Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Body-by-Guinness

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 35
51
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Chris Whitley
« on: April 04, 2024, 03:05:43 PM »
Speaking of music, here’s the best album you never heard of and one of my favorite artist, one that left us far too soon:

https://music.apple.com/us/album/living-with-the-law/157301322

52
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: did the beatles write their songs
« on: April 04, 2024, 03:03:06 PM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/the-monkees-davy-jones-called-the-beatles-the-1st-manufactured-group/ar-AA1dEzdt?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=95ad38c2916b4a7abfbb03450d9531c7&ei=8

OTOH
from my experience writing songs based on personal experience does NOT necessarily mean the claimed songwriter did in fact write the song.

I have seen them distributed to people based on what fits their profile.
Very clever and no one knows for the better.

I regularly get into trouble for claiming the Beatles killed rock ‘n roll, perhaps an exaggeration, but not much of one as I believe they exerted such an enormous force on the course of pop music in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s that they effectively bent all ensuing genre offerings towards the musical archetypes they established much as a celestial body bends space and time.

This sort of force does not emerge accidentally so I’m with Jones where the “manufactured” claim is concerned, particularly given all the solo treacle (Paul McCartney and Wings ditties makes me want to self-administer a lobotomy with a grapefruit spoon) emerging after they broke up. Indeed, after Lennon was shot my favorite joke was:

Q: What would it take to bring the Beatles back together?

A: Three more bullets.

53
Honest, interrupting a body’s endocrine systems at a critical developmental phase is no big deal and can be easily reversed with a wee bit of snake oil abstention. And if you believe that we got this bridge in Baltimore we’ll sell you:

OPINION>HEALTHCARE
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

The reckoning over puberty blockers has arrived

BY LEOR SAPIR, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 04/04/24 9:30 AM ET

Across the United States, thousands of parents have consented to having their children’s puberty stopped with a class of drugs called gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists. Known colloquially as “puberty blockers,” these drugs overstimulate the pituitary gland to the point of preventing it from sending signals to the ovaries or testes to start producing the hormones responsible for puberty.

Parents who have consented to these drugs for their children love their kids dearly, but they’ve consented under entirely false pretenses. The doctors who’ve advised them say that puberty blockers are known to improve mental health — that they are even life-saving — and that they are fully reversible and just give kids “time to think.” None of this is true.

Major American medical associations say that “gender-affirming care” for kids is “medically necessary” and “life-saving.” Health authorities Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the U.K. disagree. Last month, the National Health Service of England decommissioned puberty blockers as a treatment of adolescent gender dysphoria. “We have concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of [puberty blockers] to make the treatment routinely available at this time,” the NHSE explained.

Imagine if American doctors told parents the following truths. The mental health benefits of puberty blockers are highly uncertain, according to multiple systematic reviews of the evidence, the bedrock of evidence-based medicine. The World Health Organization says the evidence is “limited and variable.” There is no research into long-term harms, but some evidence suggests decreased IQ and brittle bones. Permanent sterility is guaranteed for minors who go through full hormonal “transition.” Sexual dysfunction appears to be extremely common as well. Over 93 percent of kids who take these drugs go on to cross-sex hormones, which lead to permanent physical changes including excruciating genital growth, vaginal atrophy and tearing and much higher risk for cancer and cardiovascular disease.

There is no credible evidence that puberty blockers function as suicide-prevention measures. Finland’s top gender clinician has called the suicide narrative “purposeful disinformation” and “dangerous.” For all these reasons, health authorities in a growing number of countries, including some of the most LGBT-friendly, are now prioritizing talk therapy.

How many parents would consent to puberty blockers under these circumstances? Very few, if any.

It is common for drugs to enter pediatric use after evidence of their success in adult medicine. The opposite happened in gender medicine. It was the failure of “sex reassignment” in adult men to achieve satisfactory cosmetic outcomes and improve life functioning that led a group of clinicians in the Netherlands to propose starting the “reassignment” process in childhood.

Their hypothesis was as technologically appealing as it was ethically dubious: since males could not reverse the effects of testosterone-fueled puberty to pass as women, it would be beneficial to these men to have their puberty bypassed altogether.

The Dutch recognized the dilemma but thought they found a way around it. Relying on their experience using puberty blockers to treat a condition known as central precocious puberty (CPP), they argued that blockers were fully reversible and thus part of the diagnostic process. If it turned out that the kid wasn’t “truly trans,” the drugs would be discontinued and puberty allowed to resume.

Their argument was dubious from the get-go. First, CPP has an objective diagnosis, based on a blood sample, whereas gender transition is based on the adolescent’s feelings and experiences, which are subject to change. In a political climate such as ours, in which mere exploration of the reasons for rejecting one’s body can be labeled “conversion therapy,” differential diagnosis becomes impossible.
As Dr. Jason Rafferty, author of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ current policy statement on “gender-affirming care,” has put it, “the child’s sense of reality and feeling of who they are is the navigational beacon to sort of orient treatment around.” The AAP statement has been witheringly critiqued, and Rafferty and the AAP are now defendants in lawsuits by former patients.

Second, in CPP puberty suppression is by definition temporary; the goal is to delay puberty to its appropriate developmental window. In gender dysphoria, a “successful” prescription is where puberty is bypassed altogether. The assumption about reversibility, never tested and highly questionable form the start, proved to be the ethical foundation for the entire Dutch experiment, and it quickly crumbled. Over 93 percent of adolescents who are put on puberty blockers for gender issues continue down the medical pathway to cross-sex hormones. Some go on to surgeries.

Gender clinicians do not see this suspiciously high figure as a reason to rethink their approach. They see no possibility of iatrogenesis — a medical intervention that unintentionally induces harm, in this case by causing gender distress or confusion to persist artificially. On the contrary, they regard the high persistence rate as proof of their own remarkable diagnostic abilities.

More modest and scientifically-minded clinicians and researchers see things very differently. “Blocking puberty,” writes Sallie Baxendale, a professor of neuropsychology and author of an important new study on puberty blockers, “prevents the critical rewiring in the brain that underpins the ability make complex decisions. Puberty blockers may give children time to think but they simultaneously rob them of their developing capacity to do so.”

What is likely happening is that an ongoing youth mental health crisis whose origins predate and have little to do with gender is being misdiagnosed and mistreated with harmful and experimental drugs. Puberty blockers are the definition of a “quick fix” solution.
Researchers incorrectly refer to what the Dutch did as an experiment. In an experiment, falsifiable hypotheses are proposed, alternative interventions are tested, outcomes are monitored and competing explanations for observed results are thoughtfully ruled out.

The Dutch did nothing of the sort, according to a comprehensive scholarly examination of their study. Further, the only attempt to replicate that study, which was done in the U.K., failed. The researchers had to be forced to disclose their disappointing findings. Any scientific-minded person willing to put in the effort and read the literature will come to the same conclusion: Pediatric gender medicine is an industry built on fraud.

During the 2000s and 2010s, the Dutch pseudo-experiment with puberty blockers “escaped the lab” and became entangled in a fast-growing international social movement for transgender recognition. In the U.S., the drugs are being prescribed at numbers far exceeding anything the Dutch could possibly have imagined. Most adolescents referred to pediatric gender clinics are teen girls who have no history of dysphoria in childhood but who do have other mental health challenges that predate their distress with their bodies.

American medicine is no stranger to scandal — lobotomy, “recovered memory” and OxyContin are just a few examples. What makes pediatric gender transition unique is that it has been framed as a nonnegotiable civil right and defended by powerful civil rights groups, the Democratic Party and their ideological allies in the mainstream media.

A key reason for the divergence between U.S. and European medical authorities, as I’ve explaine in a previous essay, is the latter’s greater willingness to follow principles of evidence-based medicine, including reliance on systematic reviews. Jack Turban, a prominent American gender clinician, revealed in a deposition that he seems not to know what a systematic review of evidence is.

Another reason is that in the U.S., doctors who practice child “transition” demand and often receive deference as the experts on the evidence for their practices; abroad, such clinicians are seen as having conflicts of interest. When the National Health Service of England appointed the highly respected Dr. Hilary Cass to lead its review of its youth gender service, it did so precisely because she was “a senior clinician with no prior involvement or fixed views in this area.” Sweden and Finland delegated the evaluation of evidence to experts with no personal involvement or stake in pediatric gender medicine.

Parents should never have been put in the position of having to decide whether to “allow” their kids to go through puberty. Those who would put the onus on parents are letting charlatans in the medical profession off the hook. Puberty is difficult for all teens, and it is not a disease. Puberty blockers offer teens in distress — especially girls with history of sexual abuse, autistic kids and gay kids — false hope by casting puberty as optional.

Puberty is a rite of passage from childhood into adulthood, responsible for the development of the body’s major organs and systems and not just its external sexual features. Puberty blockers rob children of their right to an open future.
=
Leor Sapir is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/4573662-the-reckoning-over-puberty-blockers-has-arrived/

54
Science, Culture, & Humanities / No LNG for Thee
« on: April 04, 2024, 01:06:27 PM »
2nd post. YOu know all the hoopla over LNG being extra specially carbon pollutie or whatever? It seems it was based on a single, non-peer reviewed "study:"

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/04/03/the-entire-push-to-halt-new-natural-gas-exports-traces-back-to-one-ivy-league-prof-and-his-shaky-study/

55
Politics & Religion / Junk Science in Support of Junk Science
« on: April 04, 2024, 12:33:19 PM »
When speaking of damage done by "extreme weather," an alarmist dog whistle meant to connote a carbon culprit, they breathless hypesters rarely note that both inflation and population concentration increases can also more than explain increased insurance payouts for weather events. This piece notes the unshared, oft changed, and irreproducable data has problems beyond inflationary and other pressures:

EXCLUSIVE: ‘Blatant Violations’: Watchdog Challenges Key Data Used By Biden Admin To Push Sweeping Climate Agenda

President Biden Delivers Remarks On His Administration's Efforts To Combat Climate Change
(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Daily Caller News Foundation logo

NICK POPE
CONTRIBUTOR
April 03, 2024

A government watchdog group has filed a complaint with the Biden administration over its use of a dataset frequently used to push its climate agenda.

Protect the Public’s Trust (PPT) filed the complaint with the Commerce Department over the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) “Billions Project” dataset, which purports to keep track of natural [and climate] disasters that have caused at least $1 billion in damages going back to 1980. The billion-dollar disasters (BDD) data — cited frequently by the Biden administration to insinuate that climate change is intensifying and justify sweeping green policies — is based on opaque data derived from questionable accounting practices, PPT alleges in the complaint.

“American families and businesses continue to struggle with persistently high inflation, which many attribute in large part to the energy policies and government spending of the current administration. The idea that blatant violations of scientific integrity could be underlying the rationale for these policies should concern every American,” Michael Chamberlain, PPT’s director, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Unfortunately, this is far from an isolated incident. The Biden Administration came into office pledging that its decision making would be grounded in the highest-quality science, but all too often has failed to live up to those promises.” (RELATED: The Entire Push To Halt New Natural Gas Exports Traces Back To One Ivy League Prof And His Shaky Study)

The complaint was filed with the Commerce Department, as NOAA operates under its auspices, Chamberlain told the DCNF.

PPT’s complaint alleges that NOAA does not adequately disclose its sources and methods for compiling the BDD dataset, adds and removes BDD events from the dataset without providing its rationale for doing so and produces cost estimates that are sometimes significantly different than those generated by more conventional accounting procedures.

While NOAA states that it develops its BDD data from more than a dozen sources, the agency does not disclose those sources for specific events or show how it calculates loss estimates from those sources, PPT’s complaint alleges.

The complaint further alleges that NOAA’s accounting methods are opaque and “produce suspect results.”

For example, when Hurricane Idalia took aim at Florida in 2023, NOAA initially projected that the storm would cause about $2.5 billion worth of damages before insured losses ultimately came in at about $310 million, according to PPT’s complaint, which cites the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation for that figure. Nevertheless, NOAA subsequently marked up its estimate for how much damage the storm caused to $3.5 billion, a discrepancy for which NOAA provided no explanation, PPT alleges in its complaint.

NOAA researchers have disclosed in the past that the agency considers factors such as functions pertaining to livestock feeding costs — in addition to more conventional types of damages — in their cost calculations.

Further, the complaint alleges that BDD events are quietly added and removed from the dataset without explanation, citing Roger Pielke Jr., a former academic who believes climate change to be a real threat but opposes politicized science. In a forthcoming paper analyzing the merits of BDD statistics, Pielke compared the dataset in late 2022 to the dataset in the middle of 2023 and found that ten new BDD events were added to the list and 3 were subtracted without explanation.

Apart from the issues with methodology alleged by PPT in its complaint, the use of BDD events as a proxy for climate change’s intensity is inherently misleading because economic data does not reflect changes in meteorological conditions, Pielke has previously explained to the DCNF.

For example, increasing concentrations of assets, especially in coastal areas, can confound the usefulness of BDD events as an indicator for the intensity of climate change, as Energy and Environment Legal Institute Senior Policy Fellow Steve Milloy has previously explained to the DCNF. Hypothetically, the same exact hurricane could hit the same exact place, decades apart, with vastly different damage totals; this would be the case because there are simply more assets sitting in the way of the storm, not because the storm was any more violent due to worsening climate change.

NOAA has acknowledged this limitation of the dataset in prior communications with the DCNF.

Additionally, NOAA will add disasters to the list retrospectively because it adjusts for inflation, meaning that a hurricane that caused $800 million in damages in 1980 dollars would be added to the list because the damages exceed $1 billion when adjusted for inflation, for example.

The Biden administration has frequently cited the BDD dataset to substantiate its massive climate agenda.

For example, Deputy Energy Secretary David Turk cited the dataset in written testimony submitted to lawmakers in February explaining the White House’s decision to pause new approvals for liquefied natural gas export terminals.

The BDD statistics are also referenced Fifth National Climate Assessment (NCA5), the Biden administration’s landmark climate report that is intended to provide the most sound scientific basis for lawmakers and officials to craft climate policy.

NOAA asserted that the increasing frequency of BDD events is a sign of intensifying climate change in a January press release and blog post summarizing 2023, and then defended the use of the dataset in subsequent communications with the DCNF.

“Sensational climate claims made without proper scientific basis and spread by government officials threaten the public’s trust in its scientific officials and undermines the government’s mission of stewarding the environment,” PPT’s complaint states. “It also poses the danger of policymakers basing consequential government policy on unscientific claims unsupported by evidence.”

NOAA declined to comment, citing the active nature of the scientific integrity complaint. The White House and the Department of Commerce did not respond immediately to requests for comment.

https://dailycaller.com/2024/04/03/exclusive-watchdog-challenges-key-data-used-by-biden-admin-to-push-sweeping-climate-agenda-noaa/

56
At my institution it's difficult to look up student email addresses and phone numbers as they are FERPA protected, yet colleges share this info with a voter org funded by Democrats with nary an issue? I'm sure the MSM will get on this unfair and illegal relationship any day now. Yep ... any ... day:

https://verityvote.us/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/national-student-data-sharing_VerityVote.pdf

57
... but don't you dare say so out loud. If you need any further proof that "Progressive" politics and cognitive dissonance march hand in non-gender specific hand, I provide you this it's-homophobic-to-point-out-Hamas-is-homophobic gem. The upside? Defenestration is much more difficult in Gaza these days given all the Hamas enclaves Israel has leveled:

Unhinged Rutgers prof says it’s ‘homophobic’ to note that Hamas brutalizes LGBT people

Criticizing people who point out Hamas's harsh treatment of LGBT-identifying people, a Rutgers teacher said: 'We have to start naming this as homophobic. You cannot rehearse violence to queer people,’ the professor asserted.
The other professor involved in the event had previously dismissed Israel’s tolerance to LGBT-identifying people as ‘pinkwashing’ done for propaganda purposes.

BY PATRICK  MCDONALD '26
Michael Duke | New York Correspondent
April 3, 2024, 9:07 am ET
A Rutgers University professor said it is “homophobic” to point out that LGBT-identifying people face persecution in the Gaza Strip.

At Rutgers University in New Jersey on March 20, Maya Mikdashi, an associate Professor of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Rutgers joined University of Illinois professor Nadine Naber for a discussion titled “Palestine is a Feminist and Queer Anti-Imperialist Abolition Struggle,” according to the Daily Mail.

[RELATED: Columbia taps pro-Hamas, ‘anarchist interdisciplinary activist-scholar’ to teach intersectional history]

During the event, Mikdashi commented: “So I’ve been at protests where I’m then told ‘don’t you know what Hamas would do to you, if you were in Palestine’. . . . We have to start naming this as homophobic. You cannot rehearse violence to queer people. It’s violent,” wrote the Daily Mail.

Naber claimed: “We’re going to need our organizing to center queer and trans people not only because they are especially vulnerable to colonial violence and the racism and the doxxing, but they also embody exceptionally nuanced wisdom about Zionism because they are living it in all its complexity,” the Daily Mail continued.

Naber also claimed Israelis have been guilty of raping Palestinian women since the founding of the Jewish State: “ndeed the practices of rape and sexual assault that have been well-documented during the founding of Israel and continued today are not an exception or a secondary impact of colonial violence. . . [They] are part of the settler, colonial white supremacist logics and practices of Israel that conflate colonized women with the land and nature and assume that therefore to dominate the land necessitates dominating Palestinian women’s bodies and their reproductive capacities from 1948 until today,” reported the Daily Mail.

Naber has previously argued that Israel “pinkwashes” itself to improve its image, claiming in a 2021 Truthout op-ed: “Pinkwashing is a . . . strategy that Israel deploys to distract attention away from its oppression of Palestinians in the face of a growing international Palestinian solidarity movement. AlQaws activists, centering the experiences of queer Palestinians, describe pinkwashing as an international propaganda effort that aims to rebrand Israel as a liberated ‘modern’ and therefore ‘gay-friendly’ state compared with what it portrays as hyper-homophobic ‘Palestinian-Arab-Muslim culture.’”

[RELATED: Unhinged student group at Massachusetts college promotes violence as ‘the only way to liberate Palestine’]

The Daily Mail related that “Queers for Palestine” protests have risen in frequency in the U.S. since Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre of Israeli civilians, and that some critics have pointed out the apparent inconsistency in LGBT support for a Palestinian government that is not seen as friendly to LGBT issues.

