In my second article on the college problem, I discussed the public policy factors that contribute to the rising cost of higher education.

But politics makes its way into education through more than public policy, as professors bring their political views into their classrooms and research.

Nothing has contributed more to my personal disillusionment with higher education than seeing the extent to which the ideological problem has affected the university system.

At the outset, let me say that the problem is not that professors have the wrong worldview.

Some of the best and most impartial professors I’ve learned from have been on the left side of the political spectrum.

Murray Rothbard approvingly cited Marxist and otherwise far-left historians, such as Eugene Genovese and Gabriel Kolko, in his own history works. The problem is that academia has become increasingly homogenous in its political outlook.

For better or worse, academia has always been disproportionately left of center, but in the last three decades, the skew has only become more pronounced.

According to political self-reporting surveys of university faculty members, academics identifying left of center have increased by twenty percentage points since 1995, while self-described moderates and conservatives have correspondingly fallen.

As of 2016, conservative professors accounted for barely 10 percent of university faculty, and the number has likely only fallen further since the survey was conducted.1

The problem is even more acute in the humanities and social sciences, not only in the proportion of left-of-center professors, but also in those reporting to be “far left.” One 2007 study found that 43 percent of social science and humanities professors identified as “radical,” “activist,” or “Marxist.”

The issue isn’t that left-wing professors are more prone to bias than their right-wing counterparts. In fact, a recent study has shown that the “willingness to discriminate” against opposing political views in publishing, symposiums, grants, and hiring is similar between left- and right-wing faculty members. However, a roughly equal “willingness to discriminate” means little when one side overwhelmingly outnumbers the other.

Ideological homogeneity leads to nepotistic hiring and admissions practices, which proves self-reinforcing as professors increasingly hire like-minded faculty members, who then go on to support further hiring of like-minded faculty in the future. This also affects admission to graduate programs. The 2016 book Inside Graduate Admissions, by Julie Posselt, examined the gatekeeping practices in the graduate admissions committees for several high-ranking universities. She found that committees showed clear biases against students with Christian and right-wing backgrounds.

It is worth understanding that rarely does this come in the form of a faculty member overtly expressing any objection to admitting or hiring candidates with “undesirable” political or religious viewpoints. Rather, it often comes with some “honorable” justification.

I recall having a conversation on this topic with a political science professor at the University of Florida. When I raised the subject of political nepotism in graduate admissions, she offered an example from her own department to illustrate that there may be good reasons to decline applications. She told me of a student who applied to the PhD program to study Israeli-Palestinian relations and seemed to have generally favorable views toward Israel.

The department rejected her application, I was informed, because they worried she might “feel uncomfortable” working with faculty who tended to be more critical of Israel. My first thought was What are these professors doing to make students so scared to disagree with them? Somehow this was meant to illustrate how the admissions process was not politically biased, despite the applicant’s political views being the explicit basis for refusing to admit her!

I should add that the professor who told me this story was generally moderate and never displayed any bias during my time in her seminar, and I have tremendous respect for her as an educator. But that’s exactly the point. Biases are rarely embraced consciously, and they often come with ostensibly noble reasoning.

It hardly seems to occur to these faculty members that every department in the country might object to the candidate on the same grounds, creating industry-wide barriers to entering a graduate program for some students.

The homogeneity of faculty affects the undergraduate classroom experience as well. It is worth noting that although more than 70 percent of students report a reluctance to share their political or social views in the classroom, the general trend affects conservative students only slightly more than their left-wing counterparts.

However, conservative students overwhelmingly cite fear of reprisal from professors as the source of their restraint. Students on the left, by contrast, generally fear ridicule and even violence from their peers, which seems to show the effects of the politicized caricature professors paint of conservatives in general; student surveys show that “students identifying as ‘extremely liberal’” were twice as likely to find violence “acceptable” to prevent campus speakers than “extremely conservative” students, likely due to the greater faculty support th

at left-wing students enjoy.

Finally, ideological homogeneity contributes to the breakdown of the peer-review process for scholarly publications.

