I was thinking about so many people complaining that they only got $600 from each round of government covid relief. I’m wondering if they would have still felt that way if they had taken a moment to consider where the money is actually coming from. Before you spend the time to read this article, find a 5 to 7-year-old and ask them if they are ok with us taking a third to half of all of the money they will ever make in their lives and spending it on ourselves right now. If they ask why, tell them, simply, “because”. Their response will be an unfiltered reality to anyone who is kidding themselves that we aren’t doing just that.
The country has $26,945,391,194,615.15 in current debt and a $3.3 trillion dollar deficit which means it isn’t likely to go down this year. To break this down, BEFORE the 2020 economic disaster, debt per capita (the amount of debt is each person’s share of the national debt) was $69,063.79 and there is no alternate reality where the vast majority of citizens can be expected to pay that. Additionally, the United States spends a lot of money that it doesn’t collect. In fiscal 2021, the government budget per capita was $24,917, while tax collection was $22,916 equates to a current account deficit of $2001 per person.
So where does the extra money come from? We borrow it based on future generations’ ability to pay the interest and principal. To make matters worse, it is estimated that the Social Security Administration will begin tapping into its trust fund in 2022 and will be insolvent in 2035, forcing either drastic reductions in promised financial benefits to people who have funded it their entire working lives, or a sharp increase in taxes to fund it, or worse, both.
By 2038, total spending will be 26% of GDP and total debt service will be 14%. When the Baby Boom generation came of age in 1969 debt to GDP was 35.47%. It is currently 135.64% with no end in sight. It exploded under the Obama administration from 64% to 104% and remained there until the covid crisis hobbled the economy, and given the law of compounding will hamper future generations of Americans.
None of this takes into consideration the tremendous amount of debt and pension responsibility that many states have assumed, or the incredible grift in which higher education is engaged (a subject for another time). In summary, no, we couldn’t afford to shut the economy down due to COVID-19. No, we couldn’t afford to give most Americans $1200 in direct payments, and no, we couldn’t afford the $600 payments either. If you got one, look at your children and ask yourself if it was worth it.
Fairfax, Va. – The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action released the following statement regarding the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court of the United States;
“Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has never affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the individual, fundamental right of all Americans to keep and bear arms for the defense of themselves or others. Consequently, the NRA is concerned with President Biden’s decision to nominate her to the Supreme Court of the United States at a crucial time when there are vital cases that will determine the scope and future of the Second Amendment and self-defense rights in our country. As we always do, the NRA will monitor her statements during the confirmation process and advise our members accordingly.”
The social contract is a political theory that emerged during the Age of Enlightenment. Its focus is on the relationship between the individual and the authority of a state.
In theory, men are born with natural freedom. In this condition, people are governed only by their moral constraints. According to theorist Thomas Hobbes, existence in this situation, with men having the “right to all things” in the world, would exist in a state of plunder, rape, murder, and war, making life “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”.
To avoid such a miserable fate, people contract with each other to establish a political community through a “Social contract” in which they all gain security in return for subjecting themselves to the power of sovereignty.
According to this theory, the law is not a natural thing but generally accepted as long as there is a benefit commensurate with the natural rights lost as a result of its adoption. Hobbs argues in his book “Leviathan” that the governmental construct is not actually a party to the original contract and that individuals are no longer obligated to submit to it when the agreed-upon protections are no longer fulfilled.
It was John Locke’s work on understanding the relationship between inalienable “Natural” rights (freedom of speech, the right to life, self-defense, freedom of religion, freedom from violent crime, the right not to be enslaved) that formed the basis of the Declaration of Independence, with Jefferson writing: “governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed”.
The founding fathers viewed the social contract with a certain level of suspicion and contempt because they were well aware of the state’s capability to exceed its prescribed powers. Thomas Paine described it thusly: “government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one”.
Putting all of this succinctly: we agree to follow the laws, and rules of a state, pay taxes, fight its wars and allow certain institutions a measure of control over our lives in return for security from foreign threats, the right to not be defrauded, secure borders, and the right to a safe society free of crime and civil unrest.
I would argue that the social contract in the United States has never been on such thin ice. If you were to step back and think for a moment, what powers the federal and state governments have reserved for themselves at our expense, against the backdrop of civil unrest, exploding crime rates, failing international power, and insecure borders, it’s actually shocking.