LGBT-identifying people face great hardship and discrimination in Palestinian-controlled territories, and a great number of LGBT-identifying Palestinians go to Israel to find safety from persecution by other Palestinians, Reason Magazine reported.

Campus Reform has reached out to Rutgers University, Maya Mikdashi, and Nadine Naber for comment. This article will be updated accordingly.

https://www.campusreform.org/article/unhinged-rutgers-prof-says-its-homophobic-note-hamas-brutalizes-lgbt-people-/25127

58
Politics & Religion / Next Up? Double Secret Probation....
« on: April 04, 2024, 11:22:00 AM »
Repeatedly busted illegals arrested for ... well it ought to be chutzpah but read this and weep:

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2024/04/04/rap-sheets-like-these-and-we-still-cant-deport-them-n4927885

59
Politics & Religion / Re: Biden fury and outrage over GAZA
« on: April 04, 2024, 10:56:41 AM »
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/biden-to-speak-to-netanyahu-amid-reports-us-president-is-furious-over-gaza-aid-convoy-strike-live/ar-BB1l4p7p

just wondering where the fury and outrage was over this:

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-08-30/photos-a-deadly-blast-as-recounted-by-an-afghan-family-and-the-u-s-military

Biden was always a "piece of work"
I'd be willing to bet a chunk of this "outrage" is pablum for the press as they are ever willing to disseminate so the ambulatory corpse that used to be Biden can heed his handlers and try to walk the fine line between alienating his Jewish voters and alienating Mulims and their "Progressive" standard bearers. The fact anyone would even THINK about cleaving that baby says all you need to know about this admin as Solomon they ain't.

61
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Incompetently Orchestrating Chaos
« on: April 04, 2024, 10:49:45 AM »
Per the piece, the entire complexion of the US Covid response was based on one behind the scenes appointee that, having worked on the HIV response in Africa overlayed that resulting model atop the American response to Covid:

Coordinating Chaos

Rob Montz joins John Tierney to discuss his documentary It Wasn’t Fauci: How the Deep State Really Played Trump.

Audio Transcript

John Tierney: Welcome back to the 10 Blocks podcast. This is John Tierney, a contributing editor to City Journal. Joining me on the show today is Rob Montz, who has just released an important and riveting documentary on YouTube. It’s about the Covid fiasco and is titled, “It Wasn’t Fauci: How the Deep State Really Played Trump.” Now, Rob was a journalist, and he’s the CEO and co-founder of Good Kid Productions. Two years ago, before the rest of the country discovered that deficiencies of Harvard president Claudine Gay, Rob wrote about it in Quillette and also released a documentary exposing how she and other Harvard officials unfairly punished and suspended Roland Fryer, a brilliant economist at Harvard, whose research on policing and schooling contradicted progressive dogma on racism. Now, Rob has taken on a much bigger scandal: the useless and devastatingly harmful Covid lockdown, school closures, and other mandates that were imposed on America and copied in the rest of the world.

I’ve written a lot about these issues at City Journal, how these terrible measures were imposed against the longstanding advice of the best experts on dealing with pandemics and against the best scientific evidence about these measures. Now, this was, I think, the costliest and worst mistake ever made in the history of public health. Probably the worst public policy blunder ever made during peacetime in America. And like a lot of people, I’ve wondered, how could we be so stupid? Well, Rob answers that question in his new documentary, and the answer will be news to the many people who put all the blame on Anthony Fauci.

Now, there’s no question that Fauci bears a lot of responsibility. He was the public face of Covid. He was the darling of the gullible reporters in the mainstream media who bought his version of “the science.” And because his agency controlled so much of the research funding into infectious diseases, scientists depended on that funding, were afraid to contradict them, and therefore there was a silence from people who knew better. But as Rob shows in his documentary, it was another veteran federal bureaucrat who actually orchestrated these terrible measures and conned Donald Trump and the White House into going along with it. Her name is Deborah Birx. Could you tell us about her, Rob?

Rob Montz: Yeah, and for most people at best, they have a vague recollection of that name because Fauci was held up as the great counterbalance to Trumpism. He’s the guy who gets all the glowing New Yorker profiles. He’s the dude who gets the Time 100 nominations. And Birx was there, and people maybe vaguely remember her scarves, and maybe they remember that she was on the receiving end of that hyper viral Trump news conference in the early stages of the pandemic in which he suggested using ultraviolet light and bleach to fight Covid. Other than that, she’s basically been lost to history, which is just so funny about the nature narrative making in politics. You really get to see how warped and artificial historical storytelling is once you actually dig into the power of things. Yeah, you’re right. I get the sense that a lot of Americans want to move on. In part they really, really, really don’t want to hear the answer to was all that sacrifice of the lockdowns worth it?

They don’t really want to be told that it actually wasn’t worth it at all. There was no nobility to it. The cousin of yours that died of a drug overdose didn’t die for a good reason. The fact that your nine-year-old still can’t read. It’s not for any particularly good reason. The fact that you had to shutter your family business, there was no good reason. So people just want to move on, even though, as I’m sure your audience knows, there’s been a lot of pretty rigorous investigations into the efficacy of the lockdowns, and they’ve essentially proven that they had no impact whatsoever on cases or death rates.

John Tierney: Just tell us a little bit about Birx’s background and what led her to adopt these policies against the advice of the best epidemiologist in the world before this. It was against the plan of the CDC and other national health agencies before the pandemic. She did all this, despite all this. So tell us a little bit about her background.

Rob Montz: And it’s so funny because the ways that lockdowns became the default policy prescription in America, it’s so pedestrian. It’s like Alex Jones-style conspiracy theorizing has all these grand forces and complicated machinery and all these complex variables, but then you dig into how Birx got power and it’s the most mundane thing imaginable, and the mistakes she made is the most mundane thing in imaginable, and that became the default policy prescription for nearly 400 million Americans. So she immediately, in the wake of Covid hitting American shores in 2019, early 2020, the White House forms a special Covid task force. Importantly, Trump gives Pence complete control of the task force. He essentially outsources the whole Covid task force portfolio to Pence. And as they’re assembling this group, they’re frantically looking around for a public health expert that can bring some level of scientific rigor to their policy prescriptions for the rest of the country. And through a complicated set of connections, someone within the Trump administration recommends Deborah Birx. Her background importantly is in fighting AIDS in Africa.

John Tierney: She was also an old crony. I mean, she’d worked very closely with Fauci and with Robert Redfield, right?

Rob Montz: Oh, yeah. They all know each other. They’ve been working together for decades. They’re all part of the same swamp stew. So her background is in HIV-AIDS. And again, the important things are, there actually was an internal inspector’s general report that came out about her management style of PEPFAR, like literally just a matter of weeks.

John Tierney: And PEPFAR was this international AIDS program to combat AIDS.

Rob Montz: And it comes out, and this thing, which is mostly based upon surveys with municipal and public health officials in African countries that have been working with Deborah Birx, is a barnburner of an indictment on her management and leadership. It’s insane. I mean, anybody can read it. It’s not difficult to find. It’s just nobody did read it because nobody’s curious about it.

John Tierney: Right. This is the first I’ve seen of it, and it really is a barn burner showing what a horrible administrator she was.

Rob Montz: Everyone’s like she’s a dictator. She doesn’t listen to feedback. She very quickly becomes myopically committed to a particular paradigm and doesn’t change it based upon the facts on the ground. She’s dictatorial.

John Tierney: Draws the wrong conclusions, you say?

Rob Montz: Yeah. She draws conclusions that lead down the wrong path. And this is the person who then gets brought up to be part of this elite group of, it’s only like 10 people that are principals on the Covid task force, and she’s the chief scientist on the task force. That’s the woman. Somehow the mechanics of history are such that she’s the person that gets to write the guidelines. And what she does, and again, I don’t want to give away everything in the documentary, I want people to have a reason to go watch it, is she essentially makes this 75 IQ instinctual parallel between Covid and AIDS. She makes a certain set of assumptions that the Covid virus and HIV/AIDS virus are the same. And from those parallel assumptions come a certain set of policy prescriptions, including getting to zero cases at any cost, treating Covid as an equal opportunity killer, focusing on children and shutting down schools. This is all based on an HIV/AIDS paradigm.

John Tierney: Right, where every case is potentially fatal.

Rob Montz: Exactly. I don’t know. This is not a hot contrarian take to be like, “Yo Covid’s not like HIV/AIDS.” Not at all. It’s extremely different. They’re radically different diseases. We get into a bunch of the particulars, not least of which, and again, it’s still shocking how few Americans seem to appreciate this. It’s mostly because of the thematic misinformation fed to them by the corporate establishment media, that there’s this really, really sharp age gradient for Covid death where it’s a serious disease if you’re 74, and it’s not a serious disease at all if you’re 20. And that reality needs to be reflected in your policy interventions. And it wasn’t. Then the central mystery also that we try to solve, Trump initially had okayed the lockdown and very famously cut off air transportation from China. He greenlit a couple weeks to slow the spread, and then a couple more weeks.

And then he pretty famously turns against lockdowns right around like June or July of 2020 and starts criticizing them. He very famously gets Covid and then afterwards tells the American public not to be afraid, doesn’t wear a mask. He berates governors for excessively, overly aggressively closing down schools. But even after the president himself turns against lockdowns, the official policy prescription from his White House all the way through the election is still pro-lockdown. And you’re like, that’s interesting. How did that happen? I don’t think the schoolhouse rock conception of American government is an efficient explanation for how it is that a president could be saying one thing and the actual policy coming from his White House could be the exact opposite. There must be some complexity or nuances here that I didn’t learn in my ninth grade U.S. government class. Deborah Birx is the linchpin for how it is that that dissidence could have occurred.

John Tierney: Right. Scott Atlas, who’s featured in your documentary, who was one of the early heroes of the pandemic speaking out, and he was invited finally, someone in the White House, Scott, he was appearing on television and saying the lockdowns are going to kill more people than the virus. The school closures are devastating. And so he got in there and he tried to do something on the task force, but he was completely stymied by Birx and Robert Redfield, head of the CDC, and Fauci on the task force were these veteran bureaucrats who’d all worked together. Fauci had worked on the failed attempt to do an AIDS vaccine, but they made a secret pact because the New York Times later revealed that if any one of them was fired, they’d all quit. So they basically knew how to play the bureaucratic game. And there was also, you point out in the documentary that Jared Kushner, he was terrified of the political implications of standing up to Fauci.

Rob Montz: But my reporting mostly indicates that she was able, Birx in particular, was able to systematically stymie and marginalized Atlas, not because of her close alliance with Fauci and Redfield, but because of her close alliance with Mike Pence. Remarkable, right?

John Tierney: And he really emerges as another villain. He was supposedly in charge of the task force, but he just bowed to her at every turn. He was afraid to stand up to her. Right?

Rob Montz: Well, it’s not exactly, I don’t really know his motivations. From a distance, before I’d gotten into this, he’d always struck me as the paradigmatic hollow man elected politician. He just seems like he was grown in a lab and is a soulless political automaton, and he just regurgitates on command GOP Christianist talking points. Are you even a person? Do you have a subjective experience of reality, or are you just a non-player character? So I don’t really know what his motivations were. I don’t really know.

John Tierney: I think Scott Atlas said that Pence just deferred to her and everything, and she basically ran the—I mean, he was the head of it, but she really, I think, set the agenda. And then, as you say in the documentary, she’s the one who was writing all the official White House guidance.

Rob Montz: Right. She was writing it almost alone. This is again, something that I think the broader American public needs to appreciate that it was a single woman with a couple of junior staffers that was writing. Again, they were recommendations, so they weren’t mandates, so governors didn’t have to follow them. But certainly in the early stages of the pandemic, governors that defied federal guidelines were risking insane legal liability, and it was just her, it was not a group project at all. And so Scott Atlas is brought in right around the time that Trump changes his mind. It turns out he was right about everything. Really everything about just the complete, the catastrophic human consequences of lockdowns and other parts of life. There’s this age gradient that needs to be taken into consideration, how shutting down schools who basically everybody now agrees it was a catastrophic event.

John Tierney: Everybody knew that early on too. I mean, it was very clear early on.

Rob Montz: He’s right about everything. But what’s funny, and this, I don’t want to give it away too much though. It’s also funny to see that Birx again is able to enact, in part enabled by Trump’s epic executive incompetence. And again, he doesn’t get off lightly in this at all. She’s able to enact this kind of casual coup of him, and it didn’t require a shot fired, and it was mostly done with an email inbox and an edit function. It’s the most pedestrian office space tactics imaginable. And it ends up having these unbelievably catastrophic consequences for hundreds of millions of people. And it’s the most casual, bland office drone stuff you can imagine in terms of what she actually has to do to circumvent a president. And again, I do want to emphasize this is a deeply anti-Trump piece as well, because stuff happened on his watch because of his incompetence and chaos. For large portions of his presidency, even before Covid, he was acting like somebody else’s president, and he was just the guy that tweeted things out.

John Tierney: Right. Scott Atlas tried, and I want to talk about what he tried to do with bringing another scientist, but a really striking story in Scott Atlas’s book about this, A Plague Upon Our House, is when he first meets Deborah Birx, he goes in and she’s pushing the mask mandate, of course. And they were even pushing the absurdity of masks outside even, and they kept that forever. But he says that he asked her, “Where do you think the evidence is for a mask mandate? Because the best remote, randomized controlled trials before it, people said, don’t have mass mandates. There’s no evidence that they work.” And she says, well, and she cites this what she called a study in one hair salon in Mississippi that was a joke. And then he realizes that she just has no conception of the science and no interest in it. He used to bring in all the studies to the meeting.

She and Fauci never looked at it, never discussed it, refused to do it. And then you show the documentary how Atlas finally tries to go around her and brings in some real scientists who actually know how to deal with pandemics. Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford, Martin Kulldorff from Harvard, and Joe Ladapo, who was at UCLA. He brings them, he arranges a White House meeting for these scientists who’d done the great Barrington Declaration saying we should protect older people, we should not be locking down, we should not be closing schools. We should focus protection. So he brings them in for a meeting, and he invites Birx with Trump, invites her there. So what happens then?

Rob Montz: Yeah, so he brings in people. This is like pre-Great Barrington Declaration, but again, a group of genuine, highly credentialed, mostly Ivy League professors of epidemiology. Again, Deborah Birx is not a researcher. She’s not even an epidemiologist. She’s a bureaucrat. She was overseeing the dispersal of AIDS medicine. She wasn’t doing foundational research into the nature of the HIV/AIDS virus or whatever. So again, real hardcore Harvard, Stanford gold-plated credentials people that are basically trying to come in to provide an intellectual architecture for Trump’s guerrilla instincts that the lockdowns are bad and are counterproductive and come with a huge human toll. Atlas puts together this meeting in the White House. It’s him and a couple of these other heavy hitters. And it’s specifically scheduled so that Deborah Birx can attend. They make a point to schedule it so that she can be there and she can make her case in front of the president. And she at the last minute says, “I’m not going to be there because it would look bad for me.” She refuses to deign to give them her attention or her time, which is the most horribly unscientific way—

John Tierney: And also because she can’t possibly argue with them because they know so much more than she does.

Rob Montz: But it’s amazing that she has since publicly admitted she doesn’t even pretend to engage with the substance of their critiques. I know this from having suffered from my sins and watched everything that she’s ever said about the time in the White House.

John Tierney: My condolences.

Rob Montz: She doesn’t even attempt to engage with it analytically. She just calls it a heresy, and then openly admits to using her bureaucratic intrigue powers to censor and silence her critics. We talk about it in the doc that she, shortly after that meeting with the president, between the president and these professors, goes to the media team at the White House and tells them, “You can’t put Scott Atlas on national news anymore.” And they say, “Yeah.” The most grotesque censorship imaginable. And she’s openly admitting to it because she isn’t thinking anything’s wrong with it.

John Tierney: She’s proud of it. One of my favorite lines, and you got some great sound clips from her talking, I think at the Aspen Institute maybe, of talks where she was speaking to a friendly audience and really opened up and admitted what happened. And one of her things, and she talked about that meeting and said, “Now you’re sort of outgunned,” she says, “if you’re against these professors from Harvard and Stanford.” But she says, “Now, but I’m not outvoiced. You just don’t allow yourself to be outvoiced.” It’s a real high point in the documentary, and that’s a bureaucrat. They may be right on the science, but I’m going to outvoice them. I’m going to do the bureaucratic channels to manipulate things.

Rob Montz: And again, Deborah Birx has been raised and thrived in and mastered like the dark arts of federal administration. I mean, she’s been doing it for decades upon decades. Her expertise is not in epidemiology or any hard scientific fields. Her expertise is in navigating bureaucracy and in kind of petty power politics in federal government. So when she’s losing clearly the scientific debate, she resorts to the tactics and the tools that she knows, which is the back end, dark arts, bureaucratic power. So she knows which levers to press and who to go to and how to talk to them to silence her critics. And that’s exactly what she does. And what that does is it enables her to continue to impose her completely garbage, broken, unscientific lockdown policies on the country well through the end of 2020 in open defiance of President Trump.

John Tierney: Exactly.

Rob Montz: But again, this is very instructive about him in that he gets labeled as a fascist. And again, I’m not going to defend Trump, but it is interesting that when he actually had power, he so willingly gave it away, and it was so easy to snatch it from him. It’s like, this is not some Mussolini dude. It’s like, you got to be kidding me. It was so goddamn easy to steal enormous amounts of power from him. And that’s not a fascist. Again, that tends to substantiate the story of Trump as more of a theater experience like a clown, like someone who can pretend to be the alpha man of action.

John Tierney: And there’s another really nice moment in the documentary where Pence is talking. You show Pence saying, “We drain the swamp, we’re going to do it.” And then you show right before that, you show how Birx, after the White House has said, “Our official policy is we’re against lockdowns,” she, the veteran bureaucrat, discovers that they don’t really read what she writes. As long as she doesn’t put it at the beginning, they just skim it. And so she basically just keeps saying, “Close bars, outdoor masks, close schools, close churches.” She just keeps putting that out as a guidance. She travels the country telling governors to do this, and nobody at the White House is stopping her. And she even goes to Pence and says, and I think you say that. She says to Pence, “You know that I’m doing exactly the opposite of what the president is saying?” And Pence just says to her, “Do what you need to do.”

