Massive Harms’ From Lockdowns Shouldn’t Be Forgiven: Dr. Scott Atlas

Massive Harms’ From Lockdowns Shouldn’t Be Forgiven: Dr. Scott Atlas

Massive Harms’ From Lockdowns Shouldn’t Be Forgiven: Dr. Scott Atlas

By Eva Fu

November 6, 2022 The Epoch Times

Dr. Scott Atlas
Dr. Scott Atlas, a founding fellow of Hillsdale College's Academy for Science and Freedom, at the Hillsdale College Kirby Center in Washington on March 17, 2022. (Bao Qiu/The Epoch Times)

Restrictive pandemic policies shouldn’t be forgiven after the “massive harms and destruction” the lockdowns caused to the American public, according to Dr. Scott Atlas.

Atlas, a COVID-19 adviser during the Trump administration and a contributor to The Epoch Times, was responding to a recent Atlantic article calling for a “pandemic amnesty.” The argument goes that the pandemic missteps were a result of “deep uncertainty” rather than “moral failing,” and it’s time to let the issues go and move on.

The author, “while trying to be nice, is really missing the more important point of what happened during the pandemic management,” Atlas told The Epoch Times.

“The massive harms and destruction from lockdowns and school closures cannot just be simply ignored and forgiven because these were intentional, unethical, and grossly erroneous applications of public health guidance,” he said.

The school closures especially, he said, “inflicted massive harms into our younger generation—all of which were predictable, many of which were already known.”

“And to simply wipe them away by ‘forgiving’ people will minimize the seriousness of the errors and not correct this for future health care crises,” Atlas said.

An August 2021 analysis by McKinsey & Co. found that school shutdowns cost K–12 students nationwide five months of learning in math and four months in reading, with low-income and minority students being hit even harder. The unfinished learning could create a ripple effect that leads them to earn between $49,000 to $61,000 less over their lifetimes, according to the McKinsey report.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress, known as the “Nation’s Report Card,” last month appraised national math test and reading scores in fourth and eighth grades to be at a historic low.

But it isn’t just the learning loss that Atlas is seeing. The lack of contact between children and education personnel also led to a surge in child abuse in broken families. Meanwhile, youth mental health issues, substance abuse, and suicide attempts also spiked.

That, he said, is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the damage wrought on the younger generation by the government-mandated pandemic restrictions. A March 2021 report by American Psychological Association found that six in 10 U.S. adults reported undesired weight change since the start of the pandemic. For college-aged adults, more than half of the respondents reported weight gains of an average of 28 pounds, which Atlas called an “obesity crisis.”

“In some fantasy, contrary-to-science effort to stop infections, we’ve used children as shields, and we’ve inflicted more damage on poor kids and low-income families than the affluent,” he said.

“It’s nowhere near enough to just say: ‘Oh, it’s okay,'” Atlas said. “It’s not okay. There needs to be public accountability—a public admission of grievous errors by our public health leaders and our university experts, as well as by educational leaders, including university presidents, and our K–12 school leaders.

“We cannot let this happen again.”

During his four months serving on the White House’s coronavirus task force, Atlas made a forceful push for reopening schools and businesses while increasing testing at nursing homes—views he said were often at odds with those of government experts such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, the retiring director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and Dr. Deborah Birx, then-coordinator of the task force.

“When you shut down the economy and had a severe economic downturn, you kill people, that translates into lost lives,” he said. “It was a false dichotomy set up by people who wanted lockdowns. They set up a false dichotomy that somehow if you were against lockdowns, you were choosing economy over lives.

“The truth is, it was lives versus lives.”

Fauci, who in December 2020 drew criticism for flip-flopping on reopening schools, recently rejected that he was ever responsible for pushing for school shutdowns.

“If you go back, and I ask anybody to go back over the number of times that I’ve said we’ve got to do everything we can to keep the schools open, no one plays that clip,” he said in an October ABC interview, without specifying which clip he was referring to. “They always come back and say, ‘Fauci is responsible for closing the schools.’ I had nothing to do [with it]. I mean, let’s get down to the facts.”

The pandemic management “debacle,” Atlas believes, has left America in a crisis, with its ethical principles broken.