Again, this is not necessarily a conscious bias, as confirmation bias generally manifests through the comparative lack of scrutiny applied to claims that support people’s predispositions, regardless of their political leanings.

The problem is that when the majority of reviewers share the same biases as the author, low-quality research that presents a majority view is more likely to reach publication than better-quality research that offers a contrary perspective.

The confirmation-bias problem in scholarly publications was recently exposed by the infamous “grievance studies” professors, who submitted satirical articles that were overwhelmingly polemical but appealed to the general biases of the academic community.

These articles were deliberately designed to be unpublishable by conventional standards of academic rigor, with fabricated citations and absurd analyses, to test whether adopting the approved biases would be sufficient to get bad scholarship published.

One article, which was published in the feminist journal Affilia, actually rewrote portions of Adolph Hitler’s Mein Kampf with postmodernist jargon, essentially testing whether Hitler would be able to earn tenure in the modern American academic climate. The answer, sadly, seems to be yes.

Of course, the bias in academia not only allowed several of these articles to be published, but it also directed the backlash against the authors once they admitted the hoax.

Instead of opening a discussion about the failures of the peer-review system that the faux articles exposed, the academic community overwhelmingly excoriated the pranksters for committing academic fraud.

Even for those who agree that the method of exposing the problem was inappropriate, the success of the hoax should have opened discussion on the problems that allowed these articles to be published in the first place, but this did not occur.

Instead, the grievance studies professors, who were all left of center but sincerely cared about academic integrity, were ostracized by their peers, and some have been driven to resign from their teaching positions.

The purpose of higher education is to further the production (research) and distribution (teaching) of knowledge, but ideological homogeneity has led to the foiling of both purposes. The fact that this problem has manifested on the left side of the political spectrum in the United States does not mean that it would not be equally problematic if the ratios were reversed. Human beings are naturally prone to these kinds of biases, and the only way to check them institutionally is to promote political diversity in academia.

If academia were equally split between left- and right-wing faculty, professors would have to be more mindful of the impartiality of their analyses when submitting research for publication, and students would be exposed to a variety of viewpoints and enjoy a more open educational experience overall. Ironically, this is the only kind of diversity that seems to be negatively valued in universities today.

One way to change this is to encourage university donors to stop giving money to colleges that do not practice these values. This was essentially what happened during the similarly polemical environment of the 1970s, which compelled universities to crack down on political biases among faculty.

The outcome was a less hostile and more apolitical campus environment in the 1980s and 1990s.

Unfortunately, many donors who attended college in this era are unaware of how far academia has fallen in the past three decades, and they continue to financially support a broken system. Recognizing the scope of the problem is the first step toward solving it.

Revolver News editor-in-chief and former Trump speechwriter Darren Beattie broke down why he thinks Alex Jones’ billion dollar Sandy Hook verdict is intended to have a chilling effect on free speech.

Reacting to the verdict on Steve Bannon’s War Room Thursday, Beattie outlined why the verdict is meant to silence those speaking out against the totalitarian left.

“You know how they say free speech isn’t free – well, I think we just learned what it costs: Free speech costs $1 billion,” Beattie said.

“If you want to speak against the regime and any regime narrative, you gotta pay up, you’ll be destroyed – that’s the message that this sends. And if you have video proof of what you claim the regime is doing then they’ll kill you like they’re doing to Assange. So in that respect, Alex Jones is doing comparatively better.”

On Wednesday following the outrageous verdict, Beattie noted Jones’ excessive fine is proof the regime can sue you into oblivion if they dislike what you’re saying.

The UK will provide Ukraine with Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) to help the country “defend its skies,” British defense minister Ben Wallace has said.

The announcement follows large-scale Russian strikes against Ukrainian military targets and infrastructure earlier this week.

“I have authorized the supply of AMRAAM anti-aircraft missiles to Ukraine,” Wallace said in a statement on Thursday. “These weapons will help Ukraine defend its skies from attacks and strengthen their overall missile defence alongside the US NASAMS,” he added.

Dozens of missiles are expected to be delivered to Ukraine in the coming weeks, according to Sky News.

