Shared posts

19 Jul 16:50

INSANITY WRAP UPDATE: Last month at the PJM Mothership, Steve spotted this item: This Is Not a Sane …

by Ed Driscoll

INSANITY WRAP UPDATE: Last month at the PJM Mothership, Steve spotted this item: This Is Not a Sane World, Exhibit #1,000,006.

Wye Hill Kitchen & Brewing — which bills itself as “righteously good chef-driven bar food” — is the restaurant that canceled Moms 4 Liberty’s reservation.

I’m guessing they’re getting some blowback because Wye Hill’s Twitter account has been locked down.

But the worst part is “Katherine 4 Justice” and the smug superiority she feels for her despicable actions.

Wye Hill Twitter’s account is still locked down, but yesterday, North Carolina blogger A.P. Dillion spotted a much better outcome for Moms4Liberty:

 

19 Jul 16:49

WHY OUR CRAPPY JOURNALISTS ARE ACTUALLY DANGEROUS TO SOCIETY: …

by Glenn Reynolds

WHY OUR CRAPPY JOURNALISTS ARE ACTUALLY DANGEROUS TO SOCIETY:

19 Jul 14:42

THEY FEAR INSPIRATION AND EMULATION: Here’s Why The Media Don’t Want You To Know About The Mass…

by Glenn Reynolds
Jts5665

The media are a perfect example of regulatory capture.

THEY FEAR INSPIRATION AND EMULATION: Here’s Why The Media Don’t Want You To Know About The Massive Protests Going On Around The Globe: Discontent with left-wing policy failures is triggering massive protests all over the world. Just don’t expect to read all about it in the New York Times.

Related:

The press knows how to keep people riled up, or sedated, and adjusts its coverage according to which it desires on a particular subject at a particular time.

19 Jul 14:37

#JOURNALISM: AP: “Rare in US for an active shooter to be stopped by bystander.” To begin wit…

by Glenn Reynolds
Jts5665

They want it to be rare for narrative purposes so that's how it is reported. The facts are irrelevant.

#JOURNALISM: AP: “Rare in US for an active shooter to be stopped by bystander.”

To begin with, definitions are important. Self defense events happen every day in America, whether at home or out and about. I write on firearms and 2A rights, so I bypass chances to pen something else on self defense events literally every day to focus more on the mechanical and materials engineering of firearms, ammunition performance, method of carry, training, and the things that interest me. The author has subdivided his topic as best as he can in order to make his most convincing case. He has neglected literally thousands of cases of interest.

But even then, is he correct? Maybe not. . . . The researchers list more than sixty times permit holders have stopped likely mass shootings in public. I judge a few of them to be not applicable for various reasons, but that doesn’t negate the force of the copious data.

The author at AP did a lousy job of research, but then, that has become the standard for the legacy media.

They’re not journalists, they’re narrative police.

19 Jul 14:31

K-12 IMPLOSION UPDATE: Parent Who Exposed Pornographic Library Books Sues After School Bans Him Fro…

by Glenn Reynolds
18 Jul 23:11

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “Despite the odds and the obstacles, we push to move forward, that we are guided…

by Ed Driscoll
Jts5665

#wordsalad

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “Despite the odds and the obstacles, we push to move forward, that we are guided by what we see, that can be, unburdened by what has been.”

Kamala Harris Quotes As Motivational Posters, Part 2, The Federalist, Wednesday.

 

18 Jul 17:37

DR. BIRX PRAISES HERSELF WHILE REVEALING IGNORANCE, TREACHERY, AND DECEIT: Recall that for the rema…

by Ed Driscoll
Jts5665

A criminal confession.

DR. BIRX PRAISES HERSELF WHILE REVEALING IGNORANCE, TREACHERY, AND DECEIT:

Recall that for the remainder of the year, the White House was urging normalcy while many states kept locking down. It was an incredible confusion. The CDC was all over the map. I gained the distinct impression of two separate regimes in charge: Trump’s vs. the administrative state he could not control. Trump would say one thing on the campaign trail but the regulations and disease panic kept pouring out of his own agencies.

Birx admits that she was a major part of the reason, due to her sneaky alternation of weekly reports to the states.

After the heavily edited documents were returned to me, I’d reinsert what they had objected to, but place it in those different locations. I’d also reorder and restructure the bullet points so the most salient—the points the administration objected to most—no longer fell at the start of the bullet points. I shared these strategies with the three members of the data team also writing these reports. Our Saturday and Sunday report-writing routine soon became: write, submit, revise, hide, resubmit. 

Fortunately, this strategic sleight-of-hand worked. That they never seemed to catch this subterfuge left me to conclude that, either they read the finished reports too quickly or they neglected to do the word search that would have revealed the language to which they objected. In slipping these changes past the gatekeepers and continuing to inform the governors of the need for the big-three mitigations—masks, sentinel testing, and limits on indoor social gatherings—I felt confident I was giving the states permission to escalate public health mitigation with the fall and winter coming.

As another example, once Scott Atlas came to the rescue in August to introduce some good sense into this wacky world, he worked with others to dial back the CDC’s fanatical attachment to universal and constant testing. Atlas knew that “track, trace, and isolate” was both a fantasy and a massive invasion of people’s liberties that would yield no positive public-health outcome. He put together a new recommendation that was only for those who were sick to test – just as one might expect in normal life.

After a week-long media frenzy, the regulations flipped in the other direction.

Birx reveals that it was her doing:

This wasn’t the only bit of subterfuge I had to engage in. Immediately after the Atlas-influenced revised CDC testing guidance went up in late August, I contacted Bob Redfield…. Less than a week later, Bob [Redfield] and I had finished our rewrite of the guidance and surreptitiously posted it. We had restored the emphasis on testing to detect areas where silent spread was occurring. It was a risky move, and we hoped everyone in the White House would be too busy campaigning to realize what Bob and I had done. We weren’t being transparent with the powers that be in the White House…

Read the whole thing.

Related: We must make public health authorities accountable for their COVID lies.

18 Jul 17:27

CANADA IS SLIDING DOWN THE WRONG SLOPE OF “CARING” AND INTO GENOCIDE:  Canada’s ‘expert’ pane…

by Sarah Hoyt

CANADA IS SLIDING DOWN THE WRONG SLOPE OF “CARING” AND INTO GENOCIDE:  Canada’s ‘expert’ panel recommends the mentally ill be candidates for euthanasia.

18 Jul 17:02

THE BIG GUY HAS TO MAKE SURE HE’S GETTING HIS TEN PERCENT: Joe Biden Lied, Had Dozens of Meetings wi…

by Stephen Green

THE BIG GUY HAS TO MAKE SURE HE’S GETTING HIS TEN PERCENT: Joe Biden Lied, Had Dozens of Meetings with Hunter Biden’s Business Partner.