“There’s an unprecedented denial of fact, rampant on university campuses, in the media, in science, and in public health,” he said. “America’s credentialed class that leads our public health agencies, our universities, our doctors, our scientists, our schools—that class of experts has been exposed as non-experts, politicized, and lacking in ethics.

“We’ve seen our school and university leaders break the social contract with our children, harming them and failing as role models, and in the United States now, the free exchange of ideas that is fundamental to any free society is under threat.”

Rather than forgive and forget, America has a long to-do list for restoring public trust, according to Atlas.

In his view, that requires courage from “individuals with integrity” to “rise up and have their voices heard;” greater transparency into government agencies, scientific journals, and universities; accountability for those “use character assassination to delegitimize people”—“including in the courtroom;” ensuring public health guidance to consider the impact on overall health rather than a single disease; and in a legislative sense, defining public health emergency with time limits.

He also pointed to more than a dozen universities that received more than $500 million in federal grants last year from the National Institutes of Health alone.

“We need to hold these universities accountable for that money,” making sure “they allow the free exchange of ideas that they are entrusted with by the American public.”

But most of all, he wants a public apology from public health officials over their lockdown “legacy.”

“Their legacy includes avoidable death in society’s most vulnerable, massive destruction of low-income families, ongoing enormous health damages to children, and this severe loss of trust in public health and in science itself,” Atlas said. “That is their legacy. It must be publicly admitted and apologized for before we can move forward.”

The Epoch Times has reached out to NIAID and ActivePure Technology, where Birx now serves as chief medical and science adviser, for comment.


FBI Sends ‘Clear Message’ to Trump, His Supporters: The Swamp Is Real, Rep. Davidson Says

FBI Sends ‘Clear Message’ to Trump, His Supporters: The Swamp Is Real, Rep. Davidson Says

FBI Sends ‘Clear Message’ to Trump, His Supporters: The Swamp Is Real, Rep. Davidson Says

By Katie Spence

August 11, 2022 Updated: August 11, 2022 The Epoch Times

The FBI raid on former President Donald Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago is an escalation of an ongoing attack on anyone who dares to upset the political status quo in Washington, Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) says.FBI Raid at Mar-a-Largo

“I think a lot of my constituents were shocked, frankly, across the political spectrum. But obviously, the more supportive of President Trump, the more upset they were,” Davidson told The Epoch Times and NTD as part of a special report on the raid airing on Aug. 11 on EpochTV at 9 p.m.

“I think for anyone who doubted that there was a swamp when Donald Trump was saying ‘drain the swamp,’ now I think there’s true believers. So it’s historic.”

In support of his statement, Davidson pointed out that the FBI still has many of the same people who spent years supporting a Russia collusion narrative that was based on a falsified warrant.

More concerning, Davidson says, is that the FBI appears to have wholly ended its pretense of objectivity.

Davidson pointed out to The Epoch Times that former IRS o�cial Lois Lerner, Bill Clinton’s national security adviser Sandy Berger, and even Hillary Clinton allegedly mishandled and destroyed classified information but avoided raids by the FBI.

He then pointed out that the FBI has taken no action on Hunter Biden, despite a mountain of evidence of suspect business dealings.

“No accountability for Hunter Biden, no action on that; no action on any number of things that they could have taken action on, like for example, targeting of Supreme Court justices,” Davidson said.

He added it is really hard to believe that the bureau believes that it’s objective. Davidson says the message the FBI is sending is clear.
“Hey, if you support the cause, we got your back. But if you’re working against us, as [current Senate Majority Leader] Chuck Schumer promised Donald Trump, they have six ways to Sunday to wreck you.

“And they seem to have been very focused on doing that to Donald Trump.”

Davidson added the FBI isn’t just targeting Trump; it’s also targeting his supporters.

“[The FBI] seized the chairman of the Freedom Caucus’s phone. They didn’t do it in a no-knock warrant raid in the middle of the night with CNN cameras staged in the street or anything. But they did track him down.”

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. Scott Perry’s (R-Pa.) phone was returned to him, but Davidson said that the FBI action to track Perry down was deliberately intended to paint him as a criminal.

Furthermore, the message is that if the FBI can target people such as Trump and Perry, imagine what they could do to an everyday American, he said.

“I think they’re trying to intimidate and scare people from, you know, being supportive of Trump or being too opposed to the status quo,” Davidson said. “You know, stay within the mainstream, don’t push back against the status quo.”

