With the help of the media, they were largely able to conceal the erosion of Biden’s mental facilities.  Unless the polls show an impending disaster, Democrats have no more motive to dump Biden before the 2022 election than they did in 2020.
After the election, party leaders will have a decision to make.  If they hold majorities in both Houses, they can put that decision off indefinitely.  If they lose control decisively in either House, they will be wise to give the media a prompt green light to highlight Biden’s cognitive issues.  Once the ground is softened, they can move to usher Biden out through the complex process described in the 25th Amendment.  They will have to be quick.  There are only two months between Election Day and the installment of a new Congress.
Until January 2023, the Democrats will control the House and share power in the Senate.  In 1973 and 1974, Republican senators proved more pliable to Democrat wishes than did GOP House members.  Little has changed.  For a half-dozen GOP senators, pliability is their vocation.  If Democrats wait until a new Congress is seated, they sacrifice much of their negotiating power.  The Republicans will insist on an unelectable milquetoast of the Gerald Ford model.
If Biden leaves office when the Democrats still have leverage, that’s when the fun begins.  The competing power blocs within the party will stage a quietly vicious knife fight for that second spot.  Knowing Harris’s weaknesses, they understand its potential.  Until six or so months ago, no one could have denied that spot to New York’s rock star, Governor Andrew Cuomo.  His stardom collapsed quicker than Milli Vanilli’s.  The Democrats’ values being what they are, his lethal indifference to the fate of thousands of old women did not diminish his star nearly as much as his “unwanted advances” toward a handful of young ones.
Cuomo’s fall had to surprise him.  That’s not supposed to happen to Democrats.  Dovere speaks at some length about how the Democrat-media “ecosystem” managed to keep the charges of sexual assault leveled against Biden by Tara Reade — Tara who? — out of the news.  Although Reade’s accusation was more serious and substantial than any brought against Cuomo, the ecosystem encouraged Cuomo’s accusers.  Someone gave the media permission.  Someone wanted Cuomo gone.
With Harris as president, this may be the last time in the foreseeable future that a white male will be the preferred Democrat nominee for anything.  Although the pickings are slim, Ted Cruz spokeswoman Erin Perrine unwittingly summed up the qualifications of the one white man with a good shot at the job.  Said Perrine, “Terry McAuliffe is a swampy career politician who sold his soul to Nancy Pelosi and the radical left to bankroll his fledgling campaign.”  Given those qualifications, if McAuliffe wins the Virginia governor’s race in November 2021, he might even be the betting favorite for vice president.
If the party is willing to put two women at the top, the contest gets much more interesting.  According to Dovere, the selection for Biden’s VP came down to six women: Harris; Massachusetts’s Sen. Elizabeth Warren; Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer; Biden’s domestic policy council director, Susan Rice; California’s Rep. Karen Bass; and Georgia’s self-appointed governor in exile, Stacey Abrams.  Other than Warren and Whitmer, all of these women were in the running to add literal color to a Biden ticket.  With Harris as president, they are all redundant.  Warren does not have friends enough to put her on an all-female White House team, and Whitmer will be lucky if she doesn’t get recalled.
Only two women have friends enough and ambition enough to get the nod: Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama.  Obama’s friends are younger.  Hillary’s are crueler.  May the best and baddest win.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.
Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permanently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Help us fight the great fight.
And if you can, please contribute to Geller Report. YOU make the work possible.

44 Things You Should Know about the Green New Deal

What should we make of this Green New Deal?

On Feb. 7, US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and US Sen. Ed Markey introduced legislation known as the Green New Deal.
You’ve probably heard of it. It’s a big deal, to paraphrase Joe Biden.

Wikipedia, the internet’s fountain of knowledge, describes the legislation as “a proposed stimulus package that aims to address climate change and economic inequality.”
Okay. But what is that?
If the term “new deal” sounds familiar, it should. It’s a reference to FDR’s New Deal, which was itself a play off of Teddy Roosevelt’s Square Deal. (Politicians don’t win extra points for originality.)
So just imagine FDR’s New Deal took the Paris Climate Agreement out for drinks, one thing led to another, and—voila—nine months later they had a baby: The Green New Deal.
So what should we make of this Green New Deal? Since climate change is bad, and inequality is bad, can we assume the Green New Deal is good?

Well, that’s for you to decide. But here are 44 facts and reflections on the GND to consider:
1. The GND is necessary, we’re told, because global warming will cause “more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100.”
2. That’s a scary number. But even if we accept such a figure, it’s important to note, as Tim Worstall has, that we’re talking about .05 percent of the total US economy in 2100.
3. That $500 billion price tag, in context, is rather small, then—at least compared to what AOC’s legislation would cost. Some estimates put the price tag at $93 trillion.
4. Relax, relax. Fact-checking organizations are probably right when they say that these figures are mostly pulled out of a, ahem, hat (much like AOC’s own $500 billion figure).
5. In fact, all these big numbers make me think of this:
6. So why do we need to spend all those trillions in the first place? One reason AOC cites is “a 4-decade trend of wage stagnation.”
7. The problem? The wage narrative, as Bloomberg recently pointed out, is a myth. As in not true.
8. That’s right. Although wages flattened (briefly) in the mid-90s, they have grown steadily since, according to Federal Reserve data.
9. Uh, that’s actually good news.
10. Ditto on overall economic growth. Fact: Real GDP growth, per capita, has averaged nearly 1.7 percent per year since 1980. At that rate, the average person’s standard of living doubles every four decades or so.
11. Well, you wouldn’t know this by reading the GND. It cites grievance—“the top 1 percent of earners [accrue] 91 percent of gains”—after grievance—“a large racial wealth gap”—after grievance—“a gender earnings gap that results in women earning approximately 80 percent as much as men.”
12. Some of these claims are accurate. Others are not. But the point is that from reading the GND, one would have no idea that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is living in the most prosperous era in human history.
13. The capitalism AOC decries as “irredeemable” has given us this:
14. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez can cite “life expectancy declining” as a reason to pass her GND. But take a look at the actual data on US life expectancy over the last 135 years.
15. Surelife expectancy did briefly dip between 2014 and 2016—by three-tenths of 1 percent. However, that decline was the result of drug overdoses and suicides. The trend has nothing to do with climate change and, more importantly, it’s a trend that’s not expected to continue.
16. Okay, okay, okay, you say. But what about the climate? What good is wealth and a long life if the planet BOILS IN A LAKE OF FIRE?!
17. Because that’s what AOC said is going to happen. “We’re, like, the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change,” she explained in January.
18. It gets worse. Climate scientist Politician Beto O’Rourke says 12 years is actually wishful thinking. It’s more like 10.
19. AOC might be right. Or maybe O’Rourke is. On the other hand, some scientists who have, like, Nobel Prizes, are less convinced that a global warming apocalypse is upon us.

20. Perhaps realizing that there is a small chance the world will still be here in 2031, AOC recently hedged on her assertion that the world will end in 12 years if we don’t act.

