Sunday, July 14, 2024

So many of us are thankful that President Trump was not seriously harmed by the attempt on his life

The horrible divisions that the insane Left have created among Americans bear their evil fruit

The shot went so close to killing him that many will see a protective hand behind his survival

Any Christians who were skeptical of Trump's candidacy will be unlikely to be skeptical now


UK: Yes. Labour will go Woke

Now that Labour has won an enormous majority the dogs of woke be released. As if on cue, Prime Minister Keir Starmer used his maiden speech to boast about his party’s world-leading share of LGBT MPs and praise race grievance-monger Diane Abbott. He also appointed the woke one-two punch of Bridget Phillipson as Education Secretary and Anneliese Dodds as Equalities Minister.

Both have incurred the ire of J.K. Rowling because they prioritise the rights of biological males who think they are ladies over the right of women to female-only spaces. This foreshadows the surreptitious manner in which, for the the next five years, Labour will push what I call ‘left-liberal extremism’ —walk softly (talk about ‘centrist’, ‘country over party’, ‘bringing people together’) but carry a big woke stick.

As Matt Goodwin has commented, the woke belief system is not just a sideshow. It threatens the very foundations of Western civilisation. Starmer, as Goodwin notes, is likely to toss red meat to Labour’s radical woke interest groups because he lacks the budgetary headroom to drive growth, boost public spending and increase pay.

His large majority also means he will have to contend with querulous progressive backbench MPs who include Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) such as Nadia Whittome - who has vowed to push gender self-identification ‘no ifs ands or buts’, and described open debate as ‘an effective rollback of assumed equality.’

This doesn’t mean Starmer is suddenly going to start saying ‘transwomen are women’ or Britain is ‘systemically racist’. He knows the British people are not woke. In my own surveys, two-thirds oppose woke policies while we have already seen, in Scotland, how a large majority break against woke policies when they become aware of them.

Instead, Keir Starmer’s stated aim is to shoot down the opponents of this cultural revolution as ‘divisive’, thus running interference for woke left activists in the civil service, schools, universities, public sector bodies, galleries and other institutions.

Already, in her opening speech to civil servants, Lisa Nandy, new Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, has made clear she will drop a ban on rainbow lanyards and other political messaging because ‘the era of culture wars are over’ and ‘[our] entire focus is on the work of delivering change – not lanyards’ (read: green light for culture war activists).

This will be paired with discreet (‘walk softly, big stick’) measures, such as appointing woke ministers to key redoubts in the culture war (such as Dodds and Phillipson), while suggesting that similarly self-identified ‘woke’ activists and supporters of Black Lives Matter take control of Labour’s efforts to curtail illegal immigration.

While the Conservatives did little to combat woke, the differences with Labour are important. The Tories mounted a weak and unfocused effort to rid schools, the civil service, and the NHS of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and gender ideology, failing to stop to these ideas in the wider Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) agenda.

While 2019 Tory MPs such as Caroline Noakes, Crispin Blunt, Theresa May and Dehenna Davison were openly woke, many of their peers were not and some, such as Kemi Badenoch, Suella Braverman and Oliver Dowden, were willing to combat this poisonous belief system.

The knowledge that the government was at least somewhat opposed to this agenda meant woke activists in the public sector could not fully let rip. But that leash came off when Labour won its enormous majority at the general election, on July 4.

What is woke? Don’t let the left fool you by arguing it is an empty epithet, that it is just about “being nice” or “tolerant”. In fact, it is an analytically and empirically robust concept —a distinctive political tradition or ideology in its own right.

As I explain in my new online course on Woke, and my new book Taboo, woke refers to the making sacred of historically marginalised race, gender and sexual identity groups.

It is a belief system that results in a prioritising of equal outcomes and protecting minorities from emotional harm. Its supporters claim this is about ‘being kind’ but the reality is that, today, kindness to one group, such as biological males who identify as female, entails being unkind to another, such as biological women who want to protect women’s sport and spaces.

Likewise, assailing ‘whiteness’ in the name of making minorities feel welcome is an attack on the identity of the ethnic majority. Punishing people for politically incorrect speech or chilling their freedom of expression might make a few sensitive minorities feel better, but will embarrass and annoy more confident minorities while stifling the majority group’s traditions and free speech.

These are conflicts of group interest in a democracy, not open-and-shut ‘rights’ issues – which is the way the woke media class and elite institutions frame it.

The view of minorities as sacred began with the anti-racism taboo in mid-1960s America, which was the ‘big bang’ of today’s moral order. Then, over time, the magic was borrowed by feminists, gays, and later trans activists to create new taboos in our society around sexism, homophobia, and transphobia, and more.

While proportionate norms against racism and prejudice are important, taboos are tripwires that activate our disgust reflex, reducing complexity in our society to binary and simplistic debates in which those who deviate from the new, stifling orthodoxy are silenced or stigmatised as racist, sexist, homophobic, and so on.

These stigmas are the ‘North Star’ around which today’s moral system revolves. Until we undo that, cancel culture, gender ideology, critical race theory, and routine attacks on the history and collective memory of Western societies like Britain will not just continue; they will accelerate and intensify.

As African-American writer Shelby Steele, who lived through the civil rights struggle, recalls, in the 1950s African Americans in the South had to kowtow to whites, who at that time held the cultural power.

But from the 1960s whites had to genuflect to African Americans, who had acquired cultural power because whites had confessed to having mistreated African Americans. This was an unavoidable response to the dismantling of racial segregation.

In order to recover moral authority, Steele writes that white people and American institutions had to virtue signal they were ‘good whites’ by praising minorities, denigrating their fellow white Americans, or adopting policies like affirmative action, which arguably do more harm than good to African Americans.

We see this, for example, in studies which shown how white liberal progressives in America dumb down their speech when speaking to African Americans, tiptoeing around groups they revere as sacred rather than treating them as equals.

The power of identity stigmas, like kryptonite, can be used to disable opponents, rending them radioactive to others. The political left, whether radical or liberal, drew on newly sacralised minority groups like African-Americans as a source of meaning and direction for their politics.

But this also meant they could borrow cultural power from minorities and use it against the right. In other words, the moral revolution brought about by the race taboo did not just involve a transfer of power from white to black; it also involved a shift of moral authority from right to left.

When a party is in government they make the laws, and when an ideology has cultural power it makes the norms. The new cultural order gave the left the authority to use epithets like racist, sexist or transphobe to shut down democratic debate in numerous policy areas. Immigration, crime, education, health or any other sphere of policy that could plausibly be associated with race or sex thereby came to slant left.

The fear of being irradiated by the kryptonite of the race taboo – and thus socially ostracised – could even turn conservative politicians into useful idiots, such as when Theresa May called the Conservatives the ‘nasty party’ and pushed the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) agenda as a way of deflecting the charge of racism levelled at her government by progressive media because of its efforts to cut immigration.

In this way, as I argue in Taboo, the political left’s strategy across the West has been to launder its illiberal ideas by badging them as liberal. Who could possibly be opposed to ‘anti-racism’, ‘inclusion’, ‘diversity’, or ‘trans rights’, they ask?

Those who try to argue against such policies are smeared as racists, Islamophobes, transphobes, or simply ‘hateful’ figures. We saw this, tragically, with the grooming gangs scandal, where public officials routinely failed to act against Pakistani Muslim gangs that preyed on young, white, working-class girls for fear of being seen as ‘racist’.

In fact, the cultural left deploys a ‘radioactive velvet glove’, involving both a carrot and a stick. The carrot is that you get to think of yourself as a good person if you agree with this new moral order; the stick is you are cancelled if you are dare disagree


The Tory elite class is in CLOUD CUCKOO LAND

Ever since their historic defeat at the general election, more than a few members of the Tory elite class have decided to leave reality for Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Despite Nigel Farage and Reform having just fired a bazooka at the Conservative Party’s electorate, winning over millions of disillusioned conservatives, one member of the Tory elite class after another has since lined up to warn their party that any association with Faragism would be the final kiss of death.

Writing in The Times, former Conservative Party leader William Hague, who never won an election himself, warns his party against “appeasing populist rhetoric”, “simplistic and nationalistic solutions”, and brands Faragism “a dead end”.

