Friday, April 30, 2021

A Brief History of Boebert’s Antics on Guns and the 2nd Amendment


A Brief History of Boebert’s Antics on Guns and the 2nd Amendment

Lauren Boebert’s meteoric rise in Colorado politics, from a virtual unknown to congresswoman in two short years, can be tracked by the media coverage surrounding her staunch fundamentalist defense of the Second Amendment and her controversial public antics with firearms.  

Boebert won her seat in a Republican primary upset against the five-term incumbent, Scott Tipton, who mirrored Boebert’s hardline stance on gun rights. Tipton was endorsed by former President Donald Trump and wielded an endorsement and an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA).

The following is a compilation of Boebert’s notable history with guns and gun rights:

Shooters Grill as Ground Zero

Launching her public image as an entrepreneur, Boebert’s Shooters Grill in Rifle, Colorado ignited curiosity with servers in the restaurant wearing holsters and armed with loaded weapons. The gimmick served Boebert well in transitioning her brand to a successful political campaign in a rural, western, conservative congressional district, generally sympathetic to gun rights and defensive toward any regulations on guns or gun ownership. 

“Hell no, Beto!” 

In a 2019 Democratic presidential primary debate, candidate Beto O’Rourke of Texas reiterated his position in support of a gun buyback for assault weapons. When O’Rourke appeared at a campaign stop in Aurora, Boebert capitalized on the opportunity, driving from Rifle with her Glock strapped to her hip to confront O’Rourke and tell him, “Hell, no!” The ploy garnered national media coverage for Boebert.

Associations With Far-Right, Extremist Militias

Despite her denials, Boebert has conspired with anti-government, far-right, extremist militia groups (III%ers) and hate groups (Proud Boys) to appear and “provide security for her public appearances, and pose for photos with armed militia members in campaign photographs and social media promotional materials

Supporting Armed Protestors in State Capitols

Following the protest last summer at Michigan’s state capitol, where armed protestors entered the building and attempted to gain access to the House floor and which included plans by extremists to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Boebert expressed support for the armed protestors, saying, “I don’t see why they’re not allowed to [enter legislative chambers with guns.]”

Misleading Ad Suggests Boebert will strut DC streets with loaded Glock

One of Boebert’s first acts after being sworn in to Congress was to launch a fundraising ad on Twitter in which she appears to load and holster her Glock, and then stroll the streets of the capital. The Washington D.C. police chief called out Boebert for implying that she would carry her firearm on the streets of the nation’s capital and in the halls of Congress, which is actually illegal without a concealed carry permit.

Evading Security in the House Chambers

In response to the insistence by Boebert and other Republicans to carry guns at the U.S. Capitol, metal detectors were placed at the doors of the U.S. Chamber, where weapons are explicitly not allowed. When Boebert set off metal detectors upon entering, she refused to allow police to review the contents of her bag. This happened just days after a violent insurrection on the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol. Congressional colleagues from both parties worried that Boebert was endangering their lives.

Breaking the Law in Accepting Gun as a Gift

Last January, a noted white supremacist, Stephen Moore, representing his affiliated group Bikers for Trump, showed his appreciation to Boebert by bestowing her with a customized, engraved 9-mm Glock. The acceptance of such a gift violated Colorado’s campaign finance law (Amendment 41), state laws regulating the transfer of firearms, and Congressional ethics rules. Under pressure, Boebert said she would retroactively pay for the gift in order to be in legal compliance.

A “Shrine to Gun Fetish” as her Zoom Background

In February, Boebert appeared on a video conference call of the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee with an arrangement of three guns — two of them AR-15s — as her backdrop for the call. The Democrats on that committee subsequently adopted a rule prohibiting guns in committee meetings.

Does Trickle-down Economics Add Up – or Is It a Drop in the Bucket?

Does Trickle-down Economics Add Up – or Is It a Drop in the Bucket?

An old term of questionable meaning is getting a new lease on life: Trickle-down economics. And to many in media and liberal circles, it has once again emerged as the great hobgoblin of our time.

“Trump and conservatives in Congress are planning a big tax cut for millionaires and billionaires,” Robert Reich, who served as secretary of labor during the Clinton administration, wrote in Newsweek recently. “To justify it they’re using the oldest song in their playbook, claiming tax cuts on the rich will trickle down to working families in the form of stronger economic growth. Baloney. Trickle-down economics is a cruel joke.”

But what is trickle-down economics? The answer depends on who is saying it and what public opinion buttons they are trying to press. Kent Smetters, Wharton professor of business economics and public policy, says that trickle-down economics is a term created to disparage supply-side economics.

“It is just a clever negative sound bite,” says Smetters, faculty director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM). “Detractors claim that supply-side economics is about giving tax breaks to the rich. The rich then engage in more economic behavior, such as buying more stuff or hiring more workers; that eventually ‘trickles down’ to the non-rich who get the crumbs that fall from the table.”

Many others have pointed out the folly of using the term — that no real economic model or serious school of thought stands behind what has long been a term of art at the intersection of politics and media. “I have a little bit of a hard time with the terminology and the idea of trickle-down economics,” says Wharton professor of finance Joao F. Gomes. “Although everyone in the popular press has a somewhat different characterization of what this means, this is not something we have tested or seriously theorized about as economists.”

But if there is no substance behind trickle-down — just pejorative intent — the Trump administration itself has curiously invoked the term in its zeal to sell its tax plan to the American public.

“I don’t believe that we’ve set out to create a tax cut for the wealthy. If someone’s getting a tax cut, I’m not upset that they’re getting a tax cut. I’m really not upset,” Gary Cohn, President Trump’s chief economic adviser, told CNBC recently. “We create wage inflation, which means the workers get paid more; the workers have more disposable income, the workers spend more. And we see the whole trickle-down through the economy, and that’s good for the economy.”

“Describing this view as ‘trickle-down economics’ would be akin to supply-siders describing their detractors as communists, a label that would certainly be rejected as well.”–Kent Smetters

It’s not clear that most Americans believe that anything good will eventually trickle down to them from the still-unfinished overhaul. When asked who the Republican tax plan would help most, 76% of respondents to a December 2-5 CBS poll of 1,120 adults nationwide said it would be large corporations, with 69% saying wealthy Americans would benefit most. Just 31% named the middle class as winners, with “you and your family” trailing at 24%.

