Ninety miles from the South Eastern tip of the United States, Liberty has no stead. In order for Liberty to exist and thrive, Tyranny must be identified, recognized, confronted and extinguished.
When I First Heard (The Below) Album, I Hadn't Then Or Ever Since Been So Excited To Buy Music.
I Heard It On An American High School School Bus, I Ran To The Record Store (which also included taking a German Bus), Bought It And Have Loved It Ever Since.
This Is Probably My Favorite Album. And What Is It About?
The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee approved the Pfizer vaccine for children ages 5 to 11 today after about eight hours of discussion.
Six hours into the conversation, one doctor made a comment about how widespread the rollout of the vaccine should be.
He said it is a legitimate question to consider and though this advisory committee was planning to punt the question on to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, it was worth talking about.
“We’re never going to learn about how safe the vaccine is unless we start giving it, and that’s just the way it goes. That’s how we found out about rare complications of other vaccines,” Dr. Eric Rubin said in the meeting.
The committee voted 17 to 0, with one abstention, in favor of recommending emergency use of the vaccine in young children. The final decision will be made by FDA leaders, most likely in the next few days, NBC News reported.
The one abstention came from Dr. Michael Kurilla, who said he “would have preferred a more nuanced approach,” and not a blanket authorization for the age group, according to Stat.
Another committee member, Dr. Cody Meissner, a pediatrician at Tufts Medical Center, did voice his concern over the possibility of a vaccine mandate for children.
“I am just worried that if we say yes, then the states are going to mandate administration of this vaccine for children to go to school, and I do not agree with that. I think that would be an error at...
Either you go along with the green program (that ignores nuclear as green) or you don’t get credit. Which is a policy that will, and is, quite predictably driving up energy prices.
There is a bit of panic flapping about over the number of heads of state who will not be attending, in person, the COP26 Conference that will be held starting on All Hallows’ Eve and lasting till November 12th.
The reason for the panic is because, in case you have been living in some bunker underground, we are in the midst of a very serious energy crisis along with hyperinflation, and there are growing murmurings that the very policies that COP26 wants to maximize to full throttle at this conference, are at the very source of what is causing this energy crisis.
It is no secret that there will be the very vigorous attempt to strong arm the heads of state that do end up attending this conference into signing onto these fully maximized COP26 policies which are likely to only exacerbate the problem, with the projection that citizens across Europe are expected to spend a very cold and dark winter this year….during what we are told is an ongoing pandemic….and this apparently an acceptable thing.
Goldman Sachs has recently released a report confirming these fears, and warning that there is a blackout risk for European industry this winter. This is most certainly highly likely, however, the reason for why this is likely to occur is where the truth of the matter is getting very muddied. The thing is, such outright lies are rather easily verifiable, if one takes the time to look into things past your favourite echo chamber of MSM parroting mouthpieces.
Presently, the popular line is once again to blame Russia. Yes I know, they should really fire the writers for this season’s epic drama series, season 2 looks awfully like season 1. With the money they are being paid you’d expect a little more panache. Instead what we get is the repetitive and boring tone-deafness of CNBC anchor Hadley Gamble who acted as the plenary session moderator for...
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
In many ways, Columbus Day, which recently passed, has become emblematic not just of the accusation that Columbus was a racist who inaugurated a genocidal campaign against the natives, but a reminder that virtually all Europeans preceding the great era of woke were horrible people.
This conflation was especially on display during the summer of 2020, following the death of George Floyd, when not just Columbus’s statues but the statues of many traditional heroes of Western and American civilization were attacked on the accusation that the men they represent were all racists and somehow involved in or approved of the slave trade of Africans.
The problem with this otherwise entrenched view is that it completely ignores one simple fact: if Europeans were aggressive or exploitative of nonwhites, that is not because they were intrinsically violent (a racist point, incidentally) but simply because they were able to. And that’s the virtual bottom line of all history: capability.