Andy Street, who just lost the West Midlands mayoralty to Labour, likewise warns the Conservative Party it would be “very, very foolish” to adopt a “Reform-light agenda”, which would only push them “down an electoral cul-de-sac”.

And then there’s former leader Theresa May who, after squandering the biggest electoral opportunity in modern times, in 2017, has proclaimed Nigel Farage “is not a Conservative” and should never have any role in the Tory party.

Are these people for real? Are they serious? Do they not realise what just happened to their party?

Or are they simply more interested in signalling their elite values to other members of the Tory elite rather speaking to their wider party and the country?

I say all this because I think they need a reality check. So here it is. Nigel Farage and Reform just completely blew apart the only electoral coalition the Tories have managed to assemble since Thatcher that was capable of delivering a big majority.

And Farage did this —as I warned for years he would— by reaching out to all those disillusioned and disgruntled 2019 Tories who took a punt on the Conservatives five years ago but now wish they never had. Just look at the data.

Farage and Reform, according to Lord Ashcroft’s post-election polling, poached nearly twice as many 2019 Conservative voters as Keir Starmer and Labour. He cannibalised close to one-quarter of the entire Conservative Party electorate.

YouGov’s polling is even more striking. Fully one-quarter of the Conservative Party’s 2019 electorate defected to Reform while just one-tenth switched to Labour.

Put another way, while one in ten 2019 Tories switched to Labour, one in four went to Reform.

The blunt reality is that more 2019 Conservatives switched to Reform than the number who switched to Labour and the Liberal Democrats combined.

Yet if you read recent commentary by the Tory elite class —endorsed by pro-Labour analysts who rather like the idea of the Tories becoming indistinguishable from the Labour Party—then you’d think that the very opposite is true.

You'd think the Tories must do all they can to avoid Faragism and focus instead on winning back all those Labour and Liberal Democrat voters in the big cities and leafy shires who, we are led to believe, might actually consider voting Tory in 2029. Are these people out of their minds?

It is Nigel Farage, nobody else, who presents the greatest threat to the survival of the Conservative Party. And, as we learned last week, he is now also hitting the Tories in other ways, too.

By tearing off the biggest chunk of the Tory vote, Farage just indirectly cost the Conservatives 150 seats while leapfrogging ahead of them to become the main opposition in nearly 100 seats.

He not only displaced the Tories across northern England, which really matters given Labour has re-emerged as the dominant force in Scotland, but has done so while becoming far more competitive in Wales, picking up seven in ten former Brexit Party voters, one in three Tory Leavers, nearly three in ten of all Brexit voters, one-fifth of the working-class, and nearly as many middle-aged men as the Tories.




Thursday, July 11, 2024

The great coverup

The Democrats are rallying around Joe Biden while the rest of the country wonders out loud about the extent of his degeneration and decline. Biden’s mental health has become the talking point in the US, if not the whole the world. That other “d” word, dementia, is trotted out routinely. In political terms, it’s worth remembering dread and doom also start with “d”.

It’s an almost perfect mix of denial and derision. The DNC has tried to rally the troops. Big and powerful Democrats have come out, hand on heart, declaring Biden a man untroubled by the ravages of age, while other senior colleagues who urge Biden to withdraw his candidacy receive calls politely and then not so politely telling them to please stop talking about Biden’s neurological shortcomings.

It’s not working.

Questions were asked directly of Biden as to his state of cognitive function on Sunday in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on America’s ABC network.

Had the President undergone “specific cognitive tests and have you had a neurologist, a specialist, do an examination?”

“No one said I had to,” Biden replied. “No one said … No. I’m good.”

It wasn’t reassuring. Biden’s descent into geriatrics could not have been more marked if Joe and Jill were seen patiently waiting outside Arby’s for the early bird specials to kick in.

When directly asked if he would undertake cognitive testing and release the results publicly, Biden baulked and claimed that, as President, he does a neurology test everyday. No, Joe. That’s the lunch menu.

South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham went a step further in calling for mandatory presidential cognitive testing of a type he probably does not know exists but is a standard, quick diagnosis tool in gerontological medicine around the world, known as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test (MoCA).

“All nominees for president going into future should have neurological exams as part of an overall physical exam … Let’s test Trump. Let’s test Biden. Let’s test the line of succession”, the 68-year-old Graham told CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, local time.

“This is a wake-up call for the country,” he added. “We need to make sure that the people who are going to be in the line of succession are capable of being commander-in-chief under dire circumstances.”

Graham believed Biden was in denial and posed all manner of perils for the smooth functioning of the executive branch, saying: “This is a dangerous time for the American people to have somebody … leading the ship of state who seems to be compromised.”

Asked if Trump, 78, should have the test, too, Graham said: “Yes, yes, I think both.”

But Trump did have a version or a form of the MoCA in 2018 and we know this because in the Donald’s own words, he “aced” it.

The precise results? We don’t know if the 30-minute MoCA test ran from go to whoa or was truncated in some way. What we can safely conclude from Trump’s test is that the baseline for determining a POTUS’s neurological health or otherwise is now set at him or her remembering five unrelated nouns in a passage of speech read out for a minute containing around 60 nouns. If you can remember five of the 60, congratulations, you can be president of the United States.

Trump proudly repeated his noun mantra for the camera four times to a startled Fox News journalist: “Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.”

“It’s actually not that easy,” Trump said. “But for me it was easy.”

Telling the story later, Trump got the doctor’s name wrong. But at least he did it. Biden is refusing.

One wonders how Biden would handle a MoCA. I don’t want to be unkind but if the leader of the free world can’t perform the same basic memory functions I’d expect of your average adult Labrador, then it might be time for a long lie down. But that’s where we are now. Pass the Adderall and the Penny Pads.

Biden’s speech celebrating the 75th anniversary of NATO in DC on Tuesday was said to be a great opportunity for him to recover after the debate. The general view after the speech was that Biden had been “strong” and “confident”. The talk earlier from some Democrat sources had been that Biden’s NATO speech was his last chance at a recovery from the disaster of the first presidential debate. That race has been run. Shutting the gate now after the horse has not only bolted but fled, galloping wildly, only to appear as a dot on the horizon briefly before vanishing altogether three weeks ago is a fool’s errand.

It does raise the delicious though unlikely event that the presidential debate could be scrapped in favour of televised cognitive testing where Presidents Biden and Trump line up and work through a series of exhaustive word association tests, mnemonic exercises and building things with blocks before a live television audience.

Then it’s onto the physical trials. Jenga at 20 paces. Hungry, Hungry Hippos moderated by Sean Hannity. And as the two men quibbled over Biden’s golf handicap at the first debate, Bingo Bango Bongo over 18 gruelling holes at the local pitch and putt. Winner takes the White House.

It could lead to the resurrection of free-to-air television if handled properly. Or it could end up in a fully blown civil war in the US. Either way, circling the wagons around Biden, with or without cognitive testing, should be shouting, if not screaming, to all senior Democrats, including Joe and his wife Jill, that when questions of the President’s mental decline are being asked directly during a softball interview, it is a sign time is up. Or to quote a line from Joseph Heller’s parody of US government and academia, Good As Gold: “Don’t force anything mechanical, never kick anything inanimate, and don’t fart around with the inevitable.”


Biden administration agrees to ship 500-pound bombs to Israel

The US will soon begin shipping to Israel the 500-pound bombs the Biden administration had previously suspended, ending a two-month pause it had imposed in a bid to reduce civilian casualties in Gaza, US officials said.

The decision came as the Israeli army said overnight on Wednesday it had completed its mission in Shujaiya, a neighbourhood in the east of Gaza that had been the scene of violent fighting for two weeks.

The bombs “are in the process of being shipped”, and are expected to arrive in Israel in coming weeks, an administration official said. Heavier 2000-pound bombs meant to be part of the same shipment were still on hold, the official added. The US announced in May it had held up one shipment that included 2000-pound bombs and 500-pound bombs. Israel sent a ship to Charleston, South Carolina, to pick up the shipment before the decision was made.

President Joe Biden’s decision to hold delivery of certain types of bombs marked an escalation of tensions between his administration and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Mr Netanyahu’s handling of the war in Gaza, where more than 38,000 Palestinians have been killed since last October, according to Palestinian officials. The figure doesn’t specify how many were combatants.