A Politically Infused Etymology

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the particularly colorful phrase trickle down as the notion that wealth will “gradually benefit the poorest as a result of the increasing wealth of the richest.” The term’s popularization is often traced to a 1932 syndicated column by Will Rogers in which the humorist referred to money “appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickles down. Put it uphill and let it go and it will reach the driest little spot. But he didn’t know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow.”

“Favors for the few and prayers for the many” is what Adlai Stevenson II called it in an address to a 1954 Democratic Party rally in Detroit while stumping nationally for candidates.

A 1971 New York Times editorial referred to organized labor’s view that President Nixon was embracing “old-line ‘trickle down’ economics in the conventional Republican mold” by suggesting that “workers will benefit most by large-scale tax concessions to industry designed to spur investment in modernized plants and thus strengthen the competitive position of American business.”

And when President Ford proposed a tax overhaul in 1974, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy dismissed it as “a throwback to the trickle-down economics the nation has traditionally had to suffer under Republican Presidents.”

The phrase’s resonance today, of course, emanates from the Reagan era, and while it may have stood the test of time, longevity has not conferred clarity. Part of the problem is that “trickle down” lacks a universally understood meaning. Smetters says the idea of tax breaks for the rich eventually producing benefits to the poor has never been part of supply-side economics.

“Supply-siders believe — correctly or not — that lower taxes lifts all boats together,” he says. “Growth is not a flow of resources that cascade from rich to non-rich. In fact, many supply-siders argue that lower taxes benefit workers more than capital owners through international capital flows. Whether this argument is right or wrong is a legitimate issue. But describing this view as ‘trickle-down economics’ would be akin to supply-siders describing their detractors as communists, a label that would certainly be rejected as well.”

Semantics aside, most agree that the right kind of stimulus can be efficacious to growth. “The term ‘trickle-down economics’ doesn’t really represent a cohesive economic theory,” says Wharton professor of business economics and public policy Benjamin Lockwood. “It’s a term used, often negatively, to characterize the view that reducing taxes on the rich will benefit the non-rich.”

There are a number of reasons why tax cuts for high earners could theoretically make others better off, he says. “Economists have long emphasized that taxes don’t necessarily ‘stick’ where you levy them — for example, a tax cut on corporate profits could raise workers’ wages. And if taxes are very high, reducing them can theoretically spur economic activity enough that tax revenues actually increase, which may have been the case in the 1950s, when top income tax rates exceeded 90%.”

However, he says, there’s little evidence to suggest that this would be the case for the current GOP proposal. “Most recent estimates suggest that the majority of corporate income taxes fall on business owners and shareholders, with only a minority falling on wages. And the fiscal crisis generated by Kansas’s recent tax cuts suggests today’s tax rates aren’t high enough for such cuts to be revenue-generating.”

“How much growth will we get from this plan? It depends on final details and things we truly don’t know much about.”Joao Gomes

The current tax bill is still a moving target, but the Penn Wharton Budget Model finds that the boost to GDP produced by the tax cuts would not be enough to pay for the tax cuts.

Lower taxes will probably add to growth. “Almost all economists accept that,” says Gomes. “How much and for how long is another question, and that’s where we disagree. There are several reasons for that. Some of us will say it is because lower taxes encourage people to work more and maybe corporations to invest more. If the tax cuts are long lived, this will raise national income for a long time. Republicans tend to start from this point.” Others will say it is because lower taxes will put money in people’s pockets and encourage spending which in turn creates jobs for a short time, even when the tax cuts are also temporary, Gomes adds. “Democrats tend to start from here. Indeed, this was the rationale for temporary cuts under President Obama. As I said, most economists agree that each of these arguments has merit. However, long-term cuts that stimulate work and investment cost more money and tend to benefit people who pay higher rates and/or capital gains taxes. These tend to be higher-income individuals.”

Do tax cuts pay for themselves, as some like to suggest?

“Almost surely not,” says Gomes. “But it is also important to say, to be absolutely fair, neither does spending on infrastructure, and that has not stopped left-wing economists from proposing it with the same fuzzy math that right-wingers support with these cuts. For an unbiased observer, there really is very little to choose between the fiscal probity of Democrats and Republicans.

“How much growth will we get from this plan? It depends on final details and things we truly don’t know much about,” Gomes continues. “Will it encourage people to work more? I would estimate yes, maybe a little but not very much. Will it encourage investment? Absolutely. Will it encourage corporations to relocate operations to the U.S.? Maybe, but the details are going to matter a lot.”

Looking for Growth in All the Right Places

The details of the tax plan are still opaque. One key unknown is the extent to which tax savings might be applied in ways that produce growth.

“Under the current tax proposal, the trickle-down economics becomes: ‘we’ll give a big cut in the corporate tax rate with the hope that those workers will benefit from the resulting new investment.’ It’s not surprising that if you tax returns on investments less there will be more investments,” says Robert P. Inman, Wharton professor of finance. “The real question becomes: How big of an effect on investment will there be, and if there is new investment in capital, will it benefit workers?

“The term ‘trickle-down economics’ doesn’t really represent a cohesive economic theory.”–Benjamin Lockwood

“For example, if businesses invest that in existing real estate or share buy-backs,” Inman continues, “there is probably not going to be much of an impact on employment or worker wages. However, investing in a new building or in new capital equipment will employ people and potentially increase worker productivity. In that case there will be a positive effect on employment and on worker wages.”

But how many jobs? And wages of what kind?

“I suspect most of the new machinery will be very sophisticated, high-tech, investment. If so, the trickle down, the wage premium for those at the lower ends of the income distribution, will be rather modest. The trickle-down will probably stop at [jobs paying] about $50,000.”

Inman recalls the effects of President George W. Bush’s 2004-2005 overseas corporate profits repatriation program. “The idea was that it would lead to a big influx of cash on the investment side, but what corporations ended up doing was buying back shares. That was an investment, but an investment that didn’t create any jobs.”

Of the new tax plan’s repatriation of earnings — about $2.5 trillion sitting offshore — that would be automatically brought home and taxed at a special rate, Smetters says it’s likely that some of it will translate into higher dividends, some into stock repurchases and some of it will be invested. “We don’t think the investment channel is going to be nearly as big as some people will say, and the reason why is that there are already some ways of clever financing,” he recently said in a separate Knowledge@Wharton interview.

Inman does believe that lowering the corporate tax rate makes sense, but that it needs to happen along with closing loopholes. “Close the loopholes, then see how much money you have and lower the tax rate accordingly,” he suggests.