London has provided £2.3 billion (around $2.5 billion) worth of military aid to Kiev since the start of the conflict with Moscow in late February, but it’s the first time that it will be supplying such a powerful type of weaponry.

The launchers for the AMRAAM won’t be coming from the UK as the missiles are expected to be fired from US-supplied National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS).

Hundreds of additional air defense missiles of other types will also be sent to Ukraine as well as more aerial drones and 18 howitzers, according to Britain.

The US earlier promised eight NASAMS, with the White House saying on Wednesday that it was looking to deliver two of those launchers “as soon as we can.”

The statement followed heavy Russian missile strikes on Ukraine on Monday and Tuesday. Moscow said that they were in response to “terrorist tactics” employed by Kiev, which included sabotage attempts at the Kursk nuclear power plant and the TurkStream gas pipeline as well as the truck bombing of the Crimean Bridge on Saturday.

The Russian defense ministry said its missiles had hit all intended targets and that all the goals of the operation were achieved. According to Russia’s State Duma speaker Vyacheslav Volodin, 70 facilities of Ukrainian energy infrastructure were hit, with the country losing 50% of its generating capacity. Ukraine’s energy minister confirmed that 30% of the country’s energy infrastructure had been damaged by the missile barrage.

Following the strikes, President Zelensky posted on Twitter that “air defense is currently the number one priority in our defense cooperation” with foreign partners.

On Wednesday, Ukraine said that the first unit of Germany’s state-of-the-art IRIS-T air defense system had arrived. Berlin has promised four of them to Kiev, with the remaining three expected to be shipped next year.

Moscow has long condemned the deliveries of weapons to Ukraine by the US, EU, UK and some other nations, arguing that they only prolonged the fighting and increased the risk of a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO.

GOOD NEWS: PayPal cancels social credit score beta test And Florida Surgeon General warns against COVID death shots

The Biden administration is considering a new humanitarian parole program intended to reduce the number of Venezuelan migrants illegally entering the United States, the New York Times reported, citing two administration officials familiar with the matter.

The proposed program would operate similarly to a humanitarian parole program offered to Ukrainians, which allows migrants to stay in the US temporarily on a two-year parole period if they have a US sponsor willing to provide financial support, the report said on Tuesday.

However, the details of the program remain unclear, the report said.The policy proposal comes amid a significant inflow of migrants from Venezuela to the United States, with over 150,000 Venezuelans apprehended at the US southwestern border between October 2021 and August 2022, the report said.

The United Nations estimates that over 6.8 million Venezuelans have fled the country, the report added.

An absence of diplomatic relations between the US and Venezuela hinders authorities’ ability to repatriate Venezuelans who turn themselves in to border officials, causing the US to grant most migrants temporary permission to stay while they await immigration court proceedings, according to the report.

GOOD NEWS: PayPal cancels social credit score beta test And Florida Surgeon General warns against COVID death shots

A new mini-documentary from Mike Adams reveals how mainstream Americans are living in an artificial world where nearly everything they believe to be true is actually false.

These individuals are basically experiencing a 1984 lifestyle where everything they consume is “double-think,” or an inversion of reality and truth.

As reality wakes them up out of this artificially induced trance, these people will be destroyed by their inability to recognize or navigate reality, combined with their inability to adapt to events that contradict their false brainwashing and indoctrination programming.

Share this crucial video to help save your friends and family who are still stuck in the Matrix.

“You know, when police start becoming their own executioners, where’s it gonna end? Pretty soon, you’ll start executing people for jaywalking, and executing people for traffic violations. Then you end up executing your neighbor ‘cause his dog pisses on your lawn.”—“Dirty Harry” Callahan, Magnum Force

When I say that warrior cops—hyped up on their own authority and the power of the badge—have not made America any safer or freer, I am not disrespecting any of the fine, decent, lawful police officers who take seriously their oath of office to serve and protect their fellow citizens, uphold the Constitution, and maintain the peace.

My concern rests with the cops who feel empowered to act as judge, jury and executioner.

These death squads believe they can kill, shoot, taser, abuse and steal from American citizens in the so-called name of law and order.