The US suspension came in response to Israel’s plans to invade the southern Gaza city of Rafah without what the Biden administration regarded as a credible plan to protect civilians. More than one million people had taken shelter there, fleeing fighting in other parts of Gaza.

Mr Biden had described a major operation in Rafah as a “red line”, but not one that would lead to a total cut-off of US arms supplies.

“Our main concern had been and remains the potential use of 2000-pound bombs in Rafah and elsewhere in Gaza,” a US official said. “Because our concern was not about the 500-pound bombs, those are moving forward as part of the usual process.”

The Israelis had argued they needed heavy bombs to destroy tunnels. US officials said that was outweighed by US concerns about potential civilian deaths when such large bombs are used in densely populated areas.

Axios reported last month that the 500-pound bombs would be shipped soon. During its Rafah operation, Israel seized control of the Gaza Strip’s border with Egypt, achieving one aim of the war by cutting off what it said was a key route for smuggling weapons. The operation forced a majority of the displaced Gazans in Rafah to flee the city.

At least 46 Palestinians were killed on May 26 during an Israeli airstrike in Tal al-Sultan, a refugee camp in Rafah. The White House said the strike didn’t cross the “red line” the President had drawn in March during his MSNBC interview.

“This is an example of the administration folding their hand. They were called out on their bluff of Rafah and now they’re relenting,” said Seth Binder, director of advocacy for the Middle East Democracy Centre, a policy institute in Washington.

A State Department spokesman said on Monday it believes the Rafah operation caused fewer civilian casualties than previous phases of the war. Israeli officials have in recent weeks signalled a shift to a lower-intensity phase of the war. Some security analysts said the perceived reduction in civilian deaths could be because of a slower pace of strikes in recent weeks, rather than a change in Israel’s approach to targeting.

“There’s not much evidence of that, but certainly some evidence the operational tempo is lower,” said Brian Finucane, a former State Department official and now a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group.

Reducing civilian casualties continues to be a challenge for the Israeli military in Gaza. An Aair strike on Tuesday in the town of Abasan al-Kabira, near the city of Khan Younis in southern Gaza, killed at least 25 people and wounded 50 others in a school where thousands of displaced people were sheltering, Palestinian health officials said.


ALG Urges Yes Vote on SAVE Act

July 10, 2024, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement urging the House to pass H.R. 8281, the Safeguard American Voting Eligibility (SAVE) Act:

“There is no excuse not to pass the Safeguard American Voting Eligibility Act. The sacred right to vote by citizens which so many have fought for from Selma, Alabama to remote corners of the world where freedom has continued to be won, is under attack. Rep. Chip Roy is right when he says, ‘Federal law currently PROHIBITS states from verifying citizenship status during registration for federal elections. The SAVE Act requires proof of citizenship to register and would remove non-citizens from voter rolls. What are Democrats fearful of?’

“The answer is simple. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and the Democrat members of Congress oppose democracy by seeking to destroy the one-person, one-vote constitutional principle, through annihilating chain of custody of live ballots and engaging in a deliberate campaign to register illegal aliens to vote as they enter the country and sign up for free stuff from the government.

“Joe Biden has stated many times that this election is a battle for the soul of America. He is right and protecting the fundamental principle that American citizens have a unique franchise to determine the direction of the country is essential to maintaining our freedom and liberty.

“Americans for Limited Government strongly urges a Yes vote on the SAVE Act.”




Wednesday, July 10, 2024


All change: Britain's general election produced a result no less seismic for being predicted


King Charles invites Sir Keir Starmer to form a government
Here are my initial thoughts on the results of Britain’s general election.

The most significant results are: Labour 412 (up by 211), Conservative 121 (down by 250), Liberal Democrats 71 (up by 63), Scottish National Party 9 (down by 38), Independent 6 (up from zero), Reform 4 (up from zero), Green 4 (up by 3).

Labour’s enormous overall majority of 170 seats means that it can broadly do whatever it wants because it faces a fractured and weak opposition.

However, the country did not express any enthusiasm for Labour. The party achieved less than one third of the popular vote — the lowest of any governing party in modern history, and even less than the 40 per cent secured by the hard-left Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn in 2017. Yesterday’s Labour share of the vote had hardly changed from the last general election in 2019.

The country remains wary and suspicious of Labour and the new Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer. What voters were determined to do was get rid of the Conservative party, whose share of the popular vote accordingly imploded. Some 11 Cabinet ministers were swept away along with swathes of other former MPs, leaving a pitiably small rump of Tories in parliament to face the jubilant and crowded Labour benches. The Conservative party — previously known as Britain’s “natural party of government” — is now in the wilderness for the forseeable future.

The Reform party led by Nigel Farage achieved extraordinary success from a standing start. Despite the high bar against third parties set by the British electoral system — and despite some deeply questionable candidates, the result of a campaign thrown together at a moment’s notice with next to no organisation or party discipline — Reform won four seats, putting Farage himself into parliament for the first time.

The significance of this achievement, however, goes much deeper than the number of seats the party actually won. Reform did enormous damage to the Conservatives (and more than a little to Labour too) by the high numbers voting for it, costing the Tories no fewer than 180 seats. Reform is now a serious insurgency on the pattern of “populist” insurgencies against a monolithic political establishment that we have seen developing in Europe.

A deeply ominous development is the emergence of an Islamic sectarian vote, with four previously Labour-held seats lost to independent candidates whose pitch — in a British general election concerning British national interests — was about Gaza and “Palestine”.

Although even Labour “moderates” generally side with the international “human rights” and “humanitarian” establishment which is virulently hostile to Israel, British Muslims are angry that Starmer supported Israel’s defence against Hamas after the October 7 pogrom. As a result, Labour candidates have been harassed and intimidated by Muslims and other anti-Israel types and lost votes in yesterday’s election.

In the Birmingham Yardley constituency Labour’s Jess Phillips, who only narrowly kept her seat under pressure from this “Gaza” lobby, was met with boos and jeers as she made an angry acceptance speech in which she denounced the “aggression and violence” in “the worst election I have ever stood in”. All this is entirely foreign to British democratic traditions and does not bode well.

So what is likely to be the outcome of this election?

This is a deeply paradoxical result. Starmer has an unassailable majority in parliament, but must now govern a country that has not embraced his agenda. To his credit, he detoxified the Labour party to make people feel it was safe enough to give it their vote — which they needed to do to achieve their principal objective to get the other lot out. But now he has to win hearts and minds. This will be a tough call.

He inherits a country with severe structural economic, social and cultural problems. He has made promises which he won’t have the money to deliver. Crises with which Rishi Sunak unsuccessfully struggled, such as stopping the migrant boats in the English Channel, collapsing public services and rising lawlessness and anarchy on the streets, all now land in Starmer’s lap.

He also inherits an appalling epidemic of Jew-hatred, which will undoubtedly worry him greatly — not least because he has Jewish family members, and because he is a decent man. However, dealing properly with antisemitism will mean acknowledging the symbiotic link between the Palestinian cause and Jew-hatred — which, as a man of the left, he has never done — and standing up to both the Muslim community and the far left, constituencies which are represented within his own party.

Buoyed by the success of the “Gaza” election campaigns and by the refusal of the authorities to stop the pro-Hamas intimidation and disorder on the streets, Islamic sectarianism is now likely to increase. A Muslim bloc has emerged which is likely to demand not just policies hostile to Israel but measures to adapt aspects of British society to Islamic requirements.

Starmer will be less hostile towards Israel than the far-left or the Muslim bloc are demanding; but since his instincts remain those of the radical human rights lawyer he originally was, he is unlikely to stop the demonisation of Israel that oozes from every pore of the liberal establishment (including the Foreign Office) and which is fuelling the harassment of Britain’s Jews.

Moreover, while he will be economically cautious he’ll let rip on the “culture wars”. The result will be more transgender abuses of children and women and more demonisation of white people and British “colonialism”. He’s also likely to outlaw “Islamophobia” — which could have an even greater chilling effect on necessary discussion of Muslim antisemitism or Islamic terrorism than is currently the case. The rumour that the veteran “human rights” ideologue Harriet Harman is to become head of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission in place of Baroness Falkner, who has bravely tried to counter the transgender lunacy, chills the bone.

