Joe Biden can’t be trusted to represent America on the world stage. Not only is he prone to verbal gaffes, but he is also not committed to American prosperity.
On the other hand, men like President Donald Trump are willing to stand up to other leaders for America. He knows what is right and how to get there. Perhaps his methods, such as tariffs, are outdated. Maybe he is attacking too many countries at once on his trade counter-offensive. But he is still doing better than Joe Biden would do or Hillary Clinton would have done. He knows how to fight. Joe Biden can’t be trusted to defend our interests, but Donald Trump can.
Want to view this article ad-free? Then become a Patreon Patron for only $3 a month and view new articles ad-free on Patreon! Become one here: Patreon Donation Link
So why is it that Biden can’t be trusted? Because he is a candidate that is very likely to bow from pressure from his party to give in on trade. Countries like China and Mexico are hoping that a Democrat wins. They know that they don’t have the political or personal willpower to carry the fight to the end. Instead, Democrats will bow down to short term pressure from competitor nations. That is unacceptable for America. These next few years may be the last few we have to figure out trade. If Congress lets him, President Donald Trump will finish the fight.
Free trade is great goal to strive for. It is part of the “Magic Formula of Economic Success” that was originally established by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nationsand has worked for centuries. Tariffs are a corrupting economic influence.
Economically, imposing tariffs is like shooting yourself in the foot. Politically, however, they are an excellent tool. China and Mexico need us and our markets far more than we need them. Tariffs could help bring them into line quickly; without US markets their growth will slow even more and they will find themselves in dire political straights, as the legitimacy of their governments is built on continued economic growth. Well, at least, for China that is true. Mexico is a failed state, so its government just needs good news.
So, President Trump should stick to his guns and keep taming China and other competitor nations by using tariffs. Even if those hurt us in the short run, they will likely prove effective in the long run and help improve America’s economic situtation.
But, in any case, Joe Biden can’t be trusted to defend America. Economically, he would be unable to push through the necessary reforms on trade and do potentially unpopular things like fight China’s trade misdeeds with tariffs. Politically, he will back down to the radical left, as he is a not really a moderate. And, in terms of national defense, Biden would likely either be a hawk that would get us involved with more undeclared and endless wars, or a pacifist that would let nations like China push around us and our allies.
Joe Biden can’t be trusted to defend America’s interests. He is senile, a coward, and a political opportunist that is simply not up to the task. He would just bow down to China, Germany, Iran, and other nations that wish us ill.
Conclusion:
This article ended up being more about trade and how Trump is defending us from China’s predatory behavior than about the fact that Joe Biden can’t be trusted. However, I think that is actually a more useful lens through which to view the concept that Joe Biden can’t be trusted to defend American interests. We all know Biden’s faults. We all know that he can’t be trusted to protect our trade interests. But, because it is sometimes easy to forget, we all need to remember what President Donald Trump is doing and why in regards to trade.
I believe Trump knows the benefits of free trade. I would even dare to say that he prefers free trade and wants it to be the economic policy of the world. But, he’s not willing to sell US companies out to gain false concessions and pretend free trade because he also recognizes the cost of globalization.
If he backed down, China, Mexico, and other countries might pretend to cut subsidies or tariffs to meet US requirements. But they would cheat. That is what they have done in the past. Especially China. It has cheated on trade, stolen intellectual property, and restricted its markets for far too long. If we are to have free trade, it should truly be free. The way to make it free is to force China to comply with US requirements.
Trump can be trusted to make China and other nations comply. He can weather criticism and hold out for what is right. Despite short term economic losses, he is doing the right thing. His reforms will create a more free system. The same can not be said about Biden. Joe Biden can’t be trusted to weather criticism and protect US interests. He would give in or act corruptly.
“Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received — hatred. The great creators — the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors — stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.” ― Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead
Biden is in such a ridiculous position. He tells RINOs that he’ll be a “moderate” – in other words, unprincipled, like they are. He tells hardcore AOC types in his party that he’ll enact their radical agenda – arbitrary executive orders, defunding police, totalitarian lockdowns, unlimited taxes, socialized medicine, and all. It’s ridiculous because HE, Biden, doesn’t matter. He didn’t orchestrate the fraudulent election. He condoned and approved it, but even pre-dementia he never had those brains. Others did – social media moguls like Zuckerberg, George Soros, Bill Gates, the DNC, and more vibrant, far-left members of his own party, including his own VP.