Just recently, in fact, a rookie cop opened fire on the occupants of a parked car in a McDonald’s parking lot on a Sunday night in San Antonio, Texas.

The driver, 17-year-old Erik Cantu and his girlfriend, were eating burgers inside the car when the police officer—suspecting the car might have been one that fled an attempted traffic stop the night before—abruptly opened the driver side door, ordered the teenager to get out, and when he did not comply, shot ten times at the car, hitting Cantu multiple times.

Mind you, this wasn’t a life-or-death situation.

It was two teenagers eating burgers in a parking lot, and a cop fresh out of the police academy taking justice into his own hands.

This wasn’t an isolated incident, either.

In Hugo, Oklahoma, plain clothes police officers opened fire on a pickup truck parked in front of a food bank, heedless of the damage such a hail of bullets—26 shots were fired—could have on those in the vicinity. Three of the four children inside the parked vehicle were shot: a 4-year-old girl was shot in the head and ended up with a bullet in the brain; a 5-year-old boy received a skull fracture; and a 1-year-old girl had deep cuts on her face from gunfire or shattered window glass. The reason for the use of such excessive force? Police were searching for a suspect in a weeks-old robbery of a pizza parlor that netted $400.

In Minnesota, a 4-year-old girl watched from the backseat of a car as cops shot and killed her mother’s boyfriend, Philando Castile, a school cafeteria supervisor, during a routine traffic stop merely because Castile disclosed that he had a gun in his possession, for which he had a lawful conceal-and-carry permit. That’s all it took for police to shoot Castile four times as he was reaching for his license and registration. 

In Arizona, a 7-year-old girl watched panic-stricken as a state trooper pointed his gun at her and her father during a traffic stop and reportedly threated to shoot her father in the back (twice) based on the mistaken belief that they were driving a stolen rental car.

This is how we have gone from a nation of laws—where the least among us had just as much right to be treated with dignity and respect as the next person (in principle, at least)—to a nation of law enforcers (revenue collectors with weapons) who treat the citizenry like suspects and criminals.

The lesson for all of us: at a time when police have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect”—and a “fear” for officer safety is used to justify all manner of police misconduct—“we the people” are at a severe disadvantage.

Add a traffic stop to the mix, and that disadvantage increases dramatically.

According to the Justice Department, the most common reason for a citizen to come into contact with the police is being a driver in a traffic stop.

On average, one in 10 Americans gets pulled over by police.

Of the roughly 1,100 people killed by police each year, 10% of those involve traffic stops.

Historically, police officers have been given free range to pull anyone over for a variety of reasons.

This free-handed approach to traffic stops has resulted in drivers being stopped for windows that are too heavily tinted, for driving too fast, driving too slow, failing to maintain speed, following too closely, improper lane changes, distracted driving, screeching a car’s tires, and leaving a parked car door open for too long.

Motorists can also be stopped by police for driving near a bar or on a road that has large amounts of drunk driving, driving a certain make of car (Mercedes, Grand Prix and Hummers are among the most ticketed vehicles), having anything dangling from the rearview mirror (air fresheners, handicap parking permits, toll transponders or rosaries), and displaying pro-police bumper stickers.

Incredibly, a federal appeals court actually ruled unanimously in 2014 that acne scars and driving with a stiff upright posture are reasonable grounds for being pulled over. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that driving a vehicle that has a couple air fresheners, rosaries and pro-police bumper stickers at 2 MPH over the speed limit is suspicious, meriting a traffic stop.

Equally appalling, in Heien v. North Carolina, the U.S. Supreme Court—which has largely paved the way for the police and other government agents to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance—allowed police officers to stop drivers who appear nervous, provided they provide a palatable pretext for doing so.

Black drivers are almost two times more likely than white drivers to be pulled over by police and three times more likely to have their vehicles searched. As the Washington Post concludes, “‘Driving while black’ is, indeed, a measurable phenomenon.”

In other words, drivers beware.

Traffic stops aren’t just dangerous. They can be downright deadly.