Starmer is also committed to an insane acceleration of the already ruinous Net Zero target, and to developing “ever closer” ties with the EU which will further stifle the entrepreneurial freedoms that Brexit enabled but the Tory government never delivered.

With this agenda, the Labour government will be as one with the entire administrative state and the entire cultural and intellectual establishment — precisely the dogmatic cultural tyranny against which millions of Europeans and Americans are in revolt.

And so what of the Tories? They will now descend into civil war. Indeed, it’s already started, with different factions accusing each other of having lost the country.

The fact is that for decades the Conservative party has failed to articulate basic conservative values — conserving what was best and most valuable in British and western culture. Ricocheting between liberal universalists and free market ideologues, the Tories persisted in the lie that the welfare state could coexist with reduced public spending; they broke their promise of controlling mass immigration; they failed to break the grip of the administrative state to take advantage of Brexit; they were largely supine in the face of the transgender lunacy and anti-white racism; they were paralysed in the face of widespread anarchy on the streets; and they failed to protect Britain’s Jewish community against attack.

So when it comes to opposing Labour’s agenda, the Tories will have nothing to say because they helped enable much of it.

Meanwhile Nigel Farage, who has now achieved what he set out to do in pulverising the Conservative party, will be moving onto the next part of his agenda — taking the fight to the Labour government in order to bring about the reconfiguration of British politics, by reconnecting it with the British mainstream and recovering the true centre ground, that he has long envisaged.

Farage — the true and only begetter of Brexit — is the most consequential politician of the post-Thatcher period. He has his own flaws. His free market principles line him up with the wing of the Tory party that disappeared inside its economic tunnel vision. And his tendency towards international isolationism and indifference towards defence are alarming.

But he speaks for millions by his promotion of the independence of the nation within borders that are properly policed and with immigration kept to manageable levels, and his defence of a culture based on its own history and traditions enshrining fairness, social order and a grounding in reality that people can recognise as a shared national endeavour and that they can call home.

Unless the Tories acknowledge that this is the ground they have so disastrously abandoned — and unless they become committed to promote and defend it — they’re finished.

On the steps of Number Ten, Starmer said he would govern “unburdened by doctrine”. A disillusioned and sceptical nation is about to see just what he thinks that means.


Haley Releases Delegates, Urges Them to Back Trump Ahead of RNC Convention

She was very popular so this is good. Aiming for Veep?

Former GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley announced on July 9 that she is releasing her 97 delegates and urging them to support former President Donald Trump.

The move comes days before the Republican National Convention when the 45th president is set to be nominated as the party’s 2024 presidential candidate.

“The nominating convention is a time for Republican unity,” said Ms. Haley in a statement.

“We need a president who will hold our enemies to account, secure our border, cut our debt, and get our economy back on track,” said the former South Carolina governor and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Ms. Haley went on to call on her delegates to back former President Trump at the Republican National Convention, which will be held July 15–18 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Politico first reported the news.

The former candidate will not be attending the convention.

“She was not invited, and she’s fine with that,” Ms. Haley’s spokesperson, Chaney Denton, told The Epoch Times.

“Trump deserves the convention he wants,” Ms. Denton said. “She’s made it clear she’s voting for him and wishes him the best.”

In May, a few months after suspending her presidential campaign, Ms. Haley announced she will be voting for former President Trump.

She said that she wants a “president who would support capitalism and freedom. A president who understands we need less debt, not more debt.” While former President Trump “has not been perfect on these policies,” she said, he is preferable to President Joe Biden.

Ms. Haley also urged the GOP frontrunner to “reach out to the millions of people who voted for me and continue to support me and not assume that they’re just going to be with him.”

After dropping out of the race in March, Ms. Haley continued to receive a notable share of votes in Republican primaries around the country. She notched 20 percent of the vote in the primaries in Maryland, 18 percent in Nebraska, and 22 percent in Indiana.




Tuesday, July 09, 2024

Electorates are increasingly being divided between those supporting the status quo and those who want radical change

Politics in the 21st century are witnessing a new type of divide. Rather than being between the Left and the Right, electorates are increasingly being divided between those supporting the status quo and those who want radical change.

Joe Biden exemplifies how the political establishment that formed in the 1980s and persisted through the 2000s is on its last legs. Biden, clearly ill and delusional, struggles to fulfill the responsibilities of the president of the United States, much like the old consensus fails to meet the demands of the 21st century. Despite calls for change, Biden remains resolute in his intention to shape the future, mirroring the establishment’s desire to maintain the status quo.

While the mainstream media has only recently started to question Biden’s performance, younger voters have long been disillusioned with his performance and the status quo he represents. Gen Z and Millennials desire more radical actions from Biden, such as raising the national minimum wage, implementing single-payer healthcare, and supporting “Palestine” over Israel.

Biden, who comes from an older generation of Democrat leaders, is interestingly serving as a bulwark against these radical ideas. The same Democrat establishment that stole the 2016 Democrat nomination from democratic socialist Bernie Sanders has been working overtime for the past five years to protect Biden from his left flank in an effort to maintain its ideological influence on national affairs. Biden’s history of moderation may even explain why so-called or former conservatives like Stuart Stevens, Joe Scarborough, and Tim Miller have been some of the biggest Biden cheerleaders during his four years in office.

Another development from the past two weeks that reveals the division between status-quo statists and change-makers is the loss of Freedom Caucus Chairman Bob Good to the Swamp-backed state senator John McGuire. While one can levy justified critiques of Good’s management of the Freedom Caucus, he is a conservative stalwart whose voice is greatly appreciated in Congress.

Why did such a strong, prominent conservative lose a race in a red district? Two words: Donald Trump. The septuagenarian endorsed McGuire, ostensibly as payback because Good endorsed Ron DeSantis at the beginning of the Republican primary.

I call BS on this explanation. Over the years, Trump has shown immense forgiveness to those who have initially shown reluctance toward his candidacy. Consider J.D. Vance, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Lindsay Graham, David McCormick, and more. Why could he not extend this forgiveness to Good?

I suspect that this endorsement by Trump is just another step in his long march toward currying favor with the establishment. This past week, Trump even denounced the anti-statist Project 2025, claiming he knew nothing about it.

Trump’s preference for stability over change is consistent. He endorsed primary challengers against Thomas Massie in 2020, recently called for Chip Roy to be primaried, and supported Mike Rogers for a Michigan Senate seat over Freedom Caucus cofounder Justin Amash. Both Trump and Biden are favoring continuity over disruptive change.

A similar pattern is observed in France. In the recent snap elections, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally received the highest share of votes at 33.1%, running on an anti-immigration platform. This outcome has shocked the French political establishment and might force Emmanuel Macron’s centrist party to collaborate with the left-wing New Popular Front to prevent Le Pen’s return.

The election results also reflect an age-based divide. Older voters (70+) showed significant support for Macron’s coalition (32%) and Le Pen’s RN (29%), with less support for the New Popular Front (18%). Conversely, younger voters (18-24) gave only 9% of their votes to Macron’s coalition, 33% to RN, and 48% to the New Popular Front. This indicates a greater polarization among younger generations, similar to trends in the United States, where the youth reject bipartisan centrism embraced by older generations.

The growing political polarization presents both challenges and opportunities. While it is good that the youth are rejecting the entrenched political establishment and its antiquated ideas, it also suggests a future marked by even more disunity and discord.


In Brief: Joe Biden Is Not a Decent Man

Even as they attempt to force him out, Democrats are still praising the sterling character of the president, especially in contrast to Trump. But that’s always been a lie. …

We can dismiss the claim that his administration has been a great success, an astonishing disconnect with the reality of an inflation-ridden economy, open border, and a world in chaos on his watch, that is nonetheless ritually repeated regularly on the left-wing news channels. But Democrat partisans actually think they are on firmer ground in affirming that he’s a great guy — and therefore a stark contrast to Trump, whom they denounce as personally evil — even as they come to grips with the fact that he lacks the mental acuity to be the leader of the free world.

But the notion that “Scranton Joe” is a nice guy is as wrongheaded as the claim that he’s mentally competent or a brilliant leader.

Tobin begins with Biden’s demeanor and adversarial relationship with the truth.

