GOP Rep. Vows to Block Biden from Weaponizing Treasury to Unleash ESG

“The House Financial Services Committee will hold the Administration accountable for its continued efforts to force their political priorities through our financial system,” Chairman Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) vowed Tuesday, reacting to the Treasury Department’s release of nine “principles” for financial institutions to follow. “With Treasury’s most recent guidance, the Biden Administration is again prioritizing its progressive climate agenda over sound economic management,” Chairman McHenry said in a statement, warning that, while Treasury claims its standards are “voluntary,” institutions will be punished if they don’t comply: “Regulators should be focused on immediate risks to our financial system—not climate policy beyond their expertise and statutory authority. ‘With only a thin veil of setting ‘voluntary standards,’ these so-called principles will almost surely be enforced as though they are laws by unelected federal regulators and Treasury officials who continue to overreach.” “It’s clear Treasury’s intention is to direct credit to politically favored activities in order to appease far-left climate activists,” Chairman McHenry said, promising that his committee “will hold the Administration accountable” for using the Treasury Department to coerce compliance with its political goals. Indeed, Treasury’s nine “principles” encourage financial institutions to invest in, and provide credit to, companies that comply with radical leftist Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) ideology – while shunning those (such as producer of traditional energy) that don’t: “Financial institutions should assess client and portfolio company alignment to their (i.e., financial institutions’) targets and to limiting the increase in the global average temperature to 1.5°C.” (Principle 4). “Financial institutions should align engagement practices — with clients, portfolio companies, and other stakeholders — to their commitments.” (Principle 5) “Incorporating net-zero objectives into resource allocation and business planning…Financial institutions should develop and execute an implementation strategy that integrates the goals of their commitments into relevant aspects of their businesses and operating procedures.” (Principle 6) “Financial institutions should establish robust governance processes to provide oversight of the implementation of their commitments.” (Principle 7) “Financial institutions should, in the context of activities associated with their net-zero transition plans, account for environmental justice and environmental impacts, where applicable.” (Principle 8) The Treasury Department’s advice tells financial institutions to “reallocate financing, investment, and advisory services away from clients and portfolio companies that over time act in ways inconsistent with a financial institution’s commitment and transition plan. In those cases, such reallocation can reduce a financial institution’s exposure to companies facing high transition risk.” Furthermore, financial institutions should be prepared to defend their business decisions, Treasury says: “An institution providing transition finance should be able to explain how its financing results in reductions of its client’s or portfolio company’s emissions. “For example, a financial institution could provide capital to a steel company that is acquiring lower-emitting electric arc furnaces. An institution providing transition finance should be able to explain how its financing results in reductions of its client’s or portfolio company’s emissions.” The Treasury Department’s ESG advocacy doesn’t stop with financial institutions, however. On Tuesday, the Treasury Department convened a meeting of the Treasury Advisory Committee on Racial Equity, whose members advise Treasury Department leadership on “economic and fairness” initiatives – such as “rebalancing enforcement priorities toward high-income, high-wealth individuals, large corporations, and complex partnerships.” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Climate Counselor Ethan Zindler also met with leadership from philanthropies in order to counsel them on how to skew their donations and grants to favor those who support green energy and seek to eliminate carbon emissions. Editor’s Note: This piece was originally published on

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

Democrats Say It’ll Take A Lot More Than Eyewitness Testimony, Bank Records, Audio, Video, & Complete Confessions For Them To Believe Biden Did Anything Wrong

Democrats Say It’ll Take A Lot More Than Eyewitness Testimony, Bank Records, Audio, Video, & Complete Confessions For Them To Believe Biden Did Anything Wrong

Via Babylon Bee,

As evidence of bribery and corruption by the Biden family continues to mount, Democrat lawmakers in the nation’s capital have expressed heavy skepticism, saying they will need a lot more than just eyewitnesses, financial records, audio and video recordings, and admissions of guilt from parties involved for them to believe any of it.

"Nah, I’m not buying it," said California Congressman Eric Swalwell.

"If you’re wanting me to believe President Biden and his family have been involved in a far-reaching money-for-favors scheme for years, you’ll need to show me a lot more than rock-solid, irrefutable evidence. If the Biden family was corrupt, I think I would have heard about it from my Chinese spy girlfriend."

The Biden administration maintains absolute innocence, despite an ever-growing collection of evidence that would indicate otherwise.

"The President and his family have done nothing wrong," said White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who is a woman and also black and also gay.

"It’s completely normal for families to enrich themselves by selling political influence to foreign corporations and governments. Any assertion to the contrary is simply Republicans grasping at straws. Also, I will not be taking any more questions regarding bribery allegations."

As rumors swirled that additional audio recordings of President Biden accepting bribes may soon be released, Democrats continued to brush them off.

"I see nothing wrong here," said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

"So he’s on tape taking bribes. It’s not like it proves he took bribes or something."

At publishing time, Republicans in Congress said they were waiting on several more truckloads of evidence before beginning impeachment proceedings.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 08/12/2023 – 15:30

via ZeroHedge News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

AMERICANS NOT FOOLED – Two Thirds of Americans Believe 2020 Election was Rigged, The Feds Incited Jan 6, and the Bidens are a Crime Family 

This article originally appeared on and was republished with permission.

