Wednesday, October 20, 2021

Is The U.S. Up To China's Challenge?

After decades of pretending China might be a friendly ally in the world, we've now seen the Tiger's real stripes.

The truth is, the Cold War with China began in 2000, with its accession to the World Trade Organization.

The U.S. and its allies gave China virtually unhampered, non-tariff access to our markets, enabling it to pile up trillions of dollars in trade surpluses.

These surpluses allowed China to increase defense spending from 2000 to 2020 by an average of 10.4% a year, a likely lowball estimate given China's proclivity for hiding military spending in supposedly civilian projects.

The end result: China got tens of millions of jobs, lots of infrastructure and a first-rate military machine, one that now threatens Taiwan and all of the U.S.' allies in Asia.

President Donald Trump, to his great credit, put China on notice that it needed to behave differently.

Agree with him or not, he rocked China back on its heels with tariffs, expanded U.S. military presence in the Western Pacific, and forged closer strategic ties with Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and even Vietnam, all countries that are worried about China's designs on the region. 

OSHA openly advocates ignoring vaccine-related injuries

On its website, OSHA is urging employers not to report any side effects workers may experience from COVID-19 vaccines because it would discourage others from getting vaccinated.

An FAQ page for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, a branch of the Department of Labor, states OSHA will not enforce the recording requirements until at least next May. The question: "Are adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine recordable on the OSHA recordkeeping log?".

OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers' vaccination efforts.

As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904's recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination at least through May 2022.

OSHA changed the reporting guidance in May. Previously, it stated that employers could be held liable if they mandate COVID-19 shots as a condition of employment and and an employee experiences adverse reactions.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's website for reporting vaccine injuries, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, or VAERS, has compiled 1.6 million adverse events from COVID vaccines and 16,766 COVID deaths.

Health and Human Services points out that a VAERS report is not documentation that a link has been established between a vaccine and an adverse event. 

NIH website features much-maligned ivermectin as COVID treatment

The Food and Drug Administration has joined media in mocking users of ivermectin, but the antiviral drug is featured on the National Institutes of Health website as a treatment for COVID-19.

Ivermectin is the second drug listed - under the highly touted, expensive COVID-19 drug with many side effects, remdesivir - on an NIH page titled "Antiviral Agents That Are Approved or Under Evaluation for the Treatment of COVID-19.".

Ivermectin has not been approved as a COVID-19 treatment.

Merck, the producer of ivermectin, applied earlier this month for emergency use authorization for a new COVID-19 treatment called molnupirivar.

The NIH said unspecified "Neurological" adverse effects have been seen in the treatment of parasitic disease, but it's unclear if they are connected to the drug or to the underlying conditions.

Dr. Bryan Ardis recently drew attention to ivermectin's status on the NIH website in an interview on the Canadian podcast "Live with Laura-Lynn.".

In September, more than 8,600 scientists and physicians from around the world signed a declaration condemning public policy makers of "Crimes against humanity" for restricting life-saving treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine while quashing debate and scientific inquiry. 

Decision By January 6th Commission to Ignore Oath Keeper Stewart Rhodes Just Unmasked Their Entire Investigation

That is, the Commission seems to have requested data from the communications devices of everyone who set foot in DC on January 6, except for Stewart Rhodes, the founder and leader of the Oathkeepers, which is the largest militia group associated with the events of 1/6. Stewart Rhodes looms so large over the Oath Keepers that he is said to effectively be the Oath Keepers.

The commission's seeming neglect of Rhodes must be considered in light of the fact that after more than eight months, the Feds have refused to indict Rhodes for a single charge related to his span of alleged activities leading up to, and on the day of, January 6.

We will walk you through the mountains of direct and circumstantial evidence built on top of these allegations, but readers must understand this: the only reason Stewart Rhodes is not in jail *right now* is because of a deliberate decision by the Justice Department to protect him.

Perhaps even more bizarre than the Feds' protection of Rhodes from indictment is the fact that the FBI still does not appear to have searched Rhodes for evidence related to his own role in January 6.

Is the fact that the Feds seem to want to indict everyone but Rhodes, and raid everyone else's electronic devices except for Rhodes, connected to the fact that the January 6 commission now seems eager to seize communications from everyone in the MAGA universe but Rhodes?