The one constant about Biden has been his essential meanness, which, when combined with his well-known predilection for telling tall tales about his own life, is a formula for slander of all those who are not materially contributing to his success.

He recounts his lies even about the man involved in the traffic accident that tragically killed his first wife and daughter. Biden’s grief, says Tobin, “is to be pitied,” though his lies about it are “despicable.” LIkewise despicable was his family’s treatment of another family that lost a loved one in an accident caused by Joe’s brother Frank, who was egged on by Joe’s son Hunter.

Tobin moves on to the fact that “the evidence of his meanness in his public life has been just as abundant.” That includes plagiarism for speeches, smearing of judicial nominees, and the personal destruction of a woman — Tara Reade — “the woman who has accused him of sexual misconduct.” He continues:

Even as he showed us just how unfit he was to be president during the debate with Trump, he also gave the nation more reasons to doubt his good character. Recycling the lie that Trump claimed the neo-Nazis at the 2017 Charlottesville rally were “very fine people” is standard Democrat rhetoric. But a decent politician would have dropped it since even Snopes labeled the claim as “false” only a week before the debate.

But Trump, scream Biden’s supporters. And they have a point, concedes Tobin, though he concludes:

But, unlike Biden, Trump has never claimed to be a paragon of virtue. In fact, he has enjoyed his “bad boy” reputation, and a lot of voters love him because he doesn’t dissemble about it.

But whatever one can say about Trump not being an example of a virtuous public figure, Biden’s reputation as a good guy is as unfounded as any assertions of his greatness as a leader.




Monday, July 08, 2024

Change of direction

As you will see below, I have stopped posting here about Covid and have reverted this blog to its original purpose of  examining Leftism critically.  My posts about Covid are now going up on a special new blog for that purpose called COVID WATCH

The change is the result of the fact that Google, who host this blog, have got very energetic in deleting my posts about Covid, so I need to put them up on a site that is out of their reach.  There are a  LOT of skeptical reports coming out now about  Covid and the responses to it so I want to be able to refer to them.

The new blog includes some posts that Google have censored in the past


Is Trump a Fascist?

It's almost a conditioned reflex for Leftists these days to call Trump s Fascist. But they generlly just spit it out without making any real argument to support their claim. So the Leftist guy writing below is a refreshing change. He actually defines what he means by Fascism. And it is in part an accurate definition.

His basic problem is that he simply has no awareness of history -- no idea of what Fascism was when Italian dictator Benito Mussolini invented it. And a lot of national leaders of his time followed in Mussolini's footsteps, Franco, Pilsudsky, Salazar, Horthy, Peron and a certain Mr. A Hitler

So what WAS Fascism, historically? It was socialist. Mussolini was a respected Marxist intellectual. Is Trump a respected Marxist intellectual? I think you can see the problem.

The one thing the Fascists believed in and pursued is state power. As Mussolini defined his creed: "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato".

Trump by contrast, is a fairly traditional American conservative, with a committment to capitalism, patriotsm and individual liberty. He has never even tried to maroon his political opponents on remote islands (as Mussolini did) nor has be sent them to concentration camps, as Hitler did. And he has gained power exclusively by way a democratic election, which neither Hitler nor Mussonini did. Mussolini gained power via the famous "March on on Rome"

So in good Leftist style, the writer below is simply blind to the facts. He cannot see the difference betweeen a popular conservative and a dictator. He puffs up trivialities into major issues: Very Leftist.

Mainstream media have treated President Biden with prejudice and arrogance. Quite a few Democrats, reacting to this, treat any mention of President Biden’s fitness as disloyalty. This is mistaken, if understandable.

One source of the negative energy is Trump’s fascism. Focusing on it will not answer the question of what Democrats do, but will help us to understand the context in which the discussion is taking place. By fascism I just have in mind (1) the cult of personality of a Leader: (2) the party that becomes a single party; (3) the threat and use of violence; and (4) the big lie that must be accepted and used to reshape reality: in this case, that Trump can never lose an election.

Much more could be said (as I have done elsewhere), but it is the official big lie and the threats of violence that are dangerous to those whose job is to report truth. Trump is on the record as regarding reports as enemies of the people. What should I make — a journalist might ask — of Trump’s talk of arresting journalists? When not confronted, such questions become self-realizing fears.

That’s the subtle version. Meanwhile, those higher up in corporations might like the ratings Trump brings, or like Trump himself. And so it is easiest to keep things personal — give Trump time, on the self-deluding logic that he will discredit himself, and focus on Biden’s age rather than his achievements. For reporters it can feel like the work is being done when only Biden is at the receiving end of criticism — whereas, in fact, the ground has been shifted by fascism, or by the inability to confront it.

And so fascism spreads and settles in our minds during this, the crucial period between Trump’s first coup attempt and his second. The Biden administration is being held to standards, while the previous Trump administration is not; and Biden personally is being held to standards, while Trump as a person is not. This helps to generate a fascist aura. There must be something special about Trump such that he is different from others: a Leader beyond criticism rather than just an indebted hack or a felon from Queens or a client of a Russian dictator.

It should seem odd that media calls to step down were not first directed to Trump. If we are calling for Biden to step aside because someone must stop Trump from bringing down the republic, then surely it would have made more sense to first call for Trump to step aside? (The Philadelphia Inquirer did). I know the counter-arguments: his people wouldn’t have cared, and he wouldn’t have listened. The first misses an important point. There are quite a few Americans who have not made up their minds. The second amounts to obeying in advance. If you accept that a fascist is beyond your reach, you have normalized your submission.

When media folks describe discussions among Democrats as chaos and disarray, they are implicitly suggesting that it is better for a leader of a party to never be questioned. (Why, after all, is being part of an array a good thing?) An obvious point goes missed: Democrats can say what they want, because none of them is afraid. And that is good! Governor Maura Healey can express her dissent and Joe Biden can express his frustration with her — but no one is worried about her physical safety.

Trump, by contrast, controls his party through stochastic terror, threats issued through social media that his cult followers can be expected to realize. Republicans leave politics because they fear for themselves and their families. Those who remain all obey in advance. That is new, and it should not be normal, and it should not spread any further. But it becomes normal when we treat discussions, and not coercion, as abnormal.


Rachel Reeves: 'I'll rip up rules on planning within days'

Well blow me down! This is the last thing I would have expected to hear from a British Labour party minister. It is almost Trump-like. Whether she will be able to stick to her guns is the question. It will be very good for Britain if she manages it

Rachel Reeves will declare war on Britain's planning system today. Vowing to take the 'difficult decisions' needed to boost economic growth, the new Chancellor will use her first major speech to reveal that the Government is beginning its assault on the planning rules.

Before MPs break for the summer at the end of the month, councils will be issued with mandatory targets to clear the way for hundreds of thousands of new homes.

And ministers will begin work on controversial plans to weaken protections for some parts of the green belt to make room for development.

Ministers are also looking to relax planning rules for major infrastructure projects, such as the installation of hundreds of miles of new electricity pylons needed to link up wind and solar farms to the grid.

Ms Reeves will today declare that, with the public finances already stretched, boosting Britain's sluggish economic growth is the 'only route to improving the prosperity of our country'.

She will say last week's landslide election win gives Labour a 'mandate' for radical change – and will insist that planning reform is among the 'first steps' needed to 'fix the foundations of our economy, so we can rebuild Britain'.

'Our manifesto was clear: Sustained economic growth is the only route to improving the prosperity of our country and the living standards of working people,' she will say. 'Where governments have been unwilling to take the difficult decisions to deliver growth – or have waited too long to act – I will deliver.

'It is now a national mission. There is no time to waste.' Ms Reeves was appointed as Britain's first female Chancellor on Friday, and warned that there was 'not much money around'.

But union leaders, who have bankrolled Labour for decades, are already pushing her to open the spending taps.

Unite boss Sharon Graham said there was scope for the Government to borrow tens of billions of pounds to 'invest' in the economy and public services. She urged Ms Reeves to scrap Labour's tight fiscal rules and pour billions into Britain's 'crumbling public services'.

'We are going to have to borrow to invest,' she told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg. 'We have not got time to wait for growth. 'People are literally hurting out there and we are going to have to borrow to invest – our crumbling public services need money.'