Rob Montz: Ice cold, man. Ice cold, I know bro. And it’s so simple. And it’s not without a shot fired, not really some sophisticated game. If this was an episode of Game of Thrones, it wouldn’t even fill an episode, like a single episode, because there’s so few narrative storytelling points in it. It didn’t take much at all to topple a president. It was remarkably simple. And so the reason we did the documentary, and again, this is kind of the reason that our whole company exists, is to tell these stories that just get missed by corporate cathedral media. It’s remarkable that this was the biggest story in the last 50 years in America. And this one particular story about how it is that we got this particular policy response, it’s just never been told.

John Tierney: Well, it was good for you doing. I mean, it really is so telling, and it needs to be told, because the big fear, of course, is that nobody wants to admit how wrong they were. So the next time a virus comes along, it’ll be, whoa, that’s our policy. We work. And there’ll be another Deborah Birx in there who knows how to manipulate the system. So I hope the documentary gets a lot of views, that people really find out about what Birx did and how disastrous this all was. And I hope that our listeners will check this out. Again, the documentary, It Wasn’t Fauci: How The Deep State Really Played Trump. It’s available on YouTube. You can also check out my articles about Scott Atlas and about other issues that Rob covers in the documentary. You can find us at city-journal.org, also on X @CityJournal, and on Instagram @CityJournal_MI. And as always, if you like what you’ve heard on the podcast, give us five-star rating on iTunes. Thanks again, Rob, for joining us and for producing a great documentary.

Rob Montz: John, thanks so much for having me. And again, people can watch the documentary in full, at least for now, on our YouTube page at Good Kid Productions.

John Tierney: Excellent.

https://www.city-journal.org/multimedia/chaos-coordinators

62
Politics & Religion / US Desperately Needs Fiscal Guardrails
« on: April 04, 2024, 10:22:19 AM »
Why worry about debt when we can just print more money with which to service it? After all, it's kinda worked for other nations, so long as we don't get worked up about hyperinflation:

The Threat of Fiscal Dominance: Will the US Resort to Money-Printing to Finance the Rising Debt Challenge?

Cato @ Liberty by Romina Boccia / Apr 4, 2024 at 6:07 AM//keep unread//hide

With entitlement spending growth driving a worsening fiscal picture, the US could enter a new period of fiscal dominance where monetary policy serves fiscal ends, threatening central bank independence and America’s economic future. Following aggressive fiscal and monetary stimulus during the pandemic, legislators should avoid the siren’s call of elevated deficit spending or risk higher inflation.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress unleashed a deluge of emergency spending—roughly $6 trillion, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB)—bringing deficits to new heights. For context, the deficit in 2020 was nearly 15 percent of Gross Domestic Product—deficits haven’t been that severe since World War II.

At the same time, the Federal Reserve increased the broad money supply (M2) by 40 percent and massively increased its asset holdings, including government bonds and mortgage‐​backed securities, by $4 trillion. Record‐​high deficits and an intense bout of inflation accompanied the unprecedented fiscal and monetary expansion as the pandemic came to an end.

Eventually, the Fed responded to elevated inflation with interest rate hikes and by reducing its asset holdings. While inflation appears to have slowed, it remains a problem, underscoring the challenge of using monetary instruments to deal with a fiscally driven problem. The pandemic episode illustrates an example of fiscal dominance whereby, as the Mercatus Center’s Eric Leeper puts it, “some fiscal action forces the central bank to react in ways that it otherwise would not.”

With Congress currently unwilling to seriously address the entitlement spending problem that’s driving the US toward a fiscal cliff, it’s worth evaluating the possibility of more frequent episodes of fiscal dominance and their consequences.

History as a Guide

To understand whether we live in a fiscal or monetary dominance regime, we should ask: is the central bank’s prime directive to maintain an inflation target, or is the central bank primarily focused on accommodating government spending? When fiscal dominance reigns supreme, countries experience higher inflation and sometimes hyperinflation (high and accelerating inflation). Several historical examples illustrate the dangers of fiscal dominance.

During emergencies, central banks may temporarily accommodate expansionary fiscal policy, such as during World War II or the COVID-19 pandemic. As Cato’s James Dorn points out, “Fiscal authorities normally dominate central banks during wartime. That was certainly the case during the two world wars. The Fed kept yields low on government securities by monetizing a large share of the US debt.” Dorn further highlights the 1960s and early 1970s, when the “Fed engaged in easy monetary policies to fund fiscal deficits, which led to inflation.”

Fiscal dominance can also be observed abroad. According to Greg Ip, writing in the Wall Street Journal, Argentina is a textbook case of fiscal dominance. To finance fiscal deficits, the Argentine treasury issues bonds that are bought up by the central bank. This debt monetization has led to devastating inflation, reaching a 12‐​month rate of 276 percent in February.

Leeper identifies two more examples of fiscal dominance overseas. After World War I, Germany realized it could not pay off its debts through conventional taxes alone, so it rapidly printed money to finance new spending. Likewise, President Erdoğan of Turkey eroded central bank independence, pushed for lower interest rates, and expanded government spending in recent years. As Leeper stated, “Erdoğan effectively converted an independent inflation‐​targeting central bank into a fiscal ATM.” In both cases, fiscal dominance resulted in severe and economically damaging inflation.

The US Threat of Fiscal Dominance

Fiscal dominance has a track record of triggering severe inflation and leading to economic decline. With US deficits at crisis levels in the face of rising entitlement spending, and with the federal debt‐​to‐​GPD ratio exceeding its record high of 106 percent in 2028 (Figure 1), the risks of fiscal dominance in the United States are rising. An excessive and rising debt, high interest rates, and a political landscape hostile to entitlement spending reductions create a dangerous fiscal environment that may exhaust the US fiscal space over the next 15–20 years.

If Congress leaves spending corrections to the last minute, legislators may perceive the draconian fiscal consolidation necessary to bring debt under control as less desirable than monetizing the debt. In such a scenario, printing more money might become the easiest or only politically feasible way out.

At a recent House Budget Committee hearing on the need for a fiscal commission to resolve the US debt challenge, former chairman John Yarmuth suggested just such a policy, stating on the record,

We are a sovereign currency, we can print all the money we want to serve the people whom we serve. … [W]hy are we paying interest on the money we borrow? And why do we borrow money anyway? We can print it and put it in the Treasury.

No amount of balance sheet manipulations will allow the US to print more money ad infinitum with no adverse consequences. Should this type of thinking become more mainstream, it is not entirely unrealistic to think that fiscal dominance and debt monetization might be willingly undertaken under the right political circumstances.

Avoiding Fiscal Catastrophe

Rising US spending and debt in light of heightened political polarization and congressional budgetary gridlock raise concerns about the sustainability of government finances. The recent credit downgrade by Fitch Ratings and Moody’s Investors Service lowering its outlook on the US credit rating is a reflection of the nation’s concerning long‐​term fiscal trajectory and poor fiscal governance. Without a political willingness to reduce the growth in old age benefit programs, the erosion of central bank independence to finance future spending represents a growing risk. Argentina, Germany, Turkey, and other historical cases serve as stark reminders of the dangers of fiscal dominance. Central bank money printing to finance government spending can lead to hyperinflation and economic ruin.

Fiscal dominance could also deteriorate the reputation of the US as a guarantor of its credit. The perception of Treasury securities as safe assets undergirds the entire financial system. US policymakers should not clumsily waltz into additional periods of fiscal dominance that could contribute to economic instability and reduce the global standing of the US dollar.

As Charles Calomiris notes, “Ultimately, the US may face a political choice between reforming entitlement programs and tolerating high inflation and financial backwardness.” Confronting the entitlement spending behemoth is politically daunting but necessary and can be done through a well‐​designed fiscal commission. Establishing smart fiscal guardrails, backed by a shared understanding of the budgetary future the US faces, can similarly reduce the risk of a fiscal crisis.

Time is of the essence to slow the growth in spending before fiscal dominance becomes the seemingly more attractive option.

https://www.cato.org/blog/threat-fiscal-dominance-will-us-resort-money-printing-finance-rising-debt-challenge

63
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Climate the Movie
« on: April 04, 2024, 07:58:51 AM »
I’ll be watching it this weekend; I’ve encountered numerous rave reviews.

Note: Google/Youtube is said to have shadowbanned this flick. As such I provide the Bitchute link:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/ONMGnSiOLhjG/

I've indeed watched Climate The Movie and it is indeed a powerful, well sourced and documented, and chilling indictment of the Church of Anthropomorphic Climate Apocalypse and all the pathologies that ensue once CACA "science" takes root.

Shadow banned YouTube (Guulag) link here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOAUsvVhgsU


64
Politics & Religion / The Folly of the LNG “Pause”
« on: April 03, 2024, 06:13:57 PM »
A Biden policy that doesn’t survive scrutiny on any level:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/04/03/the-incredible-dumbness-of-bidens-war-on-lng/

65
In junior high I was taken on a field trip to the University of Chicago’s Circle Campus where Erlich’s Malthusian tome The Population Bomb was a topic of discussion and we 7th graders were told one of the critical issues we would have to wrestle with was what to do with all the excess, unsupportable, humans.

Just shy of 50 years later, not so much. Birth rates are down in most nations, well below rates of replacement, which all serves to illustrate that today’s doomsayer may very well end up being as wrong as they could be. If only the Church of Anthropomorphic Climate Apocalypse would let examples like this inform them and their CACA dictates:

https://nypost.com/2024/04/03/opinion/the-world-struggling-to-make-more-babies-the-population-bomb-was-wrong/

66
Perhaps this doesn’t qualify as a promise kept as no president that seeks reelection would make the promise to increase energy costs out loud, but it certainly speaks to a larger pattern of attacking hydrocarbon based fuels, unless an election is upcoming, at which time the oil reserve is dipped into to suppress gas prices.

Gas prices are currently going up. If that continues it’ll be interesting to see how Biden’s handlers use the reserve. My guess is that they will tap into it further to keep prices low … until after the election. They certainly can’t replenish it now as doing so would increase gas prices even more that at the current rate.

And hey, after the election it’s the perfect lose/lose situation: if Biden wins the next oil crisis with scant reserves at hand will be used as an argument to “decarbonize” or whatever. And if Biden loses … well then an empty reserve will be Trump’s problem.

Funny how the MSM doesn’t report on this stuff:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/04/u-s-wont-buy-oil-to-refill-strategic-petroleum-reserve/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=u-s-wont-buy-oil-to-refill-strategic-petroleum-reserve

ETA: reserve now down to a 17 day supply of oil:



https://instapundit.com/640088/

67
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Krazy Kayakers
« on: April 03, 2024, 05:23:29 PM »
I’ve done my share of stuff many would call crazy while out of doors, underground, in a canoe, or backpacking, and have always meant to find a kayak to play with, but these folks are truly hardcore:

https://gearjunkie.com/boats-water/hallelujah-short-film

68
And I’m sure it was not the only one, just the only one we know about:

https://nypost.com/2024/04/03/media/sage-steele-reveals-biden-interview-was-scripted-by-espn-execs/

69
… arrested for carrying a concealed firearm. Chicago/Illinois citizens tax dollars in action:

CHICAGO: Another Day, Another ‘Ceasefire’ ‘Anti-Violence’ Worker Busted on Gun Charges
By John Boch - April 1, 202446

The do-gooders in Illinois believe that if you hire enough felons to “interrupt” violence, somehow you’ll make the streets safer. Given that Murder City USA has kept that title for 12 years in a row now, one would think that smarter heads would prevail and the state legislature would vote to stop paying millions of taxpayer dollars to these foolish endeavors.

Yet each year, Gov. J.B. Pritzker signs off on scores of millions paid to these organizations like “CeaseFire” who employ ex-cons who will supposedly stop gang violence.  ($110M in 2022 alone!)  Ironically, CeaseFire lost one of its recent leaders thanks to an arrest for beating his wife domestic battery.

And while shoveling the money at these groups never stops, neither do the arrests of these paid “anti-violence” workers, often times for gun charges. Take Davon Turner, aged 35 – or in common parlance, “old enough to know better.”

See Davon, a frequent felon in the Land O’ Lincoln’s criminal justice system (or what masquerades as such), walked out of the house that day packing a GLOCK Fo-Tay. He came to the attention of Five-Oh because he and a bunch of his buddies acted like fools while smoking the Devil’s lettuce in a building where not everyone appreciated the smell of skunk.

One thing led to another and cops cuffed him after finding (Surprise!) that GLOCK .40. Of course, when he showed up at the Cook County Jail, he proudly mentioned that he had gainful employment.  Indeed, he worked for CeaseFire/FLIP anti-violence programs. Paid for by Illinois taxpayers.

Why if Illinois’ leaders only treated the law-abiding people as kindly as they treated the criminal class (to include illegal aliens) as well. From CWB Chicago:

CHICAGO — An anti-violence worker is facing a Class X felony gun charge after Chicago police said they found him carrying a gun on the Near West Side.

Cops were called to the 2300 block of West Van Buren on Saturday evening by someone who said a group of men were smoking pot and refusing to leave the building, according to the arrest report for Davon Turner, 35.

The first officers to arrive found a firearm magazine at the scene and radioed descriptions of a group of men who were leaving the area, including at least one who was holding their waistband, said the report.

CPD officers stopped a group matching the description nearby. Turner, who was clutching his waistband near an “L-shaped object,” was one of them, the report stated. Prosecutors say the cops recovered a 40-caliber handgun from Turner.

The arrest report lists Ceasefire/FLIP, two Chicago anti-violence programs, as his employer.

He’s charged with Class X armed habitual criminal and being a felon in possession of a firearm. His previous felony convictions include being a felon in possession of a firearm in 2014 and narcotics cases in 2018, 2013, 2008, and 2007.

Moreover, it’s worth mentioning that not a single syllable was mentioned about how Gov. and Presidential-hopeful J.B. Pritzker’s so-called “Protect Illinois Communities Act” failed to protect Illinois communities from ne’er-do-wells like Davon Turner.

Maybe the PICA gun and magazine ban really just disarms the law-abiding, not the criminal class.

Who would have thunk it?

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/chicago-another-day-another-ceasefire-anti-violence-worker-busted-on-gun-charges/

70
Politics & Religion / Afghan Weapons Used by Terrorists in Israel
« on: April 03, 2024, 07:22:08 AM »
While the Biden admin refuses to supply Israel with American small arms lest they be used by "right wing" communities ... like some of those attacked 10/7:

Iran Smuggles US Weapons from Afghanistan to Terrorists in Israel
The weapons denied by Biden to Israel are instead going to terrorists backed by Biden.
April 2, 2024 by Daniel Greenfield 35 Comments

[Pre-order a copy of Daniel Greenfield’s first book, Domestic Enemies, by clicking here. Orders will begin shipping on April 30th.]

In December, the Biden administration blocked a shipment of M4 rifles to Israel. The rifles were meant to be used by local community self-defense units of the kind that had served as the front line of defense against the Hamas attack on Oct 7. However the Biden administration claimed that it was concerned that the self-defense units might be Jewish “right-wing extremists”.

The Islamic terrorists attacking them however had no trouble finding M4 rifles. They just expected theirs to come by a more complicated road from Afghanistan, by way of Iran’s terror operatives, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan via a drug smuggling route, and then inside Israel.

The M4 rifles were part of a package that included grenade launchers, anti-tank missiles, anti-tank landmines, RPGs, C4 and Semtex explosives, and hand grenades.

A number of those were clearly American weapons including the M4s and the M203 grenade launchers: both in use in Afghanistan. The Alma Center, founded by IDF Lt Col (Res.) Sarit Zehavi, believes that the M4s are likely “spoils from Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan.”

If U.S. weapons from Afghanistan made their way to Islamic terrorists in Israel, it would not be the first time. Islamic terrorists in Gaza had been previously spotted with M4 and M16 rifles, including during the Oct 7 attacks. Rep. James Comer had dispatched a letter after the Hamas attacks to the Department of Defense asking it to explain the M4A1 Carbines, which were “specially designed for U.S. Special Operations Forces” in the hands of the terrorists.

“The surprise terror attacks by Hamas into Israel were made possible, in part, because of U.S. arms left behind in Afghanistan by the Biden administration,” Larry Keane, the Counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, wrote at the Firearm Industry Trade Association.

The weapons package now intercepted by Israel shows how Iran may have tapped into the weapons left behind in Afghanistan. The weapons shipment appears to be a ‘sandwich’ with Iran moving American weapons to the Islamic terrorists backed by the Biden administration.

While the weapons were being smuggled by Iran through its IRGC terror arm, the key player was Munir Makdah, a top figure in the Fatah movement which controls the PLO and the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority is a major recipient of American foreign aid and the Biden administration has been pressuring Israel to put its terrorists in charge of Gaza.

Even as the Biden administration was demanding that Israel allow Fatah terrorists to run Gaza, a top Fatah leader was recruiting terrorists to attack Israel. The anti-tank weapons, mines and RPGs suggest that the goal was a significant assault on Israel in order to open a second front in Judea and Samaria, also known as the West Bank, to relieve the pressure on Hamas in Gaza. .

Munir Makdah serves as a deputy commander of Fatah in the Ein al-Hilweh terrorist settlement in Lebanon. Misleadingly described by the UN as a refugee camp, it’s actually a major city of over 100,000 which various Islamic terrorist groups have been fighting over since at least the 1980s. While Ein al-Hilweh is often described in the media as a “Palestinian refugee camp”, large numbers of Syrian Islamists fled there after losing their civil war, and have been fighting with Fatah for control of the city using heavy weaponry including rockets.

The weapons were intended for the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a Fatah terrorist arm, sanctioned by the United States as a Foreign Terrorist Organization for its numerous bloody attacks.

Even as Al Aqsa has gone on murdering Israelis, Marwan Barghouti, its founder, in prison for his involvement in multiple murders, including that of a Greek monk, has been promoted as a future president of the Palestinian Authority.

The New York Times ran an op-ed by Barghouti while failing to identify him as a terrorist. The Washington Post recently claimed that the Biden administration had “raised the treatment of Marwan Barghouti” with Israel. The International Red Cross, which has failed to visit any of the Jewish and non-Jewish hostages held by Hamas, has been clamoring to visit him.