It doesn’t really matter what he thinks. Yet, as things stand now anyway, he will be in charge. Kind of like the Queen is in charge of Great Britain, only with less mental acuity. It’s ridiculous.
The Main Stream Media seems oddly silent about the upcoming pro-Trump rally in Washington D.C. this Saturday [Trump supporters plan DC rally to ‘demand transparency’ before Electoral College vote, by N’dea Yancey-Bragg,USA TODAY, December 10, 2020] Perhaps they were dismayed by the extraordinary success of the November 16 Stop The Steal Rally march, or maybe they’re just preparing to downplay the usual Leftist violence. But I’m planning on attending the rally. I see great potential in the grassroots movement that has been energized by President Trump. It will outlast him and give shape to the legitimate resistance (as opposed to the Left’s pop culture #Resistance) that will emerge in response to any Biden/Harris Regime.
We’re going to get one form of Caesarism or another. It will either be a heroic personality who can save the Historic American Nation—or it will be a more unaccountable, dishonest, and concealed class dictatorship ruling over a glorified shopping mall.
Let’s be clear about one thing at the beginning – President Trump, several states, and 106 Republican congressmen are simply raising legitimate legal challenges entirely within the existing framework [106 House Republicans back Texas challenge of election results at Supreme Court, by Melissa Quinn, CBS News, December 10, 2020]. There’s nothing radical about this. Of course National Review is characteristically sounding retreat [Texas’s Frivolous Lawsuit Seeks to Overturn Election in Four Other States, by Andrew McCarthy, December 9, 2020]. But there’s no reason the GOP/GAPshould go along with election results that are this suspicious, based upon rules that were made up on the fly during unprecedented circumstances.
Again, one must ask… treason to what? Sedition against whom? Once in office, Joe Biden wants to essentially abolish what few barriers remain to mass immigration, essentially displacing the American people in their own country. The names of the Founding Fathers are being torn down from schools and streets all over the country. The Chinese calmly describe the reality of the American “Deep State which really runs the show here,” the American government openly prefers foreigners over American workers. And now we discover that the financial ties between China and Hunter Biden, which the MSM suppressed during the campaign, were all real [Both of the Media’s Reasons for Suppressing The Hunter Biden Story Turned Out To Be ‘False,; by Shelby Talcott, Daily Caller, December 10, 2020].
Is there an America left to defend or rebel against? Pundits imply that there is and that President Trump is somehow undermining it. For example, there’s now one of those curiously coordinated waves of hit pieces against Trump supporters, this time the “Oath Keepers”:
The lede from the supposedly “conservative” Washington Times:
Militiamen, white nationalists, and so-called Proud Boys are set again to be among the supporters of President Trump participating in protests being held for him this weekend around Washington D.C.
And of course the “journalists” will comply. They are too busy writing stories about how the president is supposedly creating a threatening environment among Republicans [As Trump Rails Against Loss, His Supporters Become More Threatening, by Nick Corasanti, Jim Rutenberg, and Kathleen Gray, New York Times, December 8, 2020]
Yet the fact is that, whatever Trump’s virtues and achievements—and they are not nothing— he’s unquestionably been the weakest president in recent history.
There is a virtual industry of former supporters, friends, or business partners cashing in on past relationships with Trump and being hailed as heroes on MSM programs. Major Big Tech platforms censor him, not his opponents. He doesn’t even seem to control his own Administration, let alone the country.
In his response to the COVID-19 pandemic, President Trump was far too open and it is his supporters who are protesting lockdowns, forced vaccination schemes, and travel restrictions. If Donald Trump really were an authoritarian nationalist, he was given a priceless opportunity to seize power. Instead, he largely governed as a conventional conservative, even a classical liberal.
President Trump clearly projects strength and looks like what we think a nationalist should be. However, he hasn’t actually followed up on these things. Consider these failures:
There was no remittance tax to pay for the wall, no Official English, and no challenge to Birthright Citizenship
Though he ran as an economic populist in 2016 and called for more stimulus payments before the election, he governed much more like an economic conservative.
He has no health care policy, and neither does the GOP.
Boomer, all too Boomer. President Donald Trump mastered not the Art of the Deal, but the art of public relations. He was a media hero for decades, but I suspect he never quite learned that a single man can’t take on the entire Main Stream Media. Instead, he’s still playing by the old rules, and seems stunned that his side isn’t getting a fair hearing.