21. It was all big joke, you see.
22. The world’s not really ending in 12 years.
23. And yet—the GND is still on the table, and fossil fuels are still the enemy. In fact, the stated goal of the GND is to meet “100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”
24. Is this possible? The cars we drive, the homes we cool and heat, and the lights that illuminate our world all require vast amounts of energy. How much energy? Well, Americans on average use about 310 million BTU annually. That’s roughly 1.005400000E+17 nationally.
25. The lowest cost alternative to coal and natural gas is nuclear energy. The US currently has 99 nuclear reactors, each of which have a generating capacity between 582 megawatts and 3937 megawatts. Together, these 99 reactors generate 20 percent of US electricity.
26. Sixty-three percent of US electricity comes from fossil fuels, however. To switch that 63 percent to nuclear energy would require more than 200 additional nuclear reactors. At approximately $15 billion per plant, the total cost over the 10-year period would be around $3 trillion just to build the reactors.
27. Yeah, that’s a pretty penny. In fact, that’s nearly all federal revenue collected in 2017. So it’s doable but extremely expensive. However, AOC said building more nuclear plants is off-limits.
28. Graciously, however, she said she will allow nuclear plants already built to continue operating… for now. Her office said that’s because it’s unclear just how fast “we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant.”
29. This is odd because nuclear power is safecheapreliable, and generates zero greenhouse gasses. That’s why the Union of Concerned Scientists recently said nuclear energy is necessary to address climate change.
30. In fact, the idea that we could come close to meeting our energy needs without fossil fuels, nuclear plants, or a historic breakthrough in fusion is, well…
31. Perhaps this is why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi came up with a pet name for the Green New Deal: “The Green Dream or Whatever.”
32. Pelosi didn’t stop there. “It’s enthusiastic, and I appreciate the enthusiasm,” said the House Speaker.
33. Ouch. Perhaps this is why AOC backed off and said maybe nuclear energy is still on the table.
34. Either way, the Green New Deal would mean big changes. But how big? And how would those changes be made? Steve Inskeep, a journalist at NPR and host of the Morning Edition program, asked AOC if her plan requires “massive government intervention.”
35. “It does. It does. Yeah. I have no problem saying that,” she responded, according to the transcript.
36. Say what you will about AOC, she deserves points for honesty. At least that morning she did. Here is what she said later in the day: “One way the right tries to mischaracterize what we’re doing as though it’s like some kind of massive government takeover… obviously, it’s not that.”
37. The Green New Deal, it’s safe to say, is rather confusing. The big question: How worried should you be?
38. Not that worried, actually. The legislation that comprises the GND, as explains, is nonbinding. This means that if the bill passes, it will not “have the force of law.”
39. That’s right. Political parties and pundits have spent millions of hours(ish) talking about legislation that is essentially meaningless. The GND, one could say, is a massive PR stunt. (Consider this: if you Google “Green New Deal,” you’ll get 2.32 billion—billion—hits in .62 seconds.)
40. That’s frustrating, but keep in mind: a) politics is dumb; b) we should be thankful—exceedingly thankful—the Green New Deal will not have the power of law behind it should it actually pass.
41. Why? Because as former Greenpeace president Patrick Moore pointed out, untold numbers of people likely would die if the GND became binding law.

You don’t have a plan to grow food for 8 billion people without fossil fuels, or get food into the cities. Horses? If fossil fuels were banned every tree in the world would be cut down for fuel for cooking and heating. You would bring about mass death.

42. Yeah, that’s kind of terrifying. Now, nobody is saying AOC wants millions to die. No one wants that. But it’s an overlooked fact that most of the horrors of the 20th century were committed by people attempting to use government and force to improve the world, not markets and free exchange.
43. “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to [humans] how little they really know about what they imagine they can design,” the Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek observed in The Fatal Conceit.
44. Hayek’s statement includes everyone—even the charming young congresswoman from the Bronx New York City.

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times,, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Ending Hydraulic Fracturing Will Sabotage America as Energy Prices Soar!


Congressman Tom Price served as the U.S. Representative for Georgia’s 6th congressional district, encompassing the northern suburbs of Atlanta, A physician Dr Price He was appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services by President Donald Trump. While in Congress, Price chaired the House Committee on the Budget, Republican Study Committee and Republican Policy Committee.
TOPIC: Former HHS Secretary Dr. Tom Price Reacts to Affordable Care Act Surviving Latest Challenge in Supreme Court.
Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition, and a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute. He has 40 years experience as a mechanical engineer/project manager, science and technology communications professional, technical trainer, and S&T advisor to a former Opposition Senior Environment Critic in Canada’s Parliament.
TOPIC: Ending Hydraulic Fracturing Will Sabotage America as Energy Prices Soar!
©Conservative Commandoes Radio. All rights reserved.

A Little Clarity on Some Big Questions

Robert Royal: Many of our social problems – notoriously including easy abortion – stem from the breakdown of the family, which became supercharged with the advent of the sexual revolution.

The Pew Research Center, a reliable source on American attitudes about religion, found in 2019 that 43 percent of American Catholics were “unaware” of Church teaching about Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist. Twenty-two percent said they knew, but didn’t believe it. Only 28 percent both knew and believed the teaching. And this, as we’re often hearing these days, about what Vatican II called the “source and summit” of Christian life. (Lumen Gentium 11) No wonder that on many other matters, Catholics – even educated and publicly visible Catholics – also display a stunning casualness and ignorance about the Faith.
Take abortion. A senator from my own state of Virginia, Tim Kaine, wrote recently:

a decision by U.S. bishops to elevate issues of human sexuality, however important, above all others seems contrary to the Gospel. No reading of the life of Jesus would suggest these issues as his primary, or even secondary, concern. His towering message is about love of neighbor as oneself with a special focus on the poor, sick, hungry, marginalized.