“The Biden administration should make it very clear to the Netanyahu government that if Barghouti is harmed or killed in prison, it would throw gas on a raging fire,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen, notorious for his promotion of Iranian agendas, warned.

While the Biden administration and Iran Lobby adjacent figures like Van Hollen were lobbying for Barghouti, the terrorist’s men appeared to be preparing to unleash a major attack on Israel.

And who was behind the attack? Iran.

Apart from being a top Fatah terrorist, Munir Makdah has also been identified as an operative with Iran’s Hezbollah terrorist movement in Lebanon and the IRGC. After consolidating its control over Hamas and Al Qaeda, Iran is gaining a deeper foothold in the Palestinian Authority.

And the Palestinian Authority is a terrorist operation subsidized by American taxpayers.

The weapons, including the M4 rifles, had come by way of Iran’s terror operatives, including those in Syria, who would have been in a position to move them through Jordan into Israel.

Captagon, the amphetamine used by the Hamas terrorists on Oct 7, is manufactured under the protection of the Assad family, an Iranian client, smuggled out of Syria and into Jordan, where it’s then trafficked to Iran’s enemies in Saudi Arabia, but also into Muslim areas in Israel.

Iran’s global drug smuggling empire provides wealth, but it’s also used by the terror regime to piggyback terror operatives and weapons like those that were meant for the Fatah terrorists.

Opiates and weapons from Afghanistan make their way to Iran, and from there to Iraq, Syria, Yemen and to Gaza and now even the West Bank. In 2022, Israel had detected a significant increase in both drugs and weapons being smuggled into the country. This was likely part of the prep for the Oct 7 attacks which employed both drugs and weapons.

Iran’s drug network is also a terror network and the terrorists are also its clients. Gaza has an estimated 150,000 drug addicts from a population of only a few million.

After Biden turned over Afghanistan to the Taliban, along with its drug trafficking operation, Iran boosted a pipeline of weapons and drugs that are used to bind its allies and attack its enemies.

Weapons left behind in Afghanistan have made their way into Israel. But this time they were intended for the Palestinian Authority terrorists backed by the Biden administration.

While the terrorists want the M4s left behind in Afghanistan, Israel is pivoting away from the rifles denied to it by the Biden administration and shifting over to local manufacturing. After the Biden administration began moving arms from Israel to Ukraine, and then began cutting off weapons to stop Israel from finishing off Hamas, the Israeli government is going local.

Under Biden, Islamic terrorists can still count on American weapons, Israelis however can’t.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/iran-smuggles-us-weapons-from-afghanistan-to-terrorists-in-israel/?fbclid=IwAR2MMME6sTEHL7kD_3oPSGtpA4c9bLkX1qWSWSGxfq5KvZV9SRue7tsLCdk

71
Politics & Religion / Proton Pump Inhibitors & Dementia
« on: April 02, 2024, 09:31:10 PM »
I have not heard that acid reflux drugs are associated w/ dementia, but this piece connects some interesting dots if this PPI stuff has legs:

The Pepcidammerung
Plus: Are you on the side of the polarizers?
MICKEY KAUS
APR 02, 2024
Updating kausfiles’ Regimen of Paranoia:

1. Like many people, I have a problem with acid reflux. I originally took Pepcid for it, then switched to Prilosec. Then I abandoned Prilosec when a well publicized study suggested that long term use (4 years or more) increased your dementia risk by 33%. Yikes! Various attempts were made to debunk the study--see, eg, this Vox piece. And it may be that with millions of people taking Prilosec and millions being diagnosed with cognitive decline, the personality types — i.e. anxious personality types—who'll get themselves tested for the decline are also the types who'll take antacids. It beats me--but Vox doesn't totally knock down the Prilosec/dementia connection. Instead, it urges people to talk with their doctors. When I told my doctor I wanted to quit Prilosec, he didn't try to argue me out of it. He suggested I switch back to Pepcid. I said, "Well, if the President takes it, how bad could it be?"

2. Indeed, President Biden has been on a "regimen of Pepcid,"apparently for a while. (It was recently supplemented by another antacid,.). Pepcid, unlike Prilosec, is not a "proton pump inhibitor" or PPI, the type implicated in the dementia study. It reduces acid via a different mechanism, known as H2RA -- which blocks the histamine receptors that trigger acid. Sounded good to me.

3. Almost two years into Biden’s term, the Alzheimer’s Association published a another credible study (one I’d missed) suggesting that, indeed, Pepcid is not as bad, dementia-wise, as Prilosec. It’s worse! At least it's worse for people who already have a mild case of cognitive decline—resulting in those people developing full blown dementia faster. "[A]mong people with [mild cognitive impairment, or MCI], H2RA [Pepcid] users had earlier progression to dementia over 5 years compared to PPI users.” Specifically, “H2RA use was associated with a 40.2% higher dementia risk, specifically for people with MCI.” And: “[T]aken with the present results, the evidence in toto suggests that H2RAs rather than PPIs might be associated with dementia risk. “

4. Many people think President Biden has a mild case of cognitive decline. We can argue about it—he did not take a cognitive test as part of his recent physical.** Some who’ve negotiated with him (e.g. Kevin McCarthy) say he’s all there. But enough people who’ve observed him say he’s gone downhill to establish it as a distinct possibility.

Cognitive decline is not, apparently, like getting the bubonic plague (either you have the plague or you don’t).** It’s more a spectrum, or, if you prefer, a slippery slope. The issue is not just where Biden is now but where he’ll be in 2026 or in 2029, when his second term would end.

And he’s taking a drug that seems as if it’s likely to make any decline down that slope go faster.

Yikes.

I'm not “just askin' questions”! Or “raising concerns.” I'm saying "Yikes!"

Maybe some conscientious reporters could ask some non-politicized neurologists (if there are any) about this risk.

P.S.: The other anti-reflux drug Biden's now on is Nexium, which is a proton pump inhibitor, like ... Prilosec. It’s not as if, for both types of antacid, there’s not a plausible story for how they could promote dementia. They both have “anti-cholinergic”effects, meaning they block acetylcholin, which is a neurotransmitter. So we’re in the territory of screwing around with the nervous system.

Disclaimer: I’m not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV. I may have missed things in these studies (I don’t know about “e-values” and confounders.) That’s why I suggest bringing in some experts who wouldn’t be gunning for headlines or subject to career retaliation.

_____

**—Here’s one simple take-at-home cognitive test. It’s incredibly easy. Hard to believe Biden couldn’t ace that.

https://kaus.substack.com/p/the-pepcidammerung?r=1qo1e&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&fbclid=IwAR2llXMwlXHSKoHsUVipJiPryXOFKEgQheWT4qPNCW70QHaYhm8g6ZBiDcQ&triedRedirect=true

72
And all the (heavy handed) responses were failures. The aggregate cost by one measure? Enough to wipe out the national debt:

New Report Details Horrifying Cost of Fauci’s Failures
BY Ian MillerIAN MILLER   APRIL 2, 2024   ECONOMICS, MASKS   6 MINUTE READ

SHARE | PRINT | EMAIL
In the post-pandemic period of Covid, there’s now a concerted effort to comprehend and explain the damage that was caused by our capitulating to the hysterical overreaction and overreach of the ‘experts.’ There’s a long list of policy failures to examine; mask mandates were a disaster that accomplished absolute nothing of value, but instead led to tremendous harms, many of which continue today.

Children were forced into masks for years on end, millions of people still wear masks when traveling or inside stores and restaurants, permanently convinced of the deliberate falsehood that masks are effective prevention tools. Perhaps most disturbing is that healthcare workers in blue cities are often still required to mask. Some hospitals have required masking continuously since 2020, while others are now enforcing rolling mandates based on the delusions of administrators and expert authorities.

Research into the economic cost of many of our Covid policies and mandates is still ongoing, but a new, extremely detailed report on school closures has created a horrifying context for just how damaging Anthony Fauci’s advocacy was during the pandemic.

All of Our Covid Policies Failed

The research begins with an obvious acknowledgment of the failures which occurred due to Covid mandates. Despite wildly different policies, there was virtually no difference in outcomes between countries.

“From the available evidence, it is difficult to identify the specific responses to the pandemic that led to better outcomes,” they write. “Countries clearly responded to the challenges in very different ways, from essentially no school closures (Sweden) to multiple years of closures (Uganda and Indonesia). Yet, simple statistics such as the length of school closures or overall health policies cannot explain much of the variance in outcomes.”

Lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine passports…none of it mattered, nor does it explain the variance in outcomes between countries. Why? The obvious answer is that none of these policies had the slightest chance of preventing transmission of a highly infectious respiratory virus.

Instead, the likely explanation for variance in outcomes comes down to differences in accounting for Covid cases and deaths, underlying health and age demographics, or pre-existing immunity from exposure to similar coronaviruses, which was almost certainly the reason why countries in Asia performed much better than Western countries during the early part of the pandemic, but was conveniently ignored in favor of “experts” maintaining the wishful thinking that “mask culture” was responsible.

Regardless of the explanation, the fact that there is no consistent factor to attribute better outcomes to is in itself an indictment of our Covid policies and mandates. If it’s impossible to define why a country did better or worse than another country, there should be no justification for continued restrictions. If only someone had told Fauci or his allies in the public health establishment in 2020-2021, but instead they forcefully criticized any opposition who understood the reality, such as Florida governor Ron DeSantis.

School Closures Caused Unimaginable Harms

The researchers spent most of their time attempting to assess the many harms caused by one of the pandemic’s most inexcusable policies: school closures. And the results of their estimates are jaw-dropping.

“Based on the available research on lifetime earnings associated with more skills, the average student in school during the pandemic will lose 5 to 6 percent of lifetime earnings,” they found. “Because a lower-skilled workforce leads to lower economic growth, the nation will lose some $31 trillion (in present value terms) during the twenty-first century. This aggregate economic loss is higher than the US GDP for one year and dwarfs the total economic losses from either the slowdown of the economy during the pandemic or from the 2008 recession.”

That’s not a misprint: $31 trillion.

Teachers unions, Fauci, the CDC, and politicians have all ensured that the American economy will be decimated in the next century because they refused to admit they were wrong about all of it. As cost of living skyrockets thanks to rampant inflation, also caused by our incompetence and malicious, purposeful ignorance, children forced to learn under school closures will be irreparably set back, which will cost them hundreds of thousands if not millions of earned income throughout their lives.

It’s easy to suggest that maybe these harms may be erased or mitigated over time. The researchers addressed that too, yet they failed to provide much hope for the future.

“Finally, we provide a few observations about recovery from the learning losses. History suggests that these losses are likely to be permanent unless the schools become better than they were before the pandemic,” they conclude.

With wholly incompetent political activists like Randi Weingarten controlling schools, disgraceful DEI policies infiltrating every aspect of public education, the lack of acknowledgment from Fauci and other organizations that Covid mandates were a failure, and the complete ideological capture of the education system, it’s impossible to reasonably expect that schools will ever “become better than they were.”

The damage they caused is locked in – forever.

Once Again, Florida Provides the Alternative

Importantly, the results of school closures varied per region. In far-left states such as California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois, school closures persisted well into 2021.

But Florida was one of the few states, and perhaps the only large one, to make reopening schools a priority, despite the objections of teachers unions and media outlets that attempted to label the governor as “DeathSantis.”

And it’s going to pay off, relatively speaking. A figure presented in the research shows that Florida’s economic state loss in GDP is nearly equal to Pennsylvania, despite a population that’s nearly 75% bigger than Pennsylvania. And California’s estimated losses, roughly $1.3 trillion, are more than 116% higher than Florida, much larger than the population difference. Similarly, New York’s economic losses far exceed Florida’s, despite a smaller population.

DeSantis followed the actual science, listened to competent outside expert advisors, and as a result, when compared to other major states, Florida is set to massively benefit in the future. It is yet again another clear indictment of the blue states that chose to follow the Fauci blueprint into economic disaster.

And make no mistake, this is a disaster.

No Accountability for Failure

The researchers compared the learning loss train wreck to the 2008 recession, showing that the Covid response is responsible for substantially more damage than even that economic cycle.

“The lopsided attention to the business-cycle losses from the 2008 recession and from the pandemic is startling once we see the comparable pandemic learning loss figures,” they wrote. “The economic losses from the loss of human capital are fully six times the total losses from the 2008 recession, which was labeled the largest recession since the Great Depression.”

This is staggering. Six times the total losses from the 2008 recession, already considered one of the worst in modern economic history. All because Fauci and his band of “experts” seized an opportunity to enforce their agenda of control onto a compliant society. And also because they refused to admit failure when many were desperately trying to expose them.

It’s an inexcusable, historic set of decisions with lasting consequences both in soft cultural terms and harder economic ones. A $31 trillion loss is the loss of GDP exclusively from school closures. That doesn’t even account for the loss of business income, the years-long setback in terms of new business, or the loss of GDP from adults who gave up on career plans or other pursuits out of despair or lack of opportunity.

The damage the “experts” caused is incalculable. But the attempts to calculate it has resulted in absolutely horrifying estimates.

And not one of those responsible is willing to acknowledge it.

Republished from the author’s Substack

https://brownstone.org/articles/new-report-details-horrifying-cost-of-faucis-failures/?fbclid=IwAR0R8xrWJUYv9QcCZ6lYpzRatdjuxFG5dJJaNyaocYIyY00UTTErL2Rum1Y

73
Politics & Religion / It’s a Coincidence, Honest
« on: April 02, 2024, 05:12:22 PM »
Someone I follow posted this link showing voter registrations by week as collected by the Social Security Administration. Check out the spiking registrations in states likely to be battlegrounds this fall. Why do you suppose this is?

https://www.ssa.gov/open/havv/havv-weekly-2024-01-13.html?fbclid=IwAR1gLQa9hS8xeksFiHU9vI06xK6ESq8K4mi6x3kMD4piaSi-8SRD34HEJ0k

One would think someone interested in committing an act of serious journalism might follow this trail of bolder sized breadcrumbs, though of course they’d be at risk of discovering malfeasance we are assured does not exist.

Sweet bleeding Jesus, I wish the Republicans had a legal ground game half the size of what the Dems regularly field as this data suggests something very fishy is afoot on a very large scale.

74
Politics & Religion / Faucing Zuckers .v America
« on: April 02, 2024, 04:59:19 PM »
Check out this exchange between Marky and Tony. It doesn’t get more clear cut than this:

https://x.com/DrJBhattacharya/status/1775221797098852545?s=20

75
Politics & Religion / Re: 'The Doctor Will Ask About Your Gun Now'
« on: April 02, 2024, 04:43:59 PM »
Let's see, we have a right of privacy, sort of, and we have a right to bear arms, sort of, but we don't have a right of privacy as it relates to our exercise of the (first or) second amendment.

Informing the government of all the privately owned guns would defeat the purpose of having those guns in the event they are needed to stand up against a rogue, tyrannical government.

Or does someone think the government won't get your "health" records if they want them?  And whose idea was it to merge government and healthcare?

The second amendment wasn't about hunters' rights.

[Same might apply to the right or privacy relating to bitcoin purchases (or gold).  The right to wealth.  The purchase of bitcoin is not a taxable event.  The sale of it is.  Why do you have to disclose your purchases? They don't have a constitutional right to tax wealth, why do they have the right to track it. Doesn't a right of privacy apply up to the point where it becomes any of their business?]

More than one doctor—particularly pediatricians when my kids were younger—got an earful when they started reading from the gun script. Likely would have stained their britches were they aware of what all was on my person at the time.

76
… or those that carry their water. This could go more than one place, but given the duplicitous manner in which the US press is presenting the issue, I’ll drop this piece documenting the abject abandonment on anything resembling a journalistic standard here. The TL;DR? Al Jazeera is using its reporters to relay Israeli positions to Hamas, when its reporters aren’t outright fighting for Hamas. But hey, Qatar funds ‘em both so perhaps that’s too diffuse a connection for our fearless media natterers to tease apart:

The Real Reason Al Jazeera Faces Suspension in Israel

by Seth Mandel

Yesterday, Israel’s Knesset passed a law allowing for the temporary license suspension of media organizations that are found to materially aid a wartime enemy outside of their practice of journalism. The bill is clearly aimed at Al Jazeera, the Qatari state propaganda mouthpiece. It is not, however, a reaction to the propaganda itself.

That may sound confusing. In fact, this issue provides a good example of how to spot a good-faith critique of Israeli policy among the mounds of bad-faith straw men you’ll encounter online.

A large segment of the media and academia filter their commentary according to whether it abides by a specific narrative of the conflict: Israel=bad. The saga of Al Jazeera highlights this tendency.

Israel is not considering banning Al Jazeera because of “bias” or misinformation. But you’d be hard-pressed to find a different explanation among the commentariat.

CNN claims the bill stems from the fact that “Netanyahu’s government has also long complained about Al Jazeera’s operations, alleging anti-Israeli bias.”

Now, CNN can very easily fact-check the suggestion that Netanyahu is shutting down media with anti-Israel biases. Has CNN been shut down? The CNN reporters should very quickly get an answer to that question.

Is it because, as former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt claims, Israel is an authoritarian state and “that’s what authoritarian regimes often do”? Bildt’s objections are interesting, in that he has been a European Union supporter and official throughout his public career, and the European Union, as Bildt surely knows, banned Russia Today and Sputnik two years ago.

This offers us a clue as to why Bildt feels the way he does: He’s experiencing psychological projection. After all, as an EU spokesman spelled out: “The Kremlin regime transformed state-controlled media into instruments of information manipulation and information warfare. That is why the European Union banned [a] number of them, including Russia Today and Sputnik from EU media space.”

It could be, then, that Bildt sees in Israel’s actions echoes of his beloved EU’s “authoritarianism,” though to Bildt that’s the good kind of authoritarianism. It’s only bad when Israel does it.

Bildt will be happy to know that this isn’t why Israel has considered temporarily suspending al Jazeera.

What about White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre’s contention that the move is “concerning” because it threatens “freedom of the press”? Or Ian Bremmer’s suggestion that this is “not a sign of a healthy democracy”?

The “good” news, if we can use that word, is that the White House and the ChatGPT-programmed think tankers of the Twittersphere are simply spreading misinformation. Having nothing to do with the EU’s explicitly speech-based ban on Russian networks, Al Jazeera has crossed two non-journalism-related lines.