In any case, action against media monopolies and ensuring social media access for his supporters would have been a far more effective tactic than legal maneuvering anyway–and this should have been prioritized day one.
I have no doubt the Supreme Court will simply duck the Texas case. Chief Justice John Roberts is yet another “conservative” appointee who has shifted left once taking the big chair, and most other justices are similarly unimpressive. Even proven fraud is being ignored and, without free speech online, the evidence can be censored.
However, that doesn’t mean the Sorelian Myth of a nationalist march on Washington, or Trump crossing the Potomac in lieu of the Rubicon, isn’t useful. After all, we already know the outright tyrannical measures that the Democrats are openly planning to impose on the American people. It is important that ordinary Americans recognize the coming Regime is illegitimate, that the GOP failed them and that, if President Trump lost, it was because he was too cautious and compromising, rather than audacious and bold.
Bjorn Lomborg’s “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet” is a true alarm—a call for a re-thinking of climate policy entirely.
Bjorn Lomborg is a business school professor and best-selling author. Time has named him one of the 100 Most Influential People in the World. Foreign Policy has declared him one of the Top 100 Global Thinkers. He’s also a self-described environmentalist. Indeed, The Guardian considers him one of the fifty people who could save the planet.
Lomborg’s book is a relatively compact, convincing rejoinder to climate alarmism with an optimistic, human-centric theme. The author’s thesis is that climate change is a problem, and that human activity is contributing to the problem. It is a problem that is manageable and not catastrophic. Indeed, he insists that panic, fossil fuel suppression, and a reverse of the decades-long eradication of global poverty would be far more catastrophic.
Lomborg goes into exhaustively cited detail on the high cost of acquiescing to the demands of the climate change lobby. He emphasizes that the costs will be especially onerous on the world’s poor (including the poor in first world countries):
“The truth is that climate policies hurt the poor everywhere, even in countries like the United States, because higher energy prices have a disproportionate negative impact on the poor. Universally, poor people in well-off countries use much more of their limited resources paying for electricity and heating. One 2019 study showed that US low-income consumers spend 85 percent more on electricity as a percentage of total expenditure than high-income consumers. When climate policies lead to higher electricity prices, this harms the poor much more than the rich.
“This is one of the reasons why rich elites have no problem saying we should increase gas prices to $20 a gallon—they can easily afford it. Wealth also tends to be clustered in cities, where people drive much less. Of course, the struggling single mom in Huntingdon, West Virginia, has a very different experience.” (p. 143)
The author devotes considerable space to the Paris Agreement, to which Joe Biden is reportedly considering committing the United States again. He argues that the agreement is not only ineffective but would be ruinous to the poor of Third World nations:
“The Paris Agreement is expensive and largely ineffective. It is also going to mean more people left in poverty. A 2019 study found that the massive cost of reducing emissions under the Paris Agreement will lead to an increase in global poverty (compared to what would otherwise be expected) of around 4 percent. The authors issue a stark warning that strong climate change policies could slow efforts to reduce poverty in poor countries.” (p. 139)
Lomborg explains that much of future climate change is already irreversible, caused by past industrial activity—the effects cannot be avoided now. He also explains how inefficacious individual action such as veganism, personal suspension of air travel, etc. is in affecting a planet-wide phenomena that aggregates the output of scores of countries and billions of individuals. He notes that, while hurricanes and other extreme weather events are less frequent than in the past, they are more severe. He even explains that there are, in fact, benefits to warming beyond the fact that more people die from extreme cold than from extreme heat. He conclusively argues that doing nothing to address climate change (which is not his preferred response) would still be less deleterious to society than to enact most of the proposals of the environmental lobby. Fundamentally, False Alarm is a true alarm—a call for a re-thinking of climate policy entirely:
“Thirty years of climate policy have failed to rein in temperature rises or reduce carbon intensity—the amount of carbon dioxide we emit for every unit of energy produced. All the well-meaning personal actions undertaken in the rich world, like buying electric cars or becoming vegetarian, amount to little more than gestures. Far more importantly, the Paris Agreement has put us collectively on a pathway toward incurring gigantic costs, especially for the poorest, with next to no climate benefit.