Patrick Lyoya was pulled over for having a mismatched license plate. The unarmed man was shot in the back of the head while on the ground during a subsequent struggle with a Michigan police officer.

Reportedly pulled over for a broken taillight, Walter Scott—unarmed—ran away from the police officer, who pursued and shot him from behind, first with a Taser, then with a gun. Scott was struck five times, “three times in the back, once in the upper buttocks and once in the ear — with at least one bullet entering his heart.”

Samuel Dubose, also unarmed, was pulled over for a missing front license plate. He was reportedly shot in the head after a brief struggle in which his car began rolling forward.

Levar Jones was stopped for a seatbelt offense, just as he was getting out of his car to enter a convenience store. Directed to show his license, Jones leaned into his car to get his wallet, only to be shot four times by the “fearful” officer. Jones was also unarmed.

Bobby Canipe was pulled over for having an expired registration. When the 70-year-old reached into the back of his truck for his walking cane, the officer fired several shots at him, hitting him once in the abdomen.

Dontrell Stevens was stopped “for not bicycling properly.” The officer pursuing him “thought the way Stephens rode his bike was suspicious. He thought the way Stephens got off his bike was suspicious.” Four seconds later, sheriff’s deputy Adams Lin shot Stephens four times as he pulled out a black object from his waistband. The object was his cell phone. Stephens was unarmed.

That police are choosing to fatally resolve these encounters by using their guns on fellow citizens speaks volumes about what is wrong with policing in America today, where police officers are being dressed in the trappings of war, drilled in the deadly art of combat, and trained to look upon “every individual they interact with as an armed threat and every situation as a deadly force encounter in the making.”

Keep in mind, from the moment those lights start flashing and that siren goes off, we’re all in the same boat. Yet it’s what happens after you’ve been pulled over that’s critical.

Trying to predict the outcome of any encounter with the police is a bit like playing Russian roulette: most of the time you will emerge relatively unscathed, although decidedly poorer and less secure about your rights, but there’s always the chance that an encounter will turn deadly.

Survival is key.

Technically, you have the right to remain silent (beyond the basic requirement to identify yourself and show your registration). You have the right to refuse to have your vehicle searched. You have the right to film your interaction with police. You have the right to ask to leave. You also have the right to resist an unlawful order such as a police officer directing you to extinguish your cigarette, put away your phone or stop recording them.

However, there is a price for asserting one’s rights. That price grows more costly with every passing day.

If you ask cops and their enablers what Americans should do to stay alive during encounters with police, they will tell you to comply, cooperate, obey, not resist, not argue, not make threatening gestures or statements, avoid sudden movements, and submit to a search of their person and belongings. 

Unfortunately, in the American police state, compliance is no guarantee that you will survive an encounter with the police with your life and liberties intact.

Every day we hear about situations in which unarmed Americans complied and still died during an encounter with police simply because they appeared to be standing in a “shooting stance” or held a cell phone or a garden hose or carried around a baseball bat or answered the front door or held a spoon in a threatening manner or ran in an aggressive manner holding a tree branch or wandered around naked or hunched over in a defensive posture or made the mistake of wearing the same clothes as a carjacking suspect (dark pants and a basketball jersey) or dared to leave an area at the same time that a police officer showed up or had a car break down by the side of the road or were deaf or homeless or old.

More often than not, it seems as if all you have to do to be shot and killed by police is stand a certain way, or move a certain way, or hold something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or ignite some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.

Now politicians, police unions, law enforcement officials and individuals who are more than happy to march in lockstep with the police state make all kinds of excuses to justify these shootings.  However, to suggest that a good citizen is a compliant citizen and that obedience will save us from the police state is not only recklessly irresponsible, but it is also deluded.

To begin with, and most importantly, Americans need to know their rights when it comes to interactions with the police, bearing in mind that many law enforcement officials are largely ignorant of the law themselves.

A good resource is The Rutherford Institute’s “Constitutional Q&A: Rules of Engagement for Interacting with Police.”