On the question of whether the GOP’s plan will increase income and wealth inequality, a lot depends on what the exact changes to the estate tax end up being, says Gomes. “Still, from an inequality standpoint it would be great to see the elimination of the state and local tax and home mortgage deductions, which are mostly gifts to the top 20% of the income distribution. Eliminating these deductions while cutting tax rates is also the sort of ‘revenue neutral’ change that most economists would applaud.”

One aspect of this debate that is under-emphasized, says Lockwood, is the potential for other types of targeted tax cuts to generate beneficial spillovers. These are benefits that could bubble up from low earners, or flow sideways from middle earners, rather than trickling down from the top.

“There is evidence that cutting taxes, or targeting spending, on specific middle-class professions, including teaching and basic research, would have quite large beneficial spillovers.”–Benjamin Lockwood

“In fact, there is evidence that cutting taxes, or targeting spending, on specific middle-class professions, including teaching and basic research, would have quite large beneficial spillovers,” he says. In a recent paper co-authored with Charles G. Nathanson of Northwestern University and E. Glen Weyl of Microsoft Research and Yale University, Lockwood writes that some professions have “spillovers” — that the social value of an individual’s work can be much higher, or much lower, than that individual’s compensation.

“Some spillovers are quite large,” they write in a Harvard Business Review piece about the paper “Taxation and the Allocation of Talent,” published in the Journal of Political Economy. “Given how much good teachers raise the eventual incomes of their students, we calculate that spillovers from teachers are twice as large as the salaries teachers are paid. The benefits from medical research are even larger, amounting to over one-fifth of total income in the U.S. “On the other hand, some sectors involve ‘zero sum’ endeavors, in which profits come at the expense of other market participants. Examples include excessive litigation or financial traders trying to beat the market.”

They examine two potential types of tax policies. In one, raising top tax rates would, in theory, encourage workers to choose lower-paying jobs, compelling some to gravitate toward more socially valuable professions. In the other, the government would tax or subsidize some professions more than others.

The first approach would do little to spur economic growth, they conclude. The second could boost growth dramatically. Rather than advocating a rewrite of tax code with different rates for different jobs, the authors recommend a rewards system that would raise salaries and award merit pay.

“There is no economist who doesn’t agree that if you give somebody money, it’s going to have effects elsewhere in the economy. The only issue is how do those effects play out….”Robert Inman

Of growth stimulators in the current GOP tax proposal, Gomes says one aspect that is appealing is the expensing of investment. Firms will be allowed to deduct all investment expenses from their corporate taxes immediately, instead of slowly over time. “This change more than any others should encourage them to invest and boost our economy in the short and long runs. It’s a clever idea that economists have been advocating for years on the left and the right,” he says.

What he likes least: The fact that the plan is unlikely to pay for itself. “We should be raising revenues elsewhere to offset the cost of [many] good ideas. We are adding to the burden of the federal debt when we should be reducing it. Admittedly it’s not a lot relative to GDP, and the bond market is not concerned about the government’s ability to repay higher debt. But it goes in the wrong direction.”

Gomes says “there are several good ideas in the plan. The main problems might be the overall cost and the lack of phase-in for some of the changes that are likely to be very disruptive.”

It is, however, a complex plan, he says, and “obviously Republicans exaggerate its virtues and Democrats the defects. The truth is in the middle.”

Fluidic imagery aside, change is coming. Says Inman: “There is no economist who doesn’t agree that if you give somebody money, it’s going to have effects elsewhere in the economy. The only issue is how do those effects play out, and who are the beneficiaries?

For conservatives, he notes, “trickle-down is a flood, and for liberals it’s a drip.”


Promoting QAnon-linked Conspiracy, Boebert Says Resignations Will Soon Allow GOP to Control Congress


Promoting QAnon-linked Conspiracy, Boebert Says Resignations Will Soon Allow GOP to Control Congress

Congresswoman Lauren Boebert put a Q-flavored cherry atop an already controversial town hall last Monday night, when she claimed to have insider knowledge of a QAnon-linked conspiracy theory promoted by The Epoch Times that secret documents declassified in the final days of the Trump administration will expose wrongdoing by Trump’s enemies and lead to resignations and arrests, allowing Republicans to gain a majority in the U.S. House and Senate prior to the 2022 election.

Boebert, a Republican, claims her sources for this are close to Trump.

“And this is my opinion with that information that I have, I believe we will see resignations begin to take place. And I think we can take back the majority in the House and the Senate before 2022 when all of this is ended,” Boebert said at the Montrose event.

Her startling claim, first reported by Dennis Anderson of the Delta County Independent, came in response to the last question of the evening. An unidentified man wanted to know if there will ever be “perp walks” for Hillary Clinton and high-level officials like the former heads of the FBI and CIA.

Listen to the question at the Montrose town hall and Boebert’s answer, in audio recorded by Anderson, here:

Boebert’s belief that a wave of resignations from Congress will allow Republicans to reclaim power before the next election is sure to raise some eyebrows.

The Epoch Times, identified as “a leading purveyor of right-wing misinformation” by the New York Times, exploded in size and influence during the Trump administration both by embracing the President and promoting innumerable conspiracy theories, many of which are linked to QAnon. The narrative referenced by Boebert appears to rooted in the “Spygate” and “Russiagate” conspiracy theories, of which The Epoch Times is a huge proponent of both. Per the New York Times:

“The publication has been one of the most prominent promoters of “Spygate,” a baseless conspiracy theory involving claims that Obama administration officials illegally spied on Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign. Publications and shows linked to The Epoch Times have promoted the QAnon conspiracy theory and spread distorted claims about voter fraud…”

Russiagate is a disinformation campaign denying Russian election meddling and falsely claiming that such accusation of such were created by former President Obama and Hillary Clinton to discredit Trump. Neither it nor “Spygate” is factual.

Full transcript of Boebert’s answer:

“So we are seeing a lot of ugliness uncovered, a lot of corruption exposed. But I believe that we are going to start seeing gifts and callings of righteous men and women exposed to counter all of this. Gifts that have remained dormant on the inside of people are going to start rising up. People are going to start filling these positions that they never saw themselves in, doing their part to serve their country. 

Now, I want to tell you, I heard someone who is in very close contact with President Trump and the ins and outs of the White House under that administration talk to the owners of Epoch Times. They talked to the owners of Epoch Times and they said: “don’t change anything. You are right over the target.” 