18 Jul 16:46

REDDIT HAS BANNED THE TERM ‘GROOMER.’ The response will not please them: You’d think that …

by Glenn Reynolds

REDDIT HAS BANNED THE TERM ‘GROOMER.’

The response will not please them:

You’d think that Reddit, of all places, would understand the Streisand Effect, and the futility of censorship. But you’d think wrong. It’s sad, though, to see all the old bastions of Internet free speech taken over by officious woke pecksniffs.

18 Jul 16:19

Emails Show FBI Was Looking Into Wuhan Virus Lab at Onset of Pandemic

18 Jul 16:18

Reps. Calling for "Canceling" Student Loan Debt Owe a Ton of It

16 Jul 15:30

Dr. Birx Praises Herself While Revealing Ignorance, Treachery, and Deceit

by Jeffrey A. Tucker
deborah birx

The December 2020 resignation of Dr. Deborah Birx, White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator under Trump, revealed predictable hypocrisy. Like so many other government officials around the world, she was caught violating her own stay-at-home order. Therefore she finally left her post following nine months of causing unfathomable amounts of damage to life, liberty, property, and the very idea of hope for the future. 

Even if Anthony Fauci had been the front man for the media, it was Birx who was the main influence in the White House behind the nationwide lockdowns that did not stop or control the pathogen but have caused immense suffering and continue to roil and wreck the world. So it was significant that she would not and could not comply with her own dictates, even as her fellow citizens were being hunted down for the same infractions against “public health.” 

In the days before Thanksgiving 2020, she had warned Americans to “assume you're infected” and to restrict gatherings to "your immediate household.” Then she packed her bags and headed to Fenwick Island in Delaware where she met with four generations for a traditional Thanksgiving dinner, as if she were free to make normal choices and live a normal life while everyone else had to shelter in place. 

The Associated Press was first out with the report on December 20, 2020. 

Birx acknowledged in a statement that she went to her Delaware property. She declined to be interviewed.

She insisted the purpose of the roughly 50-hour visit was to deal with the winterization of the property before a potential sale — something she says she previously hadn’t had time to do because of her busy schedule. 

“I did not go to Delaware for the purpose of celebrating Thanksgiving,” Birx said in her statement, adding that her family shared a meal together while in Delaware. 

Birx said that everyone on her Delaware trip belongs to her “immediate household,” even as she acknowledged they live in two different homes. She initially called the Potomac home a “3 generation household (formerly 4 generations).” White House officials later said it continues to be a four-generation household, a distinction that would include Birx as part of the home.

So it was all a sleight-of-hand: she was staying home; it’s just that she has several homes! This is how the power elite comply, one supposes. 

The BBC then quoted her defense, which echo the pain experienced by hundreds of millions: 

"My daughter hasn't left that house in 10 months, my parents have been isolated for 10 months. They've become deeply depressed as I'm sure many elderly have as they've not been able to see their sons, their granddaughters. My parents have not been able to see their surviving son for over a year. These are all very difficult things."

Indeed. However, she was the major voice for the better part of 2020 for requiring exactly that. No one should blame her for wanting to get together with family; that she worked so hard for so long to prevent others from doing so is what is at issue. 

Sin of omission

The press piled on and she announced that she would be leaving her post and not seeking a position at the Biden White House. Trump tweeted that she will be missed. It was the final discrediting – or should have been – of a person that many in the White House and many around the country had come to see as an obvious fanatic and fake, a person whose influence wrecked the liberties and health of an entire country. 

It was a fitting end to a catastrophic career. So it would make sense that people might pick up her new book to find out what it was like to go through that kind of media storm, the real reasons for her visit, what it was like to know for sure that she must violate her own rules in order to bring comfort to her family, and the difficult decision she made to throw in the towel knowing that she has compromised the integrity of her entire program. 

One slogs through her entire book only to find this incredible fact: she never mentions this. The incident is missing entirely from her book. 

Instead at the moment in the narrative at which she would be expected to recount the affair she says almost in passing that “When former vice president Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election, I’d set a goal for myself—to hand over responsibility for the pandemic response, with all its many elements, in the best possible place.”

At that point, the book skips immediately to the new year. Done. It’s like Orwell, the story, even though it was reported for days in the world press and became a defining moment in her career, is just wiped out from the history book of her own authorship. 

Somehow it makes sense that she would neglect to mention this. Reading her book is a very painful experience (all credit to Michael Senger’s review) simply because it seems to be weaving fables on page after page, strewn with bromides, completely lacking in self awareness, punctuated by revealing comments that make the opposite point of what she is seeking. Reading it is truly a surreal experience, astonishing especially because she is able to maintain her delusionary pose for 525 pages. 

Chief lockdown architect

Recall that it was she who was tasked – by Anthony Fauci – with doing the really crucial thing of talking Donald Trump into green-lighting the lockdowns that began on March 12, 2020, and continued to their final hard-core deployment on March 16. This was the “15 Days to Flatten the Curve” that turned into two years in many parts of the country. 

Her book admits that it was a two-level lie from the beginning. 

“We had to make these palatable to the administration by avoiding the obvious appearance of a full Italian lockdown,” she writes. “At the same time, we needed the measures to be effective at slowing the spread, which meant matching as closely as possible what Italy had done—a tall order. We were playing a game of chess in which the success of each move was predicated on the one before it.”

Further: 

“At this point, I wasn’t about to use the words lockdown or shutdown. If I had uttered either of those in early March, after being at the White House only one week, the political, nonmedical members of the task force would have dismissed me as too alarmist, too doom-and-gloom, too reliant on feelings and not facts. They would have campaigned to lock me down and shut me up.”

In other words, she wanted to go full CCP just like Italy but didn’t want to say that. Crucially, she knew for sure that two weeks was not the real plan. “I left the rest unstated: that this was just a starting point.”

“No sooner had we convinced the Trump administration to implement our version of a two-week shutdown than I was trying to figure out how to extend it,” she admits. 

“Fifteen Days to Slow the Spread was a start, but I knew it would be just that. I didn’t have the numbers in front of me yet to make the case for extending it longer, but I had two weeks to get them. However hard it had been to get the fifteen-day shutdown approved, getting another one would be more difficult by many orders of magnitude. In the meantime, I waited for the blowback, for someone from the economic team to call me to the principal’s office or confront me at a task force meeting. None of this happened.”

It was a solution in search of evidence she did not have. She told Trump that the evidence was there anyway. She actually tricked him into believing that locking down a whole population of people was somehow magically going to make a virus to which everyone would inevitably be exposed somehow vanish as a threat. 