Remarkably, Rhodes plays a central role in the theory of the case personally advanced by the head of the January 6 commission itself: the aforementioned Rep. Bennie Thompson.

Oddly, there seems to be greater scrutiny of Rhodes from friends and family of the Oath Keepers than there is from the FBI, the Justice Department, or the January 6 commission. 

Defense Department Pulls a Bait and Switch on Vaccines

If a soldier goes to a military hospital or a private provider to receive an approved Pfizer COVID vaccine, he will be administered the unapproved Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Coerced, it’s illegal. 

In the memo, Secretary Austin issued a directive and a promise, that "Mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 will only use COVID-19 vaccines that receive full licensure from the Food and Drug Administration, in accordance with FDA-approved labeling and guidance." The problem with this is that the Comirnaty vaccine product is not available anywhere in the Military Health System.

If a soldier goes to a military hospital or a private provider to receive an approved Pfizer COVID vaccine, he will be administered the unapproved Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

Given Secretary Austin's order that "Mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 will only use COVID-19 vaccines that receive full licensure from the Food and Drug Administration, in accordance with FDA-approved labeling and guidance," any disciplinary or terminative action taken against service members for refusing a COVID vaccine is blatantly illegal, as the mandate only applies to the FDA-approved Comirnaty vaccine and not to any of the unapproved COVID vaccines-the only ones that are available.

The Department of Defense is telling service members that they are receiving an approved vaccine.

The Secretary of Defense's memo also clearly states that the vaccine mandate will be "Implemented consistent with DoD Instruction 6205.02, 'DoD Immunization Program,' July 23, 2019. The Military Departments should use existing policies and procedures to manage mandatory vaccination of Service members to the extent practicable. Mandatory vaccination of Service members will be subject to any identified contraindications and any administrative or other exemptions established in Military Department policy."

All military services allow for religious accommodations to vaccines and other military requirements and restrictions according to the regulation of that particular service.

To date, thousands of requests for religious accommodations relating to the COVID vaccine mandate policy have been requested and to date neither I nor my military sources have been able to find a single service member who has had his or hers accepted. 

Dem Budget Bill Would Slash Border Protection Budget by Half Billion Dollars

Senate Democrats are moving to slash the budget for Customs and Border Protection by half a billion dollars in the midst of an immigration crisis, putting more strain on an agency with nearly exhausted resources.

The appropriations bill, released Monday by Sen. Chris Murphy, allocates just $14.5 billion to CBP for the 2022 fiscal year, down from $15 billion the year before and $80 million less than what President Joe Biden requested in his budget.

The bill forbids Homeland Security Investigations, an arm of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, from enforcing immigration laws.

The proposed cuts come as the southern border faces a decades-high surge of illegal immigrants attempting to enter the United States.

Immigration authorities expect to report nearly two million migrant encounters at the border this fiscal year, the first time the number has exceeded one million since 2006.

Senate Democrats in a summary of the bill said cuts to detention centers were warranted by "Lower overall detention numbers due to the pandemic and related-litigation." Between January and August the number of illegal aliens detained by ICE increased by 70 percent, according to data provided by the agency.

The Senate Democrats' proposal represents another blow to an agency already frustrated by the White House's apparent lack of interest in funding border security and migrant processing measures. 

What's Inside Democrats' 2,465-Page $3.5 Trillion Spending Bill?

Democrats’ $3.5 trillion spending package gives the IRS permission, and funding, to snoop on nearly every American’s bank account, Jessica Anderson, executive director of Heritage Action for America, says.

Said he could not support a spending bill over $1.5 trillion.

Everyone's talking about the big spending bill, Democrats' $3.5 trillion social spending package.

A couple of weeks ago, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, he said that he couldn't support a spending bill above $1.5 trillion.

So then where does that leave Democrats' $3.5 trillion bill? Are Democrats going to continue to try and ram this through? What happens if they can't gain Manchin's support?

What do we know about tax hikes in this $3.5 trillion spending bill for a family in Georgia making $55,000 a year or a couple in California making $68,000 a year? Will their taxes go up if Democrats succeed in pushing this through?

Why is Congress focused on passing a social spending bill when we are dealing at the same time with trying to avoid defaulting on our national debt?

In the case of the Senate the infrastructure bill passed there, it opened the door then to allow this reconciliation bill to begin to be negotiated by the four corners.