The first is that Israel intelligence agencies claim to have caught Al Jazeera passing along Israeli troop locations to its Hamas allies, which are funded by the same regime as Al Jazeera. That is, Qatar is simply coordinating between its military wing and its propaganda wing.

The second is that Al Jazeera has been found giving press credentials to multiple people who turned out to be soldiers in Hamas’s war on Israel. That would be indisputable grounds for suspending an agency’s credentials.

In the course of its Gaza operations, the IDF has found troves of documents that identify a great many of the Strip-based terrorists, some of whom work for Al Jazeera. Ismail Abu Omar was wounded in an IDF strike in Rafah. Al Jazeera claimed him as their own, flew him back to Qatar for treatment, and expressed deep outrage. Israel responded that Abu Omar was indeed an employee of Al Jazeera—while spending much of his time as a deputy company commander in Hamas’s East Khan Younis Battalion. Abu Omar appears to have participated in Hamas’s Oct. 7 invasion. As Jonathan Schanzer wrote here in March, “In a bizarre twist, Abu Omar actually signed his name to a Telegram photo of a murdered IDF soldier whose body was taken by Hamas into Gaza.”

There’s Mohamed Washah, whom one could find on Al Jazeera video reports and who also, according to numerous documents and photographs, serves as a prominent Hamas tank commander. Two Al Jazeera “journalists” were killed in a strike in January; one of them turned out to have been a rocket-specialist for Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the other a drone operator with Hamas.

How “journalisty” this all sounds to you probably depends heavily on whether you think a reporter’s first obligation is to kill Jews. I received my journalism degree without taking a single class on joining a foreign terrorist army, so it is not recognizable as the journalism I personally was trained to do—but your mileage may vary.

Now, a good-faith critique of Israel’s proposed ban might engage with this fact—that the Qatari-funded Al Jazeera appears to have been an organizational arm of the Qatari-funded Hamas terrorists who butchered 1,200 innocent Israelis on Oct. 7. Perhaps the law is still too vague, or you worry it gives Israel too much leeway to ban actual journalistic outfits under the same rules. Or you fret that the 45-day suspension is too easily extended. Even a passing familiarity with Israel’s Supreme Court would cure you of such worries, but not everyone possesses that passing familiarity. At the same time, an argument made out of ignorance can still be one of good faith.

What isn’t good faith, however, is any one of the above-mentioned arguments made by prominent political figures and supposed experts in the field of foreign affairs.

https://www.commentary.org/seth-mandel/the-real-reason-al-jazeera-faces-suspension-in-israel/?fbclid=IwAR2h9n55vawTtpoG30-nbTEWz5Oe0w8InA7UVv0pvjQmY3-QMKINhkj19oI

77
This is a VERY, VERY, VERY important point.  Thanks BBG for bringing it forward.

Cato gets it but do the people?  Oh look!  A shiny object, a digital dollar!  I can't even tell you or know all the reasons not to do this, but don't do this!!

For one thing, introducing the 'digital dollar' will be the beginning of the certainty of losing the physical dollar.  As bad as the US$ has been, losing 97 cents of every dollar since the forming of the Federal Reserve, you (we) don't want to lose what's left of it.    We don't want EVERY transaction monitored or dollar to exist online only, even more cancellable by political powers than it is now.

Does anybody remember the old saying, innocent until proven guilty?  The IRS works backwards on that.  Every transaction is a taxable gain unless and until you prove it isn't.  If you sell a used car, or couch, is it taxable gain?  There is a 99.999% chance you didn't sell it for more than you paid for it, but to the digital currency trackers, you took in money.  It's all taxable until you prove it isn't.

Combine the fact of cancelling Russian assets during the current war with the FBI tracking parents who speak out at school board meetings, people who spoke up against 'vaccine' mandates and shutdowns, the FBI tracking people who bought a book called the Bible, etc. Our President saying half the country is the threat we face and having the power to cancel your assets is a bad combination, understatement alert.  They can cancel your 'tweet'; they can cancel your video; they can cancel your social media account, they did it to a President of the United States; they can remotely shutoff your car; they can cancel your dollars.

Stop this before it gets started!!  Or you won't ever stop it.

"people were thrilled when Fed Chair Jerome Powell said the Fed is “nowhere near recommending or adopting” a CBDC.   (Central Bank Digital Currency)

Translated that means yes, we are moving forward as fast as we can.  Beware!!

It wasn't clear to me from the article which side Tom Emmer (R-MN) and his bill are on.  Emmer is one of the good guys, but he is one seat away from losing his majority in the House, while Democrats already control the Senate, the White House and the FED.

"https://decrypt.co/121941/emmer-fed-central-bank-digital-currency-surveillance-state/

Spot on, Doug!

And I enjoy posting pieces that get your dander up to the point you start filling in additional blanks. The results are always all sorts of informative!

78


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/01/israeli-airstrike-on-iranian-consulate-in-damascus-kills-irgc-commander

Can’t help but suspect there is more here than meets the eye. Between touching high up the Iranian food chain in Syria, or making this strike given the current state of US/Israel relations, my take is that Israel is comprehensively thumbing its nose.

ETA: Just found this cogent analysis that I believe is spot on:

I pitched my analysis on why #Israel has just checkmated Islamist #Iran in #Syria strike that killed top IRGC officer Zahedi. US media editors wanted something else: How Israel is dragging the world into World War III by attacking Iran.

This is why I think Israel has thrown Khamenei off balance, and there is little Khamenei can do about it:

1- #Iran has instigated, funded and armed half a dozen of its proxy militias in #Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank, #Yemen and #Iraq to launch a war of mass distraction on Israel with the hope of bogging down the Jewish state in wars that keep it busy and away from stopping Tehran from dashing to the nuclear bomb. To Khamenei's misfortune, Israel seems to have many more eyes and arms than two, and has engaged in at least four simultaneous fronts -- Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, Syria while sensitive Iranian targets keep "mysteriously" blowing up every now and then.

2- While Iran was happy to see Arabs die and force attrition on Israel, it stayed out of all wars since end of its war with Iraq in 1988. Islamist Iranian officials always deliver statements in English on how they seek regional and world peace, while in Arabic thumping their chests and promising to destroy Israel.

3- Israel wants to keep the option of attacking Iran's nuclear program open, but without being blamed for starting war with Iran. Now that Israel has killed top IRGC officer in Syria, all Arab Shia partisans of Iran (see attached post from top Hezbollah anthem singer) are expecting Tehran to respond directly by attacking Israel. All Iran's proxies are now asking: Why do we all have to fight Israel and die except for Islamist Iran?

4- Islamist Iran is so embarrassed that Khamenei himself had to promise revenge against Israel for killing of Zahedi (see attached post). Now this is why Khamenei is in a pickle: If he throws missiles from Iran on Israel, that will justify any Israeli retaliation against Iranian territory, opening the way for Israel to hit whatever target inside Iran, including nuclear program targets.

5- Other than "face-saving" responses, Islamist Iran feels its weakness vs Israel. The Jewish state has infiltrated the Iranian regime to its very core. Israel has decimated most of the top leadership, and can do more damage. All Iran can do is either have proxies respond, which is now backfiring on Iran, or attack Israelis in third party countries, and that'll put Iran in trouble with these countries and with international law.

Conclusion: Judging by similar incidents in the past, Iran will swallow its pride and let this one pass. In the past, Iran repeatedly stood down, "swallowed the poison" whenever it felt weaker. Wish its Arab proxies understood these Iranian lessons of the balance of power. But proxies are proxies, they are mercenaries who do the bidding of the highest bidder while their countries are in free fall.
@Hussain abdul-Hussain

79
… the “child” in question in a 25 year old digital media lobbyist that has done over $10 million work for Adam Schiff.

Thank goodness for honest journalists like Julie Kelly and her investigative skills:

Ties Between Judge Merchan's "Child" and Adam Schiff Represent Major Conflict in Hush Money Trial
Loren Merchan's firm was paid $4 million by Adam Schiff at the same time he conspired with Michael Cohen to take down Donald Trump. Cohen will be a witness in Judge Merchan's courtroom next month.

JULIE KELLY
APR 01, 2024

At the end of 2019, Representative Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, was leading the first impeachment effort against President Donald Trump.

After months of making accusations and conducting Congressional inquiries related to Trump’s July 2019 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—a conversation Democrats described as a “quid pro quo” attempting to trade military aid for an investigation into the Biden family’s corrupt business deals—Schiff and six other Democrats delivered articles of impeachment to the Senate in January 2020.

That same month, Schiff’s campaign committee paid a new Chicago-based consulting firm $600,000 for digital media buys presumably to spread the word via email, text, and social media/online advertisements that the California congressman planned to oust Trump.

The firm, Authentic Campaigns, is headed by Loren Merchan, the 34-year-old daughter of the New York judge now overseeing the so-called hush money case against Trump. Judge Juan Merchan just set an April 15 trial date for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s multi-count indictment accusing Trump of falsifying business records related to a payout made to former porn star Stormy Daniels over an alleged sexual encounter. (Trump repeatedly denies the allegation.)

Contrary to hand-wringing assertions that the former president and his allies are unfairly “attacking” Judge Merchan’s “child,” Loren Merchan’s lucrative contracts with some of Trump’s most prolific enemies are fair game.

Her ties to Schiff are especially troubling given Schiff’s role in refurbishing the reputation of one of Bragg’s star witnesses: disbarred lawyer and convicted perjurer Michael Cohen.

The Fixer, The Child, and Shifty Schiff

According to Federal Election Commission reports, Schiff’s campaign committee paid Authentic Campaigns more than $3.7 million for digital media acquisitions between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2020. In addition to the media buys, Schiff paid Authentic Campaigns $215,000 for “digital consulting fees.”

During the same time period that Merchan’s firm raked in nearly $4 million, Schiff turned Cohen, Trump’s lawyer who paid Daniels $130,000 allegedly to keep quiet before the 2016 election, against his former client.

Merchan’s work for Trump’s biggest antagonist on Capitol Hill helped her earn a coveted “rising star” award from Campaign & Elections magazine in 2020. As president and partner of Authentic Campaigns, the editors swooned, Merchan “is setting new benchmarks'' in the digital media space by “doing ground-breaking, historical work for clients like Jon Tester, Kamala Harris, Adam Schiff, and others.”

But that client list represented Trump’s basis for asking Judge Merchan to step down from the case. (Trump’s attorneys also cited Merchan’s attempts to pressure former Trump Organization CEO Allen Weisselberg into accepting a plea deal on tax fraud charges. Weisselberg took the plea offer; Merchan then sentenced the 75-year-old veteran with no criminal record to serve five months at Rikers Island, one of the most dangerous prisons in the country.)

“Your Honor should recuse himself from this case,” Todd Blanche and Susan Necheles, Trump’s defense attorneys, wrote in May 2023. “Your Honor’s daughter’s close connection to President Trump’s political adversaries and her work at, and financial interest in, a firm which is deeply engrained with Democratic politics raises real and legitimate concerns about this Court’s impartiality. The financial well-being of Your Honor’s daughter depends at least in part on the success of Authentic. And Authentic’s business model is one that requires it to attack President Trump and support individuals and causes in direct competition with President Trump.” 

Merchan, who has presided over numerous Trump-related cases and will oversee the May trial of longtime Trump confidant Steve Bannon in New York for alleged fraud, denied Trump’s request in August 2023.

Denouncing Trump’s “speculative and hypothetical scenarios” as to how the judge and his daughter would profit off the court proceedings against Trump, Merchan attached to his order a three-page analysis by the New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics to bolster his decision not to recuse.

The committee concluded that the case does not “directly or indirectly” involve Merchan’s daughter. Further, the committee opined, Loren Merchan’s business is “not a [party] or likely [witness] in the matter.”

While perhaps the assessment is technically true, the suggestion that Merchan’s business is unrelated to the proceedings before her father’s court is provably false. Schiff’s testimonial on the Authentic Campaign website bragged how the company “helped me build a digital program that exceeded all my expectations.” Schiff further noted that the firm “allowed me to connect with supporters across California and the country.”

Did that involve using Michael Cohen, who is expected to testify on behalf of the prosecution in Judge Merchan’s courtroom next month, as part of the company’s digital campaign to raise money for Schiff? After all, the $4 million figure paid to Merchan’s firm in 2019 and 2020 represents almost 40 percent of the total disbursements paid out by Schiff’s committee that cycle—no small amount. Did Loren Merchan advise Schiff on any matter related to Cohen?

It is relevant because Schiff was in cahoots with Cohen throughout 2019. Schiff traveled to New York at least four times to meet with Cohen to discuss his February 2019 public testimony before Congress; Schiff later insisted Cohen’s appearance had “bolstered his credibility.”

Twice that year, Schiff’s committee privately interviewed Cohen under the ruse of investigating Trump-Russia election collusion. But committee members also questioned Cohen about the alleged hush money scheme. At one point during the House Intelligence Committee’s deposition, investigators asked Cohen if Trump was speaking in “code” about the alleged hush money payment to Daniels.

Schiff released transcripts of both depositions in May 2019.  “The public also deserves the chance to judge Cohen’s credibility for themselves, including by examining some of the evidence he provided to the Committee.

That same month, Schiff’s committee paid Merchan’s firm $57,500 for consulting and more digital media buys.

Judge Merchan, Not Trump, is Responsible for the Unwanted Scrutiny

Further, Schiff remains a client of Loren Merchan while opining about the case now before Judge Merchan. “If justice demanded that Michael Cohen go to jail for a scheme directed by someone else, justice also requires that the person responsible for directing the scheme must answer for their offenses against the law—and that person is Donald Trump,” Schiff said in a statement released in March 2023.

According to an analysis by the New York Post, Schiff’s Senate campaign committee—he is running to replace the late Dianne Feinstein—has paid Authentic Campaigns more than $10 million. The Post also reported that Schiff cited the Bragg indictment in emails looking for campaign donations, raising questions as to whether Authentic Campaigns was involved in those solicitations.

That alone justifies Merchan’s recusal, but the judge remains intransigent. One could even argue Merchan is goading Team Trump by allowing Cohen to testify, a move Trump opposes, while prohibiting Trump from criticizing his former “fixer.” In a gag order issued last week, Merchan banned Trump from “making or directing others to make public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses concerning their potential participation in the investigation or in this criminal proceeding.” The group includes Cohen.

Trump’s lawyers indicated they will file another motion to recuse. If Merchan has any integrity left, he will step aside not just to salvage his own reputation but his daughter’s, too. If he doesn’t, the only individual responsible for so-called “attacks” on his “child” is Judge Merchan himself.

https://www.declassified.live/p/ties-between-judge-merchans-child?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&fbclid=IwAR2OTNOygDHB1Vhqh_H_2zFvCTHXRQ6OkUlDPA1t1qiKdmpir20vTJoecEs

80
Politics & Religion / Eight Months to Stack the Electoral Deck
« on: April 01, 2024, 10:28:53 PM »
I came up north of Chicago where vote fraud was a given. Mayor Daley swung Illinois to Kennedy, beating Nixon with a vast wave of Chicago votes drummed up by ward healers, aldermen, and Democratic Party machine politics as practiced in the big cities they controlled. Claims the dead voted in Chicago? Duh, what else were the dead gonna do? Fraud was just a give and the Party machine in control of every lever of power to the point there was no agency or state organ that had the desire, let alone the ability, to do anything about it.

These days the tools are different, but the results the same. The once cynical media that would occasionally try to strike a blow against the status quo is these days fully co-opted to the cause, while ward healers drumming up votes in bars and grave yards no longer have to transport drunks from ward to ward to vote a numerous times under dozens of names, many of which were no longer in use by the decedents save for on their tombstones. Swiping a postal flat full of mail in votes is instead the preferred method these days, as this piece points out:

Two Weeks to Flatten Became Eight Months to Change the Election

BY Brownstone InstituteBROWNSTONE INSTITUTE   APRIL 1, 2024   GOVERNMENT, HISTORY   15 MINUTE READ

In 1845, Congress established Election Day as the Tuesday after the first Monday of November. The Act sought “to establish a uniform time” for Americans to cast their ballots for president. Historically, voters needed to provide a valid reason – such as illness or military service – to qualify for absentee ballots.

But Covid served as a pretext to overturn that tradition. Just 25% of votes in 2020 occurred at the polls on Election Day. Mail-in voting more than doubled. Key swing states eliminated the need to provide a valid reason to cast absentee ballots. The virus and racial justice became justifications to disregard verification methods like signature requirements.

Rejection rates for absentee ballots plummeted by more than 80% in some states as the Covid regime welcomed an unprecedented increase in mail-in voting. Politicians and media outlets ignored rampant voter fraud in the months leading up to the election. They treated concerns surrounding absentee voting as obscure conspiracy theories despite a bipartisan commission describing it as “the largest source of potential voter fraud” just a decade earlier.

It is now clear that the overhaul of our election system was a deliberate initiative from the outset of the pandemic response. In March 2020, when the Government’s official policy was still “two weeks to flatten the curve,” the administrative state began instituting the infrastructure to hijack the November presidential election, more than 30 weeks beyond when the Covid response was supposed to end.

March 2020: The CDC and the CARES Act Meddle in the Election

On March 12, 2020, the CDC issued a recommendation for states and localities to “encourage voters to use voting methods that minimize direct contact with other people,” including “mail-in methods of voting.”

Two weeks later, President Trump signed the $2 trillion CARES Act, which offered states $400 million to re-engineer their election processes for that November.

At the time, proponents of the CARES Act argued it was necessary to reopen the country. For example, the New York Times argued it was “critical to fund and implement the safety measures necessary to let Americans get back to work, school and play without a recurrence of the virus.”

But political actors immediately plotted ways to use the funds to entrench their power long past the proposed two-week lockdowns. Nearly every swing state announced plans to promote mail-in voting and reduce electoral safeguards in a Congressional report.

“Michigan will use the funds to bolster vote by mail,” the report announced. Governor Gretchen Whitmer received $11.3 million from the CARES Act to change election procedures in her state. In November, 57% of Michigan voters (over 3 million people) cast their ballot by mail. For the first time, the state did not require a reason for absentee voting, and mail-in ballots more than doubled. President Trump would go on to lose Michigan by just 150,000 votes.