Kaine spent time in Honduras as a young man with a Jesuit mission, so he can’t be entirely faulted (as many other Catholic politicians can be) for thinking that Jesus’ concern for others only means voting for ever-larger government spending on social “programs.” But Kaine can be tasked – again like many others – for not knowing what he’s talking about.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW CHART: U.S. Catholics 2019 – The Real Presence
The bishops have for decades been in virtual lockstep with Democrats on immigration, poverty, climate, etc. They are preparing their document on “Eucharistic Coherence” not because of general concern over sexual issues (about which more below) but because figures like President Biden and Speaker Pelosi have shifted from “personally opposed” to outright promotion, funding, and facilitating of abortion. That public scandal cannot go unchecked.
But Jesus never spoke about abortion, you say. Well, that’s because it was unthinkable among Jews of his day. Early Christians did speak explicitly against the practice. Further, the problem with abortion is not that it’s “sexual”; it’s that it’s murderous. In opposing abortion, the Church is affirming Catholic teaching. But it’s also reminding a society that has become coarse about sex that it’s committing violence on an immense scale against the innocent, which even human reason sees is an abomination.
Trying to group abortion with sexual questions is simple misdirection.
I often hear from readers that people like me are engaging in partisan politics, that we hammer away at Democrats about abortion, but don’t criticize Republicans like former Attorney General William Barr for supporting the death penalty.
The cases are simply not equivalent. The Church has long recognized the death penalty as a licit punishment that, after fair legal procedures, may be imposed on offenders. That such systems sometimes make mistakes on capital cases and others does not invalidate the general point. If you need evidence, Edward Feser and Joseph Bessette have produced the definitive work: By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment.
It’s true that recent popes have questioned the wisdom of using the death penalty. Pope Francis has even altered the Catechism to read that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.” (CCC 2267)
But this is his personal view. In the Old Testament, God Himself prescribes death for certain crimes. And a long series of the pope’s predecessors would have argued the opposite: holding people responsible for grave acts is, in a way, an affirmation of their human dignity as moral actors.
And there’s also the practical question: Affluent societies may be able to afford, say, life sentences for murderers. Poorer societies, in circumstances of instability and disorder, may not.
Calling the death penalty “inadmissible,” rather than unambiguously immoral, is a tacit sign that even the pope knows he’s on thin moral ice and wants enough ambiguity that he can’t be accused of changing the teaching of past popes.
To indict someone likely William Barr on such flimsy grounds and to equate the few executions that occur in America with the massive offense against human life that is abortion in America today is, for me and many others, quite a stretch.
As to the poor, the sick, the hungry, and the marginalized, which is often the plea of pro-abortion politicians today – implying that their spending on social programs (that often have unintended bad consequences) is what Jesus was focused on in the Gospels – let’s try instead to think like Catholics.
Catholic social teaching begins from the very useful understanding that the family, not the isolated individual, is the basis of society. (Catechism 1605) Many of our social problems stem from the breakdown of the family, which became supercharged with the advent of the sexual revolution.
Brad Wilcox, a professor at the University of Virginia, has studied how fathers – especially black fathers – make a difference to children and society at large. In a recent article, he presented this:
CLICK HERE TO VIEW: Figure 3. College and Prison Black Men & Women, By Family Structure
The numbers are not the only thing of importance in such matters, to be sure. But they show that family structure plays a large role – in several respects much larger than alleged “racism” – in rates of criminality, incarcerations, and economic inequalities. Though intact families help whites as well, of course, some studies even show a greater positive benefit for blacks living in two-parent households than for whites.
It’s no good to claim that the breakdown of the black family is the result of racism. In 1940 (when Jim Crow was riding high), about 18 percent of black children were born out of wedlock; today it’s over 70 percent. Racism has been weakening in American society even as family breakdown has been increasing for all races.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW: Nonmarital Birth Rates in the United States, 1940-2014
Look at the chart above. Pace Tim Kaine et al., the bishops aren’t putting our political class on the spot over sex, or for ignoring and often excusing self-destructive behavior. But as the bishops try to defend the most vulnerable among us, maybe they should.

Robert Royal

Dr. Robert Royal is editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C., and currently serves as the St. John Henry Newman Visiting Chair in Catholic Studies at Thomas More College. His most recent books are Columbus and the Crisis of the West and A Deeper Vision: The Catholic Intellectual Tradition in the Twentieth Century.

The Covid McGuffin

The brilliant director Alfred Hitchcock often used the term “McGuffin” to describe one of his favorite plot devices—an object or event that set the plot in motion, while essentially inconsequential in itself. And while Hitchcock’s The 39 Steps and North by Northwest provide stellar samples, the ultimate exemplar of this phenomenon is The Maltese Falcon from the beloved John Huston film of that name. In the movie, a group of suspicious characters will stop at nothing in their pursuit of a black statuette of a falcon. Why? Because underneath its dark enamel exterior lay a solid gold falcon encrusted with priceless gems—or so they thought.
Spoiler alert: they never find the Maltese Falcon—it was simply a catalyst for a terrific film, and no one ever pulled off a McGuffin plot better than Huston or the inimitable Hitch. That is, until now. For the powers-that-be have trumped not only the famous director, but also America herself, and quite possibly, the world at large.
How, you ask? By exploiting their own McGuffin: a microscopic virus.
This was brilliant on at least two counts: first because no one can see the virus—though they made sure we were inundated with artists’ colorful renditions on websites and publications galore; and second, because the so-called “elites”—the New World Order/Great Reset billionaire globalist cabal and friends—control our media, as well as much of the world’s media, so guess who got to tell the story?


In fact, they even had a rehearsal, known as Event 201! And if that’s not galling enough, they gave the invitees souvenir plush coronavirus toys complete with little rounded “spikes” as party favors! Seems they couldn’t wait to celebrate their psy-op that would pave the way to their utopian One World Government by destroying First World economies.
And who were the sponsors of Event 201, you ask? Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Do you find that reassuring? Me neither.
In a very real sense, they were the scriptwriters as well as the filmmakers of the Plandemic, bringing to mind the movie Wag the Dog about a deliberately faked “war” presented to the public as real—which, in retrospect, now seems like mere child’s play.
Remember those horrifying videos of people dropping in the street in Wuhan, and Italian hospitals so filled with Covid patients they had to lodge many in the corridors? What perfect cinematography to panic the public. And let’s not forget the scary Johns Hopkins “dashboard” with predictions of “geometric progression” of Covid cases and fatalities. So of course we needed to take extreme measures, like shutting down our country.  Otherwise two million Americans would die in our suddenly overcrowded hospitals, struggling for breath. Or so we were told, as the rationale for more or less placing us under house arrest to “stop the spread” and “flatten the curve,” in what has been arguably the most brazen con job in history.
By the way, not only can we not see the virus, but some scientists are now saying it doesn’t exist! That’s right. This would mean that what they called Covid-19 was really just the seasonal flu! In fact no one, including the CDC, has been able to isolate and purify Sars-Cov-2, the virus supposedly responsible for wrecking our lives—I mean for causing Covid-19.
But even if the virus exists, as it certainly seems to, and even if it was designed in a gain-of-function experiment in the biohazard lab in Wuhan, China—funded by our own Dr. Feckless Fauci, head of NIAID—it still fits the McGuffin paradigm.
In fact, the Covid-19 version has been so successful that Bill Gates and pals are likely planning a sequel, and it looks like the title will be The Delta Variant. We’re in unprecedented territory now, as We the People are both their captive audience, as well as unpaid movie extras—who are always replaceable.
Stay tuned.


It seems curious that although no one has isolated the Sars-COV-2 virus, scientists have been able to make a Covid-19 vaccine for the virus.
Or have they?
A number of doctors and medical researchers, such as Dr. Sherri TenpennyDr. Andrew Wakefield, and Dr. Steven Hotze, to name just a few, point out that the Covid shots are not vaccines but rather experimental “gene therapy” that some would call dangerous genetic disrupters. In Dr. Wakefield’s words, “This is not a vaccine. It is an irreversible genetic modification.” Vaccines require a dead pathogen that puts the immune system on notice to form antibodies against it. But since there was no isolated Covid virus, they couldn’t do this. Ah, but there’s that ubiquitous “spike protein” we’ve all seen pictures of ad nauseam—so why not use that?


With my Sherlock Holmes’ cap in place, here’s what occurred to me earlier this year regarding the plandemic:
The virus itself was a blind—It was all about the spike protein. And the spike protein was very likely developed through Dr. Mengele Fauci’s funded “gain-of-function” research carried out in Wuhan. Perhaps the Frankensteinian scientists working on this malevolent project simply hollowed out the original Sars-CoV virus–as J&J hollowed out an adenovirus for its vaccine—and injected it with their genetically engineered spike protein, which was the actual bioweapon all along.
From there it would be an easy step to make so-called “vaccines” to deliver the spike protein bioweapon directly into the bodies of millions of unsuspecting people, primed as they were by the media and public health officials’ daily trumpeting the dangers of Covid, to line up for their shots. More to the point, they were desperate to return to normal life after a year of insane “lockdowns” and believed getting the jab was the only way to do it.