The response to the FBI raid has been overwhelmingly negative among Americans who support Trump, Davidson said.

He said Trump supporters are rightly upset about the raid and how they’re expected to respond to it. Davidson says he hopes it doesn’t go beyond anger into illegal actions and instead energizes people to vote.

“If this had happened to a Democrat president, you know, we might have more of the summer of 2020, where it was covered by the press [as] ‘mostly peaceful protests,’ but we know that mostly peaceful means it wasn’t peaceful.”

A member of the Secret Service in front of the home of former President Donald Trump at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., on Aug. 9, 2022. (Giorgio Viera/AFP via Getty Images)

Trump supporters are very aware that they may be targeted if they protest against the latest treatment of the former president, Davidson says.

“But if [their support] was the slightest bit of anything that was run afoul, the mainstream media and, frankly, many of our federal agencies would treat it as … some sort of, you know, violent uprising by the right and so, I think people on the right are cautious.”

Davidson said he hopes it doesn’t come to violence but acknowledged a growing frustration among Republicans over an apparent two-tier system of justice.

“Unfortunately, this reinforces it because the people that we’ve suspected had no accountability, like the Clinton Foundation, as an example, [or] like Hunter Biden.

“But then very selective accountability … for [former] President Trump.”

Holding the FBI Accountable

Davidson stated that if Republicans retake a majority in the House in November, they need to step up and not just hold hearings about the FBI’s actions.

“We are going to have to cut funds and say, ‘Hey, we … don’t want to shut the government down. We want to fund our government. But we’re unwilling to fund a government that does these things or fails to do these other things.'”

Davidson said the FBI isn’t objective or applying justice objectively. While he said there was hope that Director Christopher Wray would return the FBI to a non- partisan agency, “On the contrary, every step seems more focused on undermining the confidence of ordinary Americans.”

However, if “you’ve got the far left of the Democratic Party’s agenda in mind, the FBI seems to have your back,” he said.

He notes that the FBI is “incredibly powerful” and Republicans can’t try to hold them accountable halfway; the GOP must “get after that in a very serious way.”

Even as he wants to be fair to the working men and women at the FBI, Davidson said Republicans need to acknowledge that top leadership at the bureau is corrupt, as is “the IRS, banking regulators, all the EPA, all these agencies, Securities and Exchange Commission,” and they’re abusing their power.

“The far left has really gotten a firm grip on the administrative state.

“They’ve used the influence over the administrative state to get a firm grip into much of corporate America,” he said. “So it’s almost like there’s collusion between these government agencies and the top level.

“No one loves big government like big business, so some of our biggest businesses are also working in concert with these biggest regulatory agencies.”

Top Democrat Blocks Legislation Aimed at Preventing School Shootings

Top Democrat Blocks Legislation Aimed at Preventing School Shootings

Top Democrat Blocks Legislation Aimed at Preventing School Shootings

By Zachary Stieber

May 26, 2022 Updated: May 26, 2022 The Epoch Times

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)


Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) blocked legislation on May 25 that proponents say could help prevent school shootings.

The legislation, known as the Luke and Alex School Safety Act, would require the Department of Homeland Security to establish a clearinghouse on the best school safety practices after consulting with education, justice, and health officials.

“It’s pretty simple. It just creates a clearinghouse of information of the best practices for school safety. It ensures that parents, teachers, school officials, and other stakeholders have input into what those best practices are. It doesn’t allow the clearinghouse to mandate any school to take any certain action. Maybe most importantly, it publishes the available grant programs and federal resources available for school safety,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said on the Senate floor in Washington.

The bill is named for Luke Hoyer and Alex Schachter, who were both killed when a man with a gun opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida in 2018. It’s backed by the parents of the boys.

“It’s a good idea. It could save lives. It is an action, when people are calling for action following this tragedy,” Johnson said.

He asked for unanimous consent for the legislation. That enables a bill to pass with no recorded vote, but also opens up the possibility that a single senator could block the request.

Schumer blocked it, referencing the mass shooting that took place this week in Uvalde, Texas.

The “sad truth” about that shooting is that “hardening schools,” or ramping up prevention techniques and strategies, “would have done nothing to prevent” the shooting, Schumer said.