The current government reserves the right to impress you into military service if you are of a certain age, garnish wages in a self-prescribed percentage for its own use and imprison you if you don’t comply, mandate you submit to forced experimental drugs, monitor your private communications, control your ability to keep and bear arms, freeze your financial accounts if you are a political enemy, indoctrinate your children, financially provide for illegal aliens and foreign enemies, restrict your speech and right of free travel. It actually borrows money from citizens who haven’t even been born yet. Let that one sink in.
While I am not advocating a revolution, it would appear something needs to be done. But what? Montesquieu in Spirit of the Laws warned: “When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.” We are, at this time, not even assured a free and fair mechanism for elections. How then does a republic remedy a government acting against it? How do we make a government aware it has become intolerable to us?
Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” Perhaps, somehow, the ruling class needs to be reminded of this.
Project Veritas catches FDA exec, Christopher Cole, on video talking about the future of forced Covid shots. One of the biggest things he mentions is mandated yearly Covid shots. “You’ll have to get an annual shot [COVID vaccine]. I mean, it hasn’t been formally announced yet because they don’t want to, like, rile everyone up” says Cole, and “Biden wants to inoculate as many people as possible.”
He then discusses the incestuous relationship between our federal government and big pharma:
“There’s a money incentive for Pfizer and the drug companies to promote additional vaccinations“
“It’ll be recurring fountain of revenue. It might not be that much initially, but it’ll be recurring — if they can — if they can get every person required at an annual vaccine, that is a recurring return of money going into their company.”
“They’re not going to not approve [emergency use authorization for children five years old or less].”
Watch the video below to see, and hear, for yourself what is said by the FDA when they don’t know they’re being recorded. And when you finish, be sure to check out our article that explains the government’s Covid statistics using M&M’s.
The decision to accept Covid vaccinations is complicated for a number of reasons. First, there are a tremendous number of variables to consider. Second is the bias of opinions you rely on to advise you. The third is the quality of information needed to form an opinion. Any one of those could be the subject of a decent article, but for the moment I want to focus on breaking down the risk/reward proposition of Covid statistics and the vaccination in simple terms
This article will rely on data from CDC and the openVAERS report. Given the chronic underreporting of adverse reactions, we will also gross up the number of vaccine adverse events reports (“VAERS”) by the estimated underreport factor the Department of Health and Human Services believes is the current situation. This means all Covid statistics in this article are from the federal government.
First, it turns out Covid 19 isn’t very fatal. In the early going it had been reported as high as 10%. We have come to find out though that unless you are an at-risk person with multiple health issues, or geriatric, the actual death rate is something in the neighborhood of .002% (Depending on your age and level of fitness, *your* number could be lower still). Let’s put that into simple terms using M&M’s. That means if you had a bowl that contained 1,000 M&M’s, each representing a Covid infection, only 2 of them would be fatal. You can increase your odds of not getting a fatal one by exercise, fitness, and supplementation, but that’s another story altogether. Suffice it to say, the odds are quite high that you will survive your M&M, and if you do, you never have to have an M&M again because you are now immune to them. In short, 2 out of 1,000 M&M’s will kill you if you do nothing.
A lot of people are telling you to get a vaccine because it helps survive an infection. I’m not sure it looks like it, so let’s do the experiment again. HHS suggests VAERS data is underreported by a whopping 769%. This is a historical number not limited to Covid. What is VAERS and what does this mean? VAERS is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and is managed by the CDC and FDA.
The VAERS report suggests a total of 1,697,579 adverse events to the Covid vax. If you believe HHS (which I do), this number is actually closer to 13,054,328! This means that out of the 213 million people that are “fully vaccinated” there has been an adverse reaction 6% of the time. And this is not counting miscarriages which have a 20% occurrence with 181,599 of them being fatalities. Among the “serious” VAERS reactions are myocarditis, pericarditis, strokes, circulatory issues, heart attacks, compromised immune systems, and death.
Let’s go back to our M&M’s again. If you elect to get vaccinated, there are 60 “bad” M&M in the bowl, with 3 of them being fatal. Here’s the thing though. To be considered fully vaccinated, you will have had to reach into that bowl 4 times, which means your chance of a material adverse reaction is no longer 6% but 22%. And people lined up to eat them. Repeatedly.
To recap: You need to select one M&M (make a decision about getting the Covid shot)
Bowl #1: 2 of the M&M’s will kill you (do nothing; no shots or boosters)
Bowl #2: 3 of the M&Ms will kill you plus 220 of the M&M’s will give you a potentially life-threatening disease (get “fully vaccinated”)
Which bowl would you take your M&M from?