Europeans did not defeat and uproot American Indians, enslave Africans, and colonize the rest because they lived according to some sort of unprecedented bellicose creed specific to whites and alien to nonwhites. Quite the contrary: they did so because they—as opposed to natives, blacks, etc.—were able to do so. That is the fundamental difference.
Consider: Had pre-Colombian American Indians developed galleys for transoceanic travel, or advanced fire arms, or compasses, or organized military structures and stratagems; and had they arrived on the shores of, say, “Dark Age” Europe—what would they have done? Would they have conquered and subjugated, or would they have looked at the inferior pale savages and “respected” them in the name of “diversity,” leaving them wholly unmolested?
What if sub-Saharan blacks were technologically or militarily more advanced than their northern neighbors in Europe during the premodern era, and therefore could easily have subjugated and enslaved them? Would they have done so, or would they have left them in peace in the name of “multiculturalism”?
These are the hypotheticals that no one seems interested in asking, since the answer to these “what ifs” is as clear as day.
After all, one cannot argue that nonwhites did not reach such a militarily or technologically advanced state because they were a peaceful and unambitious people. In their own limited way—ways that were limited to bows, arrows, and spears—both natives and blacks constantly warred on, killed, raped, plundered, and sold their fellow natives and blacks into slavery. As Michael Graham writes:
Blackstone Inc. co-founder Stephen Schwarzman said the world could face energy shortages so severe they trigger social unrest, Bloomberg reported.
“We’re going to end up with a real shortage of energy,” he said at a conference in Saudi Arabia. “And when you have a shortage it’s just going to cost more and it’s probably going to cost a lot more. And when that happens you’re going to get very unhappy people around the world, in the emerging markets in particular.”
Larry Fink said the same thing and there is a high probability of oil soon reaching $100 barrel. It doesn’t help that investors are rejecting investments in fossil fuels.
“Inflation, we are in a new regime,” said Fink, chairman of BlackRock Inc, the world’s biggest asset manager. “There are many structural reasons for that. Short term policy related to environmentalism, in terms of restricting supply of hydrocarbons, has created energy inflation and we are going to be living with that for some time.”
Prices of oil, natural gas, and coal have soared with crude up 65% to above...
The details exposed during Rep. Devin Nunes’s questioning of Gen. Paul Nakasone establish the U.S. military complex places politics over all else.
Yesterday, the House Intelligence Committee held a hearing on “Diversity in the Intelligence Community.” The virtue-signaling session alone raises grave concerns over the seriousness with which our nation’s leaders view their job of protecting America’s national security. But equally concerning are the details exposed during Rep. Devin Nunes’s questioning of Gen. Paul Nakasone—details that establish the U.S. military complex places politics over all else.
Shortly after leaders from the intelligence community concluded their opening platitudes praising the importance of diversity and inclusion, Nunes confronted Nakasone with evidence that the current director of the National Security Agency engaged in “political discrimination in the workplace.” Referencing the recently released inspector general’s report on the selection of Naval officer Michael Ellis for the civil service position of general counsel for the National Security Agency, Nunes walked Nakasone through his disgraceful thwarting of Ellis’s career.
As the IG report from the Department of Defense Office detailed, in January 2020, the NSA announced the vacancy of the general counsel position. That opening qualifies as a civil service position, meaning political considerations are off-limits. After a first level of review discarded the unqualified candidates, Ellis and two other applicants were rated by a three-member committee as the top candidates for the position.
After interviewing the three candidates, Paul Ney, the general counsel for the Defense Department, assessed Ellis as the best candidate for the job. Under Department of Defense rules, Ney held sole authority to select the individual to fill the NSA general counsel position. Yet almost immediately Nakasone began interfering in the appointment.
First, in August 2020, Nakasone requested that Ney defer announcing Ellis’s selection until after the presidential election. The staffing process to onboard Ellis began on November 9, 2020, but was not yet public when the next day the Washington Post reported — falsely, as the IG’s report established last week — that “the appointment was made under pressure from the White House.” The same Post article reported that “NSA Director Paul Nakasone was not in favor of Ellis’s selection, according to...