“In fact, there were guards and police officers already at the school yesterday when the shooter showed up. One was a school police officer, two were from the Uvalde Police Department. The shooter got past all of them, with two assault weapons that he purchased. They couldn’t stop him,” Schumer said. “The bill would not have protected those children. More guns won’t protect our children. That is the wrong answer.”

He said he was open to adding the bill’s language as an amendment to a bill he supports, but only if Republicans voted for it.

Johnson responded, saying that he would “not engage in partisanship, other than to say it is just sad.”

“It is just sad that this body can’t pass this bill, when about a month ago, they passed an identical bill that applied to churches. This one applies to schools, and yet it’s inappropriate, according to the majority leader, to pass this nonpartisan bill by unanimous consent,” he said.

The Senate is in negotiations on different measures regarding guns, but with its 50–50 divide between Republicans and Democrats, few of them, if any, are expected to be approved.

Max Schachter, Alex’s father, denounced the blocking of the bill.

“I hoped after 21 were murdered in Uvalde, partisan politics would be put aside,” he wrote on Twitter. “I WAS WRONG.”


Biden’s Big Lie: ‘Green’ Energy Doesn’t Save Money, It’s 4 to 6 Times MORE Expensive

Biden’s Big Lie: ‘Green’ Energy Doesn’t Save Money, It’s 4 to 6 Times MORE Expensive

Biden’s Big Lie: ‘Green’ Energy Doesn’t Save Money, It’s 4 to 6 Times MORE Expensive

By Stephen Moore, The Epoch Times May 25, 2022

Solar Panel Range


President Joe Biden keeps claiming that wind and solar energy are going to save money for consumers. But more government subsidies to “renewable energy” is a key feature of the White House anti-inflation strategy recently announced by Biden.

He probably got that idea from John Kerry, the administration’s climate czar, who recently claimed that “solar and wind are less expensive than coal or oil or gas.” Pete Buttigieg, the Biden Transportation secretary, makes the same claims about the thousands of dollars that motorists can save if they buy electric cars.

This couldn’t be more wrong.

Proponents of “green” energy boondoggles are often masters at playing with the numbers, because that is the only way that wind and solar electricity generation make any sense. Advocates such as Kerry love to focus on the low operating costs of solar and wind since they don’t require constant purchases of fuel. Ignoring the relatively short lifespan of solar and wind components, as well as the high initial investment, can make it appear as though solar and wind operate at lower costs than fossil fuels or nuclear power.

Let’s get the facts straight. The cost isn’t just what you pay at the retail level for gas or power. It also includes the taxes you pay to subsidize the power. A 2017 study by the Department of Energy found that for every dollar of government subsidy per BTU unit of energy produced from fossil fuels, wind and solar get at least $10.

That’s anything but a money saver.

The reason the subsidies are so high is that solar and wind have additional costs compared to their more reliable competition. “Green” energy sources are non-dispatchable, meaning their output can’t be changed to match demand. The wind doesn’t blow harder, and the sun doesn’t shine brighter, just because electricity use is peaking.

Conversely, fossil fuel entities—such as a coal plant—can ramp up generation when we need it most and ramp down when demand falls.

Widespread adoption of solar and wind generation would necessitate expensive batteries on a large scale to ensure that people still have power when the wind stops blowing or when the sun stops shining—like it does every single night.

So, unlike reliable and flexible natural gas, solar and wind require large-scale storage solutions: massive banks of batteries that are hardly environmentally friendly but are also extremely expensive. And since batteries don’t last forever, they add to both the initial expense and maintenance costs during the life of a solar or wind energy generating station.

The same problem exists with electric cars. The sticker price on EVs is considerably higher than for conventional gas-operated cars, and the so-called savings over time assume that the electric power for recharging is free. But it isn’t and power costs are rising almost as fast as gas prices.

Factors such as these are consistently ignored by Kerry and other “green” energy activists.

To genuinely evaluate dissimilar energy sources and provide an apples-to-apples comparison, the U.S. Energy Information Administration uses the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) and the Levelized Cost of Storage (LCOS). These measures consider the initial costs, the lifespan of generation and storage systems, maintenance and fuel costs, decommissioning expenses, subsidies, etc., and compare that to how much electricity is produced over a power plant’s lifetime.

The numbers don’t lie: “green” energy is a complete waste of resources.

The LCOE and LCOS for solar and on-shore wind farms are four times as expensive as natural gas. But offshore wind takes the cake—it’s six times as expensive as natural gas.