The real heartbreak here is that I cannot blame someone for believing in institutions. We all wanted to have a safe path out of this, and there was a fairly unified messaging effort in favor of vaccination. It isn’t until you begin to sift through data on your own that the advisability becomes questionable. Now ask yourself, why is the federal government pushing you so hard to reach into bowl #2?
Joe Rogan has been the source of significant controversy for the last few weeks. For those of you who don’t know him, Joe has a wildly popular talk show which he licensed to Spotify in May of 2020 for a reported $100,000,000.00. Joe has a history of inviting controversial guests on his show for long-form interviews often lasting hours and is by several standard deviations the largest presence in the medium.
On January 5th, Joe had Dr. Robert Malone on his show, and in a long free-form interview, they discussed his views on the Covid 19 response. The next day it was banned from YouTube but available on other services. A massive and highly polarizing controversy developed. On 24, January a Canadian musician named Neil Young gave Spotify the ultimatum that either Rogan was de-platformed, or he wished to exclude his music catalog from their service. Spotify obliged him and several other artists of varying degrees of notoriety who followed suit.
Over the weekend of February 5th, a video compilation (which had no contextual information whatsoever) of Rogan uttering racial slurs was released and the controversy raged again with people alternatively rushing to demand his termination from Spotify and alternately affirming their conviction in his first amendment rights. To his credit, Joe immediately issued a heartfelt apology. Rogan said, “It’s a video that’s made of clips taken out of context of me of 12 years of conversations on my podcast, and it’s all smushed together, and it looks [expletive] horrible, even to me.” “I know that to most people, there’s no context where a white person is ever allowed to say that word, never mind publicly, on a podcast, and I agree with that now, I haven’t said it in years. But for a long time, when I would bring that word up – like if it would come up in conversation, instead of saying ‘the n-word,’ I would just say the word. I thought as long as it was in context, people would understand what I was doing,” he added, explaining how he was quoting other people’s use of the word. “It’s not my word to use. I’m well aware of that now, but for years I used it in that manner,” Rogan said. “I never used it to be racist, because I’m not racist.“ At the time of this writing, Spotify remains committed to hosting his show.
Having said that, I am seeing something other than a straight-up first amendment infringement. It seems more like a battle royale with multiple issues. Before we dive in, let’s take a look a the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Focusing especially on the verbiage applicable to this issue, I think most people are looking at “prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” and I think that is the wrong take. First, Joe sold his show to Spotify. For the sum of money that was exchanged, you would assume that freely came with a level of editorial control (exhibited by their removal, at the request of Rogan, of 113 episodes from the platform and prohibiting him from inviting certain guests on the show). Joe seemed disappointed when he announced this but stopped short of actually complaining.
Here is where it starts getting complicated. The issue of stablemates giving Spotify their ultimatums, which to Spotify’s credit, (or the credit of their cost/benefit analysis) they have thus far refused to move to an unvarnished attempt to censor the platform. I do not believe this is an actual affront to Joe’s 1A rights. These artists are private citizens who are complaining to a private corporation about their working conditions. Whether or not they have a moral imperative doesn’t matter. 1A restricts The federal government. In fact, 1A actually encourages these artists TO speak out against what they think are unfair or intolerable conditions. Whether their end-use market agrees with them or not is where this particular issue should end. My final thought on this aspect is that I sort of feel sorry for Spotify. They had no idea something like this would happen when they secured the podcast, but they are in the middle of an electrified situation.
The second area would be the public who are either end-users or people who are interested in the topic and litigating it on social media. Rogan has his share of supporters. Mostly conservatives who love to fling themselves at any opportunity to bellow their affections for the freedom of speech. #istandwithjoerogan is actually trending on Twitter, but there are an equal amount of people who want to see him canceled, especially after the gotcha video was released. I don’t see how a public effort to have his show cancelled is an affront to Joe’s 1A. It’s horrible and reprehensible, but nothing was legislated and no government officials infringed on his right to speak.
Having said that. The Biden administration signaled its intention to become involved, and that’s where it could get interesting. The press secretary Jen Psaki stated: “Our hope is that all major tech platforms — and all major news sources for that matter — be responsible and be vigilant to ensure the American people have access to accurate information on something as significant as COVID-19,” Psaki said of Spotify’s new content warnings. “That certainly includes Spotify,” stated, and added, “So this disclaimer, it’s a positive step, but we want every platform to continue doing more to call out misinformation while also uplifting accurate information.” This is a “so far so good” opinion that exerts a gentle but clear influence on tech platforms, but stops short of censoring them. If they go forward with any form of expansion on this, they could likely be in jeopardy of a first amendment infringement of some type.