Ms Graham's intervention is the first warning shot from the Left – and an early sign that the Labour leadership may find it hard to resist reverting to its tax-and-spend traditions.

The union boss warned that new Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer 'won't have a lot of honeymoon period' unless he delivers quickly.

Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham, on the same programme, called for a 'decisive break with austerity'.

Sir Keir yesterday began a whistle-stop tour of the UK with a visit to Scotland, where he promised an 'immediate reset' of relations with the devolved administrations.

Tomorrow he will travel to the Nato summit in Washington where he will seek to reassure leaders that his Government can be trusted on defence despite ditching Rishi Sunak's pledge to raise military spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP by the end of the decade.

Labour's decision to target the planning system immediately is likely to bring it into conflict with both countryside campaigners and those communities that feel they are already at the limit of development their area can take.

It could also trigger a backlash from some of its own MPs who represent a swathe of constituencies across southern England where planning reform has been resisted for years.

During the election campaign, one Labour official said the party was prepared to 'flatten the whole green belt'. This was denied by Labour.

Ben Houchen, Tory mayor of Tees Valley, said promising rapid growth on the back of planning reform could become 'a noose around the Labour Party's neck'.

He added: 'How keen are the Labour Government to tinker with environmental regulations which is one of the largest delays in the planning system?'




Saturday, July 06, 2024


Google has deleted the post that I put up here on 4th. See TONGUE-TIED for comments

Wednesday, July 03, 2024

Large Korean Study Finds Neuropsychiatric Symptoms Linked to Long COVID

Researchers from Kyung Hee University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea investigate any evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection is linked to short-and long-term neuropsychiatric symptoms.

The Korean-led team capitalized on the Korea nationwide cohort involving 10,027,506 (discovery) individuals plus the Japanese claims-based cohort involving 12,218, 680 (validation) to estimate the short-term (<30 days) and long-term (≥30 days) risks of neuropsychiatric outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with general population groups or external comparators (people with another respiratory infection).

This propensity score matching study led to the conclusion that in both the short and longer term, COVID-19 is elevated with risk of neuropsychiatric symptoms as compared to persons in Korea and Japan infected with another respiratory condition.

What symptoms and conditions emerge in this long COVID population as measured by propensity score matched outcomes in the 30-plus day cohort? Myriad neurological-based conditions:

Guillain-Barré syndrome
Cognitive deficit
Anxiety disorder
Ischemic stroke
Mood disorder

Are there any mitigating factors, interventions reducing risk of these neuropsychiatric symptoms linked with long COVID?

According to the study which has its limitations and is not designed to prove causation factors ranging from mild severity of COVID-19, increased vaccination against COVID-19 and heterologous vaccination could be associated with lower long-term risk of adverse neuropsychiatric outcomes in the targeted populations.

The time attenuation effect was the strongest during the first six months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, and this risk remained statistically significant for up to one year in Korea but beyond one year in Japan, according to the authors’ entry in the peer-reviewed journal nature human behavior.

Thanks to the validation cohort with Japanese data, the authors were able to replicate the findings. The authors point out that their “findings contribute to the growing evidence base on long COVID by considering ethnic diversity.”


A top Republican is demanding the Pentagon explain why it tried to hide taxpayer dollars sent to China for risky virus research

A new Defense Department report shockingly revealed the agency lost track of millions of taxpayer dollars sent to the adversary of the US.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is now demanding Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin explain what exactly happened, according to correspondence exclusively obtained by

Paul says he's 'deeply concerned' over the Pentagon report finding the department couldn't determine whether it sent money to China for pathogen research.

'It is unacceptable that DoD cannot account for the full extent of taxpayer funding it has spent on pandemic pathogen research at Chinese research laboratories,' Paul wrote to Austin.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has requested files from the Pentagon regarding their use of taxpayer dollars to fund pathogen research in China. Paul has been investigating the origins of COVID for years and was shocked over the Pentagon's neglect in tracking funding to foreign countries

The Republican requested Sec. Austin turn over files relating to the Pentagon's Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP) that funded Chinese pathogen research, similar to the research done on coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology before the COVID pandemic.

The senator has been vigorously investigating the origins of COVID and former White House Chief Medical Advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci for his role in the pandemic and its policies.

Now he is examining the Pentagon's role in using 'American taxpayer dollars for risky virus research in China and other foreign countries.'

'This lack of oversight represents a significant gap in our national security and undermines public trust in the DoD,' Paul said.

Previously, the senator disclosed to how Fauci still receives a taxpayer-funded 24/7 US Marshal security detail despite not being a government employee.

'The only other person probably getting his level of security would be the president, vice president, maybe cabinet members, and a few members in leadership in the House and Senate,' Paul told

Paul has also been outspoken in accusing Fauci of obfuscating the origins of the virus.

The Republican has twice sent referrals to the Justice Department for Fauci's prosecution, telling 'he committed a felony by lying to Congress saying he didn't fund gain and function research. He's still saying that.'

'It is annoying that he's still out there crowing how great he is, when really his philosophic opinion that gain-of-function research is worth the risk is something that I think history should remember, and I'm going to do every bit of making sure that history remembers that he was philosophically in favor of the research that I believe allowed millions of people to die from this lab leak,' Paul told

Last month, the Kentuckian grilled several eminent doctors during a Senate hearing on the origins of COVID and definition of gain-of-function research.

The hearing became heated as lawmakers and witnesses sparred over the good that could come from the research that enhances viruses to make them more effective.

And Paul said if Republicans gain control of the Senate in November and he gets committee power, his first action will be to subpoena those files.

'The most important information is the NIH deliberation over what is, what is not gain-of-function,' he told 'They won't give us the information.'

Those documents will truly reveal whether Fauci lied to Congress about whether he was overseeing the dangerous research method, which he previously denied doing before the Senate, Paul said.

Still, the reputation damage to US public health officials is done, he added.

'We have public health officials that appear to be more salesmen for Big Pharma, than they do objective scientists, and that still is a problem,' Paul told

'It's led to a great deal of distrust, much more distrust over what the government tells us, than ever before,' he said.


Jury Awards $687,000 to BlueCross BlueShield Scientist Fired for Refusing COVID-19 Vaccine

A federal jury has awarded $687,000 to a research scientist who was fired from BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee for refusing to comply with the company’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

Tanja Benton, who had worked at the firm for 16 years when she was fired, was awarded $177,240 in back pay, $10,000 in compensation, and $500,000 in punitive damages, according to a document made public by the federal court in eastern Tennessee on June 30.

Company officials told Ms. Benton in August of 2021 that she would need to be “fully vaccinated” to keep her position, according to her lawsuit. Ms. Benton refused, saying aborted fetal cell lines were involved in the development of the COVID-19 vaccines and she couldn’t “in good conscience consume the vaccine, which would not only defile her body but also anger and dishonor God.”

BlueCross BlueShield said her position involved “regular external public-facing interactions” so she couldn’t keep it. While Ms. Benton said her position became fully remote in 2020, BlueCross BlueShield said it would have involved some in-person interaction with clients.

Ms. Benton was told to pursue other positions within the company and applied for two. But she was fired on Nov. 4, 2021, and was told five days later that, “Unfortunately, all positions require the vax now,” according to an email entered in the case.

Her lawsuit charged that BlueCross BlueShield violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which says an employer may not “discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” because of that person’s religion. Employers can disregard religious exemption requests if they can prove accommodating them would create an undue hardship.

BlueCross BlueShield “cannot prove that allowing Plaintiff to continue her employment as a Bio Statistical Research Scientist without being vaccinated for COVID-19 constitutes an undue hardship,” the suit stated. The company “also cannot show that it made any good-faith efforts to accommodate plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs.”

BlueCross BlueShield also was accused of violating the Tennessee Human Rights Act, which bars discrimination by employers at the state level.

“We’re disappointed by the decision,” Dalya Qualls White, chief communications officer for BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, told The Epoch Times in an email. “We believe our vaccine requirement was the best decision for our employees and members, and we believe our accommodation to the requirement complied with the law. We appreciate our former employees’ service to our members and communities throughout their time with our company.”

A lawyer representing Ms. Benton didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, presented with the case, cleared Ms. Benton to sue her former employer.