Two out of three Americans are awake and not woke.  They see that truth behind the many lies from the Democrats and their corrupt media and Big Tech.

In April, a poll at Rasmussen Reports reported that two-thirds of Americans suspect that the Feds incited the Jan 6 riots.

Rasmussen Poll Shows that a Majority of Americans (65%) Suspect Feds Incited J6 Riot

This poll was before the former head of the Capitol Police spoke with Tucker Carlson and shared that Jan 6 was all a setup to get President Trump.

In May, a poll by Rasmussen Reports found that 62% of Americans believed that the 2020 Election was stolen.  This number has grown over time.


Also in May, a super majority of Americans per a Rasmussen poll showed that they believed the Biden gang’s crimes related to foreign influence peddling were a big deal.

Super Majority of Americans (69%) Believe the Biden Gang’s Crimes Related to Foreign Influence Peddling Are a Big Deal

These poll results agree with a Daily Mail poll from today that show:

Americans by wide margins say President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, violated a law against peddling foreign influence, a poll shows, amid swirling allegations about the first family’s business dealings.

Fully 63 percent of voters say the president breached the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which obliges people to declare foreign interests, when he served as vice president and his son worked with the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma.

Americans know the truth and are going around the many lies from the globalist, evil, criminal, communist and corrupt left and their fake media pushers. 

The post AMERICANS NOT FOOLED – Two Thirds of Americans Believe 2020 Election was Rigged, The Feds Incited Jan 6, and the Bidens are a Crime Family  appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

Walt Disney Would Be Appalled At What His Company Has Become

There’s little doubt that Walt Disney, and by extension the company he founded, was one of the greatest pop culture icons of the 20th century, and that influence continues right into the present day.

Walt’s determination to appeal to both children and their parents represents a core reason for Disney’s enduring legacy. But, at least at first, it was also clear that the Walt Disney Company’s values were rooted in those of America at large. “Disneyland is dedicated to the ideals, the dreams, and the hard facts that have created America, with the hope that it will be a source of joy and inspiration to all the world,” Walt said of the iconic theme park.

And he wanted Main Street U.S.A., the first “themed land” visitors experience when they enter the park, to represent “everyone’s hometown … the heart line of America.”

But the modern Walt Disney Company seems to be at odds with that notion, with many conservatives arguing that it has strayed far from Walt’s wholesome and patriotic vision. In the last few years, the company has become ever more embroiled in the culture wars. It has filled its recent movie and television content with nods to leftist ideologies, from transgenderism to reparations. One executive producer for Disney boasted during a staff meeting about her “not-at-all-secret gay agenda.”

Additionally, the company has become embroiled in a conflict with the state of Florida over the state’s legislation that prohibits schools from teaching children from kindergarten through 8th grade about gender identity and sexual orientation.

In contrast with the leftward drift the company has experienced, its founder took the opposite route — evolving from a relatively non-political businessman into a strident anti-communist and impassioned advocate for American ideals.

Walt Disney was born in Chicago in 1901, but his family moved to Marceline, Missouri, when he was four. There, Disney became interested in drawing, and the family was active in a local Congregationalist church. The Disney family moved to Kansas City, Missouri, and eventually back to Chicago, where Walt took classes at the Chicago Academy of Fine Arts.

(Original Caption) Thousands of people in all parts of the world laugh at and enjoy the antics of Mickey Mouse, the star of stars, but few know the pain staking and intricate work necessary in making of the popular films. Scores of artists and sound experts work in the Mickey Mouse Studios just outside of Los Angeles making thousands of drawings and accompaniment under the direction of Walt Disney, creator of Mickey Mouse. This photo shows Disney at his desk in his studio.

Bettmann/Contributor. Getty Images.

After the U.S. Army rejected him for being too young, Disney joined the Red Cross in September 1918 as an ambulance driver, but he arrived in France after the armistice that ended World War I. After his stint in the Red Cross, he initially returned to Kansas City to pursue cartoons as a career but soon traveled to Los Angeles to meet up with his brother, Roy O. Disney. Together, they founded the Disney Brothers Studio, which would eventually become The Walt Disney Company, and began producing short cartoon films. The company achieved its breakthrough with 1928’s “Steamboat Willie,” considered to be the debut of Mickey Mouse and the first fully synchronized sound cartoon.

The creation and success of Mickey Mouse cartoons propelled Disney to the forefront of animation in Hollywood in the 1930s to the early ’40s, cemented by the release of such classics as “Snow White” and “Pinocchio.”

Despite the massive political upheaval taking place in the U.S. in the early 1930s as a result of the Great Depression and the first round of Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, Disney was reportedly reluctant to even discuss politics. Joe Grant, who worked on “Snow White,” “Pinocchio,” and “Dumbo,” said that Disney was “very apolitical, believe me,” according to a 2007 biography of Disney by journalist Neal Gabler.

He reportedly voted for Roosevelt in the 1936 presidential election, which Roosevelt won in a landslide based on the mass appeal of the New Deal.

(Original Caption) Walt Disney, celebrated cartoonist and the creator of Mickey Mouse, is shown on the beach at Waikiki playing on a ukulele, while his brother and business manager, Roy, makes him the subject of a movie. Bettmann/Contributor. Getty Images.