I stop short of giving Rogan my sympathy. He has courted controversy with millions of people for an incredibly long time. Something like this was bound to happen. I do not know if his relationship with Spotify will survive this. At some point, the board of directors will probably get tired of the repetitional damage and cut bait. He will move to another platform that, if I had to guess, allows him to reclaim his autonomy. If he is resilient he can live this down. If he isn’t, he has his wealth to fall back on, a casualty of the intellectual civil war tearing at the country. Joe Strummer once said, “You have the right to free speech… …as long as… …you’re not dumb enough to actually try it”. Nowhere is this more true.
On October 24th, YouTube banned OAN (a major conservative news network) from posting videos and demonetized them for a week. Their infraction was posting a video that the YouTube censors deemed inaccurate. Pundits on both sides of the political spectrum bayed about it until their lips bled, but over and over the term “Big Brother” was used.
There have been so many references to the George Orwell book “1984” this year it made me wonder if there was anything to them. It had been some time since I read the book (likely, ironically, 1984…) and I wanted to revisit it in the context of my current environment. Where I recall being scared of the oppression when I first read it, what struck me this time was a sense that Orwell was spot on in how keenly he predicted how information, messaging and its misuse would be the new oppression.
In 2020, the Media (who arrogantly call themselves the 4th estate, with the others being clergy, religion, and commoners) have conspired to mischaracterize, ignore, and “echo chamber” a message designed to delegitimize, and ultimately usurp a duly elected president. Additionally, they convinced large swaths of the population to agree to waive their natural freedoms for what is now the better part of a year. It’s astonishing that I have to type this, but we now seem to accept the daily videos of police shuttering otherwise legal businesses for the crime of disobeying what are, in many cases, illegal executive orders not to survive.
There is an interesting presentation from The Media Research Center which suggests that 12% of the people who voted for Biden wouldn’t have if they were aware that Trump had made us energy independent, or that 15% would have voted for Trump if they were aware of his efforts to fight Covid 19, or that 12% of Biden supporters would not have voted for him if they were aware that Harris, his running mate was the most liberal member of the Senate, or that 27% wouldn’t have voted for Biden if they knew about his history with sexual assault or 9% who weren’t aware of Trump’s progress in the Middle East, or that 20% wouldn’t have voted for Biden if they were aware of the active money laundering investigation against him. I could go on and on, but it becomes redundant.
9% doesn’t seem like a lot, but in a presidential election, it is an overwhelming shift in votes. Factor in the notion that 92% of the coverage of Trump has been negative and it becomes easy to see there is an agenda.
Another consideration is the uniform bias of all technology companies. From Google biasing search results, to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube outright censoring and eradicating dissenting thoughts on a level that should be more than mildly disturbing to all of us. For example, as of 19, October 2020 Twitter had censored Trump 62 times and Biden 0. They also masked the vast majority of tweets that complain about election malfeasance. It should be noted that big tech employs “fact-checkers” that are uniformly liberal/leftist. It is also fairly obvious by the imbalance of political donations where the bias is. There is a comically Stalinist level of unfair play about their entire process, and it matters greatly to otherwise uninformed voters. In many cases, social media is the only place people get the information they use to make voting decisions.
Interestingly, the 2020 covid restrictions have created an atmosphere optimized for mass conditioning – please read this. In the referenced document, page 32 explains that between 4-6 weeks of isolation are enough to “reduce [them] to animals”, leaving subjects that are docile, dejected, and dependent. The report also suggests that skillful repetitive conditioning is enough to fundamentally change how a subject’s brain works. On a mass scale, the isolation mandated by governors auspiciously to combat covid has made Pavlovian Petri dishes out of each and every household in the United States.
If you pursue this (or any) list of effective brainwashing techniques there are many that we can pin to what I consider an overt attempt to influence thinking to bias toward liberalism. If one is objective they can see evidence of the application in almost every facet of our daily lives. From Hollywood’s uniform leftist/SJW agenda manifesting in “chanting and singing” to sports (try to attend a participatory event that avoids social justice) the endless lawsuits (most recently the Michigan AG threatening to sue people who question their election, progressives are wasting no tool in their efforts to condition us to their preferred outcome. If you care to disagree or question things, there is a uniform cry to brand you a racist and have you canceled.
“Sunlight is the best disinfectant” or so the story goes. Being aware of what is being attempted is the single best defense a person has against the power of mass suggestion. Questioning information, staying in touch with other people, and disconnecting from the echo chamber are also helpful. Having said that, I wonder if I will be allowed to feel this way in 5 years…
“In the end, the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then?”