So anyone who tries to tell you that this is a fringe newspaper/media don’t listen to them. I have very good sources to say this is really good information. Is it a hundred percent? I don’t know. But it’s really good information. And we all know that there was information that was declassified just a few days before President Trump left office. And I know someone who is involved in declassifying that. And this person is getting very tired of waiting on the DOJ to do something about it. And we will be hearing about it very, very soon. And this is my opinion with that information that I have, I believe we will see resignations begin to take place. And I think we can take back the majority in the House and the Senate before 2022 when all of this is ended.” 

RELATED: A Brief History of Boebert’s Ties to Extremist and Conspiracy Groups

Before this video emerged, Boebert’s event in Montrose had already made headlines, and they haven’t been good.

First, her campaign only announced the meeting to local Republicans and asked them not to share the invite publicly.

Then a video, recorded by the Montrose Daily Press, showed her appearing to defend the extremists who stormed the U.S. Capitol, saying they were trying to petition their government. Boebert’s office denies she was speaking about the Jan. 6 insurrectionists but instead meant that the security fence in place since then, which prevents the public from accessing congressional offices, shows that Democrats believe anyone trying to petition their government is an insurrectionist.

Thursday, April 29, 2021

Large emissions from electric car batteries

Large emissions from electric car batteries 

2017-05-29 10:00 

Johan Kristensson 

248 Enable Talking Web 

Huge hopes are attached to electric cars as the solution to the car industry's climate problems. But electric car batteries are environmental culprits in manufacturing. Several tonnes of carbon dioxide have been emitted, even before batteries leave the factory. IVL The Swedish Environmental Institute has, on behalf of the Swedish Transport Administration and the Swedish Energy Agency, investigated the climate impact of lithium-ion batteries from a life cycle perspective. The batteries intended for electric cars are included in the study. The two authors Lisbeth Dahllöf and Mia Romare have done a meta-study, ie reviewed and compiled existing studies. The report shows that battery production gives rise to emissions of 150-200 kilos of carbon dioxide equivalents per kilowatt hour of battery produced. The researchers have not studied the individual car brands' batteries, how exactly these were produced or which electric mix they use. But for the understanding of the importance of battery size, let us take an example: Two ordinary electric cars on the market, Nissan Leaf and Tesla Model S, have batteries of approximately 30 kWh and 100 kWh, respectively. Already when you buy the car, emissions have occurred corresponding to about 5.3 tons and 17.5 tons, respectively, for batteries of these sizes. The numbers can be difficult to relate to. For comparison, a trip for a person round trip from Stockholm to New York by plane causes emissions of just over 600 kilos of carbon dioxide, according to the UN organization ICAO's calculation model. Another conclusion in the study is that about half of the emissions occur during the production of raw materials and half during the production of the battery itself in the factory. The mining itself accounts for only a small part of between 10-20 percent. Read more: Read more: "The potential advantage of electric cars" The calculation is based on the assumption that the electricity mix used in the battery factory consists of just over half of fossil power. In Sweden, power production consists predominantly of fossil-free nuclear and hydropower, which is why lower emissions could have been achieved. The study also concludes that emissions grow almost linearly with battery size, although data in this area is scarce. This means that a Tesla-sized battery contributes just over three times as much emissions as a Nissan Leaf-sized one. It is a result that surprised Mia Romare. - It should have been less linear because the electronics used do not increase to the same extent. But the battery cells themselves are as influential as production looks today, she says. - One conclusion is that you should not drive around with unnecessarily large batteries, says Mia Romare The authors emphasize that a large part of the study has been about finding out what data is available and finding out what quality they hold. In many cases, they have been forced to state that it is difficult to compare existing studies with each other. - We have become frustrated, but it is also part of the result, says Lisbeth Dahllöf. Colleague Mats-Ola Larsson at IVL has made a calculation of how long you need to drive a petrol or diesel car before it has emitted as much carbon dioxide as battery production has caused. The result was 2.7 years for a battery the same size as the Nissan Leaf and 8.2 years for a Tesla-sized battery, based on a series of assumptions (see fact box below). - It is great that companies and authorities introduce ambitious environmental policies and buy climate-smart cars. But these results show that one should consider not choosing an electric car with a larger battery than necessary, he says and points out that politicians should also take this into account when designing instruments. An obvious part to look at in life cycle analyzes is recycling. The authors of the report state that what characterizes batteries is the lack of them, as there is no financial incentive to send the batteries for recycling and the volumes are still small. Cobalt, nickel and copper are recycled, but not the energy required to manufacture the electrodes, says Mia Romare and at the same time points out that the point of recycling is resource management rather than reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. Peter Kasche from the report client The Swedish Energy Agency highlights the close to linear relationship between battery size and emissions as important. - Somehow you really have to make sure that you optimize the batteries. You should not drive around with a lot of kilowatt hours unnecessarily. In some cases a plug-in hybrid may be optimal, in other cases a pure battery vehicle. That's how IVL counted Mats-Ola Larsson has made a number of assumptions when calculating that the emissions from a battery the size of a Nissan Leaf and a battery the size of a Tesla take 2.7 and 8.2 years, respectively, to "drive together" with a normal petrol or diesel car: The average value of emissions for new Swedish cars in 2016 was 126 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer. That value has been corrected to 130 so that some of the cars that at 

Wednesday, April 28, 2021

IRS Data Shows Democrats Are Now The Party Of The Rich

IRS Data Shows Democrats Are Now The Party Of The Rich

For years, Democrats have presented themselves as the party of the middle class, standing up for the little guy.

That hasn’t been true for a long time, and now it is confirmed.

According to data from the IRS, Democrats are now the party of the rich.

The Washington Examiner reports:

Democrats are the party of the wealthy, IRS data shows

Democrats are the party of the wealthy, a flip from decades ago when it was the party of the poor and middle class.

Democrats represented 65% of taxpayers with a household income of $500,000 or more in 2020, according to IRS data, while 74% of taxpayers in Republican districts have household incomes of less than $100,000.

In 1993, the dynamic was reversed, with the typical Republican congressional district showing it was 14% wealthier than its Democratic counterpart. In 2020, data shows those Republican districts were now 13% poorer.

The data comes as some Democrats push to end former President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax law, which caps the federal deduction for state and local taxes at $10,000. The beneficiaries would predominantly be the 1% of the United States’s wealthiest households, with property owners in high-tax states benefiting from the relief on federal taxes.