Meanwhile, the economy was wrecked domestically and then all over the world, as most governments in the world followed what the US did. 

Where did she come up with the idea of lockdowns? By her own report, her only real experience with infectious disease came from her work on AIDS, a very different disease from a respiratory virus that everyone would eventually get but which would only be fatal or even severe for a small cohort, a fact that was known since late January. Still, her experience counted for more than science. 

In any health crisis, it is crucial to work at the personal behavior level,” she says with the presumption that avoidance at all costs was the only goal. “With HIV/AIDS, this meant convincing asymptomatic people to get tested, to seek treatment if they were HIV-positive, and to take preventative measures, including wearing condoms; or to employ other pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) if they were negative.”

She immediately hops to the analogy with Covid. “I knew the government agencies would need to do the same thing to have a similar effect on the spread of this novel coronavirus. The most obvious parallel with the HIV/AIDS example was the message of wearing masks.” 

Masks = condoms. Remarkable. This “obvious parallel” remark sums the whole depth of her thinking. Behavior is all that matters. Just stay apart. Cover your mouth. Don’t gather. Don’t travel. Close the schools. Close everything. Whatever happens, don’t get it. Nothing else matters. Keep your immune system as unexposed as possible. 

I wish I could say her thought is more complex than that but it is not. This was the basis for lockdowns. For how long? In her mind, it seems like it would be forever. Nowhere in the book does she reveal an exit strategy. Not even vaccines qualify. 

Myopic focus

From the very beginning, she revealed her epidemiological views. On March 16, 2020 at her press conference with Trump, she summarized her position: “We really want people to be separated at this time.” People? All people? Everywhere? Not one reporter raised a question about this obviously ridiculous and outrageous statement that would essentially destroy life on earth. 

But she was serious – seriously deluded not only about how society functions but also about infectious disease of this sort. Only one thing mattered as a metric to her: reducing infections through any means possible, as if she on her own could cobble together a new kind of society in which exposure to airborne pathogens was made illegal. 

Here is an example. There was a controversy about how many people should be allowed to gather in one space, as in home, church, store, stadium, or community center. She addresses how she came up with the rules: 

The real problem with this fifty-versus-ten distinction, for me, was that it revealed that the CDC simply didn’t believe to the degree that I did that SARS-CoV-2 was being spread through the air silently and undetected from symptomless individuals. The numbers really did matter. As the years since have confirmed, in times of active viral community spread, as many as fifty people gathered together indoors (unmasked at this point, of course) was way too high a number. It increased the chances of someone among that number being infected exponentially. I had settled on ten knowing that even that was too many, but I figured that ten would at least be palatable for most Americans—high enough to allow for most gatherings of immediate family but not enough for large dinner parties and, critically, large weddings, birthday parties, and other mass social events.

She puts a fine point on it: “if I pushed for zero (which was actually what I wanted and what was required), this would have been interpreted as a ‘lockdown’—the perception we were all working so hard to avoid.”

What does it mean for zero people to gather? A suicide cult?

In any case, just like that, from her own thinking and straight to enforcement, birthday parties, sports, weddings, and funerals came to be forbidden. 

Here we gain insight into the sheer insanity of her vision. It is nothing short of a marvel that she somehow managed to gain the amount of influence she did. 

Notice her above mention of her dogma that asymptomatic spread was the whole key to understanding pandemic. In other words, on her own and without any scientific support, she presumed that Covid was both extremely fatal and had a long latency period. To her way of thinking, this is why the usual tradeoff between severity and prevalence did not matter. 

She was somehow certain that the longest estimates of latency were correct: 14 days. This is the reason for the “wait two weeks” obsession. She held onto this dogma throughout, almost like the fictional movie “Contagion” had been her only guide to understanding. 

Later in the book, she writes that symptoms mean next to nothing because people can always carry around the virus in their nose without being sick. After all, this is what PCR tests have shown. Instead of seeing that as a failure of PCR, she saw this as a confirmation that everyone is a carrier no matter what and therefore everyone has to lock down because otherwise we’ll deal with a black plague.

Somehow, despite her astonishing lack of scientific curiosity and experience in this area, she gained all influence over the initial Trump administration response. Briefly, she was godlike. 

But Trump was not and is not a fool. He must have had some sleepless nights wondering how and why he had approved the destruction of that which he had seen as his greatest achievement. The virus was long here (probably from October 2019), it presented a specific danger to a narrow cohort, but otherwise behaved like a textbook flu. Maybe, he must have wondered, his initial instincts from January and February 2020 were correct all along. 

Still, he very reluctantly approved a 30-day extension of lockdowns, entirely on Birx’s urging and with a few other fools standing around. Having given in a second time – still, no one thought to drop an email or make a phone call for a second opinion! – this seemed to be the turning point. Birx reports that by April 1, 2020, Trump had lost confidence in her. He might have intuited that he had been tricked. He stopped speaking to her. 

It would still take another month before he would fully rethink everything that he had approved at her behest. 

It made no difference. The bulk of her book is a brag fest about how she kept subverting the White House’s push to open up the economy – that is, allow people to exercise their rights and freedoms. Once Trump turned against her, and eventually found other people to provide good advice like the tremendously brave Scott Atlas – five months later he arrived in an attempt to save the country from disaster – Birx turned to rallying around her inner circle (Anthony Fauci, Robert Redfield, Matthew Pottinger, and a few others) plus assembling a realm of protection outside of her that included CNN reporter Sanjay Gupta and, very likely, the virus team at the New York Times (which gives her book a glowing review).

Recall that for the remainder of the year, the White House was urging normalcy while many states kept locking down. It was an incredible confusion. The CDC was all over the map. I gained the distinct impression of two separate regimes in charge: Trump’s vs. the administrative state he could not control. Trump would say one thing on the campaign trail but the regulations and disease panic kept pouring out of his own agencies. 

Birx admits that she was a major part of the reason, due to her sneaky alternation of weekly reports to the states. 

After the heavily edited documents were returned to me, I’d reinsert what they had objected to, but place it in those different locations. I’d also reorder and restructure the bullet points so the most salient—the points the administration objected to most—no longer fell at the start of the bullet points. I shared these strategies with the three members of the data team also writing these reports. Our Saturday and Sunday report-writing routine soon became: write, submit, revise, hide, resubmit. 

Fortunately, this strategic sleight-of-hand worked. That they never seemed to catch this subterfuge left me to conclude that, either they read the finished reports too quickly or they neglected to do the word search that would have revealed the language to which they objected. In slipping these changes past the gatekeepers and continuing to inform the governors of the need for the big-three mitigations—masks, sentinel testing, and limits on indoor social gatherings—I felt confident I was giving the states permission to escalate public health mitigation with the fall and winter coming.