Imagine paying four to six times as much every month for the same electricity! That’s the green paradise world that the Biden administration wants for America.

Yet, it’s even worse than that because electric power costs greatly affect the cost of producing nearly everything else. In the case of producing aluminum, for example, a third of the total production cost is electricity alone.

Imagine what quadrupling electricity prices would do to the prices of all the goods and services that people buy. If you think inflation is bad now, just wait until the nation is dependent on wind and solar—then you’ll see REAL price increases.

And despite official government data contradicting their own claims, the Biden administration—including Kerry—continues spouting simple untruths on wind and solar. They hope that no one will check their fantastic facts.

To the left, wanting it to be true, makes it true.

All the while, the middle class is being crushed by $4-a-gallon gasoline and businesses everywhere are buckling under $5-per-gallon diesel. The Wall Street Journal warns that electric power blackouts could be coming because of overreliance on wind and solar power.

At some point, if this push for green energy continues, the whole nation will start to look like California, where gas is $6 a gallon, the lights go out, and electric cars are stranded because of rolling blackouts.  If that’s our “green” future, then Americans should want nothing to do with it.

Stephen Moore is a distinguished fellow in economics at the Heritage Foundation, and E.J. Antoni is a research fellow in Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis. Moore is a co-founder of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, where Antoni is a senior fellow.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or Zero Hedge.


CDC Lowers Speech Standards for Children

CDC Lowers Speech Standards for Children

By Naveen Athrappully

February 22, 2022  Updated: February 22, 2022  The Epoch Times

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has lowered its standards of childhood speech development, a decision that has many people worried about the way milestones are measured in kids.

CDC added two new child development milestones at 15 and 30 months. Earlier, children aged 24 months were expected to know about 50 words. But in the new update, the CDC raised the time period to 30 months, lowering the established standard of speech development. In the update, the CDC linked to research published by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) that influenced the organization in setting up the modified benchmarks.

“Application of the criteria established by the AAP working group and adding milestones for the 15- and 30-month health supervision visits resulted in a 26.4 percent reduction and 40.9 percent replacement of previous CDC milestones,” reads an abstract of the AAP study, published on Feb. 8.

“One-third of the retained milestones were transferred to different ages; 67.7 percent of those transferred were moved to older ages.”

The AAP, based on recommendations from the CDC, convened experts and revised child developmental checklists. The original milestone followed standards that only 50 percent of children were expected to achieve, the organization said. These guidelines were deemed unhelpful to families who were worried about their kids’ development.

Milestones were updated to ensure that at least 75 percent of kids are able to achieve them, according to Jennifer Zubler, an author of the study. Because many children were unable to achieve the previous milestones, it was decided to establish new, lower milestones.

Literacy advocate Karen Vaites points out that, according to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, children speaking fewer than 50 words by 24 months is still a worrisome situation. She had previously spoken against forcing kids to wear face masks amid the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the negative effects that the masks have on speech and learning.

“Masks impede language development, and they also impede the process of kids learning how to read,” Vaites said in a Jan. 18 tweet. In another Twitter thread from late July, she shared her experience of observing a kindergarten room during a reading class; in the thread, she insisted on the importance of children seeing the movement of a teacher’s mouth and vice versa.

In some situations, parents and clinicians choose a wait-and-see approach regarding children’s development, which ends up delaying diagnosis.

“The earlier a child is identified with a developmental delay the better, as treatment as well as learning interventions can begin,” Paul Lipkin, a member of the AAP Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics and Council on Children with Disabilities, said in a statement. “At the same time, we don’t want to cause unnecessary confusion for families or professionals. Revising the guidelines with expertise and data from clinicians in the field accomplishes these goals.”

Lea Themea, who has practiced speech pathology for close to three decades, believes that the CDC guidelines have been updated to better clarify what parents should look for as developmental progress in their kids.

“I think these guidelines look at how the language is used, because you could have a 2-year-old that can label all their colors and count to 10, but they’re not saying them to actually communicate,” she told ABC6.

Dr. Nicole Saphier, a Fox News medical contributor, drew parallels between the CDC quietly lowering speech standards to an incident from last summer, when the AAP began “deleting stuff” from its website about the importance of facial recognition in childhood development while also pushing masks on children.