(Original Caption) Walt Disney, celebrated cartoonist and the creator of Mickey Mouse, is shown on the beach at Waikiki playing on a ukulele, while his brother and business manager, Roy, makes him the subject of a movie. Bettmann/Contributor. Getty Images.

Disney switched his support to the Republican Party in the 1940 presidential election, an affiliation that he would maintain for the rest of his life. Wendell Willkie, a businessman from New York who had never previously held political office and had only become a Republican in 1939, clinched the GOP nomination as a dark horse at the national convention. There was very little difference between Roosevelt and Willkie on the major issues of the campaign — both supported the New Deal and material support for the Allies in World War II “short of war.”

“In the election of 1936, I just couldn’t go Republican. … Roy and I split. Roy went Republican and I voted for Roosevelt. By 1940 and everything that happened in the next four years, I was right back on the other bandwagon. I became a [Wendell] Willkie man. He was a great man,” Disney reportedly told a writer.

Disney declined to officially endorse Willkie and even expressed his wish to stay out of politics, telling the Willkie campaign in a letter that “a long time ago I found out that I knew nothing whatsoever about the game of politics and since then I’ve preferred to keep silent about the entire matter rather than see my name attached to any statement that was not my own.”

After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and American’s entry into World War II, Disney’s involvement in politics began to change. Half of Walt Disney Studios in Burbank, California, were occupied by U.S. troops in order to protect a nearby Lockheed aircraft factory from possible air raids (none ever occurred).

Soon, the U.S. government approached Disney with a contract to make propaganda films to help the war effort. The company ultimately made short films for every branch of the military during the war, including the Academy Award-winning 1943 short film “Der Fuehrer’s Face” (in which Donald Duck takes on Hitler) and the more serious “Victory Through Air Power.”

(Original Caption) Prompted by increasing requests from Army, Navy, and Air Corps branches, Walt Disney artists are now working on defense orders for service insignias. Walt Disney shows Air Corps officer Lieutenant Claude Pevey and insignia recently designed for the Navy's torpedo boats, known as the mosquito fleet. Bettmann/Contributor. Getty Images.

Bettmann/Contributor. Getty Images.

His first explicit endorsement of a presidential candidate was given to Thomas Dewey, the Republican nominee in the 1944 presidential election — once again facing Roosevelt.

He allowed Dewey to hold a rally on studio grounds, donated generously to the Dewey campaign, and even gave a speech in support of Dewey in Los Angeles to a rally of reportedly 93,000 people in September 1944. Other Hollywood stars who came out in support of Dewey at the rally included Lionel Barrymore, Barbara Stanwyck, and Cecil B. DeMille.

Roosevelt again won the White House, for an unprecedented fourth term that would be cut short by his death in April 1945, but it was the closest of his presidential campaigns.

It’s been speculated that the rise of unions in Hollywood, and in the Disney company specifically, provided the catalyst for Walt’s political awakening. After a strike by Disney employees in May 1941 while the company was in dire financial straits, Disney became fiercely anti-communist, believing American communists were behind the labor disputes.

“I definitely feel it was a Communist group trying to take over my artists and they did take them over,” Disney reportedly said about the 1941 strike.

However, Disney never discriminated against employees based on their personal political leanings, according to a biography by historian Michael Barrier.

“He was not an aggressive Red hunter; his conservatism had a strongly personal cast. An employee’s politics were not of any particular concern to him if that employee was not challenging him,” Barrier wrote.

The experience with the Dewey campaign as well as the animators’ strike would cause Disney to become more politically involved in the late 1940s and ’50s, and Walt’s conservative values would become more pronounced as time went on.

The difference between the founder of Disney and its modern iteration could not be more stark. Whereas Walt Disney was personally a Republican but tried to stay out of politics as much as possible in his early life, the modern Walt Disney Company seems to have been overrun by avowed leftist ideologues who are determined to inject politics into all of the company’s products.

(Disclosure: The Daily Wire has announced plans for kids entertainment content.)

via The Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

French Cops Can Now Secretly Activate Phone Cameras Microphones And GPS To Spy On Citizens

French Cops Can Now Secretly Activate Phone Cameras, Microphones And GPS To Spy On Citizens

Cops in France have been granted the authority to remotely activate a suspect’s cellphone camera, microphone and GPS, after the passage of a provision in a wider “justice reform bill” on Wednesday night.

The bill allows the geolocation of crime suspects, covering other devices like laptops, cars and connected devices, just as it could be remotely activated to record sound and images of people suspected of terror offences, as well as delinquency and organised crime. –People’s Gazette

According to French digital rights advocacy group, La Quadrature du Net, the provisions “raise serious concerns over infringements of fundamental liberties,” and violate the “right to security, right to a private life and to private correspondence” and “the right to come and go freely.”

The group called it part of a “slide into heavy-handed security.”

Lawmakers defended the move – with Justice Minister Eric Dupond-Moretti insisting that the bill would only apply to “dozens of cases a year,” while members of parliament inserted an amendment inserted an amendment which only allows the remote spying “when justified by the nature and seriousness of the crime” and “for a strictly proportional duration” after a judge has approved the surveillance.

