Top 10 takeaways from Anthony Fauci's hearing in front of Senate committee

From Just the News.com (July 29):

Former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, where he was grilled about his work during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The former NIAID director refused to answer lawmaker questions throughout the hearing, invoking his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, despite having a presidential pardon that covered his work during the pandemic.

Despite Fauci's refusal to answer questions, the hearing was filled with major revelations and accusations.

Here are the top 10 major takeaways from the Senate hearing:

1. Fauci applied for government grants for himself/got government employees to do it for him

Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley revealed during the hearing that Fauci allegedly used federal employees while he was NIAID director to apply for government grants on his behalf for his work during the pandemic.

"You got rich while people were dying," a heated Hawley said. "You were using federal employees with taxpayer money to apply for and solicit cash prizes for you personally. Cash prizes totaling over a million dollars."

Hawley said he has evidence of the applications for cash prizes that Fauci received, including the Dan David award and the Smithsonian award.

"You actually wrote to people and said, 'Do you think maybe I'd qualify?' And you got cash for all of this. And it wasn't just one or two employees, was it? In fact, you used eight separate federal employees on federal time using federal resources to solicit cash awards. Isn't that true?"

Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment in response.

2. Ron Johnson alleges Fauci covered up evidence ivermectin works

Wisconsin GOP Sen. Ron Johnson accused Fauci during the hearing of covering up alleged evidence that the controversial prescription drug medication ivermectin actually is effective against the coronavirus.

“You said there was no evidence," Johnson said. "There were all kinds of evidence. Loved ones had to go to hospitals, had to sue hospitals ... So I want to know, to what extent were you involved in sabotaging Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin?”

Johnson highlighted studies that found there were 60-70% effectiveness rate against the virus. Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment again in response.

3. Moreno asks why Fauci hired a criminal defense attorney

Ohio GOP Sen. Bernie Moreno questioned why Fauci would hire a prominent criminal defense attorney if he had done nothing wrong when it came to the COVID-19 pandemic, stating that the attorney was someone a client hires if they are in "deep s***."

"Let me tell you who David Schertler is for the audience," Moreno said. "He's a high-profile criminal attorney. He's represented some really great people like Senator Bob Menendez ... And there's an article here in the Washington Free Beacon that talks about why you would hire a guy like David Schertler. The comment is, 'if you're in deep s***, that's who you call.'"

4. Rand Paul confirms plans for Fauci contempt vote

Another top moment related to the hearing comes after Senate Homeland Security Chairman Rand Paul confirmed that he plans to hold a contempt vote against Fauci for pleading the Fifth in order to dodge answering the panel's questions.

"We believe... he didn't need to hide behind the 5th Amendment and that maybe the 5th Amendment doesn't attach when you have a pardon in place," he told reporters. "The question on contempt will be voted on and then there's the question of whether or not the Department of Justice will take that up."

5. Senators question legality of 5th amendment plea

Several senators also questioned whether Fauci could even plead the Fifth since he was pardoned by former President Joe Biden before he left office last year.

"You don't have any rights under the Fifth Amendment, because you've been pardoned, as you very well know," Hawley said. "As the Supreme Court has been clear for a century or more. Brown vs. Walker, 1896, 'when he has been pardoned he may not stand upon his privilege.'

"You know that. Your lawyers sitting behind you now, shifting nervously in their chairs, they know it. This isn't about the Constitution, this isn't about the law," he continued. "This is about contempt, contempt for this body and contempt for the American people." [read more]

The other takeaways:

1. Rick Scott tells Fauci how lockdowns hurt his own family
2. Hawley claims Fauci wanted to be 'Sun god of science'
3. Paul presses Fauci on alleged deletion of federal records
4. Fetterman regrets partisanship over lab leak theory
5. Fauci's lawyer booted from the hearing

More stories and a video on the hearing:

• Fauci Hearing and Diary Leave More Questions Than Answers
• Anthony Fauci, The ‘Covid Czar,’ Ticked Off The Wrong Moms
• Fauci gave off ‘signals of deception’ during Senate hearing, body language expert says
• Here's what the Fauci hearing is really about
• Fauci CAN'T Plead The Fifth If Congress Does THIS [video]

Why Do Some Countries Stay Poor?

From Peter Jacobsen on FEE.org (Aug. 23, 2023):

Accounting for "The Wealth of Nations."

This week for Ask an Economist, I have a question from a reader named Mark. He says,

“I’ve worked with immigrants that recently moved to the US, and workers still living in their native country and working for me remotely.

My experience is that they’re on average, much harder working and more skilled (even in technical fields) than my American colleagues. The foreigners work hard, making no excuses, grateful for the work, and take every opportunity to better themselves. Americans, on the other hand, demand much higher wages, complain about the work, and make little effort to improve themselves.

Since the people from many of these poor countries are better workers, why are their home countries so poor? Immigrants on average start more businesses and do better in the US than US born citizens. With all their skills and ambition, it seems their home countries ought to be significantly richer than the US cities, yet this isn’t the case. What’s the cause of these countries’ poverty?”

Mark asks perhaps the single-most important question in the history of economic thinking. Why do some countries grow rich while others stay poor?

A Long History of Answers

In 1776, Scottish philosopher Adam Smith published perhaps the most influential work in the history of political economy: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.

This book, usually referred to as “The Wealth of Nations,” tries to answer the question Mark poses. Since then, wealthy countries have grown much wealthier, some poor countries have grown wealthier, but there are a substantial number of countries lagging behind.

Before we get into the right answer, we should spend some time talking about some popular wrong answers.

Economist Bill Easterly has done a great job chronicling some of these wrong answers in his book The Elusive Quest for Growth.

Easterly’s point in the book is simple. Throughout the late 20th century and into the 21st century, the United States and other countries have attempted to trigger economic growth in poor countries. These attempts have failed.

Easterly discusses three failed panaceas which experts believed would trigger development: investment, population control, and education. Before looking at each once, though, consider the unifying theme here. Developed countries tend to have higher levels of investment, lower birth rates, and more education. From this, experts have tried to infer that if these conditions are replicated in poorer countries, then development will follow.

This strategy has failed. It turns out these factors are more a consequence of growth than a cause. Let’s look at each failed panacea.

1. Investment

In the 1950s, experts began to believe that simply having machines and financial capital to take on big projects would make countries rich. This belief, ironically, was based on the (false) success of the Soviet Union. Soviet production numbers were going through the roof, and for decades economists believed they would overtake the US. Why?

The Soviet Union was industrializing through forced savings. By reallocating private resources to large industrial investments, it appeared the USSR was able to shock the economy into early industrialization. It turns out that this growth was illusory, as economist Murray Rothbard rightly predicted, leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But the Soviet Union fooled many economists in the 1950s, so the model of centrally planned growth via investment took off. The belief was that because poor countries were in such dire situations, citizens had no ability to save. Without saving there is no growth. A vicious cycle was preventing growth.

So developing countries could fix this by giving the required investment for countries to have sustained growth. This investment would increase incomes, which would increase savings, and spur on permanent natural growth. Easterly calls this the financing gap approach.

The approach failed, though. Models failed to live up to their predictions, and poor countries were not made rich via air-dropped investments. The reason for the failure is the same reason noted by Rothbard in his analysis of the Soviet economy. Production is a means to the ends of consumption. If your production is not linked meaningfully to the well-being of consumers via the knowledge of prices, profit, and loss, then it will not lead to any sustained growth.

Central planners attempted to create production for its own sake, leading to the misallocation of capital and natural resources. Investment alone is not enough—you must have the right investments.

2. Education

A natural next plan for development experts was education. If increasing production via physical capital was not enough, maybe increasing knowledge or human capital would do the trick. Easterly chronicles how education development policy dominated from the 1960s to the 1990s.