As another example, once Scott Atlas came to the rescue in August to introduce some good sense into this wacky world, he worked with others to dial back the CDC’s fanatical attachment to universal and constant testing. Atlas knew that “track, trace, and isolate” was both a fantasy and a massive invasion of people’s liberties that would yield no positive public-health outcome. He put together a new recommendation that was only for those who were sick to test – just as one might expect in normal life. 

After a week-long media frenzy, the regulations flipped in the other direction. 

Birx reveals that it was her doing:

This wasn’t the only bit of subterfuge I had to engage in. Immediately after the Atlas-influenced revised CDC testing guidance went up in late August, I contacted Bob Redfield…. Less than a week later, Bob [Redfield] and I had finished our rewrite of the guidance and surreptitiously posted it. We had restored the emphasis on testing to detect areas where silent spread was occurring. It was a risky move, and we hoped everyone in the White House would be too busy campaigning to realize what Bob and I had done. We weren’t being transparent with the powers that be in the White House…

One might ask how the heck she got away with this. She explains:

[T]he guidance gambit was only the tip of the iceberg of my transgressions in my effort to subvert Scott Atlas’s dangerous positions. Ever since Vice President Pence told me to do what I needed to do, I’d engaged in very blunt conversations with the governors. I spoke the truth that some White House senior advisors weren’t willing to acknowledge. Censoring my reports and putting up guidance that negated the known solutions was only going to perpetuate Covid-19’s vicious circle. What I couldn’t sneak past the gatekeepers in my reports, I said in person.

Missing: self-reflection

Most of the book consists of her explaining how she headed a kind of shadow White House dedicated to keeping the country in some form of lockdown for as long as possible. In her telling, she was the center of everything, the only person truly correct about all things, given cover by the VP and assisted by a handful of co-conspirators.. 

Largely missing from the narrative is any discussion of the science gathering outside the bubble she so carefully cultivated. Whereas anyone could have noted the studies pouring out from February onward that threw cold water on her entire paradigm – not to mention 15 years, or make that 50 years, or perhaps 100 years of warnings against such a reaction – from scientists all over the world with vastly more experience and knowledge than she. She cared nothing about it, and evidently still does not. 

It’s very clear that Birx had almost no contact with any serious scientist who disputed the draconian response, not even John Iaonnidis who explained as early as March 17, 2020, that this approach was madness. But she didn’t care: she was convinced that she was in the right, or, at least, was acting on behalf of people and interests who would keep her safe from persecution or prosecution. 

For those interested, Chapter 8 provides a weird look into her first real scientific challenge: the seroprevalence study by Jayanta Bhattacharya published April 22, 2020. It demonstrated that the infection fatality rate – because infections and recovery was far more prevalent than Birx and Fauci were saying – was more in line with what one might expect from a severe flu but with a much more focused demographic impact. Bhattacharya’s paper revealed that the pathogen eluded all controls and would likely become endemic as every respiratory virus before. She took one look and concluded that the study had unnamed “fundamental flaws in logic and methodology” and “damaged the cause of public health at this crucial moment in the pandemic.” 

And that’s it: that’s Birx grappling with science. Meanwhile, the article was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology and has over 700 citations. She saw all differences of opinion as an opportunity to go on the attack in order to intensify her cherished commitment to the lockdown paradigm. 

Even now, with scientists the world over in outrage, with citizens furious at their governments, with governments falling, with regimes toppling and anger reaching a fevered pitch, while studies pour out by the day showing that lockdowns made no difference and that open societies at least protected their educational systems and economies, she is unmoved. It’s not even clear she is aware.

Birx dismisses all contrary cases such as Sweden: Americans could not take that route because we are too unhealthy. South Dakota: rural and backwater (Birx is still mad that the brave Governor Kristi Noem refused to meet with her). Florida: oddly and without evidence she dismisses that case as a killing field, even though its results were better than California while the population influx to the state sets new records. 

Nor is she shaken by the reality that there is not one single country or territory anywhere on the planet earth that benefitted from her approach, not even her beloved China which still pursues a zero-Covid approach. As for New Zealand and Australia: she (probably wisely) doesn’t mention them at all, even though they followed the Birx approach exactly.

The story of the lockdowns is a tale of Biblical proportions, at once evil and desperately sad and tragic, a story of power, scientific failure, intellectual insularity and insanity, outrageous arrogance, feudalistic impulses, mass delusion, plus political treachery and conspiracy. It is real-life horror for the ages, a tale of how the land of the free became a despotic hellscape so quickly and unexpectedly. Birx was at the center of it, confirming all of your worst fears right here in a book anyone can buy. She is so proud of her role that she dares to take all credit, fully convinced that the Trump-hating media will love and protect her perfidies from exposure and condemnation.

There is no getting around Trump’s own culpability here. He never should have let her have her way. Never. It was a case of fallibility matched by ego (he has still not admitted error), but it is a case of enormous betrayal that played off presidential character flaws (like many in his income class, Trump had always been a germaphobe) that ended up wrecking hope and prosperity for billions of people for many years to come. 

I’ve tried for two years to put myself in that scene at the White House that day. It’s a hothouse with only trusted souls in small rooms, and the people there in a crisis have the sense that they are running the world. Trump might have drawn on his experience running a casino in Atlantic City. The weather forecasters come to say a hurricane is on the way, so he needs to shut it down. He doesn’t want to but agrees in order to do the right thing. 

Was this his thinking? Perhaps. Perhaps too someone told him that China’s President Xi Jinping managed to crush the virus with lockdowns so he can too, just as the WHO said in its February 26 report. It’s also difficult in that environment to avoid the rush of omnipotence, temporarily oblivious to the reality that your decision would affect life from Maine to Florida to California. It was a catastrophic and lawless decision based on pretense and folly. 

What followed seems inevitable in retrospect. The economic crisis, inflation, the broken lives, the desperation, the lost rights and lost hopes, and now the growing hunger and demoralization and educational losses and cultural destruction, all of it came in the wake of these fateful days. Every day in this country, even two and a half years later, judges are struggling to regain control and revitalize the Constitution after this disaster. 

The plotters usually admit it in the end, taking credit, like criminals who cannot resist returning to the scene of the crime. This is what Dr. Birx has done in her book. But there are clearly limits to her transparency. She never explains the real reason for her resignation – even though it is known the world over – pretending like the entire Thanksgiving fiasco never happened and thus attempting to write it out of the history book that she wrote. 