Lawmakers also insisted that sensitive professions, such as journalists, judges, lawyers, doctors and MPs would not be legitimate targets, People’s Gazette reports.

Last month, the Senate gave the green light to the provision of the justice bill, which would allow law enforcement to secretly activate cameras and microphones on a suspect’s devices. 

Since 2015, when terrorist attacks rocked France, the country has increased its surveillance powers, and the “Keeper of the Seal” bill has been likened to the infamous US Patriot Act.

“We’re far away from the totalitarianism of ”1984”,” said Dupond-Moretti, adding “People’s lives will be saved” by the law.

Of note, France’s dystopian law is similar to those used by the US FBI in the wake of 9/11, when the government’s use of “roving bugs” came to light in a court case involving an organized crime family.

“Roving bugs” pick up room audio as opposed to traditional wiretaps in which wireless phone conversations and other electronic communications are monitored-subject to court order-by the FBI. Both forms of electronic surveillance are covered by a 1986 law authorizing roving wiretaps, which gives law enforcement flexibility to eavesdrop continuously on suspects who often change locations and use different phones to avoid detection.

Constant movement of suspects was the situation in this case, frustrating the FBI to the point that it applied for and received from a federal judge eavesdropping authority under the roving wiretap statute. With a twist. Government investigators were able to listen to conversations of organized crime suspects even when their cell phones were turned off-at least as far as the suspects were concerned.

U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan rejected defendants’ arguments that “roving bugs” violated their constitutional rights, noting the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1993 upheld the roving wiretap statute in an identical legal challenge. –

How nice.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/07/2023 – 05:45

via ZeroHedge News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

Target Caves: Will Stock Mark Levin’s ‘The Democrat Party Hates America’

Target reversed course Thursday and agreed to stock conservative radio host Mark Levin’s forthcoming book, The Democrat Party Hates America, after criticism and outage over the chain store’s apparent hypocrisy.

Levin made the announcement on his Thursday evening radio show, after informing listeners the night before that Target had told his publisher, Simon & Schuster, that it would not stock the book because of its title.

Target had already been in the news in recent weeks due to its decision to stock clothes marketed for Pride month, including what the Associated Press called “‘tuck friendly’ women’s swimsuits that allow trans women who have not had gender-affirming operations to conceal their private parts.” The chain did not supply those suits for children but did include other products for children that had Pride month and transgender themes.

Conservatives were outraged over the store’s apparent willingness to stock items that pushed a left-wing agenda while banning a book from its shelves that reflected a conservative view (it would still sell the book online).

After Breitbart News and others reported that Target had decided not to display Levin’s book, the store came under pressure from conservatives who vowed that they would boycott the store, prompting it to change course.

Levin thanked and congratulated his audience Thursday on his radio show, noting they had acted on their own volition, without any organized boycott effort: “We have a massive audience, an enormously loyal audience.

“So I want to thank you folks — I want to thank some of our friends on Capitol Hill who jumped in — not at my request; I want to thank our friends in the media who jumped in — again, not at my request,” Levin said.

“Enough is enough. We’re sick and tired of this whole thing … And this demonstrates the strength that you have. … It also demonstrates the strength of this platform that I’m on. Millions, and millions, and millions of patriots.”

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

How The “Unvaccinated” Got It Right

How The "Unvaccinated" Got It Right

Authored by Robin Koerner via The Brownstone Institute,

Scott Adams is the creator of the famous cartoon strip, Dilbert. It is a strip whose brilliance derives from close observation and understanding of human behavior. Some time ago, Scott turned those skills to commenting insightfully and with notable intellectual humility on the politics and culture of our country.

Like many other commentators, and based on his own analysis of evidence available to him, he opted to take the Covid “vaccine.”

Recently, however, he posted a video on the topic that has been circulating on social media. It was a mea culpa in which he declared, “The unvaccinated were the winners,” and, to his great credit, “I want to find out how so many of [my viewers] got the right answer about the “vaccine” and I didn’t.” 

“Winners” was perhaps a little tongue-in-cheek: he seemingly means that the “unvaccinated” do not have to worry about the long-term consequences of having the “vaccine” in their bodies since enough data concerning the lack of safety of the “vaccines” have now appeared to demonstrate that, on the balance of risks, the choice not to be “vaccinated” has been vindicated for individuals without comorbidities.

What follows is a personal response to Scott, which explains how consideration of the information that was available at the time led one person – me – to decline the “vaccine.” It is not meant to imply that all who accepted the “vaccine” made the wrong decision or, indeed, that everyone who declined it did so for good reasons. 

  1. Some people have said that the “vaccine” was created in a hurry. That may or may not be true. Much of the research for mRNA “vaccines” had already been done over many years, and corona-viruses as a class are well understood so it was at least feasible that only a small fraction of the “vaccine” development had been hurried.

    The much more important point was that the “vaccine” was rolled out without long-term testing. Therefore one of two conditions applied. Either no claim could be made with confidence about the long-term safety of the “vaccine” or there was some amazing scientific argument for a once-in-a-lifetime theoretical certainty concerning the long-term safety of this “vaccine.” The latter would be so extraordinary that it might (for all I know) even be a first in the history of medicine. If that were the case, it would have been all that was being talked about by the scientists; it was not. Therefore, the more obvious, first state of affairs, obtained: nothing could be claimed with confidence about the long-term safety of the “vaccine.”