The results did not bear out on this either. Easterly chronicles how study after study finds little to no correlation between education and economic growth. One study shows that as the education explosion happened in poor countries, the growth rate of income in these countries actually fell. This is exactly the opposite of what we’d expect if education theories were true. Another study found that for countries that grow 1% faster than average, education could only explain 0.06% of that in terms of growth in human capital.

Easterly points to several other types of studies which show a simple, consistent result: education does not create economic growth.

……

The Best Answer

So if all these answers are wrong, what is the right answer? Let’s go back to Adam Smith, and take a look at his famous conclusion. Why do countries become rich according to Smith?

“Little else is required to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.”

Smith is arguing that the ultimate cause of growth in a country stems from its institutions. In other words, the rules that govern your daily economic activity are at the bottom of the different growth outcomes we face in our world.

Another way to frame this is that in order for a country’s economy to grow, the citizens need economic freedom or access to private property rights.

When people have private property, they can use, sell, or rent out their property. This leads to a few results. First, people have an incentive to maximize the value of their property. If you own a house, you want to keep it in good condition because letting it fall apart means you lose some money. Private ownership incentivizes responsibility.

Furthermore, when people are able to sell their goods, prices form for those goods. Prices reflect the value of a good or service relative to other things, and embody societal knowledge about the good. When an oil rig breaks down in the ocean, oil becomes more scarce. We don’t have to be told oil is more scarce to curb our consumption. The rising price causes us to curb consumption whether we know it or not.

Prices also allow firms to do accounting to determine their profit or loss. If a firm makes a profit off of a sale, this tells them consumers valued the final product more than the value of the inputs used to create it. This process of transforming less valuable inputs into more valuable outputs is at the center of economic growth. To paraphrase the economist Peter Boettke: without ownership of the various goods used in production, there can be no markets for them. Without markets for these goods, there are no prices. Without prices, there can be no economic calculation.

So institutions which are economically free are the cause of economic growth. The data bear this out. Economists James Gwartney and co-author Robert Lawson pioneered the Fraser Institute’s “Economic Freedom of the World Index.” The Index measures how free the economies of different countries are and uses that information to examine the connection between freedom and flourishing. What they find fits perfectly with the theory here. Economically free countries are richer and healthier than unfree countries.

Economist Peter Leeson also examines the evidence in a paper titled “Two Cheers for Capitalism?” His conclusion?

“According to a popular view that I call ‘two cheers for capitalism,’ capitalism’s effect on development is ambiguous and mixed. This paper empirically investigates that view. I find that it’s wrong. Citizens in countries that became more capitalist over the last quarter century became wealthier, healthier, more educated, and politically freer. Citizens in countries that became significantly less capitalist over this period endured stagnating income, shortening life spans, smaller gains in education, and increasingly oppressive political regimes. The data unequivocally evidence capitalism’s superiority for development. Full-force cheerleading for capitalism is well deserved and three cheers are in order instead of two.”

In The Elusive Quest for Growth, Easterly has one other insight that merits our attention on this question. Easterly points out how much of the United States government’s focus on development in the late 20th century was really an attempt to win allies against the Soviet Union.

This is extremely ironic, considering that the US government was essentially incorporating Soviet style central planning to attempt to bring about growth in these developing countries.

Instead, it would have been better to follow a US-style pursuit of economic growth. Institutions which enable economic growth are the true driver of wealth creation. Once you enable individuals to freely compete and cooperate, the power of human ingenuity does the rest. [read more]

Food for thought. Lessons the Left never gets--especially the "easy taxes" part.

Trump ATF Targets Biden Gun Rules in Major Rollback

From Newsmax.com (June 5):

The Trump administration is advancing a broad rollback of federal firearms regulations, including proposals that would allow Americans to ship handguns through the mail, rescind Biden-era background check requirements, and make it harder for federal regulators to revoke gun dealers' licenses.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) said the changes are meant to modernize firearms rules and reduce burdens on law-abiding gun owners without undermining law enforcement.

In late April, the agency announced nearly three dozen final and proposed rules following President Donald Trump's directive to reexamine federal regulations affecting gun owners and the firearms industry.

One key proposal would repeal a 2024 Biden administration rule that expanded the definition of who qualifies as a gun dealer under the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. The rule was aimed at closing the so-called "gun show loophole," but the Trump administration is seeking to scrap it.

Gun control advocates criticized the White House's move.

"This is, to us, absolutely the gun industry's wish list," Kris Brown, the president of Brady: United Against Gun Violence, told Axios.

Brown noted that industry leaders were present when the proposals were announced.

Supporters of the rollback argue Biden-era rules imposed unnecessary restrictions on lawful gun owners and firearms businesses.

A recent investigation by The Trace found prosecutions of people accused of dealing firearms without a license did not significantly increase after the Biden rule took effect.

Other proposals would ease rules for transporting firearms, remove a requirement that licensed dealers provide youth handgun safety notices, and revise standards governing when dealers can lose their federal licenses.

Separately, the U.S. Postal Service is considering allowing individuals to mail handguns under the same rules that apply to lawful shipments of rifles and shotguns.

That proposal follows a Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel opinion concluding the long-standing federal ban on mailing handguns is unconstitutional.

The National Rifle Association's lobbying arm argued the current ban creates "massive and needless headaches for law-abiding gun owners."

Critics say the change could increase risks involving theft, trafficking, and unlawful firearm transfers.

In one proposed rule narrowing who is considered mentally unfit to possess firearms, the ATF noted that the "risk may be minimal, or may be considerably greater (up to and including potential mass casualty events)."

Brown told Axios that the agency knows "it raises the risk of mass shootings."

"They know that violent crime is likely to go up," she added. "They know it's going to hinder law enforcement, and they do it anyway."

Meanwhile, gun rights advocates and industry groups welcomed the proposals.

In a press release, National Sports Shooting Foundation Senior Vice President Lawrence G. Keane called the rollback "the dawning of a new era."

ATF rejected claims that the changes were designed to satisfy the gun lobby.

"The repeal of the regulation has no effect on the scope of the law and signals that ATF will abide by the laws enacted by Congress," an agency spokesperson told Axios in a statement.

Daniel Webster, a professor at Johns Hopkins University's Center for Gun Violence Solutions, disagreed.

"This is a green light to the segment of the gun industry that profits from crime and gun violence," he said.

Brown's prediction was equally grim.

"We think it is going to be the worst delivery of regression in the history of the country in terms of gun violence prevention," she said. [source]

Good!  Call it another win, especially for gun rights. Although, the Left doesn’t think so because they are obsessed with guns and don’t understand what really causes crime.

FBI Obtained Kash Patel and Susie Wiles Phone Records Under Biden: Reuters

From Newsmax.com (Feb. 25):

The FBI subpoenaed records of phone calls made by Kash Patel and Susie Wiles, now the FBI director and White House Chief of Staff, when they were both private citizens in 2022 and 2023 during the federal probe of Donald Trump, Patel told Reuters on Wednesday.

Reuters is the first to report on FBI actions that took place during the Biden administration, largely when Special Counsel Jack Smith was investigating whether Trump had interfered with the 2020 election and had hidden classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, according to Patel.

Smith was appointed to take over that probe in November 2022.

Patel portrayed the seizing of his phone records by the FBI and efforts to conceal them as an example of overreach by unelected government officials under Biden, a theme often repeated by President Trump.

“It is outrageous and deeply alarming that the previous FBI leadership secretly subpoenaed my own phone records – along with those of now White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles – using flimsy pretexts and burying the entire process in prohibited case files designed to evade all oversight,” Patel said in a statement to Reuters.

Reuters could not independently verify many of the details about Patel’s claims, including the full extent and timing of the seizure of phone records and the motive for doing so. Patel said the records were filed in a way that made it difficult for him and other FBI leaders to find them after taking over the bureau in February 2025.