There is so much more to say and I hope this is one review of many because the book is absolutely packed with shocking passages. And yet her 525-page book, now selling at a 50% discount, does not contain a single citation to a single scientific study, paper, monograph, article, or book. It has zero footnotes. It offers no go-to authorities and displays not even a hint of humility that would normally be part of any actual scientific account. 

And it nowhere offers an honest reckoning for what her influence over the White House and the states foisted on this country and on the world. As the country masks up yet again for a new variant, and is gradually being groomed for another round of disease panic, she can collect whatever royalties come from sales of her book while working at her new gig, a consultant to a company that makes air purifiers (ActivePure). In this latter role, she makes a greater contribution to public health than anything she did while she held the reins of power. 

16 Jul 14:30

SOMETIMES THE GOVERNMENT LOSES:  After Texas City Refused To Pay For Destroying Her Home, Woman Win…

by Sarah Hoyt
16 Jul 14:17

YES, YES THEY DO: …

by Glenn Reynolds

YES, YES THEY DO:

16 Jul 00:41

Rep. Katie Porter Hit With Ethics Complaint Over Attack on Witness

by jonathanturley

Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts has filed an ethics complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics against Rep. Katie Porter (D., Cal.) after her allegation that a witness lied under oath in opposing gun laws three years ago in a hearing. In a hearing this month, she made the allegation against Heritage Foundation legal fellow and Second Amendment expert Amy Swearer. The exchange between Swearer and Porter went viral on the Internet with many liberals praising Porter for the exchange. A closer examination shows that the attack was unfair and unfounded. It is also an increasingly common part of congressional hearings as members seek to intimidate or abuse expert witnesses who hold opposing views. While these ethical complaints are difficult to maintain under the generous rules of the House, Porter’s conduct warrants condemnation.

The Deputy Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Porter is also on the faculty of University of California (Irvine) Law School, though listed as “on leave.”

The controversy was triggered by a hearing before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on June 8 regarding the “gun violence epidemic” in the United States.

The hearing became heated when Porter questioned Swearer about her testimony during a 2019 hearing exchange with Republican Rep. Jim Jordan on the dangers of “assault weapons.”

What is most striking about the exchange is the refusal of Porter to allow Swearer to respond. Porter asked Swearer about her testimony that legislation could make law-bidding citizens “felons overnight.” Porter was noting that Rep. David Cicilline (D., R.I.) had introduced a bill with a grandfather provision that would allow gun owners to retain firearms they already owned.

Swearer began to respond that “so that is the case under that bill, the problem is…” That is when Porter cut her off as she tried to explain with “reclaiming my time” and telling the Chair “please instruct the witness the time belongs to me.” She then said, “you said yes in response to my question.” Porter continued to refuse to let Swearer fully respond to allegations of possible criminal conduct.

It is a tactic that we have seen used in other high-profile hearings like one involving former Attorney General Bill Barr by House Democrats:

The tactic is an effort to attack witnesses while not allowing them any opportunity to respond. Most citizens do not see these abusive tactics  when, as here, allies edit the tapes to make witnesses look evasive or shamed before the committee.

Here are the facts. The exchange concerns a response to Rep. Jordan in a 2019 hearing when he asked about “guns Democrats want to ban,” and asked Swearer “Do you think law-abiding people will be less safe to protect themselves, their family, their property, if this law that the Democrats are proposing actually happens, or this bill that the Democrats are proposing actually becomes law?”

Swearer responded “I think worse than that, sir. You will see millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens become felons overnight for nothing more than having scary looking features on firearms.”

So the gist of Porter’s allegation that Swearer lied under oath is that, at the time of the hearing because the Cicilline bill had a grandfather provision that would allow gun owners to retain firearms they already owned.

Porter then twice said that Swearer “falsely testified under oath” while continuing to prevent her from fully answering that slanderous allegation.

What Swearer was trying to say is difficult to discern from the exchange due to Porter’s obstruction. However, in a later opinion piece, Swearer explained that there were actually multiple bills pending, including one by Rep. Swalwell without such exemptions. However, she believed that even Cicilline’s bill presented such a threat:

“And, as I was trying to explain to Porter before she cut me off, Cicilline’s bill— grandfather provision and all—nonetheless posed serious dangers to peaceable citizens and made it very likely that, as with Swalwell’s bill, many would quickly be turned into felons.

That bill’s two primary problems stemmed from vague wording that seemed poised to make anyone a felon for letting another person so much as handle their pistol-gripped firearm or standard capacity magazine.

The bill made it a felony to transfer the grandfathered firearm to ANY person without first going through a federal firearms licensee and having a background check conducted. The sole exceptions were for the (1) “temporary custody of the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective transferee,” and (2) “temporary transfer of possession for the purpose of participating in target shooting in a licensed target facility or establish range if the [firearm] is, at all times, kept with the premises of the target facility or range.” Meanwhile, the “grandfathering” of magazines applied only to “possession,” and the law provided no means of legally transferring those magazines to the possession of another.

In other words, the moment any person other than the gun-owner takes physical possession of a grandfathered gun outside of the confines of a gun range without a background check, or takes physical possession of a gun with a standard capacity magazine under any context, multiple felonies have been committed. The moment that law would have gone into effect, countless Americans would have become felons in the literal blink of an eye, countless numbers of times every day. And they’d be felons based on nothing more than the temporary changed possession of a standard capacity magazine or gun with “scary looking features.”

One can reasonably disagree with such analysis, but it is a legitimate opinion and clearly not perjury. Even if you fault the failure to note the grandfather clause in the Cicilline bill, it is perfectly plausible that, as claimed, Swearer was speaking more generally or referencing these other elements. Indeed, Porter could have faulted the earlier omission without alleging that Swearer lied under oath.

What makes Porter’s conduct contemptible is not just that she is making an unfounded allegation of lying under oath, but that she used her position to prevent Swearer from defending her integrity. It was just another canned hunt hearing.

Porter knows that members enjoy protections from defamation lawsuits in speaking in Congress. That exposes witnesses to abuse without legal recourse. It has become common, particularly in the House, for members to use their positions and legal protections to savage witnesses with opposing views.

Later, Porter’s office insisted that the comment that Swearer “falsely testified under oath” is not “a perjury claim, which requires intent and which Rep. Porter did not allege.” However, Porter emphasized (after refusing to let Swearer fully answer) that she admitted that she read the Cicilline — clearly trying to establish a knowing lie.

The House ethics process has long been a subject of ridicule. Critics maintain that it is designed primarily to protect members from ethical charges. It is doubtful that the committee will take any meaningful action.