“Thus far, humanity has excelled at showing how *not* to fix the climate. We have spent three decades trying the same, deeply broken approach, over and over.
“Politicians lurch from one climate summit to the next, with climate campaigners urging them on to make even more ludicrous promises. Enough is enough.” (p. 148)
The weakest part of the book is the beginning of Lomborg’s proposed solutions to climate change. He begins with a proposal for a carbon tax, which he calls a “market-based solution”. With copious, illustrative graphs, he calculates the precise amounts at which a carbon tax would deter carbon dioxide emissions without unduly hampering prosperity, technology, etc. This section of the book is redolent of all-too-familiar Pragmatism. Lomborg does not consider whether excessive—or any—coercive taxation is justifiable on principle; he considers only alleged short-term practical effects. Also, it is too much of a macro solution, discounting the rights of individuals and companies. His other proposed solutions to climate change are significantly more reasonable. In a chapter on “adaptation”, he notes that the citizens of The Netherlands has learned to live below sea level. In another chapter on innovation, he stresses that it is too early for innovation to work but that more money should be spent on it. The final chapter of this section has a title that speaks for itself: “Prosperity: The Other Climate Policy We Need”.
False Alarm is a detailed, generally cogent, human-centric, optimistic tome from an honest environmentalist. Other than the pragmatism of the prescribed carbon tax, its biggest flaw is a failure to delve into the ideology behind anthropogenic catastrophic global warming. Lomborg even asserts that most of those concerned about climate change are concerned about minimizing human suffering. It is not necessary to quote environmental ideologues to refute this misconception about misanthropic green ideology; the fact that this book needed to be published alone is evidence that most “environmentalists” are not primarily concerned with the humans. Lomborg’s failure to so much as mention this—in fact, his apparent unawareness of this well-documented aspect of environmentalist culture—comes across as naive and ignorant.
Nonetheless, it is refreshing to read what an expert, “mainstream” figure has to say about this subject—and that it dovetails with the views of “extremist” capitalists.
“Fixating on scary stories about climate change leads us to make poor decisions. As individuals, we feel compelled to transform our lives, in ways both minor (not eating meat) and major (foregoing parenthood). As societies, we are making treaties that promise to squander hundreds of trillions of dollars on incredibly inefficient carbon-cutting policies.
“Overspending on bad climate policies doesn’t just waste money. It means underspending on effective climate policies and underspending on the opportunities we have to improve life for billions of people, now and into the future. That’s not just inefficient. It’s morally wrong.” (p. 222)
While capitalists will disagree that governments should be spending that money instead of individuals, Lomborg’s False Alarm is a welcome independent view that concurs that the pro-man (human-centered) approach to policy is the moral one.
The Texas suit, later joined by other states, against Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia, was a nice try, but it was always a long shot. Of course SCOTUS would be reluctant to grab so much power by ordering state legislatures to seat the right electors. Why? Because the power is already in the hands of the legislatures to do this.
Though we are non-lawyers, let’s read these laws together, interpreting them minimally and plainly (something lawyers seem incapable of doing). The first federal law for our purposes, titled “Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors,” says:
If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.
So this provision, if I understand it correctly, says that states may appoint electors after a controversy (“controversy or contest”). Now, what happens when fraud and illegalities are so egregious that they help one candidate exclusively and harm only one candidate in such a way that it is unclear which electors shall be appointed? That definitely qualifies to become a “controversy or contest.” The provision opens the door to each state legislature having the right to determine how the state can appoint electors (“appointment of electors” and “ascertainment of electors”). (This is already clear in the Twelfth Amendment, but here this provision gives more clarity after a controversy.) Bottom line: The electors for Biden, the “fake winner,” can be set aside if that is what each individual state law allows.
What does each state law say? It’s up to them to tell us, because researching each state’s law is too burdensome for average citizens. But it is safe to assume that the states have “plenary power” to appoint the electors of their choosing, particularly when the Constitution actually says the state legislatures determine things. The Electors Clause — Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution — provides that “[e]ach state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” (Hat tip.)
However, what about the “six days” in the election law provision? The next federal law, in a section titled “failure to make a choice before prescribed day,” says:
Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.
The states can determine when they appoint the electors “on a subsequent day” (not the next day). The phrase “In such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct” gives the states much leeway to select the right electors, which agrees with the Electors Clause, cited above. And if the controversy in selecting electors, caused by fraud and illegalities, persists past Dec. 14, then the states can ignore the date and follow their need to further investigate fraud and illegalities.