This represents a big political shift in America.

Republicans must embrace their new role as the working class party.

Official documents reveal officials colluded with a PR firm working for the Biden campaign pressuring social media to suppress posts


Official documents reveal officials colluded with a PR firm working for the Biden campaign pressuring social media to suppress posts

Forget about those claims that Big Tech has every right to censor political information on their platforms because they are private firms. That’s not true when these companies operate as “state actors” working in collusion with or at the command of government entities.

Judicial Watch once again has uncovered stunning proof of malfeasance through lawsuits based on freedom of information laws. (I donate to Judicial Watch because of the bang-for-the-buck they provide, and I urge readers to consider donating, too; click here to do so.)

Judicial Watch announced today that it received 540 pages and a supplemental four pages of documents from the office of the Secretary of State of California revealing how state officials pressured social media companies (Twitter, Facebook, Google (YouTube)) to censor posts about the 2020 election. Included in these documents were “misinformation briefings” emails that were compiled by communications firm SKDK, that lists Biden for President as their top client of 2020. The documents show how the state agency successfully pressured YouTube to censor a Judicial Watch video concerning the vote by mail and a Judicial Watch lawsuit settlement about California voter roll clean up.

The records were obtained in response to Judicial Watch’s California Public Records Act (CPRA) requests to the Office of the California Secretary of State for records related to the Office of Election Cybersecurity’s database of social media posts; communications with social media companies; and other social media related records regarding the 2020 elections.

Judicial Watch was alerted to the abuse by a post late last year in CalMatters – that proved to be true, according to the uncovered documents:

The Office of Election Cybersecurity in the California Secretary of State’s office monitored and tracked social media posts, decided if they were misinformation, stored the posts in an internal database coded by threat level, and on 31 different occasions requested posts be removed. In 24 cases, the social media companies agreed and either took down the posts or flagged them as misinformation, according to Jenna Dresner, senior public information officer for the Office of Election Cybersecurity.

“We don’t take down posts, that is not our role to play,” Dresner said. “We alert potential sources of misinformation to the social media companies and we let them make that call based on community standards they created.” 

This is certainly “collusion” (remember how much the media liked to throw around that term with regard to the utterly fictitious charge that the Trump 2016 campaign colluded with Russia?) if not outright conspiracy – as in conspiracy to violate the civil rights (the First Amendment) of citizens. I am no lawyer, but I have the impression that one can sue for conspiracies to violate civil rights.

The activities were so questionable that one California bureaucrat worried about it and about how to put a lid on discovery of the activities, as Sundance highlights:

One of the California government officials, Deputy Secretary of State and Chief Communications Officer Paula Valle, even begins to question the legality of their coordinated conduct after journalists and people who had their content removed started asking for specific answers why.

[…] “the reporter at Cal Matters who PRA’d us is doing a follow-up story. We asked him to send us his questions. I am not necessarily comfortable with his line of questions and the additional doors that this will open. I want to get your feedback I would simply like to give him a statement about what our goal is and leave it at that. Thoughts?” 

Sundance also cautions us that the feds are getting involved in similar efforts:

This is additionally important because it has been reported the Federal Department of Homeland Security is also working with Big Tech to monitor the social media posting of American citizens in order to identify “domestic extremists.”

REMEMBER….  The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is now getting ready to hire public companies, individual contractors outside government, to scour public data and social media in order to provide information for the new “domestic terror watch lists.”  From the description it appears DHS is going to pay “big tech” (Google, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, SnapChat, Twitter, etc.), via contracts, to hire and organize internal monitoring teams to assist the government by sending information on citizens they deem “dangerous.”

NBC News Article

I am so old that I remember when liberals celebrated the free market of ideas, and thought censorship was bad. Now that the left is engaged in shoving election-rigging, race quotas and mob rule down our throats, they are behaving like all the other totalitarian [political regimes and suppressing all views but their own. “Misinformation” today means views that progressives don’t like.

I hope that California and the tech companies get sued for billions and lose. Meanwhile, a state that is flourishing (while California drives away so many residents that for the first time in history it is losing a House seat) is on the way to passing legislation that could address this problem. WCJB TV reports:

The Florida Senate passed legislation requiring social media companies to publish standards for use and abide by them when it comes to de-platforming users Monday.

The legislation carries heavy fines and the threat of lawsuits.

Big Tech platforms face $100,000 a day fines if they de-platform a statewide candidates and $10,000 a day for other candidates.

In 2018, Matt Caldwell, the losing candidate for Florida Agriculture Commissioner was de-platformed for his pro NRA ad which YouTube removed for almost a day.

“They were able to take a whole segment of free press away, saying we don’t want to hear those words; we don’t want top hear that speech. And we’re going to de-platform you. This bill fixes that,” said Senator Kelli Stargel.

The Senate version allows the state or individuals to sue.

It’s a start.

Where to get straight news

Where to get straight news

There can be no doubt that the drive-by media are pure propagandists.  "Orange Man Bad" was just the latest installment in the slander campaign against patriots by those who have mostly achieved little, built little, and hate those who actually work to build better lives.  Their campaign began as early as Woodrow Wilson's tenure, with early (1913) moves to concentrate power in D.C. through the income tax and in big banks with the Federal Reserve.

This profound opposition became obvious after the departure of Dwight Eisenhower.  With each succeeding Republican, new language was employed.  Ronald Reagan was demeaned as an "amiable dunce."  The Bushes proved themselves to be swamp-dwellers but were similarly slimed, with W's verbal malapropisms splattered all over the headlines.  When that became passé, the vocal assault accelerated, causing rational observers to wonder how far the left can go.  (Hint: There is no limit!)  Trump Derangement Syndrome led to an explosion of "racist," "homophobic," and similar slurs, attempting to paint patriotic Americans as evil.

Along the way, various "news" outlets such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, and others dropped any pretense of being purveyors of news.  As Project Veritas has shown on multiple occasions, these entities are literally propagandists — comrades of the Democratic Party.  This leaves us with a problem.  How are concerned Americans to get their hands and eyes on the truth of what's happening?  I propose that there are several moves we can make immediately.

First, never use Google to search.  It does two evil things.  First, it mines your searches to use them for saleable purposes.  You become the product.  Second, it rarely allows you to find anything by any conservative source.  Breitbart News has been a frequent victim of Google's bias.  Dr. Robert Epstein of the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology showed how Google manipulated its search results and messages with the effect of switching around six million votes from Trump to Biden.  If you use Gmail, stop. is just one of many email providers available for you.