However, Porter’s conduct creates a chilling effect on any witnesses coming before the Committee when they believe that they will not only be attacked but denied an opportunity to respond to the accusing member. Few academics are willing to be subjected to such abuse under these conditions.

I have testified over 50 times in the House and Senate for both Democrats and Republicans over the last three decades. I often view such testimony as not just an honor but an obligation to respond when called for an opinion on legislative issues. Yet, I have seen an alarming change in these hearings.

Years ago, it would have been viewed as inappropriate to launch such an attack, particularly while reclaiming time to prevent a response. I would have expected the Chair to defend the witness even though she was called by the other party. Politics was just as rough but there was some semblance of rules of basic fairness and decency.

In the age of rage, the loudest and the most aggressive politicians are rewarded. Today, members seem more concerned about avoiding a rage deficit. They know that such tapes will be edited by sympathetic media and pundits and that the most vicious attacks will receive the greatest accolades.

What occurred in the hearing was wrong. Rep. Porter was wrong. She was wrong not in being pro-gun controls but in using a personal attack to try to silence a witness with an opposing view.

She was wrong because she made this serious allegation of potential criminal conduct while refusing to allow the witness to defend herself.

She was wrong by defaming a witness while knowing that Swearer had few options in seeking legal recourse against her.

If the Congress hopes to maintain a free and diverse range of expert testimony, it must reverse this abusive trend in personal attacks on witnesses by either party.

 

15 Jul 18:37

SOON THE LEFT WILL HAVE TO BUILD A WALL TO KEEP ITS PEOPLE IN: Lefty scholar flees progressives’ “r…

by Glenn Reynolds

SOON THE LEFT WILL HAVE TO BUILD A WALL TO KEEP ITS PEOPLE IN: Lefty scholar flees progressives’ “real chilling effect” — and joins free-market think tank instead. “This is pretty easy to grasp when considering the incentives involved in wokery. It’s entirely based on immutable characteristics, and now to intersectionality between them, rather than on philosophy or proper ideology. If everything is race and sex/gender, what room is there for rational philosophy and policy debate on the merits?”

15 Jul 17:27

Why Are Weather Forecasters Using Darker Colors to Represent the Same Temperatures?

15 Jul 16:24

The median length of business experience among the top 68 officials in the Biden administration is zero years (yes, you read that right)

by Not the Bee

A new report from the Committee to Unleash Prosperity shows that dozens of the most senior government officials serving under Biden have never worked in business to experience how the economy actually works.

14 Jul 19:57

After Sri Lanka, Globalist Green Agenda Pushes Ghana on Brink of Collapse 

by Vijeta Uniyal
Jts5665

How many failed economies will it take for these countries to tell the green communists to take a flying leap?

From the Netherlands to Sub-Saharan Africa, 'Climate Change' policies devastate farmers' livelihood and food supply.

The post After Sri Lanka, Globalist Green Agenda Pushes Ghana on Brink of Collapse  first appeared on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion.
14 Jul 17:29

Growing Criticism Over the DOJ Targeting Biden's Critics

14 Jul 15:56

THE USA TODAY HEADLINE: Starbucks is closing 16 stores nationwide due to personal safety concerns. …

by Stephen Green

THE USA TODAY HEADLINE: Starbucks is closing 16 stores nationwide due to personal safety concerns.

The reality: 15 are on the West Coast, one is in Washington, DC.

14 Jul 13:55

DID YOU HEAR? VACCINES DON’T WORK WELL AGAINST COVID: It must be true because Dr. Anthony Fauci said…

by Mark Tapscott
Jts5665

But he feels confident that it reduced the severity. I wonder if he has any scientific basis for the feelz or if he's just fulfilling his marketing contract with Phizer?

DID YOU HEAR? VACCINES DON’T WORK WELL AGAINST COVID: It must be true because Dr. Anthony Fauci said it.

13 Jul 22:03

Snoop Dogg shows off strain of weed called "Sleepy Joe OG" which boasts, "You won't even remember what country you are in"

by Not the Bee

Dang, Snoop got me rollin' on this one:

12 Jul 19:11

DISPATCHES FROM WEIMAR AMERICA: Hawley: Why are you using the term “person with a capacity for preg…

by Ed Driscoll

DISPATCHES FROM WEIMAR AMERICA:

Hawley: Why are you using the term “person with a capacity for pregnancy” instead of “woman?”

Bridges: “Your line of questioning is transphobic and opens trans people to violence.”

Hawley: “You’re saying I’m opening up people to violence by saying women can have pregnancies?”

12 Jul 16:22

THIS SEEMS LIKE IT SHOULD BE A BIGGER STORY: Protests Rage As Chinese Banks Won’t Let People Withd…

by Stephen Green
11 Jul 03:03

The Murder Of Erik Scott, July 10, 2022, 12th Anniversary

by Mike McDaniel

Erik Scott

Our world is changing at a dizzying pace.  The Internet has had a substantial role in that.  For the first time in history, we have a new category of people we know.  They’re friends, just not friends we can touch or see over a restaurant table, but we know them nonetheless, and we care about them. For the first time in history, we have access to much of human knowledge in the palms of our hands.  We can know stories and people that would, in the past, forever have escaped us.

It was the story of Erik Scott that set me on the path of blogging.  It was on September 17, 2010 that Bob Owens—may he rest in peace—posted an article on the murder of Erik Scott.  By then, I had been years out of police work, busy with my second career teaching high school English, but everything about that story was wrong.  Like Spiderman’s spidey sense, my cop sense was tingling.  I began researching the case, and posted my first Internet article on Bob’s site, Confederate Yankee.  Bob asked me to be his co-blogger, but eventually moved on to Bearing Arms, and closed Confederate Yankee.

I needed to continue writing on the Scott case, so I began this scruffy little blog in November of 2011, and continued with that case, eventually writing 40+ articles.  The SMM Erik Scott archive is here.   

There are some stories, some people, all of us should know.  I speak not of people famous for being famous.  I speak not of violent felons made political martyrs, people unworthy of notice, and absolutely unworthy of emulation.  I speak not of vacuous celebrities, addled athletes or dimwitted TV talking heads.  I speak of people like Erik Scott.

July 10, 2022 marks the 12th anniversary of the murder of Erik Scott by panicky, undertrained Las Vegas police officers at the Summerlin Costco.  I never met Erik, but over many years of investigating his murder and writing the definitive book on the case, I came to know him well, which only exacerbates my sense of loss—and outrage.