    Given, then, that the long-term safety of the “vaccine” was a theoretical crapshoot, the unquantifiable long-term risk of taking it could only be justified by an extremely high certain risk of not taking it. Accordingly, a moral and scientific argument could only be made for its use by those at high risk of severe illness if exposed to COVID. Even the very earliest data immediately showed that I (and the overwhelming majority of the population) was not in the group.

    The continued insistence on rolling out the “vaccine” to the entire population when the data revealed that those with no comorbidities were at low risk of severe illness or death from COVID was therefore immoral and ascientific on its face. The argument that reduced transmission from the non-vulnerable to the vulnerable as a result of mass “vaccination” could only stand if the long-term safety of the “vaccine” had been established, which it had not. Given the lack of proof of long-term safety, the mass-“vaccination” policy was clearly putting at risk young or healthy lives to save old and unhealthy ones. The policy makers did not even acknowledge this, express any concern about the grave responsibility they were taking on for knowingly putting people at risk, or indicate how they had weighed the risks before reaching their policy positions. Altogether, this was a very strong reason not to trust the policy or the people setting it.

    At the very least, if the gamble with people’s health and lives represented by the coercive “vaccination” policy had been taken following an adequate cost-benefit benefit, that decision would have been a tough judgment call. Any honest presentation of it would have involved the equivocal language of risk-balancing and the public availability of information about how the risks were weighed and the decision was made. In fact, the language of policy-makers was dishonestly unequivocal and the advice they offered suggested no risk whatsoever of taking the “vaccine.” This advice was simply false (or if you prefer, misleading,) on the evidence of the time inasmuch as it was unqualified.

  1. Data that did not support COVID policies were actively and massively suppressed. This raised the bar of sufficient evidence for certainty that the “vaccine” was safe and efficacious. Per the foregoing, the bar was not met. 
  1. Simple analyses of even the early available data showed that the establishment was prepared to do much more harm in terms of human rights and spending public resources to prevent a COVID death than any other kind of death. Why this disproportionality? An explanation of this overreaction was required. The kindest guess as to what was driving it was “good-old, honest panic.” But if a policy is being driven by panic, then the bar for going along with it moves up even higher. A less kind guess is that there were undeclared reasons for the policy, in which case, obviously, the “vaccine” could not be trusted. 
  1. Fear had clearly generated a health panic and a moral panic, or mass formation psychosis. That brought into play many very strong cognitive biases and natural human tendencies against rationality and proportionality. Evidence of those biases was everywhere; it included the severing of close kin and kith relationships, the ill-treatment of people by others who used to be perfectly decent, the willingness of parents to cause developmental harm to their children, calls for large-scale rights violations that were made by large numbers of citizens of previously free countries without any apparent concern for the horrific implications of those calls, and the straight-faced, even anxious, compliance with policies that should have warranted responses of laughter from psychologically healthy individuals (even if they had been necessary or just helpful). In the grip of such panic or mass formation psychosis the evidential bar for extreme claims (such as the safety and moral necessity of injecting oneself with a form of gene therapy that has not undergone long-term testing) rises yet further.
  1. The companies responsible for manufacturing and ultimately profiting from the “vaccination” were given legal immunity. Why would a government do that if it really believed that the “vaccine” was safe and wanted to instill confidence in it? And why would I put something in my body that the government has decided can harm me without my having any legal redress?
  1. If the “vaccine”-sceptical were wrong, there would still have been two good reasons not to suppress their data or views. First, we are a liberal democracy that values free speech as a fundamental right and second, their data and arguments could be shown to be fallacious. The fact that the powers-that-be decided to violate our fundamental values and suppress discussion invites the question of “Why?” That was not satisfactorily answered beyond, “It’s easier for them to impose their mandates in a world where people do not dissent:” but that is an argument against compliance, rather than for it. Suppressing information a priori suggests that the information has persuasive force. I distrust anyone who distrusts me to determine which information and arguments are good and which are bad when it is my health that is at stake – especially when the people who are promoting censorship are hypocritically acting against their declared beliefs in informed consent and bodily autonomy.
  1. The PCR test was held up as the “gold standard” diagnostic test for COVID. A moment’s reading about how the PCR test works indicates that it is no such thing. Its use for diagnostic purposes is more of an art than a science, to put it kindly. Kary Mullis, who in 1993 won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for inventing the PCR technique risked his career to say as much when people tried to use it as a diagnostic test for HIV to justify a mass program of pushing experimental anti-retroviral drugs on early AIDS patients, which ultimately killed tens of thousands of people. This raises the question, “How do the people who are generating the data that we saw on the news every night and were being used to justify the mass “vaccination” policy handle the uncertainty around PCR-based diagnoses?” If you don’t have a satisfactory answer to this question, your bar for taking the risk of “vaccination” should once again go up. (On a personal note, to get the answer before making my decision about whether to undergo “vaccination,” I sent exactly this question, via a friend, to an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins. That epidemiologist, who was personally involved in generating the up-to-date data on the spread of pandemic globally, replied merely that s/he works with the data s/he’s given and does not question its accuracy or means of generation. In other words, the pandemic response was largely based on data generated by processes that were not understood or even questioned by the generators of that data.) 
  1. To generalize the last point, a supposedly conclusive claim by someone who demonstrably cannot justify their claim should be discounted. In the case of the COVID pandemic, almost all people who acted as if the “vaccine” was safe and effective had no physical or informational evidence for the claims of safety and efficacy beyond the supposed authority of other people who made them. This includes many medical professionals – a problem that was being raised by some of their number (who, in many cases, were censored on social media and even lost their jobs or licenses). Anyone could read the CDC infographics on mRNA “vaccines” and, without being a scientist, generate obvious “But what if..?” questions that could be asked of experts to check for themselves whether the pushers of the “vaccines” would personally vouch for their safety. For example, the CDC put out an infographic that stated the following.