Democrats in Congress have consistently defended Smith from GOP criticisms, saying he had acted appropriately in seeking phone records and other evidence they said was necessary to thoroughly investigate allegations of wrongdoing by Trump and his associates.

Investigators routinely subpoena and collect records of phone calls during investigations, even of prominent people, while seeking to determine the key facts in a case and who might be involved in a particular incident. Patel publicly said in 2022 that Trump had declassified the documents taken to Mar-a-Lago, a claim prosecutors disputed and Trump’s lawyers did not make in court.

Patel was summoned before a grand jury hearing evidence in the case that year after he was given limited immunity from criminal charges.

Reuters could not independently establish what records the FBI obtained or who approved the subpoenas. The news agency also couldn’t ascertain if Patel or Wiles themselves were under investigation and, if so, why. Both were close to Trump during this period, as he built toward and ultimately launched his campaign to reclaim the presidency in 2024.

Both Patel and Wiles were known to have been interviewed by investigators as part of Smith’s investigation into Trump’s retention of classified documents following his first term.

A spokesperson for Smith declined to comment on Patel’s allegations on Wednesday. Biden, former Attorney General Merrick Garland, and former FBI director Chris Wray, who oversaw the bureau during Smith’s investigations, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Garland appointed Smith as special counsel.

A federal judge on Monday permanently barred the Justice Department from releasing Smith’s report on the documents investigation. Smith has told Congress that he is barred by court orders from discussing any aspects of the probe that have not been previously disclosed in court filings.

Smith previously told Congress that his investigators had serious concerns about obstruction of justice in their investigations. He told lawmakers last month that his office “followed Justice Department policies, observed legal requirements and took actions based on the facts and the law.”

The White House and Wiles did not immediately comment.

Patel said investigators used subpoenas to obtain what are known as “toll records,” which detailed the timing and recipients of calls he and Wiles made, but not what was said on the calls. The government may lawfully obtain phone records via subpoena without a judge’s approval.

Patel said investigators obtained the records around the time Smith led the probe into allegations that Trump illegally took classified documents to his South Florida property, Mar-a-Lago, after he left the presidency in 2021 and allegedly obstructed federal efforts to return those documents.

Smith charged Trump with felonies related to this investigation in 2023 but that case was ultimately dismissed by a federal judge, and Smith dropped an appeal of that ruling after Trump won election to a second term. Trump has denied wrongdoing related to Smith’s investigations.

Patel said he did not know the FBI’s purpose in seizing the phone records of him and Wiles, who became a top Trump adviser after he left office in 2021 and eventually co-campaign manager for his 2024 run against Biden. Patel also was a Trump political ally during this time.

Patel said the collection of phone records extended into Wiles’ time as Trump’s co-campaign manager, though he did not say when exactly the record collection began or ended.

The FBI discovered the phone records in files categorized as “Prohibited,” which makes them difficult to discover on the bureau’s computer systems. Patel said he recently ended the FBI’s ability to categorize files as “Prohibited.”

Smith's investigative techniques have previously drawn denunciation from GOP leaders, including the seizure of phone records of U.S. senators and other Republican officials during Smith’s probe into alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Smith testified last year that records of members’ calls helped investigators verify the timeline of events around the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and that prosecutors “followed all legal requirements in getting those records.” He told a House panel that the records obtained from lawmakers did not include content of conversations. [source]

Another example of abuse of power by Briben's FBI.

Excerpts from Republican Party Platforms

• Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism--Polygamy, and Slavery. (1856)
• Resolved, That Kansas should be immediately admitted as a state of this Union, with her present Free Constitution, as at once the most effectual way of securing to her citizens the enjoyment of the rights and privileges to which they are entitled, and of ending the civil strife now raging in her territory. (1856)
• 9. That we brand the recent reopening of the African slave trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity and a burning shame to our country and age; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic. (1860)
• 10. That in the recent vetoes, by their Federal Governors, of the acts of the legislatures of Kansas and Nebraska, prohibiting slavery in those territories, we find a practical illustration of the boasted Democratic principle of Non-Intervention and Popular Sovereignty, embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and a demonstration of the deception and fraud involved therein. (1860)
• Thirteenth. We denounce repudiation of the public debt, in any form or disguise, as a national crime. We witness with pride the reduction of the principal of the debt, and of the rates of interest upon the balance, and confidently expect that our excellent national currency will be perfected by a speedy resumption of specie payment. (1872)
• 2. The Constitution of the United States is a supreme law, and not a mere contract. Out of confederated States it made a sovereign nation. Some powers are denied to the Nation, while others are denied to the States; but the boundary between the powers delegated and those reserved is to be determined by the National and not by the State tribunal. (1880)
• We favor the establishment of a national bureau of labor; the enforcement of the eight hour law, a wise and judicious system of general education by adequate appropriation from the national revenues, wherever the same is needed. We believe that everywhere the protection to a citizen of American birth must be secured to citizens by American adoption; and we favor the settlement of national differences by international arbitration. (1884)
• (c) League of Nations
• The Republican party stands for agreement among the nations to preserve the peace of the world. We believe that such an international association must be based upon international justice, and must provide methods which shall maintain the rule of public right by the development of law and the decision of impartial courts, and which shall secure instant and general international conference whenever peace shall be threatened by political action, so that the nations pledged to do and insist upon what is just and fair may exercise their influence and power for the prevention of war.
• We believe that all this can be done without the compromise of national independence, without depriving the people of the United States in advance of the right to determine for themselves what is just and fair when the occasion arises, and without involving them as participants and not as peacemakers in a multitude of quarrels, the merits of which they are unable to judge.
• The covenant signed by the President at Paris failed signally to accomplish this great purpose, and contains stipulations, not only intolerable for an independent people, but certain to produce the injustice, hostility and controversy among nations which it proposed to prevent. (1920)
• We advocate the issuance of a simplified form of income return; authorizing the Treasury Department to make changes in regulations effective only from the date of their approval empowering the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with the consent of the taxpayers, to make final and conclusive settlements of tax claims and assessments barring fraud, the creation of a Tax Board consisting of at least three representatives of the taxpaying public and the heads of the principal divisions of the Bureau of Internal Revenue to act as a standing committee on the simplification of forms, procedure and law and to make recommendations to the Congress. (1920)

Highlights of Democrat Party Platforms Part 3

• We pledge the Democratic party to the enactment of a law prohibiting any corporation from contributing to a campaign fund and any individual from contributing any amount above a reasonable maximum. (1912 Democratic Party Platform)
• We insist upon the full exercise of all the powers of the Government, both State and national, to protect the people from injustice at the hands of those who seek to make the government a private asset in business. (1912)
• We pledge the Democratic party to the enactment of a law prohibiting any corporation from contributing to a campaign fund and any individual from contributing any amount above a reasonable maximum. (1912)
• We favor a single Presidential term, and to that end urge the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution making the President of the United States ineligible to reelection, and we pledge the candidates of this Convention to this principle.* (1912)
• We pledge the Democratic party to the enactment of a law creating a department of labor, represented separately in the President's cabinet in which department shall be included the subject of mines and mining. (1912)
• It summons all men of whatever origin or creed who would count themselves Americans, to join in making clear to all the world the unity and consequent power of America. This is an issue of patriotism. To taint it with partisanship would be to defile it. In this day of test, America must show itself not a nation of partisans but a nation of patriots.^ (1916)
• The Democratic Party favors the League of Nations as the surest, if not the only, practicable means of maintaining the permanent peace of the world and terminating the insufferable burden of great military and naval establishments. (1920)
• We endorse the proposed 19th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States granting equal suffrage to women. (1920)
• The income tax was intended as a tax upon wealth….We favor a graduated tax upon incomes, so adjusted as to lay the burdens of government upon the taxpayers in proportion to the benefits they enjoy and their ability to pay. (1924)
• Recognizing in narcotic addiction, especially the spreading of heroin addiction among the youth, a grave peril to America and to the human race, we pledge ourselves vigorously to take against it all legitimate and proper measures for education, for control and for suppression at home and abroad. (1924)
• The republican administration has failed to enforce the prohibition law; is guilty of trafficking in liquor permits, and has become the protector of violators of this law. (1924)

*FDR completely ignored this platform.