In a nutshell, the following are your basic rights when it comes to interactions with the police as outlined in the Bill of Rights:

You have the right under the First Amendment to ask questions and express yourself. You have the right under the Fourth Amendment to not have your person or your property searched by police or any government agent unless they have a search warrant authorizing them to do so.  You have the right under the Fifth Amendment to remain silent, to not incriminate yourself and to request an attorney. Depending on which state you live in and whether your encounter with police is consensual as opposed to your being temporarily detained or arrested, you may have the right to refuse to identify yourself. Not all states require citizens to show their ID to an officer (although drivers in all states must do so).

As a rule of thumb, you should always be sure to clarify in any police encounter whether or not you are being detained, i.e., whether you have the right to walk away. That holds true whether it’s a casual “show your ID” request on a boardwalk, a stop-and-frisk search on a city street, or a traffic stop for speeding or just to check your insurance. If you feel like you can’t walk away from a police encounter of your own volition—and more often than not you can’t, especially when you’re being confronted by someone armed to the hilt with all manner of militarized weaponry and gear—then for all intents and purposes, you’re essentially under arrest from the moment a cop stops you. Still, it doesn’t hurt to clarify that distinction.

While technology is always going to be a double-edged sword, with the gadgets that are the most useful to us in our daily lives—GPS devices, cell phones, the internet—being the very tools used by the government to track us, monitor our activities, and generally spy on us, cell phones are particularly useful for recording encounters with the police and have proven to be increasingly powerful reminders to police that they are not all powerful.

Knowing your rights is only part of the battle, unfortunately.

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the danger arises when the burden of proof is reversed, “we the people” are assumed guilty, and we have to exercise our rights while simultaneously attempting to prove our innocence to trigger-happy cops with no understanding of the Bill of Rights.

Depopulation Agenda Continues As World Leaders Prepare For Nuclear War

“The worst is yet to come, and for many people 2023 will feel like a recession,” the lender’s chief economist, Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, wrote in a foreword to the report.

“As storm clouds gather, policymakers need to keep a steady hand.”

That’s the ominous prelude to The IMF’s latest World Economic Outlook report as the organization forecasts that, excluding the unprecedented slowdown of 2020 because of the coronavirus pandemic, next year’s performance would be the weakest since 2009, in the wake of the global financial crisis.

The IMF cut its forecast for global growth next year to 2.7%, from 2.9% seen in July and 3.8% in January, adding that it sees a 25% probability that growth will slow to less than 2%.

About one third of the global economy risks contracting next year, it said, with the US, European Union and China all continuing to stall.

The IMF reports that the global economy continues to face steep challenges, shaped by the lingering effects of three powerful forces:

  1. the Russian invasion of Ukraine,
  2. a cost-of-living crisis caused by persistent and
  3. broadening inflation pressures, and the slowdown in China.

Notably, while The IMF places the blame for the slowdown at the feet of policy-tightening central banks, it also urges them to stay the course and not pivot…

Central banks around the world are now laser-focused on restoring price stability, and the pace of tightening has accelerated sharply. There are risks of both under- and over-tightening.

Under-tightening would entrench further the inflation process, erode the credibility of central banks, and de-anchor inflation expectations. As history repeatedly teaches us, this would only increase the eventual cost of bringing inflation under control.

Over-tightening risks pushing the global economy into an unnecessarily harsh recession. As several prominent voices have argued recently, over-tightening is more likely when central banks act in an uncoordinated fashion. Financial markets may also struggle to cope with an overly rapid pace of tightening. Yet, the costs of these policy mistakes are not symmetric. Misjudging yet again the stubborn persistence of inflation could prove much more detrimental to future macroeconomic stability by gravely undermining the hard-won credibility of central banks.

As economies start slowing down, and financial fragilities emerge, calls for a pivot toward looser monetary conditions will inevitably become louder.

Where necessary, financial policy should ensure that markets remain stable, but central banks around the world need to keep a steady hand with monetary policy firmly focused on taming inflation.

That’s a very different position than The UN, which urged policymakers to stop tightening and save the world.

The IMF believes inflation will peak later this year, with an annual rate of 8.8%, but will remain elevated for longer than previously expected, only slowing to 6.5% next year and 4.1% by 2024.