When Trump signed the CARES Act, just 0.05% of Michigan residents had tested positive for Covid. The state’s political leaders later boasted that their agenda had not been focused on public health. “Even when there’s not a pandemic, once people begin using the absentee ballot process, they’re much more likely to continue to do so in the future,” said Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson after Election Day.

Pennsylvania received $14.2 million from the CARES Act to address its election process. At the time, the infection rate in the Keystone State was 1 in 6,000 (0.017%). Democratic Governor Tom Wolf’s administration told the federal government it would use its plans to increase absentee voting. In November, 2.5 million Pennsylvanians voted by mail. President Biden won 75% of those votes – a difference of 1.4 million. President Trump lost the state by under 100,000 votes.

The CARES Act provided Wisconsin with over $7 million for election matters. Democratic Governor Tom Evers said the state would use funds to provide “absentee ballot envelopes,” to develop “the statewide voter registration system and online absentee ballot request portal,” and “to account for additional costs” related to mail-in voting.

Governor Evers explained, “Having as many absentee ballots as possible is absolutely a top priority [and] always has been given the emergency we’re in.” Eight months later, 1.9 million of the state’s 3.3 million voters cast their ballot by mail. The rejection rate for absentee ballots plummeted from 1.4% in 2016 to 0.2%. President Biden won Wisconsin by just 20,000 votes.

Democratic activists were unsatisfied with the $400 million added to the national debt to reshape the elections. Mark Zuckerberg’s foundation offered an additional $300 million. In Time, Molly Ball celebrated the “shadow campaign that saved the 2020 election.” She quoted Amber McReynolds, the president of “nonpartisan National Vote at Home Institute,” who called the government’s reluctance to provide additional funding “a failure at the federal level.” Despite her professed “non-partisanship,” President Biden rewarded her service by appointing her to the Board of the US Postal Service.

In Time, Ball hailed the mail-in activists’ efforts, which included targeting “Black voters” who may have otherwise “preferred to exercise their franchise in person.” They focused on social media outreach to try to convince people that a “prolonged [vote] count wasn’t a sign of problems.” Their informational warfare may have changed Americans’ perception on mail-in voting, but it could not eradicate the predictable controversies that it created.

April and May 2020: Voter Fraud Skyrockets

In May 2020, New Jersey held municipal elections and required all voting take place via mail. The State’s third largest city, Paterson, held its election for city council. The results should have been a national scandal that ended the push for mail-in voting.

Shortly after the election, the Postal Service discovered “hundreds of mail-in ballots” in one town mailbox. A Snapchat video showed a man named Abu Razyen illegally handling a stack of ballots he said was for candidate Shanin Khalique. Khalique initially defeated his opponent by just eight votes. A recount found their vote was tied.

Paterson resident Ramona Javier never received her mail-in ballot for the election. Neither did eight of her family members and neighbors, yet they were all listed as having voted. “We did not receive vote-by-mail ballots and thus we did not vote,” she told the press. “This is corruption. This is fraud.”

Election officials rejected 19% of the ballots from Paterson, a city with over 150,000 residents. While Paterson’s election was particularly troublesome, mail-in ballots were problematic across the state. Thirty other New Jersey municipalities held vote-by-mail elections that day, and the average disqualification rate was 9.6%.

New Jersey brought voting fraud charges against City Councilman Michael Jackson, Councilman-Elect Alex Mendez, and two other men for their “criminal conduct involving mail-in ballots during the election.” All four were charged with illegally collecting, procuring, and submitting mail-in ballots.

A state judge later ordered a new vote, finding that the May election “was not the fair, free and full expression of the intent of the voters. It was rife with mail in vote procedural violations constituting nonfeasance and malfeasance.”

Politicians refused to concede that the incident revealed the vulnerability of absentee balloting. Instead, Governor Phil Murphy told the press that the scandal was a good sign. “I view that as a positive data point,” he argued. “Some guys tried to screw around with the system. They got caught by law enforcement. They’ve been indicted. They’ll pay a price.”

Murphy and other allies of Joe Biden ignored the threat, presuming the forces would not hurt their hopes that November.

In Wisconsin, the April 2020 primary election offered further evidence of the challenges and corruption surrounding mail-in voting. Following the primary, a postal center outside Milwaukee discovered three tubs of absentee ballots that never reached their intended recipients. Fox Point, a village outside Milwaukee, has a population of under 7,000 people.

Beginning in March, Fox Point received between 20 and 50 undelivered absentee ballots per day. In the weeks leading up to the election, the village manager said that increased to between 100 and 150 ballots per day. On election day, the town received a plastic mail bin with 175 unmailed ballots. “We’re not sure why this happened,” said the village manager. “Nobody seems to be able to tell me why.”

Democrats admitted the system threatened election integrity. “This has all the makings of a Florida 2000 if we have a close race,” said Gordon Hintz, the Democratic minority leader in the Wisconsin State Assembly. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo went further. “It’s a harder system to administer, and obviously it’s a harder system to police writ large,” he said. Cuomo continued, “People showing up, people actually showing ID, is still the easiest system to assure total integrity.”

The Wisconsin primary also featured special elections for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. A liberal judge upset the incumbent conservative justice, and partisans embraced their overhaul of the electoral system. The New York Times reported: “Wisconsin Democrats are working to export their template for success – intense digital outreach and a well-coordinated vote-by-mail operation – to other states in the hope that it will improve the party’s chances in local and statewide elections and in the quest to unseat President Trump in November.”

Despite the corruption, the lost ballots, and the admissions of threats to electoral integrity, the process had been a success in political terms; their candidate had won. The ends had justified the means. Citizens lost faith in their election process, and political leaders readily admitted that their concerns were justified; but the professional politicos and their mouthpiece, the New York Times, characterized the disaster as a “template for success.”

Controversies continued to emerge surrounding mail-in ballots.

In September 2020, a government contractor threw Trump mail-in ballots in the trash in Pennsylvania. ABC News reported that “ballots had been found in a dumpster next to the elections building.” A week later, three trays of mail with absentee ballots were found in a ditch in Wisconsin.

In Nevada, the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony offered gifts, including gift cards, jewelry, and clothing to Native Americans who showed up to vote. Activist Bethany Sam organized the event, where she donned a Biden-Harris mask and stood in front of the Biden-Harris campaign bus.

Voters in California received ballots with no place to vote for president, over 20% of ballots mailed to voters in Teaneck, New Jersey, had the wrong Congressional districts listed, and Franklin County, Ohio reported sending over 100,000 absentee ballots to the wrong address due to an “envelope stuffing error.”

In October, Texas police arrested Carrollton Mayoral Candidate Zul Mirza Mohamed on 109 counts of fraud for forging mail-in ballots. Authorities discovered fraudulent ballots at Mohamed’s residence with fictitious licenses. That same month, a Pennsylvania district attorney charged Lehigh County Elections Judge Everett “Erika” Bickford with “prying into ballots” and altering the entries from a local election that June. That election was decided by just 55 votes.

Reports continued to emerge after the election. The New York Post uncovered election records that showed dead people had cast absentee ballots that November.

California law enforcement arrested two men with a 41-count criminal complaint for allegedly submitting over 8,000 fraudulent voter registration applications on behalf of homeless people. Their goal was to get Carlos Montenegro, one of the defendants, elected Mayor of Hawthorne, a city in Los Angeles County. The state also alleged that Montenegro committed perjury by falsifying names and signatures in his paperwork for his mayoral campaign.

In 2022, a Georgia investigation found more than 1,000 absentee ballots that never left the Cobb County government facility. Two months earlier, mail-in ballots from the 2020 election were discovered in a Baltimore USPS facility. In 2023, Michigan police found hundreds of mail-in ballots from the 2020 election in a township clerk’s storage unit.

All of this was entirely predictable, but perhaps that was the point. From the outset, the Covid regime sought to abolish the safeguards of our election system despite well-known concerns regarding election integrity.

The United States of Amnesia: Voter Fraud Was Nothing New

Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.

The Covid regime’s messaging was clear: only conspiratorial lunatics would question the integrity of an election system that more than doubles its mail-in voting. FBI Director Christopher Wray testified, “We have not seen, historically, any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it’s by mail or otherwise.”

But this wasn’t true. It contradicted long-standing conclusions regarding electoral integrity. Just as the public health apparatus abandoned thousands of years of epidemiological practice to implement lockdowns, the media and elected officials abandoned principles that until that moment had been common sense.

Following the controversy of the 2000 Presidential election, the United States formed a bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform. President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State James Baker, a Republican, chaired the group.

After five years of research, the group published its final report – “Building Confidence in U.S. Elections.” It offered a series of recommendations to reduce voter fraud, including enacting voter-ID laws and limiting absentee voting. The commission was unequivocal: “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.”

The report continued: “Citizens who vote at home, at nursing homes, at the workplace, or in church are more susceptible to pressure, overt and subtle, or to intimidation. Vote buying schemes are far more difficult to detect when citizens vote by mail.”

The findings were reinforced by subsequent election scandals.

A 2012 New York Times headline read: “Error and Fraud at Issue as Absentee Voting Rises.” The article made the front page of the paper and echoed the concerns of the Carter-Baker Commission. “Fraud Easier via Mail,” the paper explained.

“You could steal some absentee ballots or stuff a ballot box or bribe an election administrator or fiddle with an electronic voting machine,” said Yale Law professor Heather Gerken. That explains, she said, “why all the evidence of stolen elections involves absentee ballots and the like.”

The Times continued the potential corruption of mail-in ballots. “On the most basic level, absentee voting replaces the oversight that exists at polling places with something akin to an honor system,” the author wrote. The Times then cited US Circuit Court Judge Richard A. Posner: “Absentee voting is to voting in person as a take-home exam is to a proctored one.”

The report went on: “Voters in nursing homes can be subjected to subtle pressure, outright intimidation or fraud. The secrecy of their voting is easily compromised. And their ballots can be intercepted both coming and going.”

Historic controversies supported this consensus. The 1997 Miami mayoral election resulted in 36 arrests for absentee-ballot fraud. A judge voided the results and ordered the city to hold a new election due to “a pattern of fraudulent, intentional, and criminal conduct.” The results were reversed in the subsequent election.

Following Dallas’s 2017 City Council race, authorities sequestered 700 mail-in ballots signed “Jose Rodriguez.” Elderly voters alleged that party activists had forged their signatures on their mail-in ballots. Miguel Hernandez later pled guilty to the crime of forging their signatures after collecting unfilled ballots, and using them to support his candidate of choice.

The following year, it appeared that Republic Mark Harris defeated Democrat Dan McCready in a North Carolina congressional race. Election officials noticed irregularities in the mail-in votes and refused to certify the election, citing evidence and “claims of…concerted fraudulent activities.” The state ordered a special election the following year.

In 2018, the Democratic National Commission challenged an Arizona law that set safeguards around absentee voting, including limiting who could handle mail-in ballots. US District Judge Douglas L. Rayes, an Obama appointee, upheld the law. “Indeed, mail-in ballots by their very nature are less secure than ballots cast in person at polling locations,” he wrote. He found that “the prevention of voter fraud and preservation of public confidence in election integrity” were important state interests and cited the Carter-Baker Commission’s finding that “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.”

The rest of the world recognized the obvious threat that mail-in voting poses to election integrity. In 1975, France banned postal ballots after rampant voter fraud. Ballots were cast with the names of dead Frenchmen, and political activists in Corsica stole ballots and bribed voters.

In 1991, Mexico mandated voter photo IDs and banned absentee ballots after the Institutional Revolutionary Party repeatedly committed fraud to maintain power. In Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, photo ID is required to get an absentee ballot.

In August 2020, economist John Lott analyzed how Covid was being used as a pretext to overhaul electoral standards in the United States. He wrote:

Thirty-seven states have so far changed their mail-in voting procedures this year in response to the Coronavirus. Despite frequent claims that President Trump’s warning about vote fraud/voting buying with mail-in ballots is “baselessly” or “without evidence” about mail-in vote fraud, there are numerous examples of vote fraud and vote buying with mail-in ballots in the United States and across the world. Indeed, concerns over vote fraud and vote buying with mail-in ballots causes the vast majority of countries to ban mail-in voting unless the citizen is living abroad.

There are fraud problems with mail-in absentee ballots but the problems with universal mail-in ballots are much more significant. Still most countries ban even absentee ballots for people living in their countries.

Most developed countries ban absentee ballots unless the citizen is living abroad or require Photo-IDs to obtain those ballots. Even higher percentages of European Union or other European countries ban absentee for in country voters.

Political actors treated opposition to absentee balloting with scorn while ignoring its history of corruption. Mail-in voting may have been the decisive factor in the 2020 election, but Trump and his allies searched for other explanations to avoid his complicity in signing the CARES Act.

The Trump campaign promised to produce “irrefutable” evidence that proved Trump won the election “in a landslide.” “I’m going to release the Kraken,” one Trump election lawyer told Lou Dobbs in November 2020. President Trump and Rudy Giuliani tweeted blame at Dominion voting machines. Sean Hannity said privately that Giuliani was “acting like an insane person.”

Two days later, he told viewers about a “software error” from Dominion that “wrongfully awarded Joe Biden thousands of ballots that were cast for President Trump, until the problem was amazingly fixed.” In August 2023, Trump announced that he would release an “irrefutable report” demonstrating voter fraud in Georgia. He canceled the announcement two days later.

In the process, they ignored a far more obvious explanation.

Presidential elections in the 21st century have been decided by an average of 44 electoral votes. Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin offer a combined 62 votes in the Electoral College.

Under the pretext of Covid, states abolished their electoral safeguards. They turned Election Day into a month of voting. After prominent Democrats refused to certify the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections, the victors chastised any concerns for electoral integrity as attacks on democracy.

This is all theater. From the outset of the pandemic response, the liberalization of voting rules was integral, all justified based on nonscientific grounds while invoking the cover of science. It wasn’t stopping disease spread that drove the dramatic upheaval in the American system of voting that has caused such widespread distrust. It was the drive for a result different from one that swept the country four years earlier.

https://brownstone.org/articles/two-weeks-to-flatten-became-eight-months-to-change-the-election/?fbclid=IwAR2Ekgy90PGBl9IMRNfO7AHfDj-ZZc973VAip2VOP-KvgkaJY0_RDonwzT8

81
Politics & Religion / Tone Deaf Elitism of the Biden Admin
« on: April 01, 2024, 07:51:29 PM »
Who need appeals to authority when you can appeal “Progressive” snobbery instead?

The Biden White House’s Beltway elitism shows on Easter

Sorry, that’s ‘Transgender Day of Visibility’

April 1, 2024 | 6:19 pm

Among the many political advantages of the presidency, surely one is the ability to extend warm wishes to Christians, Jews and Muslims on their holidays. It’s a golden opportunity to invite a few for pictures at the White House and explain how much the holiday has always meant to you. Easy-peasy. For a Catholic president such as Joe Biden, expressing solidarity with co-religionists on Easter ought to be a well-practiced routine.

It took genuine incompetence and obtuseness for the Biden White House to muck up the chance to reach out to fellow Christians on the holiest day of their calendar. But that’s exactly what the White House did on Sunday — Easter Day — by stressing its strong backing for Transgender Day of Visibility. All they had say was, “We love trans people and we will celebrate Visibility Day on Monday this year.” But noooooooo. It’s hard to think of a more obvious train wreck a-comin’. But this White House ignored the flashing red lights, drove right onto the tracks and parked.

Take the traditional White House Easter Egg Roll. The West Wing’s Ralph Wiggins Brain Trust decided to prohibit any religious symbols on the eggs, even though the whole point of the holiday is to celebrate religious renewal, specifically Christian renewal, as symbolized by eggs. Which voter group does the White House think its exclusionary message appeals to?

The answer to that Daily Double is “strongly ideological progressives.” These days, they are the very heart of the Democratic Party. What is so striking is that this White House is perfectly willing to alienate moderate, centrist voters — the ones needed to win in November — to cozy up to that activist base. Republicans do the same thing when they adopt positions like the six-week ban on abortion, signed into law by Florida governor Ron DeSantis. Cater to the hardcore base. Risk alienating everyone else.

Or take Biden’s decision to go to a fancy, high-profile fundraiser at the Rockefeller Center and skip any effort to comfort or even sympathize with the widow of a slain policeman and their young child, mourning after the officer was killed in cold blood while performing his duty. Even Al Sharpton criticized that obvious blunder.

Most of these observations have drifted across the conservative media. They have been ignored by the mainstream, naturally, because they would harm the candidate they support. Such is what passes for reporting today.

Still, there is one observation that even conservative critics have overlooked. It is the insular world from which these bad decisions emerge. That is the world in which White House staff and Beltway cognoscenti have been raised and educated. They continue to live in that house of mirrors, which is why they make such obvious blunders. They don’t notice them because, in their self-enclosed world, those aren’t blunders at all.

The “New” Democratic Party’s ignorance of ordinary voters’ views and feelings, indeed their sneering contempt for them, is a direct result of an educated elite that has been divorced from middle-income voters for their entire lives. They were raised in high-income ZIP codes, separated from the unwashed masses. They support those masses in principle — let them eat transfer payments — but that is simply their rigid, leftist ideology. They support the masses; it’s the actual people they don’t know. They just read polling data and focus group reports about them.

The progressive brain trust at the heart of the Democratic Party is far removed from the party of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman or even Lyndon B. Johnson. Today’s party activists went to elite schools where diversity means the children of orthopedic surgeons of different races, not students with diverse viewpoints or economic backgrounds. After college, they head to top law schools, where uniformity of thought reigns, and then into corporate law firms or hedge funds. The communications staff might have gone to journalism school, worked at a PR firm specializing in green energy and then a lobbying outfit with similar clients. At every stage, conformity of opinion is an absolute requirement for admission, hiring or friendship.

When you recruit your White House staff, communications team and campaign advisors from this shallow pool, filled with Fiji Water, it shouldn’t be a surprise that they choose policies, symbols and PR strategies that only not only fail to connect with ordinary voters, but actually offend them.

That is exactly what the White House has done repeatedly over the past few weeks. Joe Biden may constantly pitch himself as “Scranton Joe,” but his White House is Scarsdale and Stanford, not Scranton and Penn State.

Their insularity shows. It is another roadblock on Biden’s rocky path to reelection.