^This is before the party got infected by Marxism.

‘Schedule F’ is NUKE against Deep State and Trump’s finger is on the button…

From Revolver.news (Feb. 6):

While everyone is glued to AI stocks and crypto charts, the real power move just quietly unfolded in Washington.

The Office of Personnel Management finalized the rules that will allow President Trump to reclassify up to 50,000 federal employees as “at-will” workers.

Do you know what that means?

That means if the Supreme Court upholds this move, Trump can fire tens of thousands of entrenched bureaucrats (Deep State) who shape federal policy.

This is a direct nuclear strike right at the heart of the permanent administrative state.

A sharp observer noticed right away that something bigger than market volatility was unfolding.

Most people reading this post probably skimmed right past the last line… but that’s the bombshell.

Ceb K.

AI capex & capabilities exploding, AI-related stocks (hardware & software) oddly tumbling, Bitcoin/gold/silver etc crashing (but dollar rallying), etc; also OPM just finalized rules this morning allowing Trump to reclassify the most important 50k civil servants as at-will workers

He meant AI news as the big update, but it’s also eg worth noting that “Schedule F” has been the main goal of Republican presidents to fight the deep state for 50+ years & it was issued this morning (takes effect in 30 days) & SCOTUS will uphold it in upcoming Slaughter decision.

Schedule F, which has been renamed “Schedule Policy/Career,” isn’t new. It was introduced during Trump’s first term. But the goal hasn’t changed: crack open the layer of federal bureaucrats who influence policy but are nearly impossible to fire. [read more]

Sounds great. Hope the SOTUS upholds it. The Deep State will definitely fight the action.

Highlights of Democrat Party Platforms Part 1

1840 Democratic Party Platform

Resolved, That congress has no power to charter a national bank; that we believe such an institution one of deadly hostility to the best interests of the country, dangerous to our republican institutions and the liberties of the people, and calculated to place the business of the country within the control of a concentrated money power, and above the laws and the will of the people.

Resolved, That congress has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states, and that such states are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts by abolitionists or others, made to induce congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend to our political institutions. [read more]

1856 Democratic Party Platform

Resolved, That we regard this as a distinctive feature of our political creed, which we are proud to maintain before the world, as the great moral element in a form of government springing from and upheld by the popular will; and we contrast it with the creed and practice of Federalism, under whatever name or form, which seeks to palsy the will of the constituent, and which conceives no imposture too monstrous for the popular credulity.

…….

That Congress has no power to charter a national bank; that we believe such an institution one of deadly hostility to the best interests of the country, dangerous to our republican institutions and the liberties of the people, and calculated to place the business of the country within the control of a concentrated money power, and above the laws and the will of the people; and that the results of Democratic legislation in this and all other financial measures upon which issues have been made between the two political parties of the country, have demonstrated to candid and practical men of all parties, their soundness, safety, and utility, in all business pursuits.

……..

That Congress has no power under the Constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the Constitution; that all efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.

…….

That the Democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made. [read more]

1860 Democratic Party Platform

Resolved, That one of the necessities of the age, in a military, commercial, and postal point of view, is speedy communication between the Atlantic and Pacific States; and the Democratic party pledge such Constitutional Government aid as will insure the construction of a Railroad to the Pacific coast, at the earliest practicable period.

…….

Resolved, That the enactments of the State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect. [read more]

The Press

Turning again to Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel and their book, The Elements of Journalism, they make the point this way: "A stronger, more unified, and more transparent method of verifying the news would . . . be the single most important step that those who practice journalism could take to address and, if necessary, correct the rising perception that the work of journalists is marred by bias. . . . What would this journalism of objective method—rather than aim—look like? What should citizens expect from the press as a reasonable discipline of reporting?"

Kovach and Rosenstiel provide five "intellectual principles of a science of reporting":

1. Never add anything that was not there.
2. Never deceive the audience.
3. Be as transparent as possible about your methods and motives.
4. Rely on your own original reporting.
5. Exercise humility.

However, it is quite clear that this interpretation of objectivity, while seemingly alluring, has proved impossible for most newsrooms and journalists. The reason is that most partisans are unable or unwilling to put aside their personal ideological and political perspectives or, even worse, they consider them essential to moving and improving society through activism. This is the fundamental nature of the modern media. For the most part, the objectivity of methods has become the partisanship of ideological and political results.

…….

As recently as February 20, 2019, current Times publisher Arthur Gregg Sulzberger (Ochs's great-great grandson), responding to President Trump referring to the newspaper as "the enemy of the people"-as the president was frustrated with yet another "news" story, this time an "investigative report" filled with allegations and innuendos about him and his administration from anonymous sources-publicly lectured the president and the nation about the importance of a free press. He wrote:

America's founders believed that a free press was essential to democracy because it is the foundation of an informed, engaged citizenry. That conviction, enshrined in the First Amendment, has been embraced by nearly every American president. Thomas Jefferson declared, "The only security of all is in a free press." John F. Kennedy warned about the risks to "free society without a very, very active press." Ronald Reagan said, "There is no more essential ingredient than a free, strong and independent press to our continued success."

All these presidents had complaints about their coverage and at times took advantage of the freedom every American has to criticize journalists. But in demonizing the free press as the enemy, simply for performing its role of asking difficult questions and bringing uncomfortable information to light, President Trump is retreating from a distinctly American principle. It's a principle that previous occupants of the Oval Office fiercely defended regardless of their politics, party affiliation, or complaints about how they were covered.

The phrase "enemy of the people" is not just false, it's dangerous. It has an ugly history of being wielded by dictators and tyrants who sought to control public information. And it is particularly reckless coming from someone whose office gives him broad powers to fight or imprison the nation's enemies. As I have repeatedly told President Trump face to face, there are mounting signs that this incendiary rhetoric is encouraging threats and violence against journalists at home and abroad.

Through 33 presidential administrations, across 167 years, The New York Times has worked to serve the public by fulfilling the fundamental role of the free press. To help people, regardless of their backgrounds or politics, understand their country and the world. To report independently, fairly and accurately. To ask hard questions. To pursue the truth wherever it leads. That will not change.

Source: Unfreedom of the Press (2019) by Mark R. Levin.

It’s sad the drive-by-media can’t just report the news instead of spinning a narrative.

What “Separation of Church and State” Is Really About

From Breakpoint.org (July 14, 2022):

In response to the recent Dobbs decision and the Supreme Court’s clear, consistent support for religious liberty throughout this term, many progressives are warning of an imminent “Christian theocracy.” Among the loudest voices predicting our collective doom are mainstream media outlets. For example, a recent story in Reuters claimed, “U.S. Supreme Court Takes Aim at Separation of Church and State.”

What’s missing in virtually all of these pieces is a proper understanding of the “establishment clause.” The establishment clause is derived from the opening lines of the First Amendment which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” There are two ways this statement is commonly misunderstood.

First, it is often described as establishing a “wall of separation between church and state.” In fact, those words are found nowhere in the Constitution. The phrase actually was coined later in a letter by Thomas Jefferson. Second, and more importantly, it is assumed that if organized religion cannot be supported by the state, then secularism is somehow “neutral.” Thus, by default, anything goes as long as it’s “secular.”