But don’t take Sherlock’s word for it. In an interview on June 11th, 2021 regarding Covid-19 and the vaccines, Dr. Peter McCullough—one of the foremost frontline doctors who’s treated patients with Covid-19—pointed out that both the virus and the vaccine infect the body with “the spike protein—the gain of function target of this bioterrorism research.”
And let’s not forget that the mortality rate for Covid was only around .1% for the general population, up to .2% for the elderly and those with co-morbidities; yes, sadly, the death rate was higher in nursing homes that were forced to take sick Covid patients back from hospitals—thanks to Andrew Cuomo and his ilk. Nevertheless, most people’s immune systems could vanquish the genetically engineered Covid-19 virus, spike protein and all.


Yet there were also rare occurrences of blood disorders, sometimes fatal, in a very small percentage of those who got Covid. It now seems that those blood issues, which we were told distinguished Covid from an ordinary flu, were directly caused by the spike protein. As this happened very infrequently, primarily in people with compromised or weakened immune systems, those who died of such disorders were the proverbial canaries in the coal mine—harbingers of the dangers looming ahead from the vaccines themselves.
Now imagine the difference between catching Covid and quickly recovering from it, versus being injected with “instructions,”—translation: orders—to your cells to make millions of spike proteins! We don’t even know whether this bioweapon production machinery ever turns itself off!  In any case, not only would this onslaught of spike proteins be likely to overwhelm anyone’s immune system, but these tiny bioweapons can travel all over your body, wreaking havoc in multiple organs and doing untold harm, including causing miscarriages and making women infertile. Hmmm… coincidentally, that oughta slow population growth….one of the goals of the NWO crowd.


And it’s now come out that Pfizer knew many of these dangers prior to marketing its vaccine—or more accurately put, prior to launching its experimental study conducted with the largest experimental group ever assembled: millions of unsuspecting human guinea pigs.
Here are some quotes from a recent article on Dr. Joseph Mercola’s website:

  • Pfizer’s data, however, show the mRNA and subsequent spike protein are widely distributed in the body within hours
  • This is a serious problem, as the spike protein is a toxin shown to cause cardiovascular and neurological damage. It also has reproductive toxicity, and Pfizer’s biodistribution data show it accumulates in women’s ovaries
  • Once in your blood circulation, the spike protein binds to platelet receptors and the cells that line your blood vessels. When that happens, it can cause platelets to clump together, resulting in blood clots, and/or cause abnormal bleeding
  • Pfizer documents submitted to the European Medicines Agency also show the company failed to follow industry-standard quality management practices during preclinical toxicology studies and that key studies did not meet good laboratory practice standards

Here’s what Canadian immunologist and vaccine researcher Byram Bridle, Ph.D. had to say after reviewing Pfizer’s study that tracked where the spike protein ended up in the body:
“We made a big mistake,” Bridle says. “We thought the spike protein was a great target antigen; we never knew the spike protein itself was a toxin and was a pathogenic protein. So, by vaccinating people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.”
I beg to differ with Dr. Bridle’s assessment on a key point: I do not believe this was a “mistake.” Consider the following:

  • We know the pandemic, aka Plandemic, was carefully planned in advance, and the lockdown scenario rehearsed in the infamous Event 201 “table-top” pandemic preparedness conference in October 2019—coincidentally, just a few months prior to Covid emerging, and funded by Bill Gates, who’s concerned about “overpopulation.”
  • We know the virus was manipulated to make it more lethal through the nefarious process known as “gain-of-function.”
  • We know the globalists/Davos cabal/Deep State, et al. wanted to destroy the Trumpian economy, oust the President, and cripple America to make her easy pickings for the Elites in their New World Order/Great Reset planned dystopia.
  • We know pregnant women were encouraged to get the vaccine though there were no relevant safety studies done. The result? The miscarriage rate for vaccinated women has skyrocketed to 82%.
  • So far, in just a few months, it’s been estimated that 25,800 Americans have died from these vaccines, and 1,000,000 more have been disabled—many permanently—though you won’t hear about this on the evening news.
  • Agencies such as the CDC, as well as our Fake News Media and its assorted “fact-checkers” are hush-hush about the vaccine tragedies all around us, and still pushing vaccination for all, including children, who were never at risk from Covid!


How likely is it, when the above points are taken into consideration, that Big Pharma simply goofed when concocting its highly experimental, virtually untested “gene therapy” mRNA “vaccines,” and really was trying to save humanity from the supposedly deadly virus known as Covid-19?
Sherlock himself addressed such complex quandaries as ours with pithy eloquence:
“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”
In our own present-day case, what might that truth be?
Here’s the way Shauna O’Neill, the mother of Haley Link Brinkmeyer who died after getting the Moderna vaccine, sees it:

“My 28 year old daughter took the vaccine on a Tuesday and she was dead by Thursday. …Anything with Bill Gates or Quack Fauci’s name attached should be a red flag. Depopulation my folks, depopulation. That’s their objective.”

Improbable, yes.
Impossible, no.
©Cherie Zaslawsky. All rights reserved.
RELATED ARTICLE: Half of Adults Infected in Latest COVID-19 Outbreak Were Fully Vaccinated: Israeli Official

PODCAST: The Left is Now Suggesting That We Re-Engineer Humans to Prefer Eating Insects!


Major General Jeffrey Schloesser is a retired Army Major General who commanded the 101st Airborne Division for thirty-three months, including fifteen months in combat in Afghanistan. In his thirty-four year Army career he served in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, Albania, Kuwait, Haiti, Jordan, South Korea, and twice in Germany. He also wrote an interesting book — Marathon War: Leadership in Combat in Afghanistan.
TOPIC: Biden Administration is sharply reducing the number of U.S. antimissile systems!
Steve Milloy is also the Founder of He is also a former member of Trump/Pence Environmental Protection Agency Transition Team. Steve will discuss the infrastructure bill and how virtually everything is packed into it — even climate change policies that have little to do with infrastructure.
TOPIC: The Left is now suggesting that we re-engineer humans to prefer eating insects!
Dan Gainor is the Vice President for Free Speech America at the Media Research Center. He’s also a veteran editor whose work has been published or cited in most of the nation’s top publications and broadcast programs. Dan will discuss H.R. 1 — otherwise, known as the Corrupt Politicians Act and how the media is melting down because it has met with opposition. Yet, that same media is horrified by state efforts to insure integrity of the vote.
TOPIC: Critical Race Theory motivated by racism!
©Conservative Commandoes Radio. All rights reserved.

CORRUPT: CDC Caught Cooking the Books On COVID

Is there no path for recourse? How can this stand? There is an absolute lawlessness, a power without accountability, that poses an existential threat to every American.
Yet another trusted American institution destroyed by the Democrats.

CDC Caught Cooking the Books on COVID Vaccines

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

  • COVID-19 has been a pandemic of false positive tests; the thing that kept the fraud going was the fact that laboratories were using excessively high cycle thresholds (CTs) when processing the PCR tests, resulting in false positives
  • Now, as over 100 million Americans have been “vaccinated” against COVID-19, the CDC is lowering the CT from 40 to 28, but only when diagnosing vaccine breakthrough cases — cases where fully vaccinated individuals are diagnosed with COVID-19
  • To make matters worse, the CDC also will no longer record mild or asymptomatic infections of those who were immunized as “COVID cases.” The only cases that now count as COVID cases for someone immunized with the COVID-19 vaccine are those that result in hospitalization or death
  • While healthy people continue to be misdiagnosed as having COVID-19 when they really don’t, thanks to an excessively high CT, the CDC is simultaneously minimizing the number of breakthrough cases by using a CT that will minimize the number of false positives
  • Other countries are also manipulating data to boost COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and hide breakthrough cases. In the U.K., COVID-19 will only be listed as the cause of death if the patient actually died from an active case of COVID-19 and nothing else

For many months now, we’ve known the COVID-19 pandemic was the result of statistical manipulation and a fraudulent testing strategy. I detailed this scheme in “COVID-19 Testing Scandal Deepens” and “Astonishing COVID-19 Testing Fraud Revealed.”