By
Charles Lipson

Charles Lipson is the Peter B. Ritzma professor of political science emeritus at the University of Chicago, where he founded the Program on International Politics, Economics and Security, and a Spectator contributing writer.

https://thespectator.com/politics/joe-biden-white-house-beltway-elitism-shows-easter/?fbclid=IwAR1hiB_eOkm8VeaIEpaEddFGYvV60EUH3eOUmb5i-1pTVYt6yLoJskED0DE

82
Politics & Religion / Nearly 300 Excess Deaths Each Week in UK ERs
« on: April 01, 2024, 05:07:59 PM »
England’s Emergency Crisis Led To 14,000 Deaths Last Year, Report Says

Katherine Hignett

Senior Contributor

I write about U.K. health policy. The figure comes from research conducted by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, which estimates 14,000 extra deaths would have been linked to delays in emergency care in 2023.

The staggering research reflects the continued toll of a sector that’s been in crisis for at least two years. Last year, a similar analysis found excessive waits for emergency care could have caused around 280 deaths per week.

Where Do These Numbers Come From?

To find out how many extra deaths were likely to have been caused by long waits, RCEM researchers began by looking at how many people spent long periods of time waiting to be admitted from an emergency department to a hospital bed.

Around 1.5 million people are known to have waited 12 hours or more in emergency rooms in England 2023. According to the RCEM, around 65% of these patients went on to be admitted to hospital.

Researchers tplugged these figures into what’s known as the “standard mortality ratio”: an estimate of how many patients are likely to die when their emergency care is delayed.

The RCEM estimates there will be one extra death for every 72 waits of 8 to 12 hours before admission, according to the ratio, which comes from on a study of English emergency care from 2016 to 2018. The data includes deaths from any cause within 30 days of admission to hospital.

For 2023, this works out at 14,000 extra deaths in 2023, or 268 per week.

England’s Emergency Care Crisis Explained

England’s emergency services have been under extreme pressure for at least two years, with numerous factors like short staffing, inadequate social care provision and an increase in patient demand and acuity (how sick people are) fuelling the crisis.

An ageing population, coupled with care backlogs that have swollen during the pandemic, mean more people need care — and more intense care at that. But investment in healthcare has not kept pace with a growing need that’s been excacerbated by Covid-19.

In parallel, a lack of capacity in adult social care — think nursing homes and care workers that visit frail patients at their own residence — leaves some vulnerable patients languishing in hospitals as they wait for the community support they need to become available.

This drives high bed occupancy in hospitals, making it hard to admit patients from the emergency department. This leads to overcrowding inside and queues of ambulances outside and slows down ambulance response times.

Bed occupancy remains consistently at around 94%, according to the RCEM. This is far in excess of a “safe occupancy level” of 85%. Some 11,000 more staffed beds would be needed to meet this level, the College stated.

‘Patients Deserve So Much Better’

Royal College of Emergency Medicine present Dr Adrian Boyle said it was “vital to remember that each one of these deaths was of a person with loved ones and families.”

It also left clinicians across the country in an “awful position,” dealing “with the realities of trying to provide the best possible care in such difficult and unacceptable circumstances.”

Government initiatives launched to try and reduce the emergency care crisis should be scrutinized and assessed, he added “so we can establish what is working and what needs adapting.”

“Despite good intentions,” the country’s plants have thus fare failed to be effective or result “in any consequential improvement,” he said.

“What is needed is substantial investment and a commitment to resuscitating emergency care both for the clinicians battling with a struggling system and the patients who deserve so much better. We cannot continue with these inequalities in care, avoidable delays, and deaths.”

A spokesperson for the National Health Service, which provides public healthcare in England, told The Independent: “We have seen significant increases in demand for A&E services, with attendances in February up 8.6 per cent on last year and emergency admissions up 7.7 per cent.”

Data showed the organisation’s efforts to recover urgent and emergency care performance were “delivering improvements,” while ongoing work with community and social care partners to help discharge those who are medically fit was “freeing up beds for other patients.”

Excess deaths, the spokesperson added are “down to several factors” under continued analysis by the country’s Office for National Statistics.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehignett/2024/04/01/englands-emergency-crisis-led-to-14000-deaths-last-year-report-says/?sh=5efc388a2563

85
Politics & Religion / Say No to Central Bank Digital Currencies
« on: April 01, 2024, 04:20:50 PM »
Central bank digital currency laws looming in congress?

CBDC Prohibition Is Gaining Momentum

Cato Recent Op-eds / by Norbert Michel / Apr 1, 2024 at 10:24 AM
Norbert Michel

Politico is reporting that a group of House conservatives are trying to tie a vote on Rep. Tom Emmer’s (R‑MN) central bank digital currency bill to a deal on broader cryptocurrency legislation. According to the article, the main reason to avoid this strategy is that it risks “isolating the few Democrats” who support Rep. McHenry’s (R‑NC) broader legislation.

,
Setting aside which members support broader crypto bills, stopping the Fed from issuing a CBDC should not be the partisan issue it is becoming. A CBDC gives the government untold economic power—irrespective of which party is in charge.

Launching a CBDC has nothing to do with losing a technology race, spurring faster payments, or protecting the U.S. dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency. Regardless of what Rep. Stephen Lynch (D‑MA) thinks, stopping the Fed from launching a CBDC does not equate to “sticking our head in the sand.”

,
Stopping the Fed from issuing a CBDC should not be the partisan issue it is becoming. A CBDC gives the government untold economic power—irrespective of which party is in charge.

,
CBDCs are a desperate reaction by governments to prevent decentralized currencies from threatening the monopoly of national currencies. They enable maximum government control over people’s lives through the direct provisioning of money and financial services.

Some variations of a CBDC draft private sector firms to help the central bank, but those are just as bad. Arguably, they’re even worse because they effectively co‐​opt the private firms that could otherwise serve as a check on the central government’s power.

It’s been very easy to explain this danger to people because so many government officials around the world have been candid about why they want CBDCs. My colleague Nick Anthony and I have spent the last few years documenting these statements and dissecting the arguments for and against CBDCs.

Since February 2023, when we created our last digital compilation of those statements, government officials around the world have kept the hits coming. Sometimes, these officials seem less than straightforward.

,
This February, for example, the European Central Bank’s Piero Cipollone assured the European Parliament that the ECB would not make any decision about launching a digital euro without new legislation. He clarified the ECB is not even “launching any of the development work now.”

But in the same speech, Cipollone explained the ECB has started soliciting third parties to help “establish framework agreements with potential providers of digital euro components and related services.” Cipollone also told Parliament that the ECB is “working on a draft rulebook [for the digital Euro] together with representatives of consumers, retailers and intermediaries.”

He then touted the supposed benefits of a CBDC, implying it is a key to ensuring that “everyone, regardless of their income, can pay in any situation of daily life.” (In fact, he referred to this supposed feature as a “fundamental right.”)

Rather than stop there, he insisted that the ECB’s “objective is to preserve the role and share of central bank money in payments, not to displace private money.” But in virtually every developed country, the main role of central bank money is bank‐​to‐​bank payments.

Central banks already control bank reserve settlement systems, and most of them do so electronically. And central banks control the aggregate supply of reserves. In other words, central banks effectively already have CBDCs for central bank money.

Creating a retail CBDC, whether through private banks or not, is more than preserving the role of central bank money in payments. Much more.

For its part, the Federal Reserve has engaged in research, experiments, and pilot programs to develop a CBDC but has officially said that it is far from ready to launch one. That’s the good news.

The bad news, though, is that there is more than enough gray area in the Federal Reserve Act to allow the Fed to launch a CBDC should the Fed change its stance.

Regardless, as Nick’s Cato at Liberty post demonstrates, there are still a few important unanswered questions regarding the Fed and a CBDC.

For instance, many people were thrilled when Fed Chair Jerome Powell said the Fed is “nowhere near recommending or adopting” a CBDC. However, Powell has also stated that “If we were ever to do something like this—and we’re a very long way from even thinking about it—we would do this through the banking system.”

For anyone opposed to a retail CBDC—the government provisioning of money and financial services—this statement should be a warning flag. While the Federal Reserve Act prohibits the Fed from interacting directly with the public, there is no such prohibition on interacting with banks. Therefore, the Fed arguably has the authority to launch what it calls an intermediated CBDC, where it provides money to banks and the banks deal with the public.

Again, this type of CBDC is just as dangerous as one provided directly to citizens because it, too, enables the federal government to provide money and financial services. At best, this model would compete with private sector firms that provide money and financial services. But it doesn’t take perfect vision to see that private sector firms can’t really compete with the government in this manner.

According to the Human Rights Foundation’s CBDC Tracker, 12 governments have launched CBDCs, and 37 have started CBDC pilot programs.

That’s 49 too many. A CBDC is the perfect tool for the Chinese communist party, and that’s exactly why all non‐​autocratic governments should avoid creating one.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/cbdc-prohibition-gaining-momentum

86
Politics & Religion / The War on Patients in Pain
« on: April 01, 2024, 03:51:28 PM »
This mirrors my experience while contending with cancer and lesser boo boos:

The War on Drugs Is Also a War on Pain Patients

Cato @ Liberty / by Jeffrey A. Singer / Apr 1, 2024 at 10:37 AM

Jeffrey A. Singer

Doctor's Exam with Prescription
In a March 22 opinion column in the New York Times entitled “The DEA Needs to Stay Out of Medicine,” Vanderbilt University Medical Center associate professor of anesthesiology and pain management Shravani Durbhakula, MD, documents powerfully how patients suffering from severe pain—many of them terminal cancer patients—have become collateral casualties in the government’s war on drugs.

Decrying the Drug Enforcement Administration’s progressive tightening of opioid manufacturing quotas, Dr. Durbhakula writes:

In theory, fewer opioids sold means fewer inappropriate scripts filled, which should curb the diversion of prescription opioids for illicit purposes and decrease overdose deaths — right?

I can tell you from the front lines that that’s not quite right. Prescription opioids once drove the opioid crisis. But in recent years opioid prescriptions have significantly fallen, while overdose deaths have been at a record high. America’s new wave of fatalities is largely a result of the illicit market, specifically illicit fentanyl. And as production cuts contribute to the reduction of the already strained supply of legal, regulated prescription opioids, drug shortages stand to affect the more than 50 million people suffering from chronic pain in more ways than at the pharmacy counter.

Dr. Durbhakula provides stories of patients having to travel long distances to see their doctors in person due to DEA requirements about opioid prescriptions. However, despite their efforts, they find that many of the pharmacies do not have the opioids they require because of quotas. She writes:

Health care professionals and pharmacies in this country are chained by the Drug Enforcement Administration. Our patients’ stress is the result not of an orchestrated set of practice guidelines or a comprehensive clinical policy but rather of one government agency’s crude, broad‐​stroke technique to mitigate a public health crisis through manufacturing limits — the gradual and repeated rationing of how much opioids can be produced by legitimate entities.

In the essay, Dr.Durbhakula does not question or challenge the false narrative that the overdose crisis originated with doctors “overprescribing” opioids to their pain patients.

Unfortunately, Dr. Durbhakula’s proposed policy recommendations would do little to advance patient and physician autonomy. She would merely transfer control over doctors treating pain from the cops to federal health bureaucracies and let those agencies set opioid production quotas. For instance, she claims, “It’s incumbent on us [doctors] to hand the reins of authority over to public health institutions better suited to the task.”

No. The “reins of authority” belong in the hands of patients and doctors.

Dr. Durbhakula suggests that “instead of defining medical aptness, the DEA should pass the baton to our nation’s public health agencies” and proposes that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration “collaborate” to “place controls on individual prescribing and respond to inappropriate prescribing.” She elides the fact that these public health agencies will “respond” to doctors or patients who don’t comply with their regulations by calling the cops.

To be sure, Dr. Durbhakula has good intentions. But replacing actual cops—the DEA—with federal health agencies that can order those cops to arrest non‐​compliant doctors and patients is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. True, her proposed new pain management overlords would have greater medical expertise, but they would still reign over doctors and patients and assault their autonomy. And, as we learned during the COVID-19 pandemic, they will not be immune to political pressures and groupthink.

While her policy prescriptions may be flawed, Dr. Durbhakula deserves praise for having the courage to point out that the war on drugs is also a war on pain patients. Alas, courageous doctors are in short supply these days. Most doctors keep their heads down and follow the cops’ instructions.

After I read her essay, I wrote the following (unpublished) letter to the editor of the New York Times:

Dear Editor—

Kudos to Dr. Durhakula for speaking out against the Drug Enforcement Administration’s intruding on doctors’ pain treatment (“The DEA Needs to Stay Out of Medicine,” March 22, 2024). As my colleague and I explained in our 2022 Cato Institute white paper, “Cops Practicing Medicine,” for more than 100 years, law enforcement has been increasingly surveilling and regulating pain management.

The DEA maintains a schedule of substances it controls, and it categorizes them based on what the agency determines to be their safety and addictive potential. The DEA even presumes to know how many and what kind of controlled substances—from stimulants like Adderall to narcotics like oxycodone—the entire US population will need in future years, setting quotas on how many each pharmaceutical manufacturer may annually produce.

The DEA restricts pain management based on the flawed assumption that what they consider to be “overtreatment” caused the overdose crisis. However, as my colleagues and I showed, there is no correlation between the opioid prescription rate and the rate of non‐​medical opioid use or opioid addiction. And, of course, as fear of DEA reprisal has caused the prescription rate to drop precipitously in the last dozen years, overdose deaths have soared as the black market provided non‐​medical users of “diverted” prescription pain pills first with more dangerous heroin and later with fentanyl.

Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health found that overdose fatalities have been rising exponentially since at least the late 1970s, with different drugs predominating during various periods. Complex sociocultural, psychosocial, and socioeconomic forces are at the root of the overdose crisis, requiring serious investigation. Yet policymakers have chosen the lazy answer by blaming the overdose crisis on doctors treating pain.

When cops practice medicine, overdoses increase, drug cartels get richer, and patients suffer.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey A. Singer, MD, FACS

Senior Fellow, Cato Institute

When cops practice medicine, overdoses increase, drug cartels get richer, and patients suffer.

https://www.cato.org/blog/war-drugs-also-war-pain-patients

87
Politics & Religion / ATF Loses Another
« on: April 01, 2024, 12:45:39 PM »
Though I’ve plenty of qualms where the NRA is concerned, here’s one where membership pays off:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20240401/nra-scores-legal-victory-against-atf-pistol-brace-rule-enjoined-from-going-into-effect-against-nra-members

88
Matt Taibbi was asked “why doesn’t he pay much attention to the sins (or threats) from “the right”?”

He gave a great answer:

Why I don’t spend a lot of time on the Republicans:

1) There is a enormous army of MSM reporters already going after them from every angle, with most major news organizations little more than proxies for the DNC, to the point where stations hire Biden spokespeople as anchors;

2) The Republicans have very little institutional power nationally. It’s not their point of view prevailing in schools, on campuses, in newsrooms (where over 90% of working reporters vote blue), and especially in the intelligence and military apparatus, which has openly aligned itself with Democrats. Even if Donald Trump were a “threat to Democracy” he lacks the institutional pull to do much damage, which can’t be said of Democrats;

3) The Democrats’ ambitions are significantly more dangerous than those of the Republicans. From digital surveillance to censorship to making Intel and enforcement agencies central players in domestic governance — all plans being executed globally as well as in our one country — they are thinking on a much bigger and more dangerous scale than Republicans. I lived in third world countries and the endless criminal indictments of people like Trump and ongoing lawfare efforts to prevent even third party challenges are classic authoritarian symptoms. The Republicans aren’t near this kind of capability;

4) Last and most important, the Democrats are being organized around a more potent but also much dumber, more cultlike ideology. People like Yuval Harari and his Transhumanist “divinity” concept scare me a lot more than the Rs, and I was once undercover in an apocalyptic church in Texas. Ask your average Russian or Cuban what overempowered pseudo-intellectuals are capable of.

I have a pretty good record of picking dangerous phenomena ahead of time. I feel confident on this one, and that’s before we get to the demographic/class shifts in the parties.

Full piece here:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/03/matt-taibbi-was-asked-why-doesnt-he-pay-much-attention-to-the-sins-or-threats-from-the-right/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=matt-taibbi-was-asked-why-doesnt-he-pay-much-attention-to-the-sins-or-threats-from-the-right

89
Politics & Religion / When I Comes to Lying About Sex ...
« on: April 01, 2024, 11:34:07 AM »
... Trump is held to a different standard (assuming he in fact DID lie about "hush money" payments):

Lies About Sex: Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and NY States' Prosecution of Donald Trump

The Volokh Conspiracy by Steven Calabresi / Mar 30, 2024 at 10:44 PM//keep unread//hide

[Donald Trump should get the same pass for lying about sex that former president Bill Clinton got and that former 2004 Democratic Party Vice Presidential nominee John Edwards got]

The NY State criminal trial that is about to begin on April 15th is all about whether former President Donald Trump lied in his expense reports to cover up his payment of hush money to pornographic film star Stormy Daniels prior to the 2016 presidential election. NY argues that in doing this Trump violated NY State laws, almost all of which involve misdemeanor offenses. The prosecution implies that Trump's alleged lies and coverup are a violation of federal campaign finance laws, which makes the misdemeanors more serious and justifies the prosecution.

First, it is settled U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) policy not to prosecute such cases, which is one of many possible reasons why the federal government has not brought any charges against Trump about the Stormy Daniels hush money matter. Another reason is that the DOJ may think Donald Trump's expense reports were truthful as Trump claims them to be. Second, when former President Bill Clinton perjured himself and engaged in obstruction of justice by denying under oath that he had had sexual relations with then-White House intern Monica Lewinsky, both in a deposition and before a federal grand jury, the judgment of the U.S. Senate was that Bill Clinton's "lies about sex under oath" did not disqualify him from holding the presidency.

430 law professors signed a letter to the Senate on November 6, 1998 writing that "making false statements about sexual improprieties" under oath before a federal grand jury "is not a sufficient constitutional basis to justify the trial and removal of the President of the United States." Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein wrote on October 4, 1998 in The Washington Post that mere lies about sex under oath were not in his view disqualifying behavior in a president of the United States.