Understanding the historical context is essential. In the 18th century, an “established” religion referred to an official state church. In the U.S., individual states had already established churches, such as the Anglican Church in Virginia. The First Amendment specifically applied to Congress and prohibited a national church. To prefer the Anglican Church over the Congregationalists or Presbyterians would, at the time, mean alienating certain citizens and entire states. States continued to have established churches well into the 19th century.

In addition, the First Amendment was not intended to prohibit religious activities in governmental institutions. From the very beginning, Congress started each session with prayer. That continues today and is led by an official chaplain.

Our founding fathers, particularly James Madison, believed that religious liberty was an innate right, and inseparable from the freedom of conscience. He also believed that religion would better flourish in a free marketplace of ideas. That thinking was the basis for the free exercise clause.

This understanding of the freedom of conscience is the foundation for the other freedoms protected in the First Amendment. Without conscience rights, we cannot truly speak, write, assemble, or advocate freely from our deepest beliefs. That’s why the freedom of religion is often called “the first freedom.” Its position in the Bill of Rights highlights its importance.

Although the rights of conscience should not be controversial, somehow, that’s what they have become. How this happened is worth considering. By claiming secularism to be neutral, proponents of secularism ,as far back as the 19th century, attempted to broadly apply laws originally intended by Protestants to prevent Catholic schools from accessing state funds. In the 20th-century, secularists embraced the concept of “a living Constitution” in order to transform the meaning of the First Amendment, attempting to keep religious institutions from accessing state funds and allowing only “secular” views in the public arena.

Though many court cases illustrate this, among the more important was Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), which declared unconstitutional Maryland’s requirement that officeholders state belief in God. Rather than ruling on the basis of Article VI, which prohibits religious tests for public office, the Supreme Court ruled on the basis of the establishment clause of the First Amendment and of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from violating the rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens. The same line of reasoning has since been used to challenge prayers at public meetings, Bible studies in schools, and nativity scenes on public property. In the process, the First Amendment was turned on its head, taking a clause intended to keep the state from backing any one denomination and construing it to position the state in opposition to all organized religions.

In footnote 11 of the Torcaso v. Watkins decision, Justice Hugo Black listed secular humanism as one of a number of religions “which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God.” Calling humanism a religion was not outlandish.  For a century, humanists such as John Dewey and Julian Huxley had defined their beliefs as a religion. After all, secularism involves certain claims about the cosmos, existence, and human nature.

And yet in 1994, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled in Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District that while “religion” should be broadly interpreted for free exercise clause purposes, “anything ‘arguably non-religious’ should not be considered religious in applying the establishment clause.” In other words, secular organizations were able to play both sides, qualifying as a religion for the free exercise clause but free from constraints from the establishment clause.

To further determine whether religious activities could utilize public spaces, the Supreme Court derived the so-called “Lemon Test” in the case Lemon v. Kurzman (1991). According to this rule, a religious activity is only licit on public grounds if it performs a secular purpose, neither advances nor inhibits religion, and does not foster excessive government entanglement in religion. This test maintained an obviously secular bias: Secular organizations were not required to pass any tests to obtain access.

In the recent decision in the Coach Kennedy case, the Supreme Court continued its long-overdue corrections to the anti-religious way the First Amendment had been interpreted. Particularly by unequivocally tossing the “Lemon Test,” the Court has stopped the active suppression of religious beliefs and practice. We ought not fear an impending theocracy, but instead welcome a redress to the unjust and ahistorical understandings of religion. [source]

Amen. Religion in gov’t doesn’t necessary mean a theocracy, but containing moral lawgivers if the religion is based on Judea-Christian beliefs. Otherwise, you might have corrupt and tyrannical lawgivers.

What Patriotic Americans Can Do to Resist the Destruction of Our Constitutional Republic

From The Gateway Pundit.com (June 22, 2022):

First, recognize that the United States is not a functioning constitutional republic, but a government being deliberately transformed into a one-party totalitarian state.

The federal government, as an institution, is hopelessly corrupt and, although we have elections, we do not have a representative government. It cannot be reformed. It can only be ripped out and replaced.

Do not expect any top-down solutions for America’s problems to miraculously emerge from Washington D.C. The U.S. government has seceded from the people. Most members of Congress act more like foreign occupiers than executors of the views and needs of their constituents.

Angelo Codevilla noted that the United States already has a bona fide ruling class, which transcends government, a political aristocracy that sees itself as distinct from the rest of society and as the only element that may act on its behalf. The ruling class considers those who resist it as having no moral or intellectual right, and, now, any civil right as well.

Republican Party leaders neither contest that view nor vilify their Democrat counterparts because they do not want to challenge the ruling class, they want to be part of it.

The Republican leadership has solidified its choice to no longer represent what had been its constituency, but to adopt the identity of junior partners in the ruling class. By repeatedly passing bills that contradict the views of its voters, the Republican Party has made political orphans of tens of millions of Americans.

The only remaining course of action for patriotic American, who want to restore our constitutional republic, is a bottom-up political insurgency based on the Constitution and the Founding documents.

Foremost among them are the Second and Tenth Amendments.

The Second Amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” is now the only obstacle standing between freedom and the absolute tyranny the federal government now wishes to impose.

Buy firearms and lots of ammunition. [read more]

Sound advice.

19 Black Americans Explain Why They’re Conservative

From The Daily Signal.com (June 22, 2020):

These are difficult times, and Americans are looking for guidance on how to make sense of the most divisive issues we face. When it comes to race in America, Heritage President Kay C. James says that conservatives should be leading the civil rights movement.

That’s why The Daily Signal reached out to African American conservatives to ask why they are conservative. Here are their responses.

1. W.B. Allen: Good Sense Needs No Explanation

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

My political conservatism is an effect or consequence, not a cause.

I am an American patriot, informed by a deep appreciation of the human significance of the advance in human affairs occasioned by the founding of the United States. For the first time in human history, the idea that mankind in general was capable of self-government had been realized.

Moreover, the fulfillment of the promises attending that realization have been made manifest in the consistent progress of civilization in the United States, in which the power of the individual and the value of self-agency, informed by the security of religious conviction, have steadily reinforced real material progress and the opportunity for moral progress.

For those reasons, it is a matter of prudent judgment that one’s political exertions should ever be careful to reinforce and not to undermine the foundations of the hopes invested in the political constitution of this nation.

The United States was formed as a lamp unto the world, and whatever undermines the power of the United States to perform that role constitutes an impediment to human happiness.

If it is conservative to wish to preserve the “last best hope of man” on earth, then such conservatism is the effect of devotion to liberty. No one could do otherwise, if guided by good sense and a due appreciation of the values of faith, freedom, and responsibility.

W. B. Allen, Ph.D., is the chief operating officer of UrbanCURE.

2. Brian Bledsoe: Most Fair for All

As a conservative who happens to be Black, I’m typically asked why I am a conservative. So here’s why.

I’m a conservative because the most innocent among us should be given the chance to live.

I’m a conservative because you shouldn’t be punished for being successful.

I’m a conservative because securing our borders against those who seek to come here illegally should be as commonsensical as securing our residences.

I’m a conservative because we need to defend the Second Amendment more than ever from the constant and vicious attack on our right to bear arms.

I’m a conservative because speech should be free whether I agree with it or not.

I’m a conservative because I stand against the deceptive allure of an all-controlling government by way of socialism, which threatens everything that made this country great.

I’m a conservative because we should remain forever vigilant in advocating limited government.

Leftists will argue that being conservative goes against what they perceive is in my self-interest. I’m a conservative because the principles of conservatism are the most effective, realistic, and fair for all—regardless of individual outcome.

Brian Bledsoe is a Heritage Action Sentinel from Texas.

3. The Rev. Arnold M. Culbreath: Not Sellouts, but Solutions

We are living in turbulent times. Racial tensions run high, and intensified feelings, conversations, shouts, and pressure reverberate across the land. And in the midst of all this, a wide variety of perspectives abound.