The whole thing can work out like this, apart from the Texas lawsuit before SCOTUS.
The undisputed states vote electorally on Dec. 14, and neither Biden nor Trump reaches 270, so neither one is the winner. The five GOP state legislatures (Arizona, Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania) of the six disputed states (minus Nevada) say they need to postpone their electoral votes because they are investigating fraud and illegalities. The legislatures perform due diligence (they have been holding hearings to collect the evidence) and conclude that fraud and illegalities unilaterally hurt Trump and helped only Biden. Assuming that the Democrat Legislature in Nevada says everything was legitimate, each disputed GOP state may reach this conclusion on any day after Dec. 14 — say, on Dec. 27 or even Jan. 15. Then they appoint electors who vote for the rightful winner: Trump (provided the GOP-selected electors do not suffer from TDS). These votes are added in to the votes cast on Dec. 14. Trump goes past 270 electoral votes. He wins!
However, what happens if the disputed states cannot select the electors, and neither Trump or Biden reaches 270? Then it goes to the House of Representatives, and each state has one vote, and this one vote is determined by the political makeup of the state legislatures. The GOP controls 29 state legislatures, and the Democrats have 19 (two are split). Trump wins again.
Therefore, we don’t need SCOTUS to win, and we never needed it.
So what happen next, and what can regular folks do now?
First, we can keep up the pressure on the legislators of those five GOP states to select electors who will vote for the rightful winner, who is obviously Trump. Some of the members in these legislatures may suffer from TDS, so the message must be sent that they have to set aside their irrational opposition and do the right thing.
Second, Sidney Powell’s legal team can continue with their lawsuits, so they can expose and uproot Dominion Voting Systems. Now the goal will not be to overturn elections, but to get rid of the flawed, rigged system. This goal is much more realistic and easier to accomplish. The court cases will take a long time. But that’s okay, because they keep in the public view the “fake president” and 2024, if Biden (unjustly) prevails.
Third, we must counter the left-wing pressure, including their threats of violence, that will be thrust on these little known state politicians. Without threats of violence on our side, we can still stand firm to support and defend them.
The battle is not over. It was always going to boil down to the legislatures without SCOTUS. If we keep up the fight, we shall win with knowledge and the law on our side.
BEN FRANKLIN was not only America’s most famous citizen at our country’s birth, but a central part of that birth. Franklin helped draft the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He signed the Treaty of Alliance with France, bringing the colonies French aid against the British, and The Treaty of Paris, which ended the Revolutionary War and recognized America’s independence.
He was the only person to sign all those key documents. Franklin’s role in our founding, however, has been eclipsed in modern memory by his many other accomplishments as a prolific inventor, discoverer, publisher, etc. But what has been crowded out—what he said about America and the liberty it was designed to protect—is a vital part of his legacy, as well.
They who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety. Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature. This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties.
A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.
Our cause is the cause of all mankind … we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own. Where liberty is, there is my country. A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles … is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and keep a government free.
Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. Sell not … liberty to purchase power.
In free governments, the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns. I hope … all mankind will at length … have reason and sense enough to settle their differences without cutting throats.
Men will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants. Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself. Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in the world nothing can be certain except death and taxes.
History affords us many instances of the ruin of states … the ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy.… An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy.
At the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Franklin reflected the risk and unity of purpose that led to America’s founding when he said, “Gentlemen, we must now hang together, or we shall most assuredly hang separately.” But he also knew how uncertain success was for their vision of liberty.
Benjamin Franklin made clear the intention of America’s experiment in liberty when he said, “God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man may pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say: This is my country.” It is worth comparing modern America with Franklin’s vision, and asking how we can reclaim his vision.
Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accept his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start, not with a standard of value, but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good: the good is that which he is not.
It does not matter who then becomes the profiteer on his renounced glory and tormented soul, a mystic God with some incomprehensible design or any passer-by whose rotting sores are held as some inexplicable claim upon him—it does not matter, the good is not for him to understand, his duty is to crawl through years of penance, atoning for the guilt of his existence to any stray collector of unintelligible debts, his only concept of a value is a zero: the good is that which is non-man.
The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.
A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.
Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a “tendency” to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.
What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man.
Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.
They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man.