Now, as the infection has become endemic in most parts of the world and the mass vaccination drive is in full swing, U.S. health authorities are massaging data and revising testing recommendations yet again — this time to hide the ineffectiveness of the vaccines. As reported by Off-Guardian, May 18, 2021:1
“The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) is altering its practices of data logging and testing for ‘Covid19’ in order to make it seem the experimental gene-therapy ‘vaccines’ are effective at preventing the alleged disease …
The trick is in their reporting of what they call ‘breakthrough infections’ — that is people who are fully ‘vaccinated’ against SARS-Cov-2 infection, but get infected anyway. Essentially, COVID-19 has long been shown — to those willing to pay attention — to be an entirely created pandemic narrative built on two key factors:
1.False-postive tests. The unreliable PCR test can be manipulated into reporting a high number of false-positives by altering the cycle threshold (CT value).2
2.Inflated Case-count. The incredibly broad definition of ‘Covid case,’ used all over the world, lists anyone who receives a positive test as a ‘Covid19 case,’ even if they never experienced any symptoms.
Without these two policies, there would never have been an appreciable pandemic at all, and now the CDC has enacted two policy changes which means they no longer apply to vaccinated people.”
CDC Is Cooking the Books on COVID Breakthrough Cases
Originally, the CDC recommended labs use a CT of 403 when testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection. This despite using a CT above 35 was known to create a false positive rate of 97%.4 In short, by using an exaggerated CT, healthy people were deemed stricken with COVID-19, and the fraud was further propped up by introducing the fallacy that asymptomatic carriers were responsible for a large portion of the spread.
Now, the CDC has suddenly lowered the CT considerably — from 40 to 28 or lower5 — in what appears to be a clear effort to hide COVID-19 breakthrough cases in those injected with the COVID-19 vaccine.
The CDC has put new policies in place which effectively created a tiered system of diagnosis. Meaning, from now on, unvaccinated people will find it much easier to be diagnosed with Covid19 than vaccinated people. ~ Off-Guardian May 18, 2021
To understand just how significant of a change this is, consider that the CT refers to the number of cycles the PCR test is run at, and each cycle doubles the magnification of the viral RNA fragment that the test supposedly looks for.
That means a switch from 40 to 28 reduces the magnification, i.e., the sensitivity of the test, by more than 4,000 times. The end result is far fewer positive test results. However, this only applies to people who are being tested for breakthrough infection.
So, as vaccinated individuals are contracting the illness, they’re now less likely to register as positive cases, which makes the “vaccine” appear more protective than it might be in actuality.
Had a CT of 28 been used all along, we would have had nowhere near the number of “cases” currently touted and the pandemic would have been declared over sometime in 2020. Conversely, were a CT of 40 or higher used to diagnose breakthrough cases, you can be sure the numbers would be far higher than currently reported.

Mild Infections No Longer Count
To boost the appearance of vaccine efficacy even further, the CDC also will no longer record mild or asymptomatic infections in vaccinated individuals as “COVID cases.” The only cases that now count as COVID cases — if the patient has been vaccinated against COVID-19, that is — are those that result in hospitalization or death.6
Meanwhile, if you’re unvaccinated and come down with a mild case, or if you test positive at a higher CT and have no symptoms, you still count as a COVID case. As explained by Off-Guardian:7
“The CDC has put new policies in place which effectively created a tiered system of diagnosis. Meaning, from now on, unvaccinated people will find it much easier to be diagnosed with Covid19 than vaccinated people. Consider…
Person A has not been vaccinated. They test positive for Covid using a PCR test at 40 cycles and, despite having no symptoms, they are officially a ‘covid case.’
Person B has been vaccinated. They test positive at 28 cycles, and spend six weeks bedridden with a high fever. Because they never went into a hospital and didn’t die they are NOT a Covid case.
Person C, who was also vaccinated, did die. After weeks in hospital with a high fever and respiratory problems. Only their positive PCR test was 29 cycles, so they’re not officially a Covid case either.”
As of April 30, 2021, the CDC had received a total of 10,262 reports of vaccine breakthrough infections,8 which it admitted was a “substantial undercount,” as they’re using a passive surveillance system that relies on voluntary reporting from state health departments.9 May 17, 2021, the number of breakthrough cases was slashed to 1,949, as the new guidance that only takes hospitalizations and deaths into account took effect.10
Double Standards Drive Public Abuse
By keeping the old rules for unvaccinated people — which results in a large amount of false positives and an overcount of “cases” — and applying new rules for vaccinated individuals that result in a significant number of false negatives and an undercount of cases, you end up with statistics that conform to the propaganda of the mainstream media, which falsely suggests COVID-19 is far more prevalent among unvaccinated people and that the vaccine works far better than it actually does.