    “How does the vaccine work?

    The mRNA in the vaccine teaches your cells how to make copies of the spike protein. If you are exposed to the real virus later, your body will recognize it and know how to fight it off. After the mRNA delivers the instructions, your cells break it down and get rid of it.”

    All right. Here are some obvious questions to ask, then. “What happens if the instructions delivered to cells to generate the spike protein are not eliminated from the body as intended? How can we be sure that such a situation will never arise?” If someone cannot answer those questions, and he is in a position of political or medical authority, then he shows himself to be willing to push potentially harmful policies without considering the risks involved.

  2. Given all of the above, a serious person at least had to keep an eye out for published safety and efficacy data as the pandemic proceeded. Pfizer’s Six-month Safety and Efficacy Study was notable. The very large number of its authors was remarkable and their summary claim was that the tested vaccine was effective and safe. The data in the paper showed more deaths per head in the “vaccinated” group than “unvaccinated” group.

While this difference does not statistically establish that the shot is dangerous or ineffective, the generated data were clearly compatible with (let us put it kindly) the incomplete safety of the “vaccine” – at odds with the front-page summary. (It’s almost as if even professional scientists and clinicians exhibit bias and motivated reasoning when their work becomes politicized.) At the very least, a lay reader could see that the “summary findings” stretched, or at least showed a remarkable lack of curiosity about, the data – especially given what was at stake and the awesome responsibility of getting someone to put something untested inside their body.

  1. As time went on, it became very clear that some of the informational claims that had been made to convince people to get “vaccinated,” especially by politicians and media commentators, were false. If those policies had been genuinely justified by the previously claimed “facts,” then determination of the falsity of those “facts” should have resulted in a change in policy or, at the very least, expressions of clarification and regret by people who had previously made those incorrect but pivotal claims. Basic moral and scientific standards demand that individuals put clearly on the record the requisite corrections and retractions of statements that might influence decisions that affect health. If they don’t, they should not be trusted – especially given the huge potential consequences of their informational errors for an increasingly “vaccinated” population. That, however, never happened. If the “vaccine”-pushers had acted in good faith, then in the wake of the publication of new data throughout the pandemic, we would have been hearing (and perhaps even accepting) multiple mea culpas. We heard no such thing from political officials, revealing an almost across-the-board lack of integrity, moral seriousness, or concern with accuracy. The consequently necessary discounting of the claims previously made by officials left no trustworthy case on the pro-lockdown, pro-“vaccine” side at all.

    To offer some examples of statements that were proven false by data but not explicitly walked back:

    “You’re not going to get COVID if you get these vaccinations… We are in a pandemic of the unvaccinated.” – Joe Biden;

    “The vaccines are safe. I promise you…” – Joe Biden;

    “The vaccines are safe and effective.” – Anthony Fauci.

    “Our data from the CDC suggest that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, do not get sick – and it’s not just in the clinical trials but it’s also in real world data.” – Dr. Rochelle Walensky.

    “We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in… in serious condition and many on ventilators.” – Justice Sotomayer (during a case to determine legality of Federal “vaccine” mandates)…

    … and so on and so on.

    The last one is particularly interesting because it was made by a judge in a Supreme Court case to determine the legality of the federal mandates. Subsequently, the aforementioned Dr. Walensky, head of the CDC, who had previously made a false statement about the efficacy of the “vaccine,” confirmed under questioning that the number of children in hospital was only 3,500 – not 100,000.

    To make more strongly the point about prior claims and policies’ being contradicted by subsequent findings but not, as a result, being reversed, the same Dr. Walensky, head of the CDC, said, “the overwhelming number of deaths – over 75% – occurred in people that had at least four comorbidities. So really these were people who were unwell to begin with.” That statement so completely undermined the entire justification for the policies of mass-“vaccination” and lockdowns that any intellectually honest person who supported them would at that point have to reassess their position. Whereas the average Joe might well have missed that piece of information from the CDC, it was the government’s own information so the presidential Joe (and his agents) certainly could not have missed it. Where was the sea change in policy to match the sea change in our understanding of the risks associated with COVID, and therefore the cost-benefit balance of the untested (long-term) “vaccine” vs. the risk associated with being infected with COVID? It never came. Clearly, neither the policy positions nor their supposed factual basis could be trusted.