News headlines claim 95% effectiveness for Pfizer RNA COVID-19 vaccine. In hard numbers, there is only a marginal (less than 1%) statistical advantage to vaccination compared to an inactive placebo vaccine. This deception will lead to massive overvaccination of the U.S. population.
Knowledge of Health, Dec. 9, 2020 – Analysis of data released by the FDA reveals mandated vaccination of the entire U.S. population with PFIZER’S COVID-19 RNA vaccine would prevent less than 1% of COVID-19 cases.
On December 10, 2020, the Food & Drug Administration, acting as a front-man for Pfizer drug company, released a seemingly positive report on the safety and effectiveness of a 2-dose RNA COVID-19 vaccine, claiming 95% effectiveness.
The design for this ongoing vaccine study is intended to determine how well an RNA-altering COVID-19 vaccine reduces incidence of COVID-19 infection as determined by a PCR (polymerase chain reaction) nasal swab test and by symptomology over a short-term (sometime 7 days after the 2nd inoculation). The PFIZER Report is available for viewing and analysis.
The 2-inoculation regimen is used to reduce dose-related side effects.
Both vaccinated and placebo groups experienced less than 1-percent infection rates in hard numbers, but on a relative basis vaccinated subjects experienced 95% less risk for infection.
The chance of benefiting from vaccination is less than 1-percent because very few are infected in the first place. This scheme hides the fact massive overvaccination needs to occur to produce a health benefit for very few.
Over all there were 9 cases of COVID-19 among 19,965 vaccinated subjects vs. 169 among 20,172 subjects in the placebo group. (9 divided by 169 = .05 or ~95% relative reduction in new cases of COVID-19). This is how investigators came up with the quoted 95% effectiveness for this vaccine.
It should not be misconstrued that 95% effectiveness means 95 out of 100 benefited from vaccination by reduction of risk for infection.
Over 38,000 subjects had to be inoculated to determine the number of lab-tested cases of COVID-19 were reduced from 169 to 9; (9 in 19,965 vaccinated subjects = 0.00045% or 4.5 cases in 10,000); compared to 162 COVID-19 infections among 20,172 that received an inactive placebo (0.00803% or 8 cases in 1000).
Extrapolated to entire US population (325,000,000)
If the data gleaned from the FDA/PFIZER vaccine report were applied and the entire U.S. population was vaccinated, the following chart reveals the number of infected cases would dramatically drop to 146,250 compared to 2,609,750 cases if an inactive placebo were administered, but 325,000,000 Americans would have to be inoculated to achieve these numbers, with no assurance immunity would last, with no assurance deaths would decline, and with uncertainty whether side effects will exceed benefits.KETER Pacific Cool Bar…Best Price: $69.52Buy New $79.00(as of 07:31 EST – Details)
The RNA vaccine activated dormant viruses that resulted in cases of temporary facial nerve paralysis (Bell’s palsy) and could activate incapacitating Guillain barre syndrome, shingles and hepatitis.
A number of vaccines that have undergone more rigorous study than the current COVID-19 vaccines now being licensed have been recalled due to severe side effects, some years after gaining licensure.
The data reveals 99% of the U.S. population would not benefit from RNA-vaccination against COVID-19. There is the possibility the number of side effects will exceed the number of infections prevented.
Public health authorities report 15.5 million accumulated cases of COVID-19 whereas the extrapolation presented here shows only 2,609,750 cases of COVID-19 infection with an inactive placebo vaccine. For explanation, the 15.5 is an accumulated number of cases while the 2,609,750 cases is tabulated at one point in time.
Guesstimated deaths
286,000 COVID-19-related deaths have been reported since January of 2020, or 53 cases for every death. (15.2 million cases divided by 286,000 deaths = 53)
Therefore, the corrected number of deaths attributed solely to COVID-19 is 6% of 286,000 = 17,160 COVID-only deaths, which is a ratio of ~885 cases for every death without an effective vaccine. (17,160 COVID-19-only related deaths in a population of 325 million would be a 0.000053% death rate or 5.3 in 100,000).
That would mean the number of subjects needed to treat (NNT) to prevent 1 death would be 885. That is the reason why COVID-19 death numbers need to be skewed higher in order to justify vaccination. Hence, older people who have comorbidities + a positive PCR COVID-19 test are considered to have died of COVID-19, not with COVID-19.