All of this is to support getting as many people vaccinated with this worse than worthless, dangerous “vaccine.” As noted by Off-Guardian:11
“This is a policy designed to continuously inflate one number, and systematically minimize the other. What is that if not an obvious and deliberate act of deception?”
When asked why the CDC would not include asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic cases if they’ve been vaccinated, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said that it’s because vaccinated asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic people carry very little virus.12
Convenient isn’t it? This reply was never given when they were counting asymptomatic, falsely positive COVID tests as “cases,” equating them instead to deaths to increase fear in order to drive people to get vaccinated.
As I’ve explained on many previous occasions, in order to be infectious, you need a sufficiently high viral load, and the viruses must be live in order to replicate. A significant problem with the PCR test is it cannot differentiate between dead or inactive viral debris and live virus.
The reason a healthy person can test positive for COVID-19 is because the test, when used at a high CT, will magnify noninfectious or harmless segments of DNA that are not related to infectious viral particles. So, again, the CDC is now admitting asymptomatic people pose no real infection risk, but they only apply this logic to those who have been vaccinated while continuing the lying charade for the unvaccinated.
Lockdowns Should Not be Based on Mass PCR Testing
More and more information is coming out showing how PCR testing has been misused. As noted in one German study, posted on the preprint server medRxiv, May 19, 2021:13
“RT-PCR testing as a tool for mass screening should not be used alone as a base for pandemic decision making including measures such as quarantine, isolation, and lockdown.”
They based this conclusion on the fact that only 40.6% of positive test results had used a CT of 25 or lower. At this low CT, a positive test result has a decent chance of being accurate, which means even if symptoms are mild, the patient is likely to be infectious.
The remainder of positive tests, 59.4%, were using a CT above 25, which means they were more likely to be false positives. As detailed in “The Insanity of the PCR Testing Saga,” to obtain 100% confirmed real positives, you have to use a CT of 17.
Clearly, self-quarantining and lockdowns are irrational if nearly 60% of so-called COVID cases are noninfectious. The PCR test can also detect dead viral RNA for months after an active infection, making the test even more unreliable.
One country that has acknowledged the madness of mass PCR testing is Sweden which, at the end of November 2020, stopped relying on this test to determine cases. As noted on the Swedish Public Health Agency’s website (translated from Swedish):14,15
“The PCR technology used in tests to detect viruses cannot distinguish between viruses capable of infecting cells and viruses that have been neutralized by the immune system and therefore these tests cannot be used to determine whether someone is contagious or not.
RNA from viruses can often be detected for weeks (sometimes months) after the illness but does not mean that you are still contagious. There are also several scientific studies that suggest that the infectivity of COVID-19 is greatest at the beginning of the disease period.
The recommended criteria for assessing freedom from infection are therefore based on stable clinical improvement with freedom from fever for at least two days and that at least seven days have passed since the onset of symptoms. For those who have had more pronounced symptoms, at least 14 days after the illness and for the very sickest, individual assessment by the treating doctor.”
A COVID-19 working group met April 19, 2021, to discuss whether these rules needed to be updated in light of new variants. It was decided that no change in rules was needed.16,17
UK Is Also Manipulating Data to Hide Vaccine Failure
Signs that other countries are starting to manipulate data to hide vaccine failure are also evident. For example, in the U.K., they’ve now dropped the rule that anyone having tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 28 days of dying is to be counted as a COVID-19 death.
Now that vaccines are out, COVID-19 will only be listed as the cause of death if the patient actually died from an active case of COVID-19 and nothing else. As reported by iNews:18
“The modelling sub-group of the Government’s scientific advisory committee Sage says that the 28-day definition was useful before widespread vaccination, because deaths in hospital within a month of a positive test were most likely due to COVID-19.
However now that tens of millions of the UK population have received their jabs, deaths from other causes could still show up in the daily data if they have previously tested positive for coronavirus.
A senior Sage source said: ‘If the definition remains the same, these people would be counted as ‘vaccine failures’, whereas the vaccine prevented death from COVID, but they really died from something else.’”
An Undeclared War Against the Public
While many people around the world still believe COVID-19 has been one of the deadliest pandemics in modern history and those of us who have survived are the lucky ones, the facts indeed tell a very different story.
When you look at how case rates and death statistics have been collected and reported, and how those parameters have changed along the way, you realize that the pandemic was a mirage, created through the manipulation of data and nothing else.
More than a year and a half has been stolen from us in an undeclared war against the public. Even with mounting awareness of the facts, the deep state players responsible for this cruel hoax are not likely to call it quits. They have a long-term goal, and that is the complete takeover and control of the global wealth and population.
So, as we move forward, we can expect more cover-ups, more obfuscation, more attempts to whitewash the truth and protect the guilty parties. Case in point: The COVID Commission Planning Group, tasked with planning the creation of an “independent” investigative commission like that for 9/11,19 is filled with people who have serious conflicts of interest.
As reported by the Miller Center,20 the COVID Commission Planning Group is backed by charitable foundations that have been part of a technocratic alliance that for years, in some cases decades, have been plotting and planning for the wealth redistribution and global power grab we’re now experiencing.
The chosen leader of this new planning group is Philip Zelikow, former executive director of the 9/11 Commission21 and a member of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Development Program Advisory Panel.22,23
Zelikow, a former director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, is also a current strategy group member of the Aspen Institute,24 a technocratic hub that has groomed and mentored executives from around the world about the subtleties of globalization.
He also directed the Markle Foundation’s Task Force on National Security in the Information Age,25 the focus of which has been to make information relating to potential security threats discoverable and accessible to officials.26
Bioterror Is the New Never-Ending War
In a May 16, 2021, article, Off-Guardian details Zelikow’s conflicts of interest, and why the COVID-19 pandemic is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon, at least if the technocratic deep state looking for a Great Reset can prevent it:27
“Zelikow’s involvement, among other things, suggests we are in the second phase of a long war of terror waged with two weapons – military and medical – whose propaganda messaging is carried out by the corporate mainstream media in the pursuit of the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset …
You can be certain it won’t end soon and that the new terrorists are domestic dissidents … the commission justifying the government’s claims about COVID-19 and injections (aka ‘vaccines’) will be hard at work writing their fictive report that will justify ex post facto the terrible damage that has occurred and that will continue to occur for many years …
‘Now is the time to just do what you are told,’ as Anthony Fauci so benevolently declared … The authorities have told us what’s coming. Pay attention. Don’t be fooled. It’s a game they have devised. Keep people guessing. On edge. Relieved. Tense. Relaxed. Shocked. Confused.
That’s the game. One day this, the next that. You’re on, you’re off. You’re in, you’re out. We are allowing you this freedom, but be good children or we will have to retract it. If you misbehave, you will get a time out.”
Indeed, fear has been weaponized with devastating effect over the past year, and it is what allows the destruction of our freedoms.
The Time to Stand for Freedom Is NOW
In 2007, Naomi Wolf published “The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot,” in which she lays out the 10 steps to tyranny. She’s now warning everyone, everywhere, that we are at Step 10. Once Step 10 locks into place, there’s no going back. It’ll be too dangerous to fight back.
The good news is the would-be tyrants have not won yet. That said, we have no time to spare. We have no time to remain idle, hoping it will all just go back to normal on its own. The answer is peaceful mass civil disobedience. It’s time to say NO to any and all pandemic measures.
We must also rally behind legislation that prevents the alteration of laws that safeguard our freedoms. To that end, Wolf has started the Five Freedoms Campaign, which you can find on her Daily Clout website.
The campaign focuses on creating legislation to preserve key freedoms and prevent emergency laws from infringing on our freedom to assemble, worship, protest and engage in business. Legislation is also being crafted to open schools, remove mask mandates and eliminate requirements for vaccine passports.
I have no doubt that we will ultimately stop the globalists’ drive toward loss of personal freedoms and global tyranny. It’s not going to be easy. It may take years, and it may get far worse before it gets better, but if we unite, there’s no doubt we will win.
RELATED ARTICLE: COVID-19: Wuhan Lab in China Received “TONS” of American Taxpayer Dollars! | Chris Farrell
EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permanently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Help us fight the great fight.
And if you can, please contribute to Geller Report. YOU make the work possible.

Scientist Backing Probe Into Wuhan Lab: We Waited Because We Didn’t Want ‘To Be Associated With Trump’

Scumbag. Politicized science isn’t science at all – it’s dangerous, criminal treachery. The left has destroyed the public trust in science. Never again will we trust them.
Democrats lied, people died.

Scientist Backing Probe Into Wuhan Lab: We Waited Because We Didn’t Want ‘To Be Associated With Trump’

By Ryan Saavedra • Daily Wire • Jun 17, 2021 •
A scientist that signed onto a letter recently backing a probe in the possibility that the coronavirus pandemic originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology admitted in an interview this week that she and other scientists did not come forward sooner to back the possibility that the pandemic originated in a lab because they did not want “to be associated with Trump.”
NBC News reports:

Chan was one of 18 scientists who published a letter in the journal Science last month calling for a more in-depth investigation into the virus’s origin that takes into account theories about both natural occurrence and laboratory spillovers. The letter helped kick-start a new round of calls to investigate the “lab leak hypothesis,” including demands from President Joe Biden and several leading scientists.