“Now is the time for emerging market policymakers to batten down the hatches,” IMF’s chief economist, Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas wrote. That includes eligible countries requesting access to precautionary support from the IMF.

The world needs progress toward orderly debt restructurings through the Common Framework created by the Group of 20 largest economies for the most affected low-income nations, Gourinchas wrote.

“Time may soon be running out.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has refused a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to release the autopsy results of people whose deaths were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) after receiving a COVID-19 shot. The FOIA request was submitted by The Epoch Times newspaper.

“VAERS is a centralized vaccine reaction reporting system that was among the safety provisions secured by parents of DPT (diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus) vaccine injured children in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986,” explains Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC). It is jointly operated by the FDA and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

According to The Epoch Times, the FDA declined to release any autopsy reports of VAERS deaths, even redacted copies, citing FOIA section (8) (A) which allows federal agencies to withhold information from the public if an agency “reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption,” with the exemption being “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

FDA Refusal to Provide Autopsy Info Attributed to Concerns Over Personal Privacy

The FDA reportedly also cited federal law that blocks the release of “personnel, medical and similar files the disclosure of which constitutes a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

One possible reason for the FDA’s reluctance is that neither officials at the FDA nor at the CDC have found (or at least openly admitted)  a “causal association” between the COVID shots and the post-COVID vaccination deaths reported to VAERS. A study published last year in the journal Clinical and Experimental Vaccine Research stated:

These regulatory agencies have not found a causal association, and there is no reason to state that the COVID-19 vaccine causes death. Data from the VAERS and available clinical information (death certificates, autopsies, and medical records) does not establish cause and effect between deaths and reported deaths. Deaths following vaccination equated to deaths caused by vaccines are irresponsible, misleading and scientifically inaccurate.

To release autopsy reports of people who died after receiving COVID shots might lead to uncomfortable questions about the conclusions reached by FDA and CDC officials and raise the specter of a national re-evaluation and lots of second opinions regarding the safety of the shots.

That does not appear to be a conversation these and other public health officials at the helm of government agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and, specifically, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), appear anxious to have.

Those responsible for operating these federal agencies, not to mention countless doctors, scientists and politicians around the country, have staked their reputations on assuring the American public that the COVID shots do not cause harm, much less death. Why indeed would they want to investigate and give space to a conversation asking legitimate questions and offering dissenting views?

More Deaths After COVID Shots Reported in VAERS Than Any Other Vaccine

It must already be difficult enough having to acknowledge the 16,516 deaths in the U.S. reported to VAERS after COVID vaccinations as of Sept. 14, 2022.

Still, it is a public conversation that should be allowed to take place. After all, it is no minor thing that, as Fisher notes, “There have been more deaths reported to VAERS following COVID-19 vaccinations than for any other federally recommended vaccine since VAERS became operational in 1990.”

All of the FDA’s stated concerns about protecting privacy seem rather bogus, as the autopsy results sought through the FOIA request could be released with personal information blacked out. “The personal information could easily be redacted without losing the potential learnings from [the] autopsy,” said Kim Witczak, a drug safety advocate who serves as an adviser to the FDA.

Besides, Witczak logically points out:

If someone submits their experience to VAERS they want and expect to have it investigated by the FDA. This includes autopsy reports. Autopsies can be an important part of postmortem analysis and should be done especially with increased deaths following COVID-19 vaccination.

Why is transparency on this issue such a stumbling block for the FDA?

The Washington Free Beacon released a brutal compilation depicting numerous instances where senile Joe Biden appeared to wander around aimlessly while attending various public events.

The video, which is difficult to watch, underscores the legitimate concern with Biden’s apparent cognitive decline, a real problem for Democrats heading into the midterms and indeed into the 2024 presidential election.

“This is elder abuse,” commented the Free Beacon, adding they compiled the footage in order to “[document] the cruelty that Biden’s handlers have inflicted on our hapless geezer in chief.”

The Free Beacon continued: “Sleepy Joe turns 80 next month. He fell off a bike in June. He can’t string together a coherent sentence. During a White House ceremony last month, he attempted to locate and congratulate a dead congresswoman.”