Being Black in America is not easy. However, I remain hopeful and work to make America better every day. As a pastor, Army veteran, business owner, and national ministry leader, I strive to model what being a Christian, socially conscientious, Black man in America looks like, while frequently facing racism and exclusion in the process.

In spite of the odds, I have labored long and participated in initiatives that help hopeless and hurting people, and programming that moves past rhetoric to get real resources to people in need. Things like after-school feeding programs, grocery giveaways, the First Step Act, opportunity zones, free help to women in crisis pregnancies, and more.

These principles need not be defined or confined by polarizing labels such as left or right, conservative or liberal. The question is: Does an initiative strengthen and lift impoverished and disenfranchised people and communities that need it most?

If so, collaboration is desperately needed to serve those ravished by a pandemic, shaken by injustices such as the brutal killing of George Floyd and many others at the hands of police, racial upheaval, and socio-economic disparities, and we need it now.

In order for this to occur, name-calling and marginalizing of viewpoints must stop. It’s much more helpful to stop viewing me and others like me as “Uncle Toms,” but as fellow team members. Not as sellouts, but as solutions to the problems.

This is our country, and our world, so let’s work to make it the absolute best that we can together.       

The Rev. Arnold M. Culbreath is the director of ministry engagement at the Douglass Leadership Institute.

4. Michael E. Kerridge: Reasonable Human Imperative

If anyone is willing to step away from the noise and cacophonic discourse that now compromise political discussion, we can begin to see that conservatism is not just an opposing or competing ideology. It is a human imperative wrought in the will and psyche of every reasonable person.

I am a conservative because personal initiative favors personal economic freedom. I oppose excessive government control of business and the subversion of the traditional family structure. I fully endorse and favor a free-market economy and the rule of law.

The values inherent in the individualism of my grandmother that spawned four generations of conservative thought and action embodied the sentiment that “all are created equal,” and that government does not bestow anything on anyone.

The entrepreneurship, individual effort, and hard work that made all of my grandmother’s efforts and her life rich and full have influenced and spawned generational success. This makes me a “reasonable man,” a reasonable person.

The family is a microcosm of what works best for all of mankind. We realize that God created us male and female, that we are to train up our children and equip them with self-confidence, discipline, and respect for all that is good and right.

This fortifies our society with reasonable people who think critically about their impact and legacy for their families, their fellow citizens, and their society.

Only this actually works for all concerned.

Michael E. Kerridge is a Heritage Action Sentinel from Florida. [read more]

An Expert Answers Democrats' Most Burning Question: Why Does Anyone Need an AR-15?

From Red State.com (July 10, 2022):

It’s a cry we hear time and again: Why does anyone need a black, spookily-shaped, mysterious “weapon of war” — which has never been used by the U.S. military?

Contrary to frequently wild framing, the AR-15 is simply the modern iteration of a basic rifle. Take Daniel Boone’s “Old Tick Licker,” fast-forward 270 years, and you get something lighter, more capacious, more accurate, and more easily accessorized.

But why should you — or Daniel’s great (times six) grandchildren — own one? Via a recent video, gun guru Colion Noir fights that burning question with a well’s worth of water.

In case you’re unfamiliar, the Houston-based activist and attorney has hosted NRATV and spoken at the National Rifle Association’s convention; his pro-2A YouTube channel boasts over two million subscribers, and he’s appeared as featured guest on The Joe Rogan Experience as well as Real Time with Bill Maher.

As for why anyone needs an AR, Colion offers a handful of reasons — one for each finger.

But first, he makes clear, “The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Needs. … [T]here isn’t a ‘need’ requirement for which gun you can use under the Second Amendment.”

Now on to the list…

Reason #1:

You need an AR-15 to defend against break-ins with multiple suspects.

Colion asks the liars to please stand up:

“If you knew that four guys with guns were going to break into your home or business and try to brutally murder you and your family, which gun would you pick to defend yourself — a handgun or an AR-15? If you said the handgun, you’re a liar. If you said the AR-15, you just made my point. The AR-15 is the best gun to use against multiple armed intruders who are trying to kill you.”

“During a home invasion with multiple suspects,” he notes, “you’re already at a huge disadvantage. … You only get seconds to react to people trying to kill you. But these scumbags get days or even weeks to plan ahead of time.”

Life is full of compromises, but some aren’t requisite:

“Handguns are a compromise. Yes, they’re easy to carry, but they’re largely underpowered and much harder to shoot accurately compared to AR-15s. Shotguns have the stopping power but lack the capacity. This is fine if the people trying to kill you run away once you start shooting. But if they stay and fight, you’re screwed. That’s where the AR-15 comes in. AR-15s are easier to shoot accurately, they have a higher capacity and much less recoil. An AR-15 is exceedingly easier to suppress than a shotgun, so you have the added advantage of protecting your hearing. All of these factors immediately put you on an equal playing field with the scumbags who are trying to kill you. Long story short: All of the benefits that people like to say an AR-15 gives to criminals [it also gives] to law-abiding citizens.”

“Honestly,” he says, “I could end the video right there. But let’s keep going.”

Reason #2:

You need an AR-15 to defend yourself against civil unrest.

“[W]hen this happens, you can’t rely on the police because they’re too busy trying to deal with the chaos. … In mobs, people do things they normally wouldn’t do. … [T]rust me…at any point, you can be on the wrong side of the mob. And if that (violent) mob decides to come your direction, you’re going to need an AR-15… … Handguns don’t intimidate a mob, and shotguns [are] a lot harder to shoot consistently because of the recoil…”

Reason #3:

You need an AR-15 to protect yourself during a national disaster or a SHTF scenario.

“Natural disasters can happen at any moment and happen way more frequently than civil unrest and have a tendency to last longer. After a natural disaster…you’re on your own. If it’s a bad enough or long enough situation, you’ll likely be living in a lawless environment. And criminals love this because people become easy targets. .. Can you imagine how dangerous it’ll be at night, with no power in pitch-black darkness and no police to help you, and there are criminals rampaging through the city looking to take what little you have, but you have to go out and find a loved one or get emergency supplies? You want the best thing possible to protect yourself in that environment…because the police can’t help you.”

Reason #4:

You need an AR-15 because everyone else has them — including criminals.

“There are, at bare minimum, two million ARs in this country. You may not have an AR, but other people do. So ask yourself — do you really want to be the only person without an AR-15, when you’re surrounded by police and criminals [armed with them]?”

Colion states the obvious, which for some reason appears to elude gun control advocates:

“Criminals, by definition, don’t follow laws. And as a result, criminals have all the guns they’re not supposed to have — like the AR-15.”

He’s got a gift for breaking it down:

“Why would you want the fight for your life to be an uneven match? I want what the criminal is trying to use against me or better. So if criminals have AR-15s that they could possibly use against you, then you need an AR-15 [to] fight back against them. This is not rocket science.”

Reason #5:

You need an AR-15 because you don’t trust the government.

And you’re not alone:

“A study from the Pew Research Center found that only two in ten Americans said they trust the government in Washington to do what is right, ‘just about always’ two percent of the time, or ‘most of the time’ nineteen percent of the time. … The study also found that only 29 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say they trust the government just about always or most of the time — which is odd considering that people who ask, ‘Why do you need an AR-15?’ are typically if not always Democrat or Democratic-leaning independents. If the vast majority of Americans don’t trust the government, why would you leave yourself defenseless to the same government you don’t trust?”

The man connects America’s beginnings with a contemporary right to bear arms:

“The founding fathers used their own rifles to win the Revolutionary War against a tyrannical government. They then wrote the Second Amendment to protect the…right to keep and bear arms so that…people of the future could use their own rifles — like they just did — to either be a deterrent…or to fight back against a tyrannical government — foreign or domestic. The most effective tool to do this right now…is the AR-15.”