The report noted that numerous experts in the field have said that little-to-no evidence has emerged over the last year or so and that the only thing that has changed is the “context and circumstances” around the debate of the pandemic’s origins.
The report continued:

Chan said there had been trepidation among some scientists about publicly discussing the lab leak hypothesis for fear that their words could be misconstrued or used to support racist rhetoric about how the coronavirus emerged. Trump fueled accusations that the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a research lab in the city where the first Covid-19 cases were reported, was connected to the outbreak…

“At the time, it was scarier to be associated with Trump and to become a tool for racists, so people didn’t want to publicly call for an investigation into lab origins,” Chan claimed in the interview.
Scientists rushed to downplay the possibility that the pandemic could have originated in the lab by publishing a letter in The Lancet that cast it “as a xenophobic cousin to climate change denialism and anti-vaxxism,” Vanity Fair reported. “The Lancet statement effectively ended the debate over COVID-19’s origins before it began.”
“To Gilles Demaneuf, following along from the sidelines, it was as if it had been ‘nailed to the church doors,’ establishing the natural origin theory as orthodoxy,” the report added. “‘Everyone had to follow it. Everyone was intimidated. That set the tone.’”
Former CDC Director Robert Redfield said this week that he believes that the pandemic originated in the lab and that those who moved to shut down the lab leak theory were “very anti-science.”
David Asher, who led the Trump administration’s investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, said in an interview last month that he had biostatisticians from the U.S. government calculate that the odds of the coronavirus evolving from nature and they estimated that it was about 1-in-13 billion.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.
Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permanently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here a>— it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Help us fight the great fight.
And if you can, please contribute to Geller Report. YOU make the work possible.

DEMOCRAT EPIC FAIL: Federal Judge Lifts Biden’s Moratorium on New Oil and Gas Leases on Federal Land

The Democrats war on Americans, American businesses and American freedoms has suffered a serious setback. Harder! Faster!

Federal Judge Lifts Biden’s Moratorium on New Oil and Gas Leases on Federal Land

By: New York Post, June 17, 2021:
A Louisiana federal judge issued an order lifting President Biden’s moratorium on new oil and gas leases on federal land Tuesday, ruling that the White House did not give any “rational explanation” for implementing the pause.
US District Judge Terry Doughty sided with 13 states in granting a preliminary injunction that applies nationwide. The states challenging the moratorium were Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry hailed Doughty’s ruling as “a victory not only for the rule of law, but also for the thousands of workers who produce affordable energy for Americans.”
Biden implemented the moratorium on Jan. 27 as part of a series of executive orders signed during his first days in office, which included the cancellation of the Keystone Pipeline.
In his ruling, Doughty found that only Congress has the power to pause offshore oil and gas leases and ordered that plans be resumed for delayed lease sales for the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. The judge also agreed with the states’ argument that a pause on oil and gas leases would do “irreparable injury ” by depriving them of revenue and causing massive job losses.
“Millions and possibly billions of dollars are at stake,” Doughty wrote. “Local government funding, jobs for Plaintiff State workers, and funds for the restoration of Louisiana’s Coastline are at stake. Plaintiff States have a reliance interest in the proceeds derived from offshore and on land oil and gas lease sales.”
see also
Oil demand will exceed pre-COVID levels by end of 2022: energy agency
Doughty also agreed with the states that the administration enacted the pause without providing adequate notice or the ability to comment on the policy.
Lawyers for the Biden administration had argued that the lease sales held up by the moratorium aren’t required by law and that the secretary of the interior has broad discretion in leasing decisions.
“No existing lease has been cancelled as a result of any of the actions challenged here, and development activity from exploration through drilling and production has continued at similar levels as the preceding four years,” they argued.
The White House had no immediate reaction to the ruling.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.
Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permanently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here a>— it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Help us fight the great fight.
And if you can, please contribute to Geller Report. YOU make the work possible.

A Group Of Florida Parents Sent Their Kids’ Face Masks to A Lab for Analysis. Here Are All The Diseases They Found.

The Democrats are killing our children.

The analysis detected the following 11 alarmingly dangerous pathogens on the masks:

  • Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumonia)
  • Mycobacterium tuberculosis (tuberculosis)
  • Neisseria meningitidis (meningitis, sepsis)
  • Acanthamoeba polyphaga (keratitis and granulomatous amebic encephalitis)
  • Acinetobacter baumanni (pneumonia, blood stream infections, meningitis, UTIs— resistant to antibiotics)
  • Escherichia coli (food poisoning)
  • Borrelia burgdorferi (causes Lyme disease)
  • Corynebacterium diphtheriae (diphtheria)
  • Legionella pneumophila (Legionnaires’ disease)
  • Staphylococcus pyogenes serotype M3 (severe infections—high morbidity rates)
  • Staphylococcus aureus (meningitis, sepsis)

A Group Of Parents Sent Their Kids’ Face Masks to A Lab for Analysis. Here’s What They Found

By: Scott Morefield, Townhall, Jun 15, 2021:
We’ve been told for well over a year that widespread forced public masking should be implemented because, even if only moderately to slightly to negligibly effective at curbing the spread of COVID-19, there are ZERO drawbacks.
“What’s the harm?” they ask.
“It’s only a minor inconvenience,” they bleat.
“If it saves ONE LIFE, it’s worth it!” they implore.
Meanwhile, we on Team Reality have not only continued to point to real-world data that shows masking to be entirely ineffective, we’ve also maintained that forced public masking, especially long-term, has negative societal and even health ramifications that the powers-that-be are all-too-happy to ignore in subservience to their newfound face mask god.
It only stands to reason that one of those health ramifications would be the fact that millions of people, particularly children, have been forced to wear and carry around pieces of cloth they’ve continually breathed through for hours on end. What lurking pathogens might be found on these disgusting contraptions being incessantly handled, stuck in pockets, and mindlessly tossed on books, tables, and desks? Well, one group of Florida parents sent a batch of masks worn by their children to a lab to find out. And yeah, you’ll probably need to make sure you aren’t eating dinner anytime soon before you digest THESE results.
Via press release:
Gainesville, FL (June 16, 2021) – A group of parents in Gainesville, FL, concerned about potential harms from masks, submitted six face masks to a lab for analysis. The resulting report found that five masks were contaminated with bacteria, parasites, and fungi, including three with dangerous pathogenic and pneumonia-causing bacteria. No viruses were detected on the masks, although the test is capable of detecting viruses.
The analysis detected the following 11 alarmingly dangerous pathogens on the masks:

• Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumonia)

• Mycobacterium tuberculosis (tuberculosis)

• Neisseria meningitidis (meningitis, sepsis)

• Acanthamoeba polyphaga (keratitis and granulomatous amebic encephalitis)

• Acinetobacter baumanni (pneumonia, blood stream infections, meningitis, UTIs— resistant to antibiotics)

• Escherichia coli (food poisoning)

• Borrelia burgdorferi (causes Lyme disease)

• Corynebacterium diphtheriae (diphtheria)

• Legionella pneumophila (Legionnaires’ disease)

• Staphylococcus pyogenes serotype M3 (severe infections—high morbidity rates)

• Staphylococcus aureus (meningitis, sepsis)