July 10, 2010:  Erik Scott and his fiancé, Samantha Sterner, were shopping at the Summerlin Costco in Las Vegas, acquiring the goods they’d need to begin their life together.  Bending down to examine merchandise on a low shelf, Erik’s shirt momentary rode up, exposing his legally carried concealed handgun.  This would have come to nothing if a cop-wannbe security guard had not chanced to see it.  He called management, who spoke with Erik.  They parted amicably, and Erik and Samantha continued to shop, two of hundreds of unremarkable customers in the Costco that day.

But the security guard, against store policy, called the Metro police—arguably the most corrupt and dangerous police force in America–-and there began a bizarre and deadly comedy of errors.  Between the security guard, the call taker, the dispatcher and three undertrained, panicky cops, part of a wall of brown and tan (LVMPD uniform colors) that would soon number more than 60, including a canine unit, cadets and a helicopter, that hastily rushed to the Costco, Metro forces somehow got the idea Scott was a Green Beret–something he never said or implied–-was threatening people with guns, was under the influence of drugs and was refusing to leave the store.  They claimed that challenged by an officer pointing his handgun at Scott at a distance of six feet, Scott drew his handgun, still in its holster, and pointed it at him.

None of that was remotely true.  Scott was never asked to leave the Costco, and never drew his gun.  Yet even today, Metro apologists in social media and elsewhere continue to spout the false Metro narrative, a narrative that furthers the cover up of Erik Scott’s murder by three Metro cops. Sometimes the police do make deadly mistakes, and sometimes, they lie about it. Lies like this cry out for the truth.  I had no idea I would be the one to tell the definitive story, to tell the truth.

As I began in 2010 what would turn out to be a seven+ year investigation, I initially gave the Metro police the benefit of the doubt.  I very quickly learned they did not deserve it, and I had to do something about it.

Erik Scott at West Point

Erik Scott was an extraordinary man.  Even as a child, he was high-energy, a self-motivated achiever, a natural, goal-seeking leader.  In high school, he announced he was going to West Point, and he made it happen.

Erik Scott, Armor Officer

An extraordinary athlete, and precisely the kind of scholar/athlete our military academies seek, he did well, and became an armor officer, serving in M1 tanks.  But with the end of the Cold War, the military was drawing down.  He accepted an early out opportunity, moved to Las Vegas and did very well in real estate during the last Vegas real estate boom–-until it busted.  He quickly built a career selling and servicing cardiac pacemakers, working at all hours of the day and night, regularly advising in the operating room and thereafter.  As I dug more deeply into the case I learned he was respected by all who knew him, not only for his reliability and dedication, but for his character.

As I investigated as best I could–Metro wasn’t the least interested in disseminating the truth, and the local media—the Las Vegas Review Journal–bought the Metro narrative, hook, line and sinker–-I eventually became acquainted with the Scott family, and soon understood why Erik was such an extraordinary, honorable man: he got it from his parents.

As regular readers know, I was eventually able to obtain not only the complete Metro report—thousands of pages–-which includes the transcripts of the farcically corrupt coroner’s inquest, and a great many other depositions and interviews, many conducted by Scott Family attorneys, which Metro never saw.  My suspicions were confirmed.  Metro was not only arrogantly corrupt, but incredibly sloppy.  This was so because for decades, virtually no one in Vegas ever dared challenge them.  They didn’t have to be professional.  They didn’t have to write coherent, accurate reports, and the many inconsistencies, outright contradictions and lies in their report eventually revealed the truth.

I was amazed.  I’d never seen that kind of arrogant corruption.  It was worse, much worse, than I could have imagined.

William Mosher

Three Metro cops murdered an innocent man in the middle of a crowd of some 200 people, and Metro, the prosecutors, and much of the Las Vegas establishment covered for them.  William Mosher, a serial Metro killer, shot Scott twice, and as he fell, flat on his face on the concrete, officers Thomas Mendiola and Joshua Stark rushed up and shot him five times in the back and buttocks.  Mosher had no cause to shoot, and Mendiola and Stark surely did not.  The bullets they fired into Scott’s back as he fell, dying, to the concrete, were an egregious example of unjustified “me too!” shooting.

It will not, I’m sure, be a surprise to learn all Costco surveillance video, indoors and outdoors, of the entire incident mysteriously disappeared, nor, in an age of ubiquitous cell phone cameras, did any cell phone photos or video appear.

In 2011, Mendiola was fired–a rarity at Metro–for knowingly giving a firearm to a convicted felon.  Rumors persist Mendiola’s crimes were far more voluminous than was publicly admitted.  Mosher “retired” in 2017, far short of 20 year’s service, and apparently, Stark remains on the force.  Stark is said to have shown some remorse, but never enough to tell the truth.  To be fair, telling the truth in Metro, and Las Vegas, can be fatal.

After finally obtaining all the documentation, I spent about a year and a half writing License To Kill: The Murder Of Erik Scott It was only my knowledge of proper police procedure that allowed me to wade though thousands of pages of poorly written police reports and related documentation and make the connections that prove the murder and the cover up.  Metro’s own reports are the primary evidence, which is most likely why they shut up–-officially anyway–-in the hope the whole thing would just go away.  The Scott family’s refusal to be intimidated, made Metro leadership red-faced, spitting mad.

It took a long time to find a publisher for LTK.  That’s difficult any time, but in these Internet driven days, even more so, but License To Kill was finally published in June of 2018.  Before then, Bill Scott published The Permit, a fictionalized account of Erik’s murder. It’s a compelling thriller in its own right.

Bill Scott’s fictionalized account

Perhaps the most interesting fact about License To Kill is it is Metro’s own reports that damn them.  Knowing where to look, knowing what should have happened in any competent investigation, but didn’t in this one, I was able to piece together, through painstaking page-by-page examination of Metro’s incredibly shoddy report and the many related documents, what actually happened.  That’s the story of the book, that, and the effect of Erik’s murder on his family, Las Vegas and American policing.

Though Erik and I never met, though I know him only through the words of those that knew and loved him, and through his accomplishments, I know him well.  There are some people, gentle readers, all Americans should know.  Erik Scott is one such.  His memory should live, and I hope you’ll all have a hand in that.

Knowing Erik’s parents as I do, I have some sense of their anguish on the 12th anniversary of Erik’s murder—the loss they feel every day–but I can never fully understand the depth of a suffering that never ends.  I do know the book, a fitting memorial to Erik, helped ease that suffering.  In these times of policing turmoil, it also serves as a moral lesson about what happens to decent, honorable Americans when we allow our police forces, and politicians, to believe they are above the law–-that they are the law.  License To Kill can help Americans understand how policing should be done.