Saphier insisted that face masks were “negatively impacting children” and cited studies conducted in the UK, United States, and the Netherlands to point out that kids during the pandemic are performing poorly on “gross motor skills, fine motor skills, and overall communication.”



Rep. Jordan: Durham filing shows Trump was right about being spied on

Rep. Jim Jordan
Rep. Jim Jordan

Rep. Jordan: Durham filing shows Trump was right about being spied on

By Mark Moore, New York Post

February 13, 2022 3:42pm Updated


The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee said Sunday that a blockbuster new federal filing proves ex-President Trump’s claim he was being illegally spied on and the Russian collusion tale is a hoax.

​​Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio noted Special Counsel John Durham alleged in Friday’s legal filing that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign paid an Internet company to “infiltrate” servers at Trump Tower and the White House to try to tie Donald Trump to Russia.

“Yep, there was spying going on, and it was worse than we thought because they were spying on the sitting ​p​resident of the United States,” Jordan told “Fox & Friends.” “And it goes right to the Clinton campaign. So God bless John D​urham​.

“​His investigation is taking a long time. But we’re getting to ​now what we all suspected,” Jordan said. “The only thing we didn’t understand was it was worse than we thought​.”

In May 2019, Durham was tasked by Trump’s attorney general, William Barr, with investigating the origins of the FBI’s probe into allegations that the then-president colluded with Russia to win the election.

Rep. Jim Jordan claimed that Special Counsel John Durham’s filing proves that former President Donald Trump was being spied on.Tom Williams/Congressional Quarterly via ZUMA Press

Rep. Michael Turner ​(R-Ohio) ​said Sunday that Durham’s investigation uncovered a “whole new level of corruption and is of grave concern.

“I mean, this is a threat to our democracy itself,” Turner said on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.”​ “It doesn’t matter really which political campaign this is or which political party this is. This is so wrong and allegations of such ​a ​level of illegal activity that goes directly to our faith in our own government that the truth must be found​.”

Turner predicted that Durham’s probe​ could implicate former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former FBI Director James Comey.

“I think that what we see is not just political shenanigans or opposition research that you would see in the normal campaigns where people are trying to find information out about their opponents​,” Turner said. ​

According to a filing from Durham, Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid a company to “infiltrate” servers at Trump Tower and the White House.AP Photo/Gerry Broome, File

“This is where ​the ​government is being used, where information that’s political opposition research that is false is being made up, is trying to be placed into the government, into the FBI, to undertake criminal investigations that are absolutely false​,” he cont

Trump seethed in a statement Saturday that Durham’s filing “provides indisputable evidence that my campaign and presidency were spied on by operatives paid by the Hillary Clinton Campaign in an effort to develop a completely fabricated connection to Russia.​

“​This is a scandal far greater in scope and magnitude than Watergate and those who were involved in and knew about this spying operation should be subject to criminal prosecution,” said Trump, who beat Clinton to score the White House in an upset in 2016.

“In a stronger period of time in our country, this crime would have been punishable by death​,” he said, suggesting that the Clinton campaign’s action​ amounts to treason.

rump claimed in a statement that those who were involved in the alleged “spying operation” should be “subject to criminal prosecution.”AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin

​Jordan said Trump is right that Durham’s filing provides “indisputable evidence” that he was being spied on.

“We’ve never seen anything like this in history,” Jordan said. “So President Trump’s statement yesterday, I think, is right on target. This is truly unprecedented, truly something that has never happened in the history of our great country.”

Durham’s motion Friday was related to the case of Michael Sussmann, a former Clinton campaign lawyer who has been charged with lying to the feds.  Sussmann allegedly told the FBI that he wasn’t working for the Clinton campaign when he handed the agency documents that purportedly linked the Trump Organization to a Kremlin-tied bank two months before the 2016 election, according to Fox News.

Sussmann has pleaded not guilty in his case.

​In Durham’s Friday filing, he said Sussmann “had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including a technology executive (Tech Executive 1) at a U.S.-based internet company (Internet Company 1) and the Clinton campaign​,” according to Fox News.​

The document adds Sussmann’s “records reflect” that he “repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations.”​

In the filing, Durham said the tech executive in July 2016 worked with Sussmann, an investigative company retained by Law Firm 1 for the Clinton campaign, ​cyber researchers and workers at a number of internet companies to “assemble the purported data and white papers.