Half of the masks were contaminated with one or more strains of pneumonia-causing bacteria. One-third were contaminated with one or more strains of meningitis-causing bacteria. One-third were contaminated with dangerous, antibiotic-resistant bacterial pathogens. In addition, less dangerous pathogens were identified, including pathogens that can cause fever, ulcers, acne, yeast infections, strep throat, periodontal disease, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, and more.
The face masks studied were new or freshly-laundered before wearing and had been worn for 5 to 8 hours, most during in-person schooling by children aged 6 through 11. One was worn by an adult. A t-shirt worn by one of the children at school and unworn masks were tested as controls. No pathogens were found on the controls. Proteins found on the t-shirt, for example, are not pathogenic to humans and are commonly found in hair, skin, and soil.
A parent who participated in the study, Ms. Amanda Donoho, commented that this small sample points to a need for more research: “We need to know what we are putting on the faces of our children each day. Masks provide a warm, moist environment for bacteria to grow.”
These local parents contracted with the lab because they were concerned about the potential of contaminants on masks that their children were forced to wear all day at school, taking them on and off, setting them on various surfaces, wearing them in the bathroom, etc. This prompted them to send the masks to the University of Florida’s Mass Spectrometry Research and Education Center for analysis.
The below chart, put together by the group of parents, shows the potential dangers from each pathogen:
Appetizing, eh? Of course, nothing above, or anything else, will deter the extremists in the masking cult, some of whom now want to see masking in schools forever.

RELATED ARTICLE: Muslim Parent Warns: ‘Network Of Political Islam’ Joining ‘Far-Left’ To ‘ Hijack Our Schools
EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.
Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permanently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here a>— it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Help us fight the great fight.
And if you can, please contribute to Geller Report. YOU make the work possible.

WATCH: Marjorie Taylor Greene Leads House GOP Coalition To Sponsor “FIRE FAUCI ACT”

Fauci should be in jail.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s push to terminate Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), is gaining some traction in the House among her Republican colleagues.
Greene has been a vocal critic of Fauci and introduced the Fire Fauci Act in May, a bill that would reduce his salary to $0. The release of thousands of pages of Fauci’s emails only increased Republican criticism of the infectious disease expert and in the weeks since they were published,  more House Republicans signed onto Greene’s bill.

MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE AND ‘FIRE FAUCI ACT’: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who has expressed sympathetic views towards the QAnon conspiracy theory and has recently compared a Capitol HIll mask and vaccine mandate to the atrocities of the Holocaust, holds a press conference on H.R. 2316, the Fire Fauci Act.
The bill proposes reducing the salary for director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to $0 and calls for an ‘audit of the digital correspondence, policy memoranda, and financial transactions’ of the director’s office from October 2019 to December 2021. She is joined by other pro-Trump Republicans like Rep. Matt Gaetz, Paul Gosar, and Mo Brooks.

Fauci Isn’t A Fool, He’s A Villain
INDICT FAUCI: Scientist Warned Fauci China Was Likely Lying About COVID Deaths. Fauci Said Email Was ‘Too Long For Me To Read’
FAUCI PROTEST: World Wide Rally for “Freedom from Faucism” in NYC Foley Square
‘Leaked Emails are Shocking’: Fauci Email Dump BOMBSHELLS, HE LIED ABOUT EVERYTHING, Told China They’d ‘Get Through It Together’
TREASON: Wuhan Lab Funder Daszak Emailed Fauci, Thanking Him for Dismissing Lab Leak Theory
Wuhan Lab DELETED Fauci’s NIH and Gain of Function Mentions From Old Web Pages in Early 2021
LINK TO LEGISLATION: H.R.2316 – 117th Congress (2021-2022): Fire Fauci Act
EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.
Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permanently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here a>— it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Help us fight the great fight.
And if you can, please contribute to Geller Report. YOU make the work possible.

Biden’s 90-Day Intelligence Study of Coronavirus Origins is a Farce

We now know that in their zeal to defeat President Trump’s reelection, the mainstream media ignored evidence that the coronavirus pandemic likely originated from a leak from a Wuhan Institute of Virology lab.
The Biden campaign used this slanted media coverage to lambast Trump for his handling of the pandemic. It distracted Americans from what Trump did right about this national crisis, such as banning travel from China in early February 2020 and “Operation Warp Speed” which developed effective vaccines against the virus in record time.
With the election long over, some mainstream reporters — including from CNN and The Wall Street Journal — have begun to acknowledge compelling evidence that the virus originated from a Wuhan biolab, was released by accident, and that Beijing engaged in a massive coverup to hide these facts and shift the blame.
These reports suggest Trump was right about the virus originating in a Wuhan lab and that Chinese government negligence allowed it to become a deadly pandemic. This is problematic for Biden, who called Trump xenophobic for using terms like “Wuhan virus.” It also undermines Biden’s less confrontational China policy which prioritizes cooperation on climate change.
Biden responded to the new press reports on the virus origins by asking the U.S. intelligence community to do a 90-day intelligence review to get an authoritative assessment of this issue.
This request was a farce for several reasons.
First of all, the president said he ordered the 90-day review because of new intelligence that researchers at a Wuhan biolab were sick with a coronavirus-like illness in November 2019. In fact, this was not new information since a State Department fact sheet released on January 15, 2021 said the same thing.
More importantly, there is every reason to believe that American intelligence agencies slanted their assessments of the virus to avoid helping Trump politically just as the mainstream media did.
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe revealed similar politicization of China analysis last January when he released a report by the Intelligence Community Ombudsman for Politicization which found intelligence analysts deliberately ignored and downplayed intelligence indicating Chinese meddling in the 2020 election and promoted intelligence suggesting Russian election interference.
The reason, according to the report, was animus toward President Trump from intelligence analysts and their determination not to produce any analysis that could help Trump politically.
This is why in May 2021, when many media outlets, foreign governments and experts had concluded the virus probably originated and leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, U.S. intelligence analysts were split, with a minority assessing with low to medium confidence that the source was either an animal or the Wuhan lab, and a majority claiming there was no way to know the source.
President Biden does not actually expect our intelligence agencies to produce anything new on the coronavirus origins. He wants political cover from another vague and inconclusive analysis that he can use to justify his soft China policy. This includes not putting serious pressure on Beijing to cooperate with an investigation of the virus origins.
This is the latest serious misuse of America’s intelligence agencies which were created after World War II to provide U.S. presidents with intelligence to make sound national security policies.
They were not created for Congress and the Executive Branch to use to adjudicate, advocate for, or justify foreign policy issues by claiming intelligence assessments are unassailable and infallible because U.S. intelligence agencies are above the partisan politics of Washington. No serious person in Washington believes this.
Nevertheless, presidents and members of Congress have increasingly tried to use U.S. intelligence agencies to bless their foreign policy positions and gain political advantage on issues such as climate change, Iran’s nuclear program, North Korea, Russia, China and other issues. This has been a growing problem at the annual worldwide threat briefings when intelligence officials give unclassified testimony on global threats.
President Trump wisely suspended these briefings in 2019 because they had become a political circus after Democrats used them to press intelligence officials to say several of Trump’s national security initiatives would fail. The Biden administration resumed these briefings in April.
The determination of the likely origins of the novel coronavirus should be made by President Biden with input from a variety of sources and experts. U.S. intelligence agencies should contribute to this determination in private, but not make it itself because these agencies have neither the expertise nor the trust of the American people issue be the final word on this issue.
For our intelligence agencies to produce the highest quality and trustworthy intelligence for U.S. presidents, it is time to stop dragging our intelligence agencies into political disputes.

Fred Fleitz

President and CEO, Center for Security Policy.

EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy column Originally published by Newsmax is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.