Company lawyers had argued the firm would be unduly burdened by providing Ms. Benton an indefinite exception despite her role as a “public-facing employee.” The lawyers said she couldn’t have continued to work remotely indefinitely.

The company also asserted that Ms. Benton didn’t hold a sincerely held religious belief and “denies that the COVID-19 vaccine was derived from aborted fetus cell lines, which is verifiably false,” according to the company’s filing.

Johnson & Johnson used cells derived from an aborted fetus in the design, production, and testing of its COVID-19 vaccine. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines also utilized the cells in early testing. The companies have said the final products don’t contain aborted fetal cells.




Tuesday, July 02, 2024

Pfizer About To Find Itself In Court Again

Pfizer Inc. previously admitted it behaved improperly in not reporting major clinical trial safety issues during the original COVID-19 “vaccine” trials because they claimed the US FDA were aware of what they were doing, therefore, it was OK. That is a very creative defence

But momentum is building to bring Pfizer, Moderna and “health experts” like Fauci to justice.

Grilling of Dr. Fauci goes on before US Senators and admissions of misinformation (read “lies”) are now flowing…..there was no science to support lockdowns, masking or social distancing.

The “experts” didn’t even bother to look at the science according to Dr. Scott Atlas who was part of the Trump Covid task force team.

We know better now and nobody should be so easily fooled again (think Bird Flu).

Now details are emerging of the specifics of the Kansas State lawsuit against Pfizer Inc. over the COVID-19 “vaccines”.

A Substack by Carl Heneghan of June 27th details the main alleged points which may be summarised as follows:

· Pfizer misled the public in relation to its claim of “safety and efficacy”

· Pfizer used confidentiality agreements to conceal critical data relating to the safety and effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine

· Pfizer used its confidentiality agreements with the US government and others to conceal, suppress, and omit material facts relating to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, including the safety and efficacy of the vaccine

· Pfizer used an extended study timeline to conceal critical data – the study was repeatedly delayed

· Pfizer has not honoured its promise to release safety data

· Pfizer destroyed the vaccine control group

· In its press release announcing emergency use authorization of its COVID-19 vaccine, Pfizer did not disclose that it had excluded immunocompromised individuals from its COVID-19 vaccine trials

· Pfizer knew its COVID-19 vaccine was connected to serious adverse events, including myocarditis and pericarditis and did not properly report these in a timely manner

· Pfizer’s February 18, 2021, press release also did not disclose other adverse effects on the reproductive systems of women who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine

· Pfizer’s study on pregnant women failed and the results are secret

· Pfizer misrepresented and concealed material facts relating to the durability of protection provided by its COVID-19 vaccine

· Pfizer said its COVID-19 vaccine would prevent transmission even though it knew it had never studied the effect of its vaccine on transmission

· Pfizer worked to censor speech on social media that questioned it’s claims.

These alleged crimes have been well known for some time but now they will be tested in a court of law.


Unvaccinated Police In Australia Fired Two Years After Covid Mandates Dropped

Two years after the Covid mandates ended, the West Australian Police Force has fired nearly 20 unvaccinated police officers and public servants for refusing to get the jabs.

A legal challenge against the mandates, brought by WA Police officer Ben Falconer and staff member Les Finlay, had previously secured an injunction preventing the force from firing unvaccinated staff until the matter had been settled in the courts.

However, a Supreme Court ruling that then-WA Police Commissioner Chris Dawson’s Covid vaccination directive was “valid and lawful” brought an end to the injunction in April. WA Police announced the resumption of disciplinary action against 17 affected employees immediately after the hearing, with all 12 police officers and five staff having now been sacked.

Falconer was the last to be formally notified of his dismissal on Friday, for disobeying the Commissioner’s vaccination directive. Despite no prior history of disobedience, Falconer refused the jabs due to his concerns over the safety and efficacy of the Covid vaccines and the way in which mandates violated the bodily integrity of officers and staff.

While Deputy Commissioner Allan Adams said that Falconer’s dismissal was “regretful”, Falconer maintains that refusing Covid vaccination is the “best decision I’ve ever made”. Falconer, a Senior Constable who served in the force for 15 years, says that the sacked police officers had over 150 years of policing experience combined.

The firings come amid staffing shortages and low morale, with WA Police turning to overseas recruitment to prop up its frontline forces.

In April this year it was reported that WA Police was well short of its target of recruiting 950 new frontline officers by mid-year, with only 450-500 having signed on.

Opposition leader Libby Mettam (Liberal) said that in the past four years, there has been a “mass exodus of police with nearly 1,000 officers resigning” from the roughly 7,000 strong force.

Police Commissioner Col Blanch admitted that the force saw a “significant” reduction in police numbers after the Covid pandemic, with 570 officers leaving the force in 2022, of which 473 were resignations and 97 retirements.

WA Police was asked to provide comment along with up-to-date recruitment, resignation and retirement figures, but did not respond prior to publication deadline.

The Labour Government has blamed market forces for WA Police’s struggles with retention and recruitment. However survey data collected by the WA Police Union in 2022 showed that 77% of staff exiting the force claim poor work culture and dissatisfaction with management as their reasons for quitting.

Another union survey of members conducted in 2022 found that morale in the force is at an “all-time-low”, with almost two thirds (64.6%) of respondents describing morale as “poor”. This is more than double 28.2% who said the same in the last poll in 2017. None of the 1,966 respondents described morale as “excellent”.

A majority of respondents complained that their workload had increased, and half or more complained of fatigue, management problems, unpaid overtime and rostering issues.

Nearly three quarters (71.4%) of respondents said they’d used the WA Police mental health services, with 36.6% of service users reporting their experience was “very negative” or “negative”.

Public sector census data obtained under Freedom of Information by the Liberal opposition showed that in 2023, less than half (47.1%) would recommend their agency as a workplace, compared to almost 70% for the public sector overall.

Some of this discontent appears to be driven by the force’s Covid response. In an unauthorised survey of WA Police staff initiated by former officer Jordan McDonald, who resigned over vaccine mandates, employees said they felt “bullied” into getting vaccinated and complained about resources being diverted away from traditional policing towards the state’s Covid response.

In 2022, WA Police began an international recruitment drive to fill vacant frontline positions, with the aim of recruiting 750 officers from the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and New Zealand over a five-year period. WA Police has also been creative with its recruitment campaign at home, appealing to lonely hearts on hookup app Tinder.

The WA Police Union said it supports the overseas recruitment drive but characterised it as a “band-aid solution”.
“It’s only a matter of time before these new recruits obtain permanent residency and become familiar with the many cultural and organisational issues in WA Police,” the union said in a media statement.

The WA Police Union was approached by unvaccinated members for assistance with their industrial action resisting the mandates, but Falconer, who was a member, says the union’s response was “hostile”. The union also declined to provide information and comment for this article.

Unvaccinated WA Police staff had been on paid leave since the Covid vaccine mandate came into effect in December 2021 until their recent dismissals, an arrangement that Falconer has called “fiscally irresponsible”.

In an essay posted to social media platform X, Falconer said that the South Australian Police Force responded to the situation better. Unvaccinated SA Police officers were allowed to use accrued leave until the mandates dropped, after which they were allowed back to work “without ever being stood down and no disciplinary action taken whatsoever”, he said.

“I could have been back at work from June 2022 [when the mandates were dropped] and there were plenty of administrative tasks that could have been done with remote access to police systems if allowed to work from home,” said Falconer, who said he informed WA Police more than 30 times of his willingness to return to work.

Former police officer of 27 years Lance French, who was also fired this month for not complying with the Police Commissioner’s 2021 Covid vaccination directive, said that he too had informed WA Police numerous times that he wanted to return to work since the mandates were dropped.

Now that his two-and-a-half year legal fight has come to an end, Falconer said that he will take some time out to consider his next career move.

French expressed gratitude for the support of his wife, family and colleagues, opining on social media that while “the trajectory we are heading (as a society) is not good,” he was appreciative for “the legislative and judicial structures enabling our lawful challenge of Commissioner Dawson’s… draconian order to undergo a medical procedure”.

WA Police officers and staff are not the only Australian workers still experiencing repercussions from the Covid mandates, even after most of the public have well and truly moved on.

In January of this year, Queensland Health was criticised for continuing to discipline and fire healthcare workers for failing to comply with vaccination directives issued in late 2021.