I know of two non-tracking and non-censoring search engines: DuckDuckGo and StartPage.  Both are excellent, and neither sends a single byte of data to the Masters of the Universe.

The next task is finding news.  The gorilla in the room is Breitbart.  It has two problems.  The first is that, while it is generally a good source, it clearly pushes its product in the conservative direction.  The second is that its website is formatted like a tabloid.  If you want straight news, try Just the News or One America News Network.  Newsmax and Fox are generally good, but neither sticks to straight news very well.  The Epoch Times or the Wall Street Journal may also suit you.  You may have to search for what you want.  News aggregators such as The Liberty Daily, Citizen Free Press, Populist Press, and Conservative Playlist may have what you're looking for.

Once you leave pure news, you'll be looking at commentary.  If you want all sorts of viewpoints, RealClearPolitics is without peer.  You'll find the whole spectrum there, including the insane left.  You pick and choose.  There are also the three commentary sites I write for: American Thinker, Townhall, and NOQReport.  There are lots of others, and as you follow hyperlinks in articles on those sites, you'll discover more than you can possibly read.  Particularly good ones are The Federalist, Reason Magazine, American Greatness, Daily Wire, and American Spectator.  And while I'm on this list, two of the very best legal commentary sites are Res Ipsa Loquitur, the legal blog of Jonathan Turley, and the Volokh Conspiracy, hosted by Reason.  They explain legal issues of public interest in language we can understand.

Understanding the issues of the day requires a good factual foundation.  Sites that provide that are the Manhattan Contrarian, Rational Ground, Foundation for Economic Education, Get the Facts Straight,, Gatestone Institute, and the American Institute for Economic Research.

At this point, I must turn to the elephant in the room: COVID.  Everywhere you turn, you find people "following the CDC recommendations."  We should note that the CDC is a political organization under a veneer of medical language.  Its flip-flops are worse that a dying fish on deck.  Its credibility is worse than the WHO's.  When we know that there have been zero super-spreading events outdoors, yet the CDC has just declared that children, who are minimally affected by COVID, must wear masks at all times at summer camp, it's clear that the CDC is not following the data.  So we must look to outside experts who are willing to actually look at evidence.

Because COVID is spread by aerosol, we need the two best aerosol scientists: Linsey Marr (Twitter @LinseyMarr) and José-Luis Jiminez (Twitter @jljcolorado).  They deal with mechanisms.  Epidemiologic data is found at Rational Ground; the Oxford University Center for Evidence-Based Medicine; and works by numerous individual researchers such as Carl Heneghan, Jay Bhattacharya, Scott Atlas, Michael Levitt, Sunetra Gupta, and Martin Kuldorff.  I've linked long form interviews with them.  You can look up their research.  UnherdTV has excellent long discussions with them and others.  And if you want a bit more, you can watch my YouTube channel or my new Rumble channel.

By now you've seen a host of arrows pointing toward a number of useful ways to get good information.  This list just scratches the surface.  As you continue, you'll find that there are wonderful American patriots who are working to get the truth out on a number of subjects.  You just have to steer clear of GooFaTwit.  The MOTU will do all they can to keep you from the facts.  Don't let them.


Caught helping Stacey Abrams hide encouragement for Georgia losing the All-Star Game, USA Today’s publisher Gannett apologizes


Caught helping Stacey Abrams hide encouragement for Georgia losing the All-Star Game, USA Today’s publisher Gannett apologizes

The largest publisher of newspapers in the United States by total circulation has been caught red-handed engaging in Orwellian rewriting of history to help Stacey Abrams hide her promotion of the boycott of her home state of Georgia by the MLB all-Star Game.

Ms. Abrams is regarded as a savior by many on the left, even future presidential material, and is even excused for delusionally claiming to be the actual elected governor of Georgia after losing that race by tens of thousands of votes, despite the left’s new dogma pronouncing it a crime against democracy to question the legitimacy of Joe Biden’s election. Her promotion of the doctrine of Black “voter suppression” when IDs are required for voting, and her energetic promotion of registration and vote gathering efforts by Democrats have given her a status as an untouchable goddess, apparently.  Even as Black registration and turnout in Georgia put the lie to the suppression narrative.


Stacey Abrams Photo credit: Innisfree987 CC BY 3.0 license

But Abrams’s seeming support of MLB punishing Georgia by moving away the All-Star Game after Georgia passed a sensible election integrity law turned out to harm a lot a Black people in metropolitan Atlanta, which is reckoned to have lost about a hundred million dollars in spending from fans traveling there for the game. Spending that would have benefitted local hotels and restaurants owned by and employing Blacks, as well as countless other indirect beneficiaries.

Can’t have the Great Black Hope losing support among Georgia Blacks, especially if she runs for office again. Ryan Mills describes the memory-holing:

USA Today is being accused of providing cover for Stacey Abrams after the news organization allowed the Georgia Democrat to edit out a line from an opinion article she wrote in which she said she “can’t argue with” people who choose to boycott businesses in her state.

In a March 31 op-ed about the corporate response to Georgia’s new voting law, which Abrams called “racist,” she wrote that she doesn’t believe boycotts are “necessary – yet.” However, she added: “Until we hear clear, unequivocal statements that show Georgia-based companies get what’s at stake, I can’t argue with an individual’s choice to opt for their competition.”

Two days after publication, Major League Baseball announced that it was pulling the 2021 All-Star Game out of Atlanta because of the state’s voting law. In response, USA Today allowed Abrams to heavily edit her op-ed. Many of the edits seemingly have little to do with MLB’s decision to move the All-Star Game to Colorado, though Abrams did add that losing the game and the MLB draft could cost the state $100 million in lost revenue.

She removed the line saying she can’t argue with people who boycott Georgia businesses, and instead wrote: “Rather than accept responsibility for their craven actions, Republican leaders blame me and others who have championed voting rights (and actually read the bill).”

In the revised version, Abrams also noted that “Boycotts invariably cost jobs,” and that “Instead of a boycott, I strongly urge other events and productions to do business in Georgia and speak out against our law and similar proposals in other states.”

According to the Internet Archive, Abrams’s piece was updated the afternoon of April 6, but an editor’s note acknowledging the changes wasn’t added for over two weeks, on April 22.