“In connection with these efforts, Tech Executive-1 exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data,” the filing ​says. “Tech Executive-1 also enlisted the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing large amounts of Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract.”

“Tech Executive-1 tasked these researchers to mine Internet data to establish ‘an inference’ and ‘narrative’ tying then-candidate Trump to Russia,” Durham states in the documents, according to Fox News.

“In doing so, Tech Executive-1 indicated that he was seeking to please certain ‘VIPs,’ referring to individuals at Law Firm-1 and the Clinton campaign.”​​

Post requests for comment from several people associated with the Clinton camp were not immediately returned Sunday.


FBI confirms there was no insurrection on Jan. 6

FBI confirms there was no insurrection on Jan. 6

by Conn Carroll, Commentary Editor, August 20, 2021 12:16 PM

The Cambridge Dictionary defines “insurrection” as: “an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence”

By that definition, there was no “insurrection” at the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, according to the FBI. Reuters reports :January 6, 2021

The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.

"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. "Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages."

This report is a devastating blow to President Joe Biden and Democrats, who have attempted to make the existence of an “insurrection” on Jan. 6 a key issue in the 2022 midterm elections. Reuters does note that some “cells of protesters,” including members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, did coordinate to “break into the Capitol,” but the FBI found “no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside.”

None of this excuses the violent riot that happened on Jan. 6. The FBI has arrested 570 rioters and each and every one of them should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

But that is what the event was: a riot, just like so many other riots. Trying to politicize it and turn it into something it wasn't won’t make the Capitol any safer.



Supreme Court to Decide Whether Second Amendment Protects Concealed Carry of Firearms

Supreme Court to Decide Whether Second Amendment Protects Concealed Carry of Firearms

Ken Blackwell 26 APR 2021

The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will decide a core gun rights issue: Whether the Second Amendment requires states to give permits to law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.

Concealed Carry
The Second Amendment protects “the right to keep and bear arms.” The Supreme Court held in its 2008 landmark decision District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment guarantees that right for private citizens. In its 2010 follow-up case McDonald v. City of Chicago the Court held that the right to bear arms applies against state and local governments the same way it does the federal government.

But both of those cases involved a law-abiding citizen who wanted to keep a single handgun in his home for personal protection, which would be the absolute floor of what the Second Amendment could possibly provide. It left all other issues for future cases as to how far the right to keep and bear arms extends.

Perhaps the most heavily debated follow up issue is what a citizen’s Second Amendment rights are when he leaves his home. Given the popularity of concealed carry permits, one of the questions concerns carrying weapons as people go about their daily lives.

Most states provide permits to all qualified applicants. However, a few states claim the authority to require citizens to prove special circumstances to qualify for a permit, such as having an abusive ex-spouse or being a prosecutor who fears retaliation from the criminals he is prosecuting.
New York has such restrictions. In Monday’s order, the justices granted review in a constitutional challenge to New York’s law, with the petition arguing that the Second Amendment entitles them to concealed-carry permits for purposes of general self-defense only, without any special circumstances.

Second Amendment supporters have been trying for more than a decade to get the High Court to weigh in on this issue. The Court has repeatedly denied petitions from various challengers. Given both Heller and McDonald were 5-4 decisions, experts suspected that moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy and moderate-conservative Chief Justice John Roberts were the reasons gun-rights supporters did not have the votes to tackle this issue.
The is the first major petition on the Second Amendment to be considered since Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed to the seat formerly held by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Evidently Second Amendment supporters now at least have support from the necessary four justices to grant review, though it is not yet clear whether they have the additional support for five votes to prevail in the case.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement is representing the challengers. Clement also argued before the Court in the Heller and McDonald cases, and is regarded as one of the top litigators in the nation on this issue.

The Biden Administration has not yet expressed a view on the case. It will likely be argued late this year, with a decision expected by June 2022.
The case is New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, No. 20-843 in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Ken Blackwell is the former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Commission, and is currently on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association and also the Distinguished Fellow for Human Rights and Constitutional Governance at the Family Research Council.


WSJ Opinion: An American Epidemic of ‘Covid Mania’

WSJ Opinion: An American Epidemic of ‘Covid Mania’

The problem isn’t only the overreaction to the virus but the diminution of every other problem.