He concludes with a quote from former Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alex Kosinski, about Americans’ access to ARs in the event of federal tyranny:

“However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.”

Colion makes potent points; will those across the aisle ever hear them? Either way, a large portion of the country will need to first learn what an AR-15 actually is. Might politicians and media members finally admit it’s not a machine gun? Call it less than likely[.] [source]

Good sound reasons.

Moderna’s ‘Disinformation Department’ Monitors 150 Million Websites for ‘Anti-Vaccine’ Narratives

From Children’s Health Defense.org (Nov. 21, 2023):

Moderna’s “disinformation department” partnered with an industry-backed nonprofit, the Public Good Projects (PGP), to monitor and suppress dissenting voices on COVID-19 vaccine policy, according to a new report by investigative journalists Lee Fang and Jack Poulson published Monday in UnHerd.

Over the last year, the “Twitter Files,” two lawsuits against the Biden administration and other investigations have exposed instances of collusion among government, social media and universities to suppress dissenting speech about COVID-19 policies, election fraud allegations and other topics.

This new report sheds light on Moderna’s behind-the-scenes strategy within this new media landscape. It exposes key actors and how they worked to monitor 150 million websites for the purpose of censoring speech that undermines the company’s COVID-19 vaccine narrative and actively shaping public discourse to benefit Moderna’s bottom line.

Great Barrington Declaration co-author and Stanford University professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who was blacklisted by Twitter, praised the new report in a tweet:

This report by @lhfang and Jack Poulson in @unherd is absolute fire. Moderna, thru the Public Goods Project pays thousands of health professionals to attack and defame vaccine critics and push social media to censor anyone who says things, true or false, that reduce profits. https://t.co/2zfpx4TBne

— Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) November 20, 2023

Moderna had never successfully advanced any product to market prior to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine and was teetering on the edge of collapse when the pandemic was announced.

Its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine transformed the drugmaker into a $100 billion company almost overnight and turned its CEO, chairman and co-founders into billionaires.

Today, as public interest in taking yet another booster shot tanks and federal subsidies for the shot are disappearing, so are profits, leading the company to invest in new strategies — like a flashy marketing campaign — to stay afloat, Fang and Poulson reported.

Moderna also is doubling down on work started during the pandemic to attack dissent about vaccines and to direct vaccination policy, they found. [read more]

Report: Soros Pumps $81M to Censor Election Speech Online

From Newsmax.com (May 15, 2024):

A media group funded by billionaire leftist George Soros is seeking to implement a global plan to pressure Big Tech social media platforms to censor more content before November's presidential election.

The group called Free Press is leading the charge to restrict free speech online, the Media Research Center reported Tuesday. MRC described Free Press — not to be confused with The Free Press media outlet helmed by former New York Times editor Bari Weiss — as an activist organization disguised as a journalism operation that uses its sizable resources to push the federal government and Big Tech to silence conservative speech.

Free Press, which MRC said claimed responsibility for helping to get former President Donald Trump banned from Twitter, bragged in a news release about a letter sent by a coalition of more than 200 "civil-society organizations, researchers, and journalists" to the heads of Big Tech companies such as Google, Instagram, Discord, X, and TikTok. In it, the groups called for the companies to reduce "interventions necessary to keep online platforms" allegedly "safe and healthy" and demanded "swift action" to protect "democracy."

MRC said its research unveiled that Soros packed the coffers of at least 45 of the signatories with $80.7 million combined between 2016 and 2022.

The letter attempted to justify that it was written with reducing "real-world harms" and "the rise of extremism and violent attempts to overthrow democratic governments." But it appears its true design was to pressure Big Tech companies to silence speech the left despises as 60 countries across the globe gear up for elections in 2024, the MRC reported.

"Even more disturbing was the letter's implication that its primary target is interfering in the 2024 U.S. election," the MRC reported. "This development is directly in line with Soros' brand, of which he has dedicated millions of his ungodly fortune to groups looking to interfere in elections by stifling online speech."

The letter made six demands of the Big Tech companies, the first of which called for investment "in greater platform integrity by reinstating election-integrity policies, inclusive of moderating content around the Big Lie," defined by co-signatory Brennan Center for Justice, which has received funding from Soros, as the idea the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.

The MRC reported the signatory that received the most Soros funding was Global Witness, which MRC said is on record for pressuring Facebook and TikTok to increase censorship operations before the 2022 midterm elections. Global Witness hauled in $20.3 million from Soros between 2016 and 2022, the MRC said.

Strategic Dialogue, another signatory that received $3.1 million from Soros between 2017 and 2022, was recently exposed by a House Judiciary Committee investigation for co-authoring a "hate groups" blacklist with the Soros-funded Global Disinformation Index targeting "conservative" and faith-based organizations, the MRC said.

"The fact that Free Press is at the tip of this Soros-tied spear should concern every American," the MRC said. "Free Press' obsession with censorship and gaining control of the Internet cannot be overstated.

"This is the same group that boasted how it was 'involved in direct talks that pressured Google and Amazon' to boot the 'dangerous' pro-free speech platform Parler from their platforms because of so-called 'election lies.'"

Newsmax reached out to Free Press for comment. [source]

The Spooky Dude is at it again with his evil ways. The name "Free Press" is a misnomer. Then again, that's the point. Whenever the Left creates an organization, the name of it always confuses and deceives its real purpose.

I’m glad Trump won the election despite Soros's attempt at election interference.

Another Soros article:

Soros' alleged ties to Russiagate exposed in declassified annex of Durham report

Freedom without choice is no true freedom at all

From Richard D. Land on Christian Post.com (July 14, 2023):

It is not often I am surprised by comments that are generated by my columns in The Christian Post. Over the years I have read, as you would imagine, literally thousands of various opinions, agreements and disagreements with the ideas I have articulated and the arguments I have made on literally hundreds of issues.

So, imagine my surprise at being taken aback by some comments generated by my column, “The Extraordinary Meaning of July 4th for America and the World,” I frankly thought that praising the Declaration of Independence and its meaning would not have been terribly controversial.

However, several of our readers took exception to my praising the unique birth of human freedom published on July 4, 1776.

One reader declared:

“It was never the founders intent to promote irresponsible freedom. The freedom we enjoy in our Constitution and supporting Declaration of Independence was formulated within the context of reverence and submission to God on an individual basis. In those times it was the one true Christian God.”

Another critic goes even further, assuming that I am glorifying “this ‘FREEDOM’ even though it blasphemously proclaims that it is …a human right to worship ANY gods, that it proclaims … right for each to define good and evil in their own eyes. It is clear that you have placed the ‘light of the torch of FREEDOM’ above the LIGHT and 1 Truth of the 1 & only God.”

Imagine my surprise. My first response is that our forefathers bequeathed us a great and noble thing — an understanding that our freedom and our rights came from our Creator and that God created us with the right to govern ourselves according to His revelation of Himself and His character to us.

However, He also gave us, beginning with Adam and Eve, the freedom to choose right from wrong, understanding that wrong choices would bring disastrous consequences.

My question to my critics is this: “What would you have in place of our constitutionally guaranteed freedom? Would you have the Founding Fathers dictating to us which particular God (Catholic, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist or Deist) we must worship and the manner in which we are to perform that worship?”

After all, nine of the original 13 states had tax-supported state churches and our forefathers did not follow their lead.

True freedom leaves a man or a woman free to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences without interference from the civil magistrate. Our second president, John Adams, said in 1798, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (John Adams, “Letter from John Adams to Massachusetts Militia,” Oct. 11, 1798.)

Adams understood that our Constitution was based on Judeo-Christian values combined with Enlightenment ideas of self-government.    