With the evidence in the archive so clear, USA Today’s publisher fessed up, Becket Adams writes:

Gannett issued an apology Tuesday for neglecting to affix an editor’s note to a retroactively edited USA Today op-ed authored by failed gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams.

"We regret the oversight in updating the Stacey Abrams column,” said a spokesperson for Gannett, which owns roughly 100 newspapers, including USA Today. “As soon as we recognized there was no editor’s note, we added it to the page to reflect her changes. We have reviewed our procedures to ensure this does not occur again."

Too late. Too many people read the original piece, in which Abrams voiced support for a boycott of Georgia over its new voting laws.

The lack of a note about the edit – a so-called “stealth edit” -- is only a small part of the problem. The bigger issue is why a major mass media organization would allow a politician to retroactively hide evidence that would harm her politically. The media are not supposed to engage in revision of history to protect favored politicians and political parties.

Joseph A Wulfson of Fox News called out the inadequate apology:

A spokesperson for Gannett, USA Today's parent company, told Fox News, "We regret the oversight in updating the Stacey Abrams column. As soon as we recognized there was no editor’s note, we added it to the page to reflect her changes. We have reviewed our procedures to ensure this does not occur again."

Fox News had also asked Gannett if it regrets allowing revisions to Abrams' op-ed instead of preserving it as it was originally written, which was not addressed in the statement. 

Vaccination Shamers, Please Check Yourselves

Vaccination Shamers, Please Check Yourselves

One of the most perplexing things happening in this country has to be how millions of people who hated Donald J. Trump with every fiber of their being trusts him on this one thing: the vaccine!  I mean, it may make sense if the vaccinated population were selling their soul to the devil (according to Trump haters) to defeat death itself.  But they aren’t. 

This author has been a nurse over 40 years and have never seen such blind faith or exuberance in experimenting with a serum/vaccine.  I suppose in the 1980s if  President Reagan had suddenly announced that a vaccine for AIDS had been developed in warp speed our society might have seen some semblance of today’s blind acceptance.  I suppose the perfectly healthy that had little if no chance of contracting the AIDS virus would blindly inject a miracle serum into their God given body if they were told by the government, media, and scientists they must do this for society’s sake.  But, without the internet, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and the like the results would not be quite the same.

Our society has entered a very slippery slope creating classes of Vaccinated Population (VP) versus Unvaccinated Population (UVP). For example, consider this text below sent to a woman from her mother.  This UVP woman had booked a flight cross country to visit her family.  This text clearly had the intent of shaming the UVP daughter.  The words get to the heart of the dilemma that faces our society today between the VPs and UVPs. This is the text in part:

Half of our county has had the vaccine! If you do decide to have the vaccine you could advertise that you have it and jobs would be available more readily!  All children have to have so many vaccines to attend school! Measles, mumps, whooping cough, scarlet fever, polio- and many more!!  If we had not had these awesome sciences founded Vaccines-how would our world survive!?  Like Riley says-what would you rather do-wear a mask or a ventilator?  She had the virus and has now had the vaccines also!  I would hope that you would get the vaccine just to protect others-like your Mom!!  Your nieces/nephews/and their children? And your old clients who you love dearly! But-you have chosen an avenue that is not a protective tool for the rest of us- and we are still being careful- bring a thermometer so you can check daily... and protect yourself with good masks and visit outside if possible.  I believe in science!! I just got home from volunteering at the pink ladies- all have been vaccinated and still wear our masks!!

Do you see the slippery slope of UVP shaming?  One can’t help but think of Rand Paul and his very valid questions to Anthony Fauci about continuing to require masks after vaccination. Do the vaccines work or not?  By the way, where is Pfizer and Moderna?  If their vaccines are so effective (compared to the children’s plethora of vaccines in the VP mom’s text) why aren’t they screaming at the scientists to let my people go?  

This poor mom is so confused that she is basically saying look at all the responsible VP that took the vaccine to protect society, and we still live like lepers. Well, don’t blame that on the UVP. Oh, and your only choices are to wear a mask or wear a ventilator.  You see, the UVP shamers won’t include statistics that doesn’t fit their narrative.  A recent report cites the survival rates for COVID-19 are 99% and above for 64-year-olds and younger.  Over 65-year-olds have a 91% survival rate. So, VP mom, there is some middle ground there. 

The UVP have put their critical thinking skills to work.  They have legitimate questions about vaccines and vaccine passports. It is good to question an emergency serum labeled vaccine, when the FDA has not given full approval or licensing. Questions like, what is the mRNA and what is it doing to my body, exactly?  What are the long-term adverse effects or even the short-term adverse effects? In fact, the CDC and FDA have questioned the validity of their very own VAERS reporting system through a disclaimer. Of course, critical thinkers are going to ask questions and take on a wait-and-see attitude.  This is a global experiment with the vaccines, and the UVP are the control group, and the VP are the experiment group.  Let’s see how this all works out.  

Lastly, for Christians who believe wholeheartedly in the Bible, which includes the book of Revelation, the UVP are not going to engage in the slippery slope vaccine passports might take them.  Think of it as a rich, handsome, too good to be true person asking you for a date.  But you know this person is not good for you. Your choices are to say no, why even get started, I know where it is going.  Yes, I can always break it off if anything crosses a line. Or, I am all in with this whoever it takes me.  The talk of passports, especially with digital in the phrase, just won’t fly.  

Every UVP should have the freedom to live his life free of the vaccination restrictions being placed upon him. But rest assured that dark powers will be working overtime in pressuring the UVP by shaming, withholding, and any other means dragging them into the VP world.

Righteous Recycling


Righteous Recycling

Why should leftists bother to make recycling work when their real objective is reached merely by appearing to practice it?

Recycling is a leftist sacrament. It fulfills emotional needs for Democrats. They suffer deep-seated guilt from participating in a materialistic culture that they think results in widespread environmental harm. For them recycling serves as a kind of visible penance. Unfortunately, recycling leads to unintended consequences.

A recent article in the Eureka, California Times-Standard began as follows:

“The CRV situation in Humboldt County is a losing situation for everyone.

Three major recycling centers in the county have halted all buyback programs for cans, bottles, and glass.

Customers who pay 5 cents per can at the grocery or convenience store have a nearly impossible time getting that fee back.”

“CRV” stands for California Refund Value. Two out of three of those words are bogus. Refunds have almost ceased and recyclables have little or no value. The program, however, epitomizes California.