By Joseph A. Ladapo
April 19, 2021 6:30 pm ET

What are the lessons of Covid-19? It depends who you ask. Some believe politicization of the pandemic response cost lives. Others believe a stronger U.S. public-health system would have reduced Covid-19 deaths significantly. Still others say lockdowns should have been longer and more stringent, or that they were ineffective. But one lesson that should transcend ideological differences: Don’t put one illness above all other problems in society, a condition known as “Covid mania.”

Illustration: Chad Crowe

The novel coronavirus has caused suffering and heartbreak, particularly for older adults and their loved ones. But it also has a low mortality rate among most people and especially the young—estimated at 0.01% for people under 40—and therefore never posed a serious threat to social and economic institutions. Compassion and realism need not be enemies. But Covid mania crowded out reasoned and wise policy making.

Americans groaned when leaders first called for “two weeks to slow the spread” in March 2020. Months later, many of these same Americans hardly blinked when leaders declared that lockdowns should continue indefinitely. For months Covid had been elevated above all other problems in society. Over time new rules were written and new norms accepted.

Liberty has played a special role in U.S. history, fueling advances from independence to emancipation to the fight for equal rights for women and racial minorities. Unfortunately, Covid mania led many policy makers to treat liberty as a nuisance rather than a core American principle.

Covid mania has also wreaked havoc on science and its influence on policy. While scientists’ passion for discovery and improving health has fueled research on the novel coronavirus, Covid mania has interpreted scientific advancements through an increasingly narrow frame. There has only been one question: How can scientific findings be deployed to reduce Covid-19 spread? It hasn’t mattered how impractical these measures may be. Discoveries that might have helped save lives, such as better outpatient therapies, were ignored because they didn’t fit the desired policy outcome.

A prime example is mask research. However one feels about wearing masks, look at the evidence from California. Despite a mask mandate imposed last April and steady, high rates of compliance, California experienced a surge in Covid-19 cases over the winter.

Mandating masks may help in some settings, but masks are not the panacea officials have presented them as. In September, then-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Robert Redfield declared that “this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against Covid than when I take a Covid vaccine.”

The statement was remarkable because he made it before seeing vaccine trial data. Those data and data from people who have recovered from Covid clearly demonstrate that this statement is false. Immunity is far more effective than whatever efficacy masks may offer.

Covid mania is also creating new conflicts over vaccine mandates. The same people who assured the public that a few weeks of lockdown would control the pandemic now argue that vaccinating children, for whom no vaccine has yet been approved, is essential to end the pandemic. Children account for less than 0.1% of Covid deaths in the U.S. Is enough known about vaccines to conclude that their benefits outweigh potential risks to children?
“Yes” is the answer of a salesman, not a scientist. Mandating a vaccine for children without knowing whether the benefits outweigh the risks is unethical. People who insist we should press on anyway, because variants will prolong the pandemic, should be reminded that a large reservoir of unvaccinated people in the U.S.—and in the world—will always exist. We cannot outrun the variants.

The good news is that recent state legislative efforts in Utah, Tennessee and Ohio to ban vaccine passports may burst the Covid mania bubble. If passports are banned, then risks from Covid must be assessed in the same way other risks—such as playing a sport or starting a new medication—are considered. In many places throughout the country, zero has become the only tolerable risk level. Why else are people who have been vaccinated or recovered from Covid still asked to wear masks? Reasonable policies cannot sprout from unreasonable levels of risk tolerance.

The pandemic has been devastating for many Americans, but policies grounded in Covid mania have compounded the harm and delayed a return to normal life. The challenges ahead require rational decision making that considers costs and benefits and keeps sight of the countless things in life that matter.

Dr. Ladapo is an associate professor at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine.

Climate Czar Exposes His Ignorance

Climate czar and intellectual midget, John Kerry, told Climate Summit John Kerryattendees that “… we have to get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.”
Here’s what would occur if all CO2 was removed from the atmosphere:
– All trees and plants would die and therefore, there would be no photosynthesis and no oxygen sources.
– Without plants, the main source of food in the food chain, no food would exist whatsoever and everything would die of starvation.
– Carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas that helps to trap heat in our atmosphere. Without it, therefore, our planet would be inhospitably cold.
Below is an explanation of photosynthesis for middle schoolers. Obviously, this is above Kerry’s IQ level.