Mandatory vaccination with Pfizer’s yet unproven RNA vaccine would be presumed to raise the number of cases required to produce 1 death (now 1 in 885), thus reducing risk, which would be a very challenging task.
In the PFIZER vaccine study, there were 2 deaths in the RNA-vaccine group and 4 in the placebo group. Those deaths were not attributed to vaccination. Regardless of the numbers, there is no data to show Pfizer’s COVID-19 RNA vaccine reduces the COVID-19 death rate whatsoever. Only a long-term study would reveal any survival benefit for vaccination. They study was not designed to determine death rate.
When only 286,000 subjects (w/comorbidities) die in a population of 325 million, that equals 8.8 deaths in 10,000 or 0.00088%. When only 17,160 die with COVID-19 (w/o comorbidities), that is 5.3 deaths per 100,000 or 0.000053%. Either way, whichever mortality numbers are used, a lot of people have to be vaccinated to save 1 life.
Any analyst would conclude, from these numbers, this is not a pandemic. Only a flawed PCR test and re-categorization of deaths produces the above mortality numbers. Even then, the chance of dying of or with COVID-19 is remote and contrived.
Confirmation of infection
Occurrence of COVID-19 was assessed by PCR (polymerase chain reaction) testing of a nasal swab sample and also by symptomology. The PCR test is notoriously inaccurate and produces 100% false positives and is known to start pseudo-epidemics.
Prior to the beginning of the Pfizer study, almost no cases of COVID-19 were detected in both vaccine and placebo groups respectively. Again, with all of the fear mongering over this COVID-19 pandemic, only 3 subjects entered the study with a positive PCR test for COVID-19 out of ~38,000 study participants (0.000078% or ~8 in 100,000).
Side Effects and adverse events
A major problem is that vaccination itself often induces symptoms of infection such as fever, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, fatigue, which makes it difficult to distinguish vaccine-related side effects from symptoms of the disease.
Among 18,804 vaccinated subjects, 8 experienced an adverse event.
Among 18,892 patients receiving placebo (inactive agent by injection), 5 experienced an adverse event.
There were very few severe side effects: Just 1 participant experienced a severe side effect in the vaccine group versus 3 in the placebo group.
Obesity is a strong risk factor for COVID-19 infection. Only 3 (37.5%) were obese in the vaccine group and 67 (41.4%) in the placebo group.
Only 14.2% of 19,000 vaccinated subjects reported fever. Fever is necessary to activate antibodies against any infectious disease. It is questionable whether vaccination will produce long-term immunity against COVID-19 coronavirus.
A total of six deaths occurred in the reporting period (2 deaths in the vaccine group, 4 in placebo group).
Suspected cases of COVID-19
There were 3410 total cases of “suspected” but unconfirmed COVID-19 by PCR test in the overall study population; 1594 occurred in the vaccine group (8.2%) among ~19,500+ vaccinated subjects vs. 1816 (~9.3%) among ~19,500 placebo-treated participants. This reveals there was very little relative difference (1.1%) between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups when evaluated by symptomology.
Within 7 days after any vaccination, suspected COVID-19 cases as determined by symptomology were 409 in the vaccine group vs. 287 in the placebo group. There was a small favorable reduction in symptoms in the placebo group compared to the vaccinated group in this immediate post-inoculation period. (409 among 19,500 vaccinated = 2.0% vs. 287 among 19,500 unvaccinated group = 1.5%).
Contents of vaccine and likely method of action
Any resistance to infection may have been temporarily produced by the noxious chemicals in the vaccine. The Pfizer vaccine contains noxious chemicals that will likely activate the immune system and transiently raise the resistance to infection, regardless of the RNA-altering activity of the vaccine. However, this immune system activation would not be expected to last long. Post-vaccination testing was done 7+ days following immunization.
According to the FDA report, the Pfizer RNA vaccine contains the following:
A nucleoside-modified messenger RNA encoding the viral spike glycoprotein (S) of SARS-CoV-2. The vaccine also includes the following ingredients: lipids (4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl) bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2- hexyldecanoate), 2-[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide, 1,2-distearoyl-snglycero-3-phosphocholine, and cholesterol), potassium chloride, monobasic potassium phosphate, sodium chloride, dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate, and sucrose.