Californians are the truest believers in recycling. Over the decades the state has passed laws that use both force and bribery to increase recycling obedience. One such law pertains to glass, plastic, aluminum cans, and bottles. It requires merchants who sell beverages to charge customers an extra 5 cents for containers up to 24 ounces and 10 cents for containers above 24 ounces.

The legislation enabling the program is the “California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act.”  It has been in effect since 1987 and is administered by the CalRecycle agency.

The law requires supermarkets and other beverage dealers to reimburse the 5 or 10 cent deposits to anyone bringing in their containers, no matter where they acquired them. Milk, wine, and distilled spirits containers are exempt from the law. Beverage merchants must pay a fine of  $100 a day if they choose not to participate.

As you might suspect, the program has been something of a minor catastrophe. Part of the problem is that in California and elsewhere recycling has all but collapsed, partly because China stopped buying recyclables. The state passed the law based on the assumption that recycling would always be economically viable.

Wildberries Marketplace, a local supermarket, has chosen to pay the $100 a day fine. According to manager Aaron Gottschalk, “We are here to sell groceries. We are not a recycling center. We felt it was a risk to the safety and sanitation of our store. We just knew we couldn't do it. Did we want to avoid the fee? You bet. But in order to avoid the fee paid to CalRecycle, we would have to fabricate a story and say we were doing something that we were not doing. We weren't going to make that choice and we're paying the fee.”

Wildberries, in other words, is being forced to pay a $100 a day fine for being out of compliance with a law that is all but impossible to obey.

Wildberries is where my wife and I buy most of our groceries. In a conversation with Gottschalk she was told, “Complying would cost us way more than $100 a day. We would have to take every bit of recycling offered to us and then truck it to Crescent City at our expense.” (Crescent city is 85 miles north of the store.)

According to CalRecycle 50 retailers in Humboldt County are now obligated to redeem CRV containers in stores. Notably absent from CalRecycle’s list are Walmart, Target, and Winco.

Most of the Humboldt County designated recycling sites are simply ignoring the rules -- they aren’t taking in cans and bottles and they aren’t paying the fines. CalRecycle has been locked down for the past year so there has been no on-site enforcement.

For all practical purposes, recycling has ceased. It simply is no longer economically viable. Supply and demand have turned against it. The price paid for recyclables is below zero, i.e. you have to pay to get someone to take it off your hands. As is the case with ethanol fuel, recycling can only thrive by way of coercion or taxpayer-funded subsidies.

Lawmakers in California are aware of the mess they’ve created, but don’t assume they’ll do anything about it that makes sense. North Coast Assemblyman Jim Wood recently submitted legislation that would permit recycling centers to schedule appointments, something that’s currently prohibited. According to Wood, “These modest changes will by no means solve all the problems facing the bottle bill program, but they address a crisis in my district, and hopefully they will help other communities struggling with access to redemption centers.” Exactly how making appointments would solve any of the deeper problems of the program he did not explain.

Meanwhile ninety-five percent or more of what goes into recycling bins goes to landfills. That reality is something no one wants to talk about. It would be too upsetting. What we have is faux recycling.

The left’s use of recycling as visible penance is similar to what Christian theology called “outward signs of grace.” That was an issue Saint Augustine addressed in the 4th century. It dealt with the fact that others could not see if you had grace. Recycling is a modern attempt to cope with the same problem.

Tuesday, April 27, 2021

Dr. Ryan Cole on COVID myths, mistakes and more [Video]

Dr. Ryan Cole on COVID myths, mistakes and more [Video]

A doctor in the field talks about his direct experience with various COVID treatments and offers some surprises.

YouTube, amazingly to this point has NOT banned this video we are presenting. This is a talk given by Dr Ryan Cole in the state of Idaho in the United States. He gives a very thorough rundown about COVID and the treatment methodologies employed – what works, what doesn’t, what is wise, what is stupid and at the end of his talk he dwells on the topic of the “vaccine” for the virus.

As with most pieces I write, my own personal bias was piqued at learning of this video, so when I watched it I was surprised to unlearn some things that actually, Fox News was talking about as great treatments. Remdesivir is reviewed here, and it is noted that a lot of people who get this treatment are not benefitted by it because it is given too late, when the virus has reached its maximum replication state (Remdesivir does work to slow replication, but this is useless if the person has been sick for a few days, as in about one or two days of being sick, COVID hits its maximum and the immune system is in full mode or “hyperdrive” if there is a cytokine storm.) Other treatments that are far cheaper do work, and Dr. Cole notes an example of regions in India that are reportedly COVID free after administering older and proven drugs that the WHO would rather not talk about.

If this video gets removed from YouTube, which is quite likely as it does not follow COVID-19 “orthodoxy”, then follow this linked text to BitChute, where the same talk can be viewed on a free site. The YouTube video is longer, apparently there is some additional discussion, but the first thirty minutes will give most of what one needs to get from this doctor.

A few tasty tidbits:

Masks do not work at all. If you look at the title graphic for this news piece you will see a COVID case graph for North Dakota, which implemented mask mandates, and South Dakota, which did not. Judge for yourself.

Vitamin D is very important for the upkeep of the immune system, and people living in latitudes higher than 35 degrees (north or south) go through at least a few months in the year where they cannot generate enough Vitamin D through exposure to sunlight. The doctor dwells very strongly on this as a key preventative agent.

Ivermectin is seen to be extremely effective in treating COVID-19 as well as a variety of other diseases. Ivermectin is also panned by the politically powerful.

The vaccine, so to speak, at least the mRNA type, is not what we would normally consider a vaccine. It is an experimental treatment and while it is not likely to make people grow three heads or turn into Vladimir Putin, in the doctor’s view, it is something that may cause problems down the road. This has been evidenced by test animal subjects who developed problems within six to twelve months after being injected with mRNA treatments.

And of course, there is a lot of pocket lining going on with the types of treatment and the types of rhetoric being used in the US in particular. We have the COVID virus in Russia, in fact, Russia is number five in the amount of cases in the world, However, nowhere is Russia are people being driven into hysteria over it, something also true in the number two nation, India. But in the US, this could not have been a better catalyst or weapon for tearing the country apart.

American readers ought to consider this – that the United States has experienced by far the most disruption through the manipulation of power and people under the pretext of “safety.”

We are all being massively hoaxed, and the Coronavirus itself is far less dangerous than the wishes of those using it to cow populations all over the world, but especially in the United States.

Be smarter than them.