If most people did not obey the law voluntarily because they were aware they were responsible to Divine authority, then the “light” hand of our government would allow liberty to turn to license requiring even more restrictive state power to ensure order.

You cannot force people to be pious or devout. And, you have no right to coercively interfere with another man’s relationship with God. As the great Baptist Roger Williams put it so eloquently in the early 17th century while facing the state church in Massachusetts Bay, for any man to coercively interfere with another man’s faith is “soul-rape.”

All attempts by government to dictate religion always ends in disaster, conscience abuse, and dictatorship. And after all, God never wants coerced worship. He gave Adam and Eve a choice. He gave His chosen people a choice. He could have forced them to obey. He did not. He wanted a voluntary compliance and loving worship.

As the Apostle Paul exhorted the Ephesian Christians to “walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.” (Eph. 5:2)

In the early 17th century the English Baptist Thomas Helwys wrote The Mystery of Iniquity in which he informed the King of England, James I, that he was just a man and should have no coercive control over another man’s relationship with his God, thus authoring the first published plea for religious freedom in the English language.

As John Adams predicted, as America has become less religious and less decent, liberty has turned to license which has led to more government and less freedom.

However, the answer is not for any one group to try to impose what they believe the correct religion is on the people. The last thing that anyone should want is government-sponsored or government-mandated religion. The experience is like being embraced by a python which squeezes all the life out of you. The empty cathedrals of the state churches in Europe bear stark testimony to that truth.

Our Declaration and our Constitution free our people to be God-honoring, Bible-believing followers of Christ, but also allows them to go their own way. That is the two-edged sword of freedom.

The confessional statement of my personal faith tradition, Southern Baptist, The Baptist Faith & Message, puts it quite eloquently and succinctly: “God alone is Lord of the conscience and He has left it free from the doctrines of man which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it.”

This statement makes a critically important distinction. While we shall be free from the dictates of man, we are responsible to God. “Human beings are not really autonomous. We will one day answer to God for our beliefs, actions, thoughts and words.” (Charles S. Kelley Jr., Richard Land, R. Albert Mohler Jr., The Baptist Faith & Message, 2007), pp. 163-164.

Freedom is a God-given right. He gave us the ability to choose right over wrong, and even after the fall of man He redemptively acts to empower us to choose the right through the life-giving power of His Son.

Genuine and true Christianity has flourished under the freedoms set in place by the Declaration and the Constitution, like it has in no other milieu. Government should be an umpire, or referee, making sure everyone plays fair, with no cheating in attempts to intimidate or suppress minorities. The government should not be a judge, a sponsor, or a censor for one religion over another or no religion over religion. This leaves men free to pursue the truth according to the dictates of their own consciences.

Will this mean competition for hearts and minds in the marketplace of ideas? Yes. What’s the problem? I did not see Elijah avoiding a confrontation with the prophets of Baal. He said, “You pray to your gods and I will pray to mine, and let’s see whose prayers get answered.”

Let us go forward with the confidence of Elijah. We serve the one true God, the one who answers prayers. [source]

Freewill is a gift from God that mankind can use for good or ill.

11 Assumptions About The Future

From Matt Smith on International Man.com:

If you watch our podcast Doug Casey’s Take, you already know. We’re in the middle of a complex and destructive phase full of unknowns.

Our goal with The Phyle is to focus on solutions. To make progress, we must clearly articulate the problem.

Amidst this chaotic phase, it’s impossible to predict even the near future. The best we can do is form a hypothesis and orient our actions around it.

Today I’m going to lay out my process and conclusions. I hope that they will be as useful to you as they have been to me.

Assumptions

We’ve been taught that assumptions are bad. They make an “ass” out of “u” and “me”. But, that’s not always true. I developed a set of assumptions about the future to build a framework of understanding. I use that framework to identify what IS in my control and what is NOT in my control.

The things outside our control, we can stop worrying about. They’re not up to us. Instead, our concern is what IS in our control and all our energy and resources should be dedicated there.

Before I get to the assumptions I’m operating under. Let me say – They are assumptions not predictions. I could be wrong. Hell – I hope I’m wrong. But with nearly three years of the “Great Reset” under our belt, I bet you’ll agree – they have merit.

None of this should be taken as a blackpill. No problem can be solved without sober identification and acceptance. of the nature of the challenge. That’s all we’re doing here.

With that in mind, here are the 11 assumptions I’m using today to guide my actions.

1. Less Freedom of movement. There will be more effort so to restrict and regulate our freedom of movement. From Vax passports to increased visa requirements and 15-min city initiatives – a grid is being constructed to regulate our freedom of movement.

2. A CBDC is coming. Cash will be eliminated. How restrictive it may end up being, I don’t know. But, CBDC is a foregone conclusion. Timing? BIS publishes estimates of 14 retail CBDC and 9 wholesale by 2030. And there are indications that the major economies are working to be ready to deploy by 2025.

3. The digital ID is already here. Biometrics are the future. If you have a government issued ID associated with your photograph, you are in the system already. How the ID is deployed and enforced is the only question.

4. GFC 2.0 and/or the Greater Depression. Timing is hard. But, can any thinking person imagine how the outcome can be avoided altogether. Simon Hunt suggests a market pullback of up to 30% between now and early 2024 followed by a pump and a deflationary wipeout in 2025.

5. Most of my financial assets will disappear at some point. Inflation, bank bail-in, market wipe out, or Great Taking. I don’t know the cause, but I assume physical assets are where I need to be, ultimately.

6. Increasing crime & disorder. You’ve seen the videos. Whether, driven by economic desperation, mass migration, the inversion of law, or in the name of social justice. Crime and disorder will grow and lead to greater physical threats to our lives and property from our fellow man. This makes urban environments, especially but not exclusively, a real risk.

7. Supply constraints are increasing around all commodities – from food to energy. Tight supplies are showing up everywhere. Live Cattle, long dormant, hit an all-time high recently. Oil Prices are up 30% in the last three months. 40% of Argentina’s wheat crop is in poor to fair condition and protectionist policies are on the rise globally.

8. WW3 is coming. A good case can be made that it’s already begun. The Army War College recently published a study suggesting that the All Volunteer Force had reached the end of its useful life. With the military struggling with recruiting, conscription is likely at some point.

9. Censorship and Digital Control will enter a new phase. Deplatforming, de-banking, shadow banning, and social media account suspensions will increase. Centralized digital services of all kinds should be considered suspect and, very likely, dangerous to use in the future.

10. The US election – regardless of the outcome – is an inflection point and potentially a flash point. IF it happens, the outcome will not be accepted by half of the country. I’ve heard from more than one source, publicly and privately, that there may not be a 2024 election. Who knows? We can be sure of is that running up to and shortly after the election, things could get wild. In advance of the 2020 election we had Covid and BLM. Shortly after, J6 and state overreach. What will 2024 bring

11. There is a war happening today. It’s a war on us. The primary battleground is within the sphere of 5GW – informational/psychological. Where I’ve been wrong in the last three years, it’s been in my assumption that kinetic coercion would be utilized. As we can see, much progress has been made in the Great Reset without the need for kinetic tactics. For most of this cycle, they will rely on this same approach. If/When we see a move toward kinetic force, we should be alarmed because we will have entered a new and more dangerous phase.

Do you disagree with any of my assumptions? Did I miss anything? Let me know.

I see all of the assumptions as “Out of my control”. They may not come to pass, but whether they do or not is not up to me. Of course, I’ll continue to speak out against them. If enough of us do, it may help. Possibly.

Since these unfortunate outcomes are out of my control, I don’t worry about them. And free from the burden of unsolvable problems, I can fully devote my energy and resources to what IS within my control. [read more]

Scary. Along the same lines: 

• This ‘Digital ID’ would control EVERYTHING in your life [video]
• Why the UK is REALLY forcing Digital ID on workers [video]