Nerve palsy
News headlines point to four cases of temporary facial nerve paralysis (Bell’s Palsy) in the vaccinated group versus none in the unvaccinated group. Certainly, noxious chemicals in the vaccine may have activated dormant herpes viruses in the facial nerve. Bell’s palsy and shingles are more often reported by older adults, especially adults over age 80. The 80+ age group is the most vulnerable to COVID-19 but very few participants in this study were over age 75 to accurately assess this risk. RNA-COVID-19 vaccination may cause dormant viruses to erupt and result in cases of shingles, facial nerve paralysis (Bell’s palsy), Guillain Barre syndrome, and hepatitis.
The 12th edition of Rich States, Poor States, written by White House Advisors Arthur Laffer, Ph.D., Stephen Moore, and Jonathan Williams, chief economist for the American Legislative Exchange Council, pinpoints why some states in the union grow and prosper while others shrink and fail.
Based on the authors’ collective research, appropriate regulations, competitive tax rates, and wise government spending yields greater opportunities for all Americans. In particular, citizens in states where lawmakers are focused on establishing long-term prosperity benefit the most. This is especially true when those citizens trust the judgment of their political leaders and have witnessed the wisdom of their policies.
What’s more, from year to year, rich states in motion tend to maintain and even elevate prosperity, while poor states experience the opposite and issue lame laments about “tax breaks for the rich” and other go-to bromides.
15 Vital Policy Areas
As in each edition, Rich States, Poor States ranks the economic outlook of all 50 states based on 15 policy variables, which are given equal weight. These policy variables include top marginal personal income tax rate, top marginal corporate income tax rate, personal income tax progressivity, property tax burden, sales tax burden, and remaining tax burden.
Also included are estate or inheritance taxes levied, recently legislated tax changes, debt service as a share of tax revenue, public employees per 10,000 of population, state liability system surveys, state minimum wage, average workers’ compensation costs, whether the state is right-to-work, and tax expenditure limits.
The common denominator among states that rank high in economic outlook is that they tax less and spend less, and they promote policies that either stimulate investment or increase employment, or do both.
Examining the list below, one can see that the 15 states of the union with the highest economic outlook ranking voted Republican in the last election presidential election (counting four states withvotes still in question), including Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Indiana, North Carolina, Nevada, Florida, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Arizona, North Dakota, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Michigan, and Texas.
Economic Outlook Ranking
From the best, Utah, to the worst, New York, here is the complete state roster:
1. Utah
2. Wyoming
3. Idaho
4. Indiana
5. North Carolina
6. Nevada
7. Florida
8. Tennessee
9. Oklahoma
10. Arizona
11. North Dakota
12. Wisconsin
13. South Dakota
14. Michigan
15. Texas
16. Virginia
17. New Hampshire
18. Colorado
19. Missouri
20. Mississippi
21. Georgia
22. Arkansas
23. Alabama
24. Delaware
25. Kansas
26. Alaska
27. Iowa
28. West Virginia
29. Ohio
30. Louisiana
31. Kentucky
32. South Carolina
33. Montana
34. New Mexico
35. Massachusetts
36. Nebraska
37. Maryland
38. Pennsylvania
39. Washington
40. Connecticut
41. Maine
42. Oregon
43. Rhode Island
44. Hawaii
45. Minnesota
46. California
47. Illinois
48. New Jersey
49. Vermont
50. New York
Notice that those states with the lowest economic outlook ranking, starting from the worst, New York, and including Vermont, New Jersey, Illinois, California, Minnesota, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Oregon, and Maine, all voted Democrat in the recent election.
Choose Your Fate
Republican-led states tend to prosper, Democrat-led states tend to suffer. A mere coincidence? With such a wide disparity in the economic outlook rankings and resulting economic prosperity, versus the lack thereof, Americans have had somewhat of a dual experience during President Trump’s time in office.
Those states that voted for Trump and for Republicans, in general, have had a different reality from those states that traditionally vote for Democrats. This economic disparity between different regions of the country has gone on not merely for years, but for decades. Those cities where economic devastation and destruction has occurred, once again, have voted for Democratic regimes, not merely for years, but for decades, and Republican-led cities tend to prosper, while Democrat-led cities tend to suffer.
Why don’t states with poor economic outlook rankings, and cities that have long been in decline, emulate the policies and practices of states and cities that continue to prosper? That is a compelling question that is well worth pursuing and, in particular, a vital question for Democrat politicians and the millions of voters who aimlessly support them.