  1. What was the new science that explained why, for the first time in history, a “vaccine” would be more effective than natural exposure and consequent immunity? Why the urgency to get a person who has had COVID and now has some immunity to get “vaccinated” after the fact?
  1. The overall political and cultural context in which the entire discourse on “vaccination” was being conducted was such that the evidential bar for the safety and efficacy of the “vaccine” was raised yet further while our ability to determine whether that bar had been met was reduced. Any conversation with an “unvaccinated” person (and as an educator and teacher, I was involved in very many), always involved the “unvaccinated” person being put into a defensive posture of having to justify himself to the “vaccine”-supporter as if his position was de facto more harmful than the contrary one. In such a context, accurate determination of facts is almost impossible: moral judgment always inhibits objective empirical analysis. When dispassionate discussion of an issue is impossible because judgment has saturated discourse, drawing conclusions of sufficient accuracy and with sufficient certainty to promote rights violations and the coercion of medical treatment, is next to impossible.
  1. Regarding analytics (and Scott’s point about “our” heuristics beating “their” analytics), precision is not accuracy. Indeed, in contexts of great uncertainty and complexity, precision is negatively correlated with accuracy. (A more precise claim is less likely to be correct.) Much of the COVID panic began with modeling. Modeling is dangerous inasmuch as it puts numbers on things; numbers are precise; and precision gives an illusion of accuracy – but under great uncertainty and complexity, model outputs are dominated by the uncertainties on the input variables that have very wide (and unknown) ranges and the multiple assumptions that themselves warrant only low confidence. Therefore, any claimed precision of a model’s output is bogus and the apparent accuracy is only and entirely that – apparent. 

We saw the same thing with HIV in the ‘80s and ‘90s. Models at that time determined that up to one-third of the heterosexual population could contract HIV. Oprah Winfrey offered that statistic on one of her shows, alarming a nation. The first industry to know that this was absurdly wide of the mark was the insurance industry when all of the bankruptcies that they were expecting on account of payouts on life insurance policies did not happen. When the reality did not match the outputs of their models, they knew that the assumptions on which those models were based were false – and that the pattern of the disease was very different from what had been declared.

For reasons beyond the scope of this article, the falseness of those assumptions could have been determined at the time. Of relevance to us today, however, is the fact that those models helped to create an entire AIDS industry, which pushed experimental antiretroviral drugs on people with HIV no doubt in the sincere belief that the drugs might help them. Those drugs killed hundreds of thousands of people. 

(By the way, the man who announced the “discovery” of HIV from the White House – not in a peer-reviewed journal – and then pioneered the huge and deadly reaction to it was the very same Anthony Fauci who has been gracing our television screens over the last few years.)

  1. An honest approach to data on COVID and policy development would have driven the urgent development of a system to collect accurate data on COVID infections and the outcomes of COVID patients. Instead, the powers that be did the very opposite, making policy decisions that knowingly reduced the accuracy of collected data in a way that would serve their political purposes. Specifically, they 1) stopped distinguishing between dying of COVID and dying with COVID and 2) incentivized medical institutions to identify deaths as caused by COVID when there was no clinical data to support that conclusion. (This also happened during the aforementioned HIV panic three decades ago.)
  1. The dishonesty of the pro-“vaccine” side was revealed by the repeated changes of official definitions of clinical terms like “vaccine” whose (scientific) definitions have been fixed for generations (as they must be if science is to do its work accurately: definitions of scientific terms can change, but only when our understanding of their referents changes). Why was the government changing the meanings of words rather than simply telling the truth using the same words they had been using from the beginning? Their actions in this regard were entirely disingenuous and anti-science. The evidential bar moves up again and our ability to trust the evidence slides down. 

In his video (which I mentioned at the top of this article), Scott Adams asked, “How could I have determined that the data that [“vaccine”-sceptics] sent me was the good data?” He did not have to. Those of us who got it right or “won” (to use his word) needed only to accept the data of those who were pushing the “vaccination” mandates. Since they had the greatest interest in the data pointing their way, we could put an upper bound of confidence in their claims by testing those claims against their own data. For someone without comorbidities, that upper bound was still too low to take the risk of “vaccination” given the very low risk of severe harm from contracting COVID-19.

In this relation, it is also worth mentioning that under the right contextual conditions, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Those conditions definitely applied in the pandemic: there was a massive incentive for all of the outlets who were pushing the “vaccine” to provide sufficient evidence to support their unequivocal claims for the vaccine and lockdown policies and to denigrate, as they did, those who disagreed. They simply did not provide that evidence, obviously because it did not exist. Given that they would have provided it if it had existed, the lack of evidence presented was evidence of its absence.

For all of the above reasons, I moved from initially considering enrolling in a vaccine trial to doing some open-minded due diligence to becoming COVID-“vaccine”-sceptical. I generally believe in never saying “never” so I was waiting until such time as the questions and issues raised above were answered and resolved. Then, I would be potentially willing to get “vaccinated,” at least in principle. Fortunately, not subjecting oneself to a treatment leaves one with the option to do so in the future. (Since the reverse is not the case, by the way, the option value of “not acting yet” weighs somewhat in favor of the cautious approach.)