Both the law professors' letter and Professor Cass Sunstein's op-ed tried to argue that perjury about a person' private sex life fell in a different category from perjury about the execution of a President's political duties, which would be a disqualifying offense for a President to engage in. It was noted that people often lie about adulterous sex to protect their spouses and to preserve their marriages, and not to retain or to win the presidency.

Of course, this is exactly why Donald Trump allegedly paid Stormy Daniels what is alleged to be hush money because Trump's alleged affaire with Daniels coincided with his wife Melania giving birth to Trump's son Barron. Former President Bill Clinton's perjury under oath before a federal grand jury led to his acquittal by the Senate in his impeachment trial, and, after Clinton left office, the only penalty he paid for his lies under oath about sex to a federal grand jury was disbarment and the entry of a plea bargain. Donald Trump's alleged lies about sex in filing his expense accounts are minor compared to Bill Clinton's lies about sex under oath before a federal grand jury at a time when he had sworn that he would take care that the laws be faithfully executed. As many remember, Clinton's DNA was found on a white stain on Monika Lewinsky's blue dress proving that he had in fact had sexual relations with Lewinsky.

In 2004, the Democratic Party's nominee to be Vice President, John Edwards, paid a woman $1 million in hush money to cover up an alleged adulterous affair leading to the birth of an illegitimate child. The U.S. Justice Department prosecuted John Edwards who defended himself arguing that he was trying to protect his wife from learning about his adultery and that lies about sex and hush money to cover them up were not an illegal, unreported campaign donation. The trial resulted in a hung jury, and the U.S. Justice Department declined to re-prosecute John Edwards. The Department adopted a formal position that DOJ would not going forward prosecute as campaign finance violations the payment of hush money. Lies about sex were not fit to prosecute as campaign finance violations. Again, this explains why the federal government has declined to prosecute Donald Trump over his payments of hush money to Stormy Daniels and others.

Edwards' behavior involved much more hush money than Trump had paid, as well as the birth of an illegitimate child. If what John Edwards did was not a felony warranting jail time then what Donald Trump did in allegedly paying hush money to Stormy Daniels does not disqualify him for running for President either.

The disparate treatment of John Edwards, and Donald Trump for paying hush money and lying about having done so suggests NY State prosecutorial misconduct. Even if Trump were to be convicted in the sham proceeding set to begin on April 15th, voters should give him the same pass for lying in order to cover up adultery that was given to Bill Clinton and John Edwards.

The post Lies About Sex: Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and NY States' Prosecution of Donald Trump appeared first on Reason.com.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/03/30/lies-about-sex-bill-clinton-john-edwards-and-ny-states-prosecution-of-donald-trump/

92
Politics & Religion / Associated Press Has No Shame
« on: April 01, 2024, 11:05:49 AM »
AP actively supports the Hamas narrative while turning a blind eye to events occurring literally outside their front door in Gaza:

Hamas-shielding AP went too far
By seeking a journalism prize for its propaganda, AP showed it is irredeemably evil
APR 01, 2024

Never write angry, but this injustice is so outrageous, I might be tempted to think that self-righteous anger is a good thing in this case. But self-righteous anger belongs to God alone for He knows far more than we ever will.

So I will stick to my lane and try to deal in a calm manner with the unadulterated evil of the Associated Press. Under leadership no longer moored to facts or objectivity, it has become a worldwide propagandist for Hamas and other Islamic terrorists. Commies, too.

AP just won an award for its pro-terrorist coverage of the Palestinian attack on Israel. People call it Hamas but it is just like blaming only the Nazis for World War II because the vast majority of Germans — like the Palestinians now — were all in favor of destroying Jews and anyone else who got in their way.

For years, AP’s bureau in Gaza City provided cover for the military intelligence of Hamas. As long as AP was in there, Israel could not bomb the place.

This was an open secret. Matti Friedman wrote of it in The Atlantic in 2014:

When Hamas’s leaders surveyed their assets before this summer’s round of fighting, they knew that among those assets was the international press. The AP staff in Gaza City would witness a rocket launch right beside their office, endangering reporters and other civilians nearby—and the AP wouldn’t report it, not even in AP articles about Israeli claims that Hamas was launching rockets from residential areas. (This happened.) Hamas fighters would burst into the AP’s Gaza bureau and threaten the staff—and the AP wouldn’t report it. (This also happened.) Cameramen waiting outside Shifa Hospital in Gaza City would film the arrival of civilian casualties and then, at a signal from an official, turn off their cameras when wounded and dead fighters came in, helping Hamas maintain the illusion that only civilians were dying. (This too happened; the information comes from multiple sources with firsthand knowledge of these incidents.)

So Hamas as launching rockets protected from exposure by AP for years. Finally, Israel had enough in 2021 and called up AP and gave its staff an hour to vamoose before the IDF destroyed the building. The AP played dumb. Its president and CEO at the time, Gary Pruitt, “We have had no indication Hamas was in the building or active in the building. This is something we actively check to the best of our ability. We would never knowingly put our journalists at risk.”

No indication?

The Atlantic article was every indication that Pruitt or anyone else in management needed. The magazine laid out how AP and the rest of the news organizations do the bidding of Hamas. AP hired Hamas-approved local writers and photojournalists and failed to disclose this to readers and the news groups that paid AP for stories and photos.

If AP was not doing that — as Pruitt implied — then AP management had a duty to fight this defamation.

But it was not defamation. It was the truth — the very kryptonite of the modern news organization. And so Pruitt and the rest of the people who are supposed to make sure AP’s sticks to journalism ignored the story. They hoped it would go away.

And it did go away until October 7, 2023, when Palestinians broke the 15th ceasefire between Israel and its various attackers over the past nearly eight decades. The Palestinians raped, tortured and murdered 1,400 Jews, torturing their bodies afterward. It was a sneak attack that AP knew about in advance because when the attackers attacked, AP was there to record the savagery.

Or so a lawsuit claims.

The New York Post reported in February, “Several survivors of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel have accused the Associated Press in a new lawsuit of aiding and abetting the terrorist organization by using freelance photojournalists believed to be embedded with the violent militants.

“The plaintiffs — Israeli-Americans and Americans who attended the Nova music festival raided by Hamas as well as loved ones of victims — are suing the news outlet for damages under the Antiterrorism Act, according to the federal complaint filed in the Southern District of Florida Wednesday night.

“They are being represented by lawyers working with the nonprofit National Jewish Advocacy Center who accuse the major media company of ‘materially supporting terrorism’ by paying alleged Hamas-associated photojournalists for images captured during and immediately after the Oct. 7 invasion.”

The lawsuit says, “There is no doubt that AP’s photographers participated in the October 7th massacre, and that AP knew, or at the very least should have known, through simple due diligence, that the people they were paying were longstanding Hamas affiliates and full participants in the terrorist attack that they were also documenting.”

The Post said, “the majority of the complaint focuses on one photojournalist, Hassan Eslaiah — who has been accused of being a Hamas associate even before the terrorist groups’ bloody invasion of Israel.”

He’s the one being smooched by the Hamas commander in the photo.

Now if I faced such serious allegations, I would refrain from drawing attention to it, but AP believes it is untouchable. AP submitted the work of Eslaiah and 5 other tag-along terrorists for a journalism award. It is called spiking the ball.

AP tells readers these are just freelance photographers, but when it comes to promoting an award, they are members of Team AP.

The Organizer reported, “Freelance photojournalist Ali Mahmud, who contributed to the Associated Press and accompanied the Hamas terrorists during the October 7, 2024 attack in Israel has won the Team Picture Story of the Year awarded by Donald Reynolds Journalism Institute in the United States for the photograph of Shani Louk who was paraded naked by the Hamas terrorists before killing her.”

It’s like giving Hitler an award for the lampshade he made.

Make no mistake, this is just as evil. Those photos are trophies displayed by these terrorists on AP’s payroll. The story was polite — “Ali Mahmud is one of the journalists that travelled with terrorists into Israel and extensively covered the attack” — but these are military photographers in the Palestinian army.

My how times have changed. 14 years ago, Hearst Newspapers forced Helen Thomas to resign after she said Israelis should go back to Europe. Now such sentiment wins you an award, especially if you help terrorize Israelis.

Journalists generally are an untrustworthy group of gougers, as Breitbart reminded readers over the weekend.

It reported, “Journalists in the White House press corps covering President Joe Biden’s administration habitually steal insignia items from Air Force One, four people told West Wing Playbook.

“The looting reportedly grew to such a degree under Biden’s tenure that the president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, NBC correspondent Kelly O’Donnell, issued a terse reminder that stealing from Air Force One is not allowed, several individuals who saw the off-the-record email confirmed to Playbook.”

The thieves took:

Wine glasses
Tumblers
Gold-rimmed plates
Embroidered pillowcases
Of course they have no ethics, which is why no one should be surprised that Hamas terrorists would win a journalism award.

AP is not good at its propaganda because the majority of Americans still support Israel over the barbarians who include AP journalists.

It has not been easy for Israel. Obama and the rest of the American left (as well as the useless dolts at the UN) have played a big roll in deflecting attention from what Hamas did into lies about hospitals being bombed. Gaza City seems to have the world’s highest hospitals per capita level in the world.

That’s because Gaza City is one big human shield for an underground military base.

And AP’s office may have moved but it is still an intricate part of that shield. It is hypocritical of AP to complain about Trump’s treatment of the press while voluntarily serving as a PR team for terrorists. Is it money from a payoff or just deep-seated anti-Semitism?

https://donsurber.substack.com/p/hamas-shielding-ap-went-too-far?r=1qo1e&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&triedRedirect=true

95
Director Wray testifies that the FBI abides by all legal requirements as he testifies in support of 702, the surveillance regimen that replaced the Patriot Act. Social media jumps in can corrects his lies:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/03/30/this-fbi-tweet-just-got-nuked-by-community-notes-n2637139?fbclid=IwAR1rh92TQfrLdYL1uMripGsKJmOWd83oS9PRaDLo7V4rVnWzcQ-l_QVkXuY

96
Politics & Religion / Caliber Changing Scary Black Guns …
« on: March 30, 2024, 05:33:30 PM »

97
Politics & Religion / Stacked in More Ways than One
« on: March 29, 2024, 08:21:02 AM »
In a shocking development, an amateur Aussie “women’s’ soccer team with five transgender player sweeps a tournament:

https://nypost.com/2024/03/27/us-news/outrage-after-flying-bats-soccer-team-goes-undefeated-with-5-transgender-players/

98
Politics & Religion / Chinese Consumer Confidence Crashes
« on: March 29, 2024, 07:51:57 AM »
Trust in government is low in China, too:

Foreign investors aren’t the only ones bailing on China
The Hill News / by Nicholas Sargen / Mar 29, 2024 at 8:39 AM

One of the top priorities of China’s policymakers has been to stabilize the country’s equity and property markets. China’s stock market has trailed the S&P 500 index substantially since 2017, and the gap has increased in the past few years as the property bubble burst. 

China had the worst return among markets in the MSCI World index last year, and the loss in value of both mainland and Hong Kong-listed stocks from the peak in 2021 now exceeds $6 trillion according to Fortune.

In response, China’s government has adopted a series of measures to bolster the markets and stem foreign capital flight. Yet, domestic investors are also losing confidence in economic policies, as problems in the property sector are spreading, a record number of young people are unemployed and the country is flirting with deflation.

Earlier this month investors were focused on the National People’s Congress in Beijing, where China’s leaders unveiled plans about the country’s medium-term economic objectives. In the keynote speech, Premier Li Qiang reaffirmed the government’s target growth rate of 5 percent but offered no assessment of how it would be achieved. Scott Campbell of Time contends that policymakers appear to have their “head in the sand.” 

Some investors were disappointed that the government did not announce plans to increase spending to bolster the economy and property market. However, with China’s overall debt to GDP at a record 288 percent last year, additional debt-financed spending would only exacerbate the problem of economic inefficiency. 

Rather, the key issue confronting China is the need to tackle its massive excess savings. To do so, the government should re-embark on economic reforms incentivizing households to increase consumption, which is less than 40 percent of GDP.

This goal has topped the list of the country’s policy priorities since 2007, a year before Western economies were reeling from the 2008 global financial crisis. Subsequently, China’s five-year plan covering 2011-15 called for transitioning the economy from export and investment-led growth to greater reliance on domestic consumption. This goal was reiterated in the latest government plan that covers the period from 2022 to 2035.

Thus far, however, there is little to show for it, and the problem of excess saving is becoming intractable.

Martin Wolf of the Financial Times points out that China generated 28 percent of global savings in 2023 according to the IMF. This tally is only a little less than the 33 percent share of the U.S. and European Union combined. 

He points out two important implications. First, if China were an open market economy, its capital markets would be the largest in the world. Second, how these savings are managed would be the most important determinant of global interest rates and the global balance of payments.

If the share of domestic consumption to GDP fails to increase and the budget imbalance is unchanged, the gap between domestic savings and investment would be channeled either as increased capital flight from China or increased exports from China to the rest of the world. With China’s government aiming to expand production of electronic vehicles, the risk of a renewed trade conflict between China and the U.S. and EU is likely to increase in the next year or two, as I have warned previously.

Another risk is that troubles in the property sector will continue to weigh on consumer confidence. 

A New York Federal Reserve report points to a recent survey conducted by the People’s Bank of China that documents growing concerns among property owners in the country. The survey shows that 15 percent of households have suffered declines in income since the pandemic struck, and some 43 percent of respondents were insecure about their jobs. Accordingly, 60 percent of households surveyed told the People’s Bank of China they must prioritize saving over consumption.

During the 10 years before COVID, household borrowing averaged over 25 percent annually to finance real estate purchases according to the New York Federal Reserve. Property was the most important store of value for households, accounting for roughly two-thirds of household assets, while over 80 percent owned residences. 

Subsequently, as their balance sheets suffered amid the collapse of economic activity that ensued, households responded by paying down mortgage debt and increasing long-term bank deposits to earn interest income. Yet, as the Bank of China eases monetary policy to combat the risk of deflation, their incentives to continue doing so may lessen over time. 

So, what can the Chinese government do to rebuild consumer confidence?

My assessment is it will not be easy for two reasons. First, whenever confidence is shattered it inevitably takes considerable time to rebuild public trust. Second, the government has repeatedly failed to adopt policies to transform China’s development model away from export and investment-led growth to rely more on domestic consumption. Moreover, it shows no inclination to do so now, as it has placed political priorities ahead of economic goals. 

Finally, I do not foresee China’s property bubble playing out as it did in Japan in the 1990s or the U.S. 15 years ago, because China’s government controls the banking system. Rather, it will likely be a slow, steady grind that will weigh on the country’s growth prospects for years to come.   

In these circumstances, the government’s attempts to bolster China’s stock and property market face a steep uphill battle. 

Nicholas Sargen, Ph.D., is an economic consultant for Fort Washington Investment Advisors and is affiliated with the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business.  He has authored three books including “Global Shocks: An Investment Guide for Turbulent Markets.”

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/4561718-foreign-investors-arent-the-only-ones-bailing-on-china/

99

District Court Judgment in 303 Creative v. Elenis (the Wedding Web Site Design Case)
The Volokh Conspiracy / by Eugene Volokh / Mar 28, 2024 at 5:45 PM

Following the Supreme Court's remand to the Tenth Circuit, which in turn led to the remand to district court, Chief Judge Philip Brimmer (D. Colo.) rendered the following order Tuesday:

It is ORDERED that plaintiffs are the prevailing parties in this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). Plaintiffs and their counsel are entitled to recover their reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses for work related to litigation before the district court. It is further

ORDERED that the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause prohibits Colorado from enforcing the Accommodation Clause of Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act ("CADA"), Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601(2)(a)), to compel plaintiffs to create custom websites celebrating or depicting same-sex weddings or otherwise create or depict original, expressive, graphic or website designs inconsistent with her beliefs regarding same-sex marriage. It is further

ORDERED that the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause prohibits Colorado from enforcing CADA's Communication Clause to prevent plaintiffs from posting the following statement on her website or from making materially similar statements on her website and directly to prospective clients:

I firmly believe that God is calling me to this work. Why? I am personally convicted that He wants me – during these uncertain times for those who believe in biblical marriage – to shine His light and not stay silent. He is calling me to stand up for my faith, to explain His true story about marriage, and to use the talents and business He gave me to publicly proclaim and celebrate His design for marriage as a life-long union between one man and one woman.

These same religious convictions that motivate me also prevent me from creating websites promoting and celebrating ideas or messages that violate my beliefs. So I will not be able to create websites for same-sex marriages or any other marriage that is not between one man and one woman. Doing that would compromise my Christian witness and tell a story about marriage that contradicts God's true story of marriage – the very story He is calling me to promote.

It is further ORDERED that defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and those acting in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this order are permanently enjoined from enforcing:

[a.] CADA's Accommodations Clause to compel plaintiffs to create custom websites celebrating or depicting same-sex weddings or otherwise to create or depict original, expressive, graphic or website designs inconsistent with her beliefs regarding same-sex marriage; and

[b.] CADA's Communication Clause to prevent plaintiffs from posting the above statement on her website and from making materially similar statements on her website and directly to prospective clients….

For more on the reasoning, see the full order. The quick summary of the underlying factual dispute:

Plaintiff Lorie Smith, through her business, plaintiff 303 Creative LLC …, offers a variety of creative services, including website design, to the public. Ms. Smith intends to expand the scope of 303 Creative's services to include the design, creation, and publication of wedding websites. However, plaintiffs will decline any request to design, create, or promote content that promotes any conception of marriage other than marriage between one man and one woman. Plaintiffs have designed an addition to 303 Creative's website that includes a statement that they will not create websites "celebrating same-sex marriages or any other marriage that contradicts God's design for marriage."

The post District Court Judgment in 303 Creative v. Elenis (the Wedding Web Site Design Case) appeared first on Reason.com.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/03/28/district-court-judgment-in-303-creative-v-elenis-the-wedding-web-site-design-case/

100
Politics & Religion / Returned Ballots: A Recipe for Electoral Fraud
« on: March 28, 2024, 08:22:00 PM »
Returned ballots are harvested, perhaps via postal workers, completed for the preferred (Dem) candidate, and then remained as valid, among other tidbits found here:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/leading-milwaukee-democrat-kimberly-zapata-found-guilty-all/

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 35