More than 50 unvaccinated firefighters remain banned from returning to work in Victoria despite critical staffing shortages, and mandates remain in place for some nurses, midwives and doctors around the country.

The Australian state and territory governments’ coercive Covid vaccination mandates have come under fire recently with AstraZeneca’s admission that its vaccine can cause deadly blood clots, and with mounting vaccine injury claims.




Monday, July 01, 2024

The Great Lockdown Swindle

Written by Alex Kriel

Many people will remember the Covid policy response as a nightmare involving: reduced access to medical treatment, businesses closures, disrupted schooling and fear generated by Government brainwashing.

After the event, it is always worth doing a ‘cui bono‘ (who benefits) exercise to identify who benefited, especially since the hopeless mainstream media have largely failed to do this.

Counterintuitively, the über-wealthy owners of 0.1% of wealth in the United States, increased their net worth by a staggering $6.4 trillion over the 2022-2023 pandemic period.

With their net worth growing from $12.1 trillion to $18.5 trillion, a pretty cool $20 million per head for approximately 300,000 people.

This outcome is counterintuitive since the lockdowns temporarily wrecked the economy and had a significant negative impact on Government debt, which ballooned due to staggering budget deficits. All things being equal, you would expect stock markets to move lower under these circumstances.

In the Alice-in-Wonderland world of extreme money printing though the stock market exploded and the benefit from this explosion accrued primarily to the über-wealthy, who hold most of the financial assets.

Regular folk without significant financial assets tended to get left with the rough end of the stick in the form of elevated inflation.

We covered the link between money printing and financial asset values in a previous note (‘Where did the money go?‘), the chart below shows that money printing (red), moves in almost exactly the same way as the size of the wealth owned by the wealthiest 0.1% (blue). Both axes are in trillion (millions of millions).

You could credibly argue that the aim of monetary policy seems to be to prop up the value of the financial assets held by the über-wealthy. Within the group of über-wealthy, gains were not evenly distributed.

The world’s second richest man, Jeff Bezos, made over $90 billion in paper gains over the first nine months of 2020 due to an increase in Amazon’s share price. A large part of this was thanks to lockdowns, which closed down the bricks and mortar competitors and diverted tens of billions of dollars to Amazon, whose sales growth doubled from around 20% to 40% towards the end of 2020.

Another group which seemed pleased with the lockdowns was that of the social engineers who had since the 1970s wanted to redesign society, including to reduce or even eliminate growth.

The Chairman of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab co-authored a book, COVID-19:The Great Reset.

The book calls for significant parts of the lockdown response to be made permanent; the book’s cover makes clear that he wanted to leverage Covid for the purposes of introducing massive societal change.

They say that you should never let a good crisis go to waste, but what if rather than waiting for a good crisis, some interest groups created or simply exaggerated a crisis?

One thing that has become clear over the recent past is that the über-wealthy have access to enormous lobbying power via their foundations.

A large foundation can comfortably spend around $400 million a year on lobbying (philanthropy). As we discussed in our note on green money, the resources of the oligarch foundations dwarf the funding available to regular political parties.

In addition to having access to foundations, the über-wealthy have significant media reach in their own right. This is what several high profile business leaders said in 2020 about the coronavirus:

As we now know, the global infection fatality rate (IFR) was 0.03% for the under-60s: this was not the existential threat that it was made out to be. The fact that Covid was not an existential threat and that the infamous Imperial model was significantly overstated was clear from March 2020, as soon as the Diamond Princess figures came in. Professor Levitt identified that the Imperial model was massively overstated (I was able to help him correct some small errors in the calculations).

We can identify a small group of über– wealthy who on an ex-post basis enjoyed rapid and large increases in wealth as lockdowns favoured their businesses whilst disadvantaging competitors.

Furthermore, the eye watering money printing significantly raised the value of pretty well all financial assets. Finally, a group of social engineers who wished to see a “Great Reset” involving reduced consumption also seemed well pleased with lockdowns, the WEF website carried gushing articles about the benefits of lockdowns.

It could be that the quotes above from Schwab, Soros and Gates were alarmist as they were made in the heat of the moment. I was always dubious about this explanation: Bill Gates’s quote was the earliest from February, but the others were later and after actual data were available.

These individuals are very wealthy and must presumably be highly numerate and able to accurately assess risks. They would also have access to the best available researchers and sophisticated databases. It feels unlikely that they would get simple ratios significantly wrong, in my opinion.

In any event, a credible case could be made to say that some vested interest groups wanted to see a terrible overreaction to Covid, provided that this was accompanied by enough money printing.

It is worth remembering that the pre-existing pandemic response plans explicitly excluded lockdowns as a policy option:

In other policy areas, I have noticed a pattern whereby high profile oligarchs float a policy idea, which subsequently becomes Government policy years later (more about this later).

I am not making accusations, but identifying interest groups that either benefited financially or achieved the policy response that they wanted.

Worryingly, the issue of lockdown effectiveness is being largely ignored, even though Professor Ioannidis et al. have convincingly shown that lockdowns achieved next to nothing.

There is a danger that various interest groups are ensuring that this topic is not addressed so that they can repeat lockdowns in the future.

Crime requires three elements and we have all three in lockdowns: motivation ($6.4 trillion increase in net worth), method (enormous lobbying resources) and opportunity (venal politicians). Is this too conspiratorial?


University of Hong Kong Pediatric Specialists Identify Mechanisms Driving Vaccine Induced Myocarditis

Aggregated data recently suggests that Natural Killer (NK) cell activation by mRNA COVID-19 vaccine contributes to the pathogenesis of acute myocarditis in genetically and epidemiologically vulnerable subjects.

This is the conclusion of a study funded by the Hong Kong Collaborative Research Fund (CRF) 2020/21 and the CRF Coronavirus and Novel Infectious Diseases Research Exercises

Patrick Ip, a specialist pediatrician at University of Hong Kong and colleagues collected and analyzed samples from 60 adolescents with vaccine-related myocarditis: these including pro-inflammatory cytokines, cardiac troponin T, genotyping, and immunophenotyping of the corresponding activation subsets of NK cells, monocytes, and T cells.

The findings, compared with samples from 10 vaccinated individuals without myocarditis and 10 healthy controls, the study team in investigating the rare, but real vaccine-related acute myocarditis they pursue a clearer understanding of precise mechanisms based on their hypothesis that natural killer (NK) cells play a central role in its pathogenesis.

In a previous epidemiology study, the authors found a significant increase in the risk of acute myocarditis with rapid onset (median only 2 days) following vaccination with Pfizer’s mRNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2), particularly among male adolescents, especially after the second dose. But what are the underlying immune mechanisms involved? What follows is a summarized breakdown.

What’s the observation in this study?

The Hong Kong-based physician specialists and scientists observed very high levels of serum cytokines pivotal for NK cells in post-vaccination patients with myocarditis.

What was particularly noticeable in male patients and those individuals receiving their second jab?

Other than KIR polymorphism, the NK cell-specific eQTLs DNAM-1 (CD226) and FuT11 were also known to be key determinants of NK cell activities.”

What about after a third dose—why a lower incidence of myocarditis?

The authors of this study cannot be certain about why the cases of myocarditis are lower after a third jab.

They propose one possible answer: that this dose’s administration occurs during the longer time gap between the second and third doses of the vaccine. Could it be that genetically vulnerable subjects would have already developed the complication after the second dose. If not, the likelihood of developing myocarditis after the third dose would be low. More research would be needed to elucidate these and other possibilities.

Core hypothesis

The authors of this study find evidence backing their core hypothesis: NK cells serve a key role in the cause of rapid-onset of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine-induced acute myocarditis.

The Hong Kong-based research team now offers world-novel insights into the fundamental immune mechanisms associated with rare, but very real, and potentially deadly, side effects.

The authors assume the growth in adoption of the use of mRNA vaccines meaning these findings raise implications for “designing improved mRNA vaccines that would have minimal NK activation effects.”

Physicians must be aware of patients who not only have a history of post-vaccination myocarditis but who are also genetically susceptible. Thus, clinicians can be more proactive, acting earlier with sound medical advice, and based on these insights close monitoring could very well be warranted before and after receiving a similar mRNA vaccine.