Share this compilation with a Biden supporter to teach them why the demented late septuagenarian is more fit for a nursing home than the highest political office.

Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky recently announced a drastic tax cut.

The program, entitled 10-10-10, is designed to lower taxes and encourage residents to pay them in the hopes of reducing the shadow economy. In Ukraine, the value-added tax (VAT) rate is uniform and amounts to 20 percent and personal income tax rate 18 percent. Zelensky proposes a reduction of income tax (from companies and individuals) from 18 percent to 10 percent, and a dramatic cut to the VAT rate from 20 percent to 10 percent.

It is worth mentioning that this is the first such drastic cut in the history of independent Ukraine. The new rates are only a proposal for now, but some would even call it a revolution in the tax system. From the point of view of a libertarian strategy, one should of course commend the Zelensky administration for taking such initiatives. The problem, however, is the current state of the Ukrainian economy. Although weakened by the burden of war and the shift to a war economy, the focus of these tax cuts must shift from being centered around funding the war alone, to a much broader scope in order for these reductions to be effective in any way.

We must remember that Ukraine is facing enormous problems, and not just the ongoing war with Russia. One of the most expressive are the ubiquitous corruption and the plunder of the fruits of labor by the state oligarchy enfranchised at the time of the fall of communism era (we can call it right now as a crony capitalism). Corruption there is similar to the level known, for example, from Russia. Corruption is widespread because the leading industries in Ukraine are key sectors such as energy, agriculture, and industry. The interest of politicians in these industries is obvious everywhere.

On the other hand, the proposal to cut taxes seems surprising because the patterns that Ukraine draws from other countries do not use this method. It seems that the whole concept of tax cuts dates back to 2016–18, when the minister of finance of Ukraine was, at least in his declarations, a supporter of free-market reforms, Ołeksandr Danyluk. It is clear here that Zelensky’s administration seems to believe in the classic mechanism of Reagan’s economy and the so-called Laffer curve.

Of course, referring to the Laffer concept is a pure experiment in the case of Ukraine, because it is difficult to estimate the results by looking at the scale of all problems. While we as libertarians are wholeheartedly in favor of this reduction or even the total abolition of taxes, one should consider whether this trend will continue if the war ends. Furthermore, it’s important to what extent ordinary citizens will benefit from this initiative, and give thought to what extent this tax reform may be dictated by the policies of a predatory oligarchy, which still sets the standards of the tax system in Ukraine.

We must remember that the immediate goal of Zelensky’s administration is, after all, to strengthen the system of state apparatus to repel the Russian aggression. Zelensky’s revenues may increase by eliminating the shadow economy, which at the time of writing amounts to almost 44 percent of the national gross domestic product in Ukraine.

This initiative is therefore undoubtedly motivated by the current war situation. In order to carry on the war, as Gian Giancomo Trivulzio used to say, you need three things: money, money, and yet more money. The current Ukrainian leadership believes only a strong and efficient state is able to effectively resist the aggressor. However, are the Ukrainians themselves ready to support these activities? The problem with these reforms, however, is that even with good intentions, it further increases the state’s control over its citizens. This is because the tax reform also allows tax office audits to have full access to citizens’ personal accounts and finances.

Although it’s difficult to state with complete certainty due to the influence of the shadow economy, it is estimated that the Ukrainian economy has continued to develop and grow steadily for the last several decades. This shows not only the disastrous economic stifling of the socialist past, but above all, that Ukraine has tremendous potential to spread its wings if not for oppressive state solutions.

Perhaps Ukraine can move toward being a libertarian entity even in such a drastic situation. It can serve as an example to Europe of how effective free market solutions can be. Solutions that not only work in the interest of public administration by increasing state revenues, but above all, that they act in the interest of the inhabitants and increasing their standard of living. A free and enterprising man will certainly manage, it is only important to give him freedom to act. It is the citizens who are the beneficiaries of tax reforms, not politicians and officials. Time will tell which way Ukraine will go.

Attorneys Reveal Who Is Really Profiting From Sandy Hook