Some Metro sources—there are some honest people there—say Erik’s death, and our exposure of the cover up, have sparked at least some modest reforms.  It’s hard to tell.  The Las Vegas media, which occasionally mentions Erik, still buys the Metro Narrative, despite not long after Erik’s death, writing a comprehensive series proving Metro’s corruption, a major part of which was routinely, wrongfully killing innocents and covering up their murders. That series is footnoted in LTK.  I’ve often tried to get them interested in one of the most newsworthy stories in Las Vegas history.  They’ve never responded.

When the book went public in June of 2018, Metro apologists, including one of the two primary detectives–Barry Jensen–that covered up for the killer cops, did what they had done from the beginning: lied and tried to confuse the issue.  On Facebook and anywhere else they could, they claimed the book was filled with lies—they hadn’t read a word of it—and continued to push the laughably false Metro narrative about what happened.  Even honest Metro sources confirmed–quietly and off the record–Erik’s murder was widely known in Metro as a bad shoot.  I calmly and forcefully recited the facts, even directing them to specific pages of their own official report, and they quickly dropped out of sight again.

I challenged Jensen, as I did in the exchange above, and he said he’d reread the Metro report and get back with me.  He never did.

Metro would be happy if Erik Scott’s name was never again spoken.  As long as Americans seek justice, that’s not going to happen.

The truth is most American police agencies are honest and dedicated to public service.  Some, like Metro, are not.  It is these agencies about which the public needs to know.  It is these agencies that are more dangerous to the law-abiding public than to criminals.  It is these agencies that must be reformed, not abolished, but reformed.

I knew I would never make any real money on the book, but I had to write it.  Not many authors make a living at writing.  Even though I no longer enforce the law for a living, my compulsion to do justice required no less.  As with Marines, there’s no such thing as an ex-cop, just former cops carrying everything they learned and experienced to the grave.  In a time when publishing a book in paper is very, very hard to do, I consider it nothing less than the hand of Providence it has been published.

I encourage you, gentle readers, to learn about Erik Scott, and to contemplate why such a honorable, patriotic American was cut down by cowards, and why he continues to be slandered by those unfit to shine his combat boots.  I encourage you to spread his story, as I work to do the same.

The book, a detective story as well as a story of incredible police corruption, can be purchased through the publisher-–North Slope Publications-or through Amazon. Reviews of the book on Amazon are also much appreciated.

Erik Scott is an American life worth knowing and celebrating, and worth a prayer, for him and those that love him, every July 10th.  Not every anniversary is an occasion for joyful remembrance, but on the 12th anniversary of his unnecessary death, join me in saying: Ave atque vale—hail and farewell–Erik. 

10 Jul 16:45

Laval University Professor Suspended for Questioning Covid Vaccines for Children

by jonathanturley
A professor at Laval University (Université Laval) in  Quebec City has  been suspended without pay for two months for questioning the benefits of COVID vaccines for children. Microbiology and immunology Professor Patrick Provost sent out an email soliciting a discussion on the issue and raising his concerns. He has now been disciplined for merely raising such issues by a university that has discarded any semblance of academic integrity and free speech. 

According to The Suburban, the controversy began as a conference of Réinfo COVID, “a collective of nurses, physicians, scientists, and citizens seeking to generate debate about how the pandemic has been handled by the government.”Provost asked his colleagues “to share their views with the public” on these issues. Provost also wrote in a June Quebecor Media piece that the COVID-19 “was very real” but asked “was it as significant as reported?” He argued that there was evidence of only five individuals under age 40 dying of the disease and challenged the need for the Canadian government’s vaccine mandates and passports.

As with the university, Quebecor Media quickly yielded to a mob of critics and removed Provost’s remarks. Journal de Québec Editor-in-Chief Sébastien Ménard said that Provost’s points “were inaccurate or could mislead the public.” Notably, Ménard did not seem compelled to address the alleged inaccuracies in the comments or Provost’s basis for raising his concerns.

Ménard did not seem to entertain the possibility that the media can be a place for the exchange of such ideas, including a rigorous debate challenging Provost’s assertions. Instead, the solution, once again, was censorship.

Most of Provost’s colleagues have said nothing in defense of an academic being denied the very freedom that defines and sustains our profession. One exception is Douglas Farrow, a professor of theology and ethics at McGill University in Montreal, who denounced the suspension as “A Repressive Political Act” in a Substack article.

To its credit, the Université Laval faculty union has filed a grievance on Provost’s behalf.

I recently wrote a column on our own struggle with cancel culture in George Washington University in the effort to bar Justice Clarence Thomas from teaching. To its credit, the university sided with academic freedom. However, as the column noted, most people do not have a seat on the Supreme Court to reinforce their academic positions.

Last week, my study on the decline of free speech at universities was published by the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. The article entitled “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States,” explores the anti-free speech movement in the United States and the increasingly common claim that free speech itself is harmful. This is another example of that trend in Canada. It is part of an existential struggle for all faculty and students over the purpose and future of higher education in both countries.

10 Jul 14:27

Quotation of the Day…

by Don Boudreaux
(Don Boudreaux)

Tweet

… is from page 53 of Deirdre McCloskey’s hot-off-the-press 2022 volume, Beyond Positivism, Behaviorism, and Neoinstitutionalism in Economics:

Stagnationism has been asserted by every second generation of economists, to be refuted in the economic history of the next.

DBx: Pictured here is John Maynard Keynes. Among JMK’s many errors was his belief – held, mind you, in the 1930s – that the modern capitalist economy had just about run out of new innovative ideas.

09 Jul 19:01

SAD: Colombia Goes the Way of Venezuela. On June 19, Colombians elected former Marxist guerrilla …

by Stephen Green

SAD: Colombia Goes the Way of Venezuela.

On June 19, Colombians elected former Marxist guerrilla Gustavo Petro as their next president. A close ally of Venezuelan socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro, Petro has pledged to confiscate and redistribute the country’s wealth. His win—along with the recent wave of victories by far-left candidates across Latin America—highlights the need for the United States to reengage with its neglected southern neighbors, or risk their falling into the grip of socialist rulers for decades to come.

At the turn of the century, Colombia was a dangerous and poor country where guerrillas and gangs killed tens of thousands of people every year. Since then, the murder rate has more than halved, average incomes have risen 50 percent, and electricity coverage is now universal.

In the same time span, neighboring Venezuela fell under a socialist regime, led first by Hugo Chávez and now by Nicolás Maduro, that has transformed the country from one of the richest in Latin America to one of the poorest. While Venezuela used to host millions of Colombian migrants, it’s now Colombia that hosts millions of Venezuelans.

The agenda of Colombia’s new president puts the country at risk of losing all it has gained over the past two decades.

Colombians will have no one to blame but themselves for their “bad luck,” but they’ll probably blame those us Norteameicanos, anyway.