However, I remember the day when my decision not to take the “vaccine” became a firm one. A conclusive point brought me to deciding that I would not be taking the “vaccine” under prevailing conditions. A few days later, I told my mother on a phone call, “They will have to strap me to a table.” 

  1. Whatever the risks associated with a COVID infection on the one hand, and the “vaccine” on the other, the “vaccination” policy enabled massive human rights violations. Those who were “vaccinated” were happy to see the “unvaccinated” have basic freedoms removed (the freedom to speak freely, work, travel, be with loved ones at important moments such as births, deaths, funerals etc.) because their status as “vaccinated” allowed them to accept back as privileges-for-the-“vaccinated” the rights that had been removed from everyone else. Indeed, many people grudgingly admitted that they got “vaccinated” for that very reason, e.g. to keep their job or go out with their friends. For me, that would have been to be complicit in the destruction, by precedent and participation, of the most basic rights on which our peaceful society depends.

    People have died to secure those rights for me and my compatriots. As a teenager, my Austrian grandfather fled to England from Vienna and promptly joined Churchill’s army to defeat Hitler. Hitler was the man who murdered his father, my great-grandfather, in Dachau for being a Jew. The camps began as a way to quarantine the Jews who were regarded as vectors of disease that had to have their rights removed for the protection of the wider population. In 2020, all I had to do in defense of such rights was to put up with limited travel and being barred from my favorite restaurants, etc., for a few months. 

Even if I were some weird statistical outlier such that COVID might hospitalize me despite my age and good health, then so be it: if it were going to take me, I would not let it take my principles and rights in the meanwhile.

And what if I were wrong? What if the massive abrogation of rights that was the response of governments around the world to a pandemic with a tiny fatality rate among those who were not “unwell to begin with” (to use the expression of the Director of the CDC) was not going to end in a few months? 

What if it were going to go on forever? In that case, the risk to my life from COVID would be nothing next to the risk to all of our lives as we take to the streets in the last, desperate hope of wresting back the most basic freedoms of all from a State that has long forgotten that it legitimately exists only to protect them and, instead, sees them now as inconvenient obstacles to be worked around or even destroyed.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 02/06/2023 – 00:00

via ZeroHedge News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

Stephen Miller Reacts to Joe Biden’s DOJ Invading President Trump’s Residency

Former Senior Advisor for Policy and White House Director of Speechwriting to President Donald Trump discussed the Mar-a-Lago situation where President Trump’s residency was invaded and pillaged by Biden’s corrupt FBI.

Steven Miller shared his thoughts on the corrupt FBI’s actions at Mar-a-Lago tonight on Tucker Carlson’s show on FOX News.

‘This is an abomination.  You have the sitting President of the United States, Joe Biden, throught his Justice Department, through his FBI, conducting a raid on the person who’s presumed to be his opponent in the next election and also the 45th President of the United States…”

“It is risible that this would be purportedly done in the name of document preservation when Hillary Clinton used an off-book server for YEARS to conduct classified state business…that has never been investigated.”

Miller says on what must be done is a full-scale change in the US House of Representatives.

that they will have unquestioned ability to not only subpeona but to impeach any and every official who was involved in wrong doing both current and past.”

See Miller’s full interview below:

The post Stephen Miller Reacts to Joe Biden’s DOJ Invading President Trump’s Residency appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

Ben Carson Compares FBI Raid To Communist Tyrants: ‘This Is The Way Of Mao And Castro’

Famed neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who served as former President Trump’s secretary of Housing and Urban Development, blasted the FBI raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home on Monday, comparing the action to those of infamous communist tyrants Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro.

Prior to serving under Trump, Carson had become famous for leading surgeons in the first known separation of conjoined twins who were joined at the back of the head and performing the first successful neurosurgical procedure on a fetus inside the womb.

“Never in my lifetime did I think I would see an American law enforcement agency be run and weaponized like the FBI this evening,” Carson tweeted. “This is a frightening development in our modern political arena. This is the way of Mao and Castro, not Washington and Lincoln.”

Mao Zedong, who ruled communist China with an iron fist, murdered roughly 45 million people between 1958 to 1962 with his “Great Leap Forward” policy, The Washington Post has noted. His “Anti-Rightist Campaign” between 1957 and 1959 featured the persecution of people who favored capitalism or opposed one-party rule and state-run collectivization.

As for Cuban tyrant Fidel Castro, Jose Miguel Vivanco of Human Rights Watch asserted, “As other countries in the region turned away from authoritarian rule, only Fidel Castro’s Cuba continued to repress virtually all civil and political rights. Castro’s draconian rule and the harsh punishments he meted out to dissidents kept his repressive system rooted firmly in place for decades.”

In contrast, Abraham Lincoln exhorted in his timeless first Inaugural Address: “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

“Our Republic is one where we have the freedom to think, say, and believe what we want without fear of government intimidation, that includes the President. If we lose those basic freedoms, we lose it all,” Carson stated. “I am praying for our country right now because I’m not sure anything else can fix what is transgressing.”

“Pray for our country this evening. It can and will be saved because We the people are waking up,” he warned.

via The Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: