Via Middle East Eye

The Biden administration will lift its ban on the sales of offensive weaponry to Saudi Arabia, Reuters reported on Friday, a move that reverses the three-year US ban amidst ongoing attempts by the administration to broker a Saudi-Israel normalisation deal.

The move comes against the backdrop of the 10-month-long Israeli war on Gaza and after Middle East Eye’s reporting that Russia has deployed military intelligence officers to assist Yemen’s Houthis with targeting commercial vessels in the Red Sea.

A congressional aide told Reuters that the administration briefed Congress this week on the decision, and another source said that Biden was moving ahead on Friday afternoon with notifications about a sale. “The Saudis have met their end of the deal, and we are prepared to meet ours,” a senior Biden administration official told Reuters.

Middle East Eye reached out to the White House for comment on the report, but didn’t hear back by time of publication.

The Biden administration first invoked the ban on offensive weapons to Saudi Arabia in February 2022, a move that came after US lawmakers, progressive activists, and antiwar groups were calling on Washington to end its support of the Saudi-led coalition’s war efforts in Yemen.

War broke out in Yemen in 2014 after the Houthi rebel group seized the capital Sanaa, prompting Saudi Arabia and allied Gulf Arab countries – chiefly the United Arab Emirates – to launch a coalition to fight against the Houthi gains and reinstate the internationally recognised government.

The Saudi-led coalition launched a brutal bombing campaign that killed thousands of Yemeni civilians. Outrage spread in the US when reports began to emerge that US-supplied bombs were being used by coalition forces in attacks that killed civilians.

However, the harder line taken by the Biden administration against Saudi Arabia soon began to fade, most notably since last year as the US attempted to broker a historic deal that would see Saudi Arabia and Israel normalise diplomatic relations for the first time in history.

At the same time, the US and the UK have for months been actively battling Yemen’s Houthis in the Red Sea, launching several air strikes on Houthi military sites as the armed group responded with attacks on American naval vessels and downing multiple armed reaper drones.

The Houthis, whose fight against the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen has been paused due to a UN-brokered ceasefire in April 2022 that has so far held, began to target ships travelling to and from Israel in the Red Sea last year, in what they said was in solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza.

The war between Israel and Hamas is spreading far beyond the borders of Israel and Gaza.

Days ago, Yemeni Houthis went far beyond striking Israel-bound cargo ships, to navigating an armed drone over 1,200 miles, past Israel’s iron dome and into Tel Aviv.

And in the last few… pic.twitter.com/aRyeYnZy0G

— Truth In Media (@Truth_InMedia) August 1, 2024

The Houthis also claimed responsibility for a deadly drone attack in Tel Aviv in July, which prompted Israel to launch air strikes on the Yemeni port of Hodeidah. “We are regularly conducting airstrikes to degrade Houthi capabilities, an effort that is ongoing and will continue together with a coalition of partners,” a senior Biden official told Reuters.

“We have designated the Houthis as Specially Designated Global Terrorists, and we will have imposed sanctions and additional costs on the Houthi smuggling networks and military apparatus. This pressure will continue to build over the coming weeks.”

Middle East Eye’s reporting of the assistance to the Houthis provided by Moscow, a major rival to the US, has added another dimension to the situation.

The US has been actively providing Ukraine with billions of dollars in military support, including advanced weaponry such as tanks, amid Kyiv’s efforts to fend off a Russian invasion that began in 2022.

Authored by Mike Maharrey via Money Metals,

Despite central bank gold buying slowing moderately in the second quarter, it set a record through the first half of 2024.

Central banks globally added a net 483 tons of gold through the first six months of the year,  5 percent above the record of 460 tons in H1 2023.

In the second quarter, central bank gold demand totaled 183 tons, according to the latest data compiled by the World Gold Council. That was up 6 percent year-on-year, but about 39 percent lower than the Q1 buying pace.  

With gold at or near record price levels in most currencies, it’s unsurprising that central bank buying slowed in the second quarter.

China primarily drove the Q2 slowdown in central bank demand. The People’s Bank of China reported no additions to its gold reserves in May or June and only officially added 2 tons in April.

Prior to the pause in May, China had increased its gold holding for 18 straight months.

Many analysts believed the Chinese paused officially adding gold to their reserves in an effort to push gold prices lower.

When the Chinese reported no changes to their official reserves in May, it precipitated a panicked gold selloff. Despite the kneejerk reaction, it seems unlikely that the Chinese are finished adding gold to their reserves. There is also some speculation that China is adding a significant amount of gold to its reserves off the books.

Even with the pause, China still added nearly 30 tons of gold to its reserves through the first half of 2024.

Turkey was the biggest buyer through the first half of the year, adding 45 tons to its gold hoard. The bulk of its buying was in Q1, with the pace slowing to 15 tons in the second quarter.

 The Turkish central bank has bought gold for 12 straight months after liquidating 160 tons of gold in the spring of 2023.

India ranks as the second-biggest gold buyer through the first half of the year. The Reserve Bank of India has added gold to its reserves every month this year totaling 37 tons.

In 2022, the Indian central bank added 33 tons of gold to its reserves followed by a 16-ton increase last year.

The Reserve Bank of India has been buying gold since 2017. Over that period, the RBI has increased its gold holding by over 260 tons. 

An Indian economist told the Times of India that the push to accumulate gold was based on both political and economic reasons. He said that the “reliability” of the U.S. dollar has “diminished.” He noted the “noticeable decline” in the confidence in U.S. dollar assets.

Another economist told the Times, “It makes a lot of sense (to invest in gold), given the increased volatility in the FX market, elevated interest rates in the U.S., and, of course, also as the central banks in each economy would like to diversify the asset classes in which they are parking their reserves.”

India recently transported 100 tons of its gold from the UK back into India.

Poland was the biggest gold buyer in the second quarter, increasing its holding by 19 tons. The country currently holds about 13 percent of its reserves in gold. At a news conference in early June, National Bank of Poland Governor Adam Glapiński reiterated his plan to increase gold’s share of total reserves to 20 percent.

Poland was the second-biggest gold buyer in 2023. The Polish central bank bought 130 tons of gold last year, increasing its holdings by 57 percent, to 359 tons. 

In 2021, Glapiński announced a plan to expand the country’s gold reserves by 100 tons. The central bank reached that goal in September of ’23 and kept buying.

When he announced the plan to expand its gold reserves, Glapiński said holding gold was a matter of financial security and stability.

“Gold will retain its value even when someone cuts off the power to the global financial system, destroying traditional assets based on electronic accounting records. Of course, we do not assume that this will happen. But as the saying goes – forewarned is always insured.

And the central bank is required to be prepared for even the most unfavorable circumstances. That is why we see a special place for gold in our foreign exchange management process.”

Other notable buyers in the second quarter included:

• Uzbekistan – 7 tons
• Czech Republic – 6 tons
• Qatar – 4 tons
• Singapore – 4 tons
• Russia – 3 tons
• Iraq – 3 tons
• Jordan – 1 ton
• Kyrgyz Republic – 1 ton

 Notably, Singapore had been a consistent buyer this year before selling 12 tons of gold in June.

Uzbekistan has also been a frequent seller this year, turning back to buying in May. It is not uncommon for banks that buy from domestic production – such as Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan – to switch between buying and selling.

The Philippines has been the biggest seller through the first half of the year, decreasing its gold reserves by about 25 tons. Thailand was another notable seller, decreasing its holdings by just under 10 tons.

Despite the modest colling of central bank gold demand in Q2, there is no indication that they are souring on the yellow metal. According to the most recent World Gold Council survey, 29 percent of central banks plan to add more gold to their reserves in the next 12 months. The WGC said it was the highest level since the survey began in 2018.

Only 3 percent said they had plans to decrease gold reserves.

Earlier this year, the World Gold Council said the continuation of gold buying supports its expectation that “2024 will be another solid year of central bank gold demand.”

“Last year central banks placed great emphasis on gold’s value in crisis response, diversification attributes, and store-of-value credentials. A few months into 2024 the world seems no less uncertain meaning those reasons for owning gold are as relevant as ever.”

Last year, central bank gold buying fell just 45 tons short of 2022’s multi-decade record.

According to the World Gold Council, central banks net gold purchases totaled 1,037 tons in 2023. It was the second straight year central banks added more than 1,000 tons to their total reserves.

Central bank gold buying in 2023 built on the prior record year. Total central bank gold buying in 2022 came in at 1,136 tons. It was the highest level of net purchases on record dating back to 1950, including since the suspension of dollar convertibility into gold in 1971.

China was the biggest buyer in 2023.

Analysts at ANZ Bank recently said they expect central bank gold buying to remain hot for at least the next six years.

According to these analysts, “Depleted trust in the U.S. fixed-income assets and the rise of non-reserve currencies are other themes that could support central bank gold buying.”

Authored by Chris Morrison via DailySceptic.org,

Massive increases in coral across the Australian Great Barrier Reef (GBR) have been reported for 2023-24 making it the third record year in a row of heavy growth. Across almost all parts of the 1,500 mile long reef, from the warmer northern waters to the cooler conditions in the south, coral is now at its highest level since detailed observations began. The inconvenient news has been ignored in mainstream media which, curiously, have focused on a non-story in Nature that claimed “climate change” poses an “existential threat” to the GBR.

“The science tells us that the GBR is in danger – and we should be guided by the science,” Professor Helen McGregor from the University of Wollongong told Victoria Gill of BBC News. 

The existential threat is “now realised” reported the Guardian.

Travelling back from the reality inhabited by the Guardian, it can be reported that last year’s gains were eye-catchingly large. On the Northern GBR, hard coral cover leapt from 35.8% to 39.5%, in the central area it rose from 30.7% to 34%, while in the south it went from 34% to 39.1%. The report is the result of monitoring of hard coral cover reefs from August 2023 to June 2024 by the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS). The percentage of hard coral cover is a standard measurement of reef conditions used by scientists and is said to provide a simple and robust measure of reef health. Similar reports have been published by the AIMS over the last 38 years.

For the first two years of record coral growth, the narrative-driven mainstream media ignored the recovery story. But this year, the suspicious might contend, something had to be done to blunt the sensational news of the stonking rises. Help has come in the form of a paper just published in Nature which uses proxy temperature measurements and climate models to suggest temperatures around the vast reef area are the highest recorded in 400 years. This time period is the blink of an ecological eye-lid given that coral has been around for hundreds of millions of years during periods when temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide have been markedly different. Nevertheless, this is said to pose an existential threat despite it being known that sub-tropical corals thrive between 24°C-32°C, and in fact seem to grow faster in warmer waters.

Natural bleaching, when the coral expels algae and turns white, can occur with temporary local temperature changes, but evidence from many years of scientific observation suggests the corals often and quickly recover. Long term changes in water temperature – tiny compared to coral’s optimum conditions – pose no threat, but alarmists concentrate on the bleaching events to warn of possible ecological collapse. The Guardian noted a recent fifth mass bleaching in eight years across the reef, driven, it claimed, by “global heating”. So far, its readers are in the dark as to how this squares with the recent record growth.

A decade of mass bleaching, relentlessly catastrophised in the interests of Net Zero by activists in the media, academia and politics, does not appear to have done much harm to the recent growth in the Northern GBR.

Or the central area.

Or even in the south where the water temperatures are slightly cooler.

To read the latest AIMS report is to read the best possible spin on the story that the reef is heading for disaster. And, of course, it is all down to the unproven changes in climate that are said to be caused by human activity. It is claimed this will cause more frequent and long-lasting marine ‘heatwaves’, a product no doubt of a climate model. It is generally suggested that these heatwaves and mass bleaching were rare prior to the 1990s, although how anyone can know this is a mystery. Detailed GBR observations and temperature recordings barely stretch back a few decades.

As is often the case with publicly-funded operations, the political message is never far from the surface. Thus we learn that “enabling coral reefs to survive these stressful conditions requires a combination of a reduction in global greenhouse emissions to stabilise temperatures… and the development of interventions to help reefs adapt to and recover from the effects of climate change”. No doubt this last proposal requires large amounts of money from the taxpayer to cover the costs of such worthy work.

Not everyone goes along with the coral fear-mongering. The distinguished scientist Dr. Peter Ridd has studied the GBR for 40 years and notes that coral numbers have “exploded” in recent years. He says that all 3,000 reefs in the world’s largest system have excellent coral. “Not a single reef or even a single species of reef life has been lost since British settlement,” he reports. The impact of bleaching is “routinely exaggerated by the media and some scientific organisations”. In his view, the public is being deceived about the reef. “How this occurred is a serious issue for the reef-science community which has embraced emotion, ideology and raw self-interest to maintain funding,” he observes.

Authored by Randall Block via The Brownstone Institute,

Dr. Anthony Fauci often claims a “DNA of caring” yet his actions reveal a stark contrast. Avoiding direct patient care, Dr. Fauci focused on populations—effecting a mindset aligned with abstract compassion for humanity that nonetheless neglects individual rights. His so-called ‘DNA of caring’ has most recently doubly stranded those subjected to it: first, by amplifying fear about Covid-19 while burying mitigating data; second, by pushing a vaccine in a draconian, methodical, and threatening manner, taking away liberty and jobs to an extreme never seen before in the history of mankind. 

Additionally, by fast-tracking and strong-arming an mRNA vaccine-platform technology heretofore devoid of Phase II or III safety studies, Dr. Fauci prioritized hypothetical scientific advancement over actual current health, medical knowledge, and personal liberties—effectively double-crossing both the public’s trust and violating his own integrity: contradicting medically foundational principles he had spent his career enunciating—perhaps influenced by pharmaceutical interests.

Introduction: From Public Health to Panic: The Motivations Behind Dr. Fauci’s Pandemic Pivot

In early 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of NIAID, initially approached the coronavirus with standard public health strategies. By late February, Dr. Fauci had become the deciding influencer for the New York Times’ Donald McNeil’s decision to go “up to eleven,” announcing: “To Take On the Coronavirus, Go Medieval on It.” This article heightened panic in New York City, soon to be America’s pandemic landfall—and marked a shift from a century of public health’s more measured responses BACKWARDS to draconian measures. Remember: “lockdowns” emanate literally from 1970s prisons.

Several theories potentially explain this pivot. One suggests Fauci’s involvement with NIAID grants to the Wuhan lab pushed him to deflect accountability. Another points to political motivations, aiming to undermine an adversary, Donald Trump—by destabilizing the economy, and influencing the election through lockdown-necessitated mail-in ballots.

A deeper, but not necessarily mutually exclusive motive may lie in Fauci’s support for mRNA vaccine technology. Previously, mRNA treatments had only reached Phase I trials. The pandemic allowed for emergency-use authorization, fast-tracking this experimental platform and breaking regulatory barriers—likely saving a decade by creating a precedent for future mRNA treatments. He did this knowing systemic vaccines may not be appropriate for respiratory illnesses, and having observed close hand China’s failure to create an effective Coronavirus vaccine in the 2000s after SARS.

And this wasn’t the first time: his persistence in pushing for mRNA technology was evident during the previous decade’s Zika Microcephaly pandemic response. Even as Zika had fizzled to zero (microcephaly-) cases, Fauci persisted in pushing for Zika (DNA-and mRNA-) vaccines. He dangled ~$100 million in front of Brazil in 2018, but it refused—whereupon he pivoted in the 2020s to Johns Hopkins to inject and infect women with Zika to test the vaccine. This is a man who will not let a public health emergency go to waste—even if it involves aggrandizing it.

Despite his self-assessment as having a “DNA of caring,” Fauci’s actions suggest a focus more on institutional goals and the advancement of mRNA technology than on the people themselves—via corporatism: merging governmental authority with big business interests. Treating populations with a one-size-fits-all approach, stripping away individual rights, and using people as means to societal ends evokes an antidemocratic utilitarianism.

A Self-Professed “DNA of Caring”

A Google search for “Dr. Anthony Fauci’s promotion of the mRNA vaccine” performed today (helpfully for the otherwise beleaguered Dr. Fauci) funnels towards his On Call: A Doctor’s Journey in Public Service book tour—including this ironic and self-titled fluff piece: ‘I had that DNA of caring for people‘ sweetly afforded by PBS’ uncritical, team player Geoff Bennett. 

Nearly comically—this June 2024 video, intending to polish his legacy, inadvertently highlights his dictatorial tendencies, tin ear, and inability to learn from mistakes. Despite his mea culpa about failing to listen to stakeholders during the 1980s’ HIV/AIDS crisis and promising to have learned from that experience, merely a few sentences later Fauci lashes out at his contemporary Covid-19 critics. 

The irony here is stark. Fauci admits that he and his institutions were domineering and unheeding of criticism during the HIV/AIDS crisis—whereupon he retroactively wishes he had given those activists input into the process that had so directly affected them. 

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Understandably, but unacceptably, the scientific community and the regulatory community just said, “We know best for you. We’re the scientists. We’re the ones with the experience.” And they kept saying, “No, no, no. We really want a seat at the table.” When we didn’t listen, then they started becoming theatrical, iconoclastic, disruptive, and confrontative. As John Lewis used to say, ‘there’s trouble and there’s good trouble.’ They were making ‘good trouble’ in the field of health in wanting to have a seat at the table. One of the best things I think I have done in my career was to put aside the theatrics (note: an admission against interest) and listen to what they were saying, because what they were saying made absolutely perfect sense. And I remember saying to myself that, if I were in their shoes, I’d be doing exactly what they were doing.

GEOFF BENNETT: When you describe that (HIV/AIDS) experience as “enlightening,” how did it inform your approach moving forward to confront other epidemics?

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Yes. Yes, listen to the patients. Listen. And don’t think that everything comes from the top down. Listen to the community. Listen to what they’re experiencing. And you’re going to make a much better and more appropriate response to whatever the disease challenge is. That was a lesson that was very well-learned from the activists.

Volte-face and thin-skinned (a possible alternate title for his book), he shows no such sympathy for those who opposed his Covid-19 rabbit-out-of-a-hat absurdities, dismissing them outright:

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: I think it’s important to say, because it’s the truth, that if ever there was a time when you didn’t want to have a public health crisis was at a time of profound divisiveness within our country, where you were having people making decisions about health based on political ideology. That is the worst possible circumstance.

It would have been really nice if we had a uniform message: “Masks work. Use them.” “Vaccines are good and save lives.” Let’s do it.

“No, hydroxychloroquine not only doesn’t work, but, in fact, it could harm you.” (ignoring risk/benefit ratio; “right to try,” FDA-approval, and track record—and that this is true for any treatment, cf. vaccines). 

This dismissive attitude toward dissenting voices is ironic given Fauci’s complete 180 on his own views. He refuses to engage with anyone who challenges him, yet seems blissfully unaware he’s contradicting his past self. And there is this gem uncovered by the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic from Dr. Fauci, Summer 2021—so different from his supposed HIV-lesson-learned to “Listen to the community. Listen to what they’re experiencing”—speaking more like a mob boss:

“I have to say that I don’t see a big solution, other than some sort of mandatory vaccination. I know federal officials don’t like to use that term. Once (administrators) feel empowered and protected legally, (they’ll) say, ‘you want to come to this college buddy, you’re going to get vaccinated.’ Yeah, big corporations are going to say ‘you want to work for us, you get vaccinated.’ And it’s been proven that when you make it difficult for people in their lives, they lose their ideological bullshit and they get vaccinated.”

Dr. Fauci’s actual “DNA of caring” is caring about pharmaceutical mRNA.

Fauci 1.0 Vs. Fauci 2.0

Somewhere around February 2020, there seems to have been a ‘software update’ of Dr. Fauci’s mindset, and not for the better. Generally speaking, people only turn to questionable behavior when faced with a greater agenda, threat to self, or conversion. Here’s a by-no-means complete table of Fauci Covid-era “flip-flops:”

This transformation was likely triggered by the realization of his agency NIAID’s and/or his own embarrassingly damaging complicity in the gain-of-function genesis of the “Wuhan flu” SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus threat. He aimed for self-preservation, politically maneuvering against Donald Trump to compromise him, while also greasing the skids for the mRNA vaccine. 

This necessitated performing life support for the “emergency” in the “Emergency Use Authorization/ EUA” by quashing any interim medications, aggrandizing the threat of SARS-CoV-2—when he knew, from the Diamond Princess data, that it was not that severe (zero deaths, 25 days after exposure)—and backtracking from his comments that respiratory illnesses were not best approached by vaccines; that natural immunity was preferable to vaccine immunity, and that flu shots needed to be timely for the upcoming variant. Despite his previously calling the coronavirus threat “minuscule,” Fauci’s actions followed a pattern of (mis)using the crisis to bequeath a Big Science/Big Pharma (-regulatory-capture cycle untested mRNA treatments. 

Covid-19 Pandemic: Overreach and Ignoring Early Data

During the Covid-19 pandemic, Fauci’s approach starkly contradicted the lessons he claimed to have learned from the HIV/AIDS crisis. He enforced top-down measures that often lacked scientific backing. For instance, he admitted in a January 2024 Congressional hearing (belatedly released in June) that he did not know the scientific basis for the six-foot social distancing rule and could not substantiate masking requirements for children. 

“Collectively, the four pillars of the “Covidian Cult” were lockdowns, masks, social distancing and mRNA vaccines. Dr Fauci was one of the most powerful advocates of all of these things, and he became the public face of each demand. But here we have one of the architects, without too much pushing, admitting that two of those four pillars were never set in any scientific foundation at all. Now what this admission does is utterly destroy the entire Covidian argument. Because the argument was that we should “Follow the Science.” The argument was that technocratic experts had decided the course of action to follow, and that we had no right to question that course because they were the experts and we were simply, “Tracy from Facebook.” Daniel Jupp “Fauci’s Evidence: It just sort of appeared. You know, from nowhere.”

Fauci’s stance on vaccination mandates was equally inconsistent. In 2004, he advised against flu vaccines for those who had already contracted the flu. Yet during the Covid-19 pandemic, he supported mandatory vaccinations regardless of prior infection, ignoring the virus’ evolving nature. Vaccines were administered for an outdated strain, akin to giving expired flu shots, which are typically removed from circulation once the virus mutates significantly. This inconsistency highlighted his failure to adapt his policies to the realities of the virus’ mutations.

Fauci 1.0 had said, “You seek and learn…from an experiment“ (2005). The floating coronavirus-incubation/quarantine experiment, a.k.a. Diamond Princess was an incredible serendipity for the world—if not its 3,711 captives. Trying to enlist that number of people for an unknown viral threat would’ve required a pre-payout of ~$10 billion (and could not have included this random selection of individuals)—yet, the world was the beneficiary of this experiment in a timely fashion, February 2020 for “free” (although the passengers and crew might disagree with that term).

Instead of focusing on the obvious good news results: zero fatalities after three weeks’ exposure; essentially none of the children or young adults feeling much ill or even noticing infection—Fauci 2.0 sided with Chinese propaganda and extreme measures, contributing to widespread panic and economic devastation. Fauci 2.0 ignored the possibility of Chinese guile, either blithely or willfully—but in either case to our nation’s discredit, discomfort, disunion, and disinformation.

The Gates Foundation’s mRNA Finesse; Zika Emergency

In 2017, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation pledged $100 million to Moderna to develop an mRNA-platform vaccine for Zika. This investment was made despite the fact that Zika, a relatively harmless dengue variant, was not (by that time) persistently linked to the microcephaly cases it was blamed for. The Zika-microcephaly phenomenon just petered out even in the initial “pandemic” panic crisis year of 2016. This rush to develop an mRNA vaccine for a non-crisis reflects a broader trend of aggrandizing potential threats to justify rapid and untested vaccine development.

My book, Overturning Zika: The Pandemic That Never Was, points out the complete absence of any Zika-related microcephaly increase in any year, including the incipient 2015 year. Once Zika tests were developed and Brazil adopted the WHO standard for statistical microcephaly determination, the link between Zika and microcephaly was never substantiated—and effectively disappeared. “Zika-Microcephaly” had always and only been “science” by press release, political pressure, and professorial self-aggrandizement.

Dr. Fauci never stopped pushing for Zika vaccines long after it was clear there was no recurrence of Zika-related microcephaly in Latin America. In 2018, he attempted to initiate a human challenge trial (HCT) in Brazil, but the authorities refused, not wanting to introduce the Zika virus into the population through experimentation.

HCTs had fallen out of favor due to the negative outcomes of the Guatemala and Tuskegee experiments. In 2017, the NIH’s ethics panel determined that Zika did not warrant human challenge trials, but Dr. Fauci pushed for them regardless, ignoring prevailing public health wisdom. 

Why was he jonesing for a putative Zika vaccine? Fauci was a proponent of synthetic vaccinology and mRNA platforms. Conveniently ignoring Zika-Microcephaly’s fizzle, he continued over-generously funding Moderna (whose very name is a portmanteau of “modified RNA”).

When Zika’s shoddy underlying science and non-recurrence failed to sustain the necessary “emergency” for mRNA technology, an unrepentant and unpunished Fauci aggrandized Covid-19 to achieve the same goals. Had he been reprimanded for violating the NIH ethics panel’s decision, he might not have been so rash and brash in exaggerating Covid-19. It appears Fauci pursued his “fix” of stealthily introducing mRNA technology to the public and mainstreaming it through vaccines, despite the ethical breaches and potential risks involved.

mRNA Vaccines: From Never Done to Pandemic Panacea

The foundation for mRNA-vaccine technology was laid years before the pandemic. Here’s an excellent history (behind paywall) of the endeavor, beginning with Robert F. Malone’s late-1980s conceptualization—although (reminiscent of Breaking Bad’s Gray Matter Technologies: Walter White says, “It was my hard work. My research. And you and Elliott made millions off it.”) all of the financial-windfall beneficiaries currently in the field are happy to orphan whistleblower Malone who said the coronavirus “should never have been politicized.” Legacy media is happy to help discredit him: effectively always, his name is accompanied by the term, “spreading misinformation.”

The Obama Administration invested heavily in mRNA research through DARPA (via the mysterious network, “JASON”) and BARDA. By the end of the Obama era, mRNA vaccines were being tested in both animals and humans – but never beyond Phase 1. 

The Covid-19 pandemic fast-tracked the push for mRNA vaccines under Operation Warp Speed, prioritizing them over traditional vaccines like Johnson & Johnson’s adenovirus vector vaccine. Concerns about side effects, such as myocarditis in young males, were brushed aside in the rush to advance mRNA technology. This urgency overshadowed the critical need for proper safety trials, effectively using the public as guinea pigs in a massive, premature experiment.

Now, with the ice broken, a flood of new mRNA vaccines is in the pipeline for diseases like cytomegalovirus (CMV), influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Researchers are even exploring mRNA vaccines for avian flu, hepatitis C, HIV, and more. This rapid adoption bypasses decades of proven safety from traditional vaccine platforms, raising ethical concerns about using the global population for untested innovations.

Even if mRNA vaccines prove beneficial in the long run, we deserve better than to be test subjects in this grand experiment—without getting a share of the proceeds. It’s like “My parents went to Vegas and all I got was this lousy T-shirt,” but with much higher stakes.

Profit over Safety

The profit motive may be king. Much as the ‘minor issues’ of people’s freedoms and safety (I’m joking) were completely ignored to help speed the development of mRNA vaccines, being politically favored has its benefits. Every accommodation is made for electric vehicles or climate change initiatives. One wonders, given that everyone turned a blind eye to safety and is still doing so regarding Covid’s mRNA vaccine(s), whether these newer possibilities—which are not emergencies per se—will go through proper multiphase studies over the proper length of time to check for long-term side effects. 

Studies for “long-term effects” ipso facto need a “long-term” study: eight or 10 years may not even be enough. Other vaccines have been out for decades and there are still questions circulating given that they are being given more frequently and with multiple other vaccines in combination throughout the course of tender childhood. 

Pre-NCVIA (1986 federal liability waiver for vaccine manufacturers), kids got a handful of vaccines, now we are up to 72 separate inoculations recommended through adolescence. With whispers of avian flu and other potential “emergencies,” we have to be careful that these aren’t just efforts to fan the flames and bypass safety studies once again.

The silver lining, the promise we are given is that mRNA technology may help cancer treatment, food- and environmental- allergies, genetic diseases, heart disease, stroke, heart failure, and neurodevelopmental disorders. While these advancements are promising, it is essential to balance innovation with rigorous safety protocols; to balance self-interested Big Science/Big Pharma claims with the normal skepticism, given the track record.

Lockdowns: Misguided Anachronism 

Fauci’s advocacy for lockdowns was another significant departure from standard public health practices. Historically, “lockdown” was a term used exclusively in prison settings. Before Covid-19, general population lockdowns were virtually unheard of, except in extreme cases like a tuberculosis outbreak in a South African prison and limited restrictions during the Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone. Implementing such measures for Covid-19 ignored the relatively benign nature of the virus for most of the population. The lockdowns caused widespread economic disruption, halted education, and inflicted severe mental health consequences.

Donald McNeil of the New York Times famously espoused a “go medieval” approach to the virus, but only after the endorsement specifically of Dr. Fauci. McNeil’s article, “To Take On The Coronavirus, Go Medieval on It,” drummed up enormous fear and overreaction. In August 2020, McNeil revealed that his consultation with Dr. Fauci was pivotal in shaping the article.

Donald McNeil wrote: 

“There are two ways to fight epidemics: the medieval and the modern. The modern way is to surrender to the power of the pathogens: Acknowledge that they are unstoppable and try to soften the blow with 20th-century inventions, including new vaccines, antibiotics, hospital ventilators and thermal cameras searching for people with fevers. The medieval way, inherited from the era of the Black Death, is brutal: Close the borders, quarantine the ships, pen terrified citizens up inside their poisoned cities.” 

Mr. McNeil, writer and rhetorician (and decidedly not a scientist) is merely channeling this Fauci 2.0 bureaucrat/autocrat whose decidedly medieval methods fall into stark contrast with (erstwhile) modern public health’s. Fauci 2.0 essentially settled the issue for McNeil, who readily adopted this extreme stance.

Ironically, those advocating for a more modern public health approach, like the (genuine) experts behind the Great Barrington Declaration, were shut down. Fauci’s supposed “DNA of caring” seems to only extend to himself, his views, and his control over the narrative. His actions during Covid-19 show that he learned nothing from his self-professed enlightenment during the HIV/AIDS crisis.

He ignored and dismissed any criticism, especially from those on or above his level. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, (economics), for example, is arguably more qualified than Fauci, more of a political than medical ace. This is evident in his absurdly anachronistic “medieval” approach to the pandemic; his inability to tolerate dissent; his failure to listen to those who challenge him—in fact his censoring them, codifying a policy of “Shut Up!” to skeptics of his overreaching policies. 

Even Fauci 1.0 was not a great medical doctor. In the 1980s, during the HIV/AIDS crisis, Fauci speculated that close household contact, without sexual interaction or needle sharing, could lead to AIDS transmission. This glib and unfounded claim led to widespread fear and misinformation. As a result, AIDS patients (it is posited) were often abandoned by their families due to the fear of casual transmission.

His stubborn focus on producing a vaccine rather than therapeutics was of particular frustration to activists and other scientists. Ironically, this emphasis on vaccines over therapeutics repeated in 2020 and 2021 with the push for mRNA vaccines, despite the availability of other potential treatments. 

The government, under Fauci’s influence, went out of its way to insult and ridicule FDA-approved, off-label usage, rational treatment alternatives, such as hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Nobel-Prize generating ivermectin (which was FALSELY derided as mere horse medication). Many drugs used in humans are also used in animals. This dismissal and ridicule were strategic, aimed at maintaining the narrative that only a vaccine could solve the crisis, thus justifying the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the mRNA vaccines. Absent an emergency, they would not have been able to circumvent the necessary safety measures. This strategy was not only misleading but potentially criminal, as it prioritized the adoption of untested vaccines over exploring all possible treatment avenues.

Unprecedented Excess Deaths

The implications of these decisions have been far-reaching and devastating. According to researchers from Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, there have been more than three million excess deaths since 2020, with the trend continuing despite (or because of) the rollout of vaccines and containment measures. In BMJ Public Health, the authors stated, 

“excess mortality has remained high in the Western World for three consecutive years, despite the implementation of COVID-19 containment measures and COVID-19 vaccines. This is unprecedented and raises serious concerns. During the pandemic, politicians and the media emphasized daily that every COVID-19 death mattered and every life deserved protection through containment measures and COVID-19 vaccines. In the aftermath of the pandemic, the same morale should apply.”

This is the tragic outcome of Fauci’s policies. The world was promised salvation, but instead, we have worse economies, more top-down nondemocratic management, halted education, and disrupted lives. Children couldn’t see people’s faces, and the societal impacts have been profound.

We Were Betrayed by Falsehoods

Dr. Anthony Fauci’s actions during the Covid-19 pandemic mirrored the very failings he claimed to have learned from the HIV/AIDS crisis. His inability to adapt, combined with a penchant for authoritarian measures, has left a legacy of distrust and division. Fauci’s enforcement of arbitrary measures, disregard for scientific data, and contribution to economic and social disruption have caused untold harm. His tenure stands as a stark reminder of the dangers of unchecked authority.

Fauci’s role in the Covid-19 response has shown a disregard for American values of liberty and openness. His actions have inflicted deep scars on the nation, from economic devastation to the erosion of public trust. The world deserves better from its public health leaders, and Fauci’s tenure stands as a cautionary tale of what happens when power goes unchecked. The suffering caused by his decisions is a legacy not of public health triumph but of public health failure and manipulation.

As H.L. Mencken famously said, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” Unelected Dr. Fauci’s prison-styled lockdowns and tyrannical, unproven, mRNA-over-vaccinating within an overall disdainful, peremptory medical misgovernance made sure of that.

Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin (R) on Wednesday signed an executive order to implement various security measures ahead of the November election – including the use of paper ballots, tracking possession of ballots during early voting, matching the number of ballots casts with then number of voters who have checked in, and the number of ballots sent to voters.

The order also requires absentee ballots to be requested before being mailed to voters, in addition to rejecting ballots mailed back unless the voter provides the last four digits of their Social Security number and birth year.

The state notably uses paper ballot counting machines that aren’t connected to the internet and are tested before elections.

Meanwhile, Youngkin also ordered the state to update its voter rolls – including adding or removing people based on whether they are allowed to vote in the state, removing those unable to prove residency, removing the names of dead voters, and ensuring illegals cannot cast a ballot.

According to Virginia AG Jason Miyares, 6,303 illegals have been removed from the state’s voter rolls during Youngkin’s tenure, and almost 80,000 deceased voters have been removed.

As the Epoch Times notes further, Youngkin instructed the Department of Motor Vehicles to “expedite the interagency data sharing with the Department of Elections of noncitizens by generating a daily file of all noncitizens transactions, including addresses and document numbers.”

The Department of Elections compares a list of noncitizens with a list of those registered to vote. Those who are on both lists get removed from voter rolls. If someone is erroneously removed, he or she has 14 days to prove eligibility to cast a ballot.

Additionally, Virginia has cameras monitoring drop box locations 24/7.

Moreover, according to the executive order, the Department of Elections is to inform voters about prohibited activities including, but not limited to, electoral intimidation, illegally disclosing or using Social Security numbers, unlawful registrations and votes, and tampering with or stealing voting items.

There have been almost two dozen cases of election fraud cases in Virginia since 2007, according to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington.

Election Integrity

In a statement, Youngkin said that the issue of election integrity isn’t partisan and that elections should be held fairly.

“This isn’t a Democrat or Republican issue, it’s an American and Virginian issue,” he said. “Every legal vote deserves to be counted without being watered down by illegal votes or inaccurate machines. In Virginia, we don’t play games and our model for election security is working.”

While Youngkin and the GOP flipped the gubernatorial mansion and the House of Delegates in November 2021, Democrats have controlled both houses of the state Legislature since earlier this year.

Polling has showed that former President Donald Trump is competitive in the Old Dominion State. More recent polls, after President Joe Biden dropped out and Vice President Kamala Harris received the nomination, have shown a tighter race.

The last time a GOP presidential candidate won Virginia was in 2004, when President George W. Bush won reelection.

In addition to the presidential race, other major races in Virginia in November include the Senate race between incumbent Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Republican Hung Cao and key House races in the state’s Second, Seventh, and 10th congressional districts.

The next Virginia gubernatorial election will be held in November 2025. Youngkin is ineligible to run for a second consecutive term in accordance with the state’s constitution. Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.), who isn’t running for reelection, is seen as the early front-runner for the governor’s mansion.

Authored by Tsvetana Paraskova via OilPrice.com,

• California residents face the second-highest average electricity bills in the U.S., driven by investments in wildfire mitigation, grid upgrades, and renewable energy integration.

• The surge in electricity costs has left nearly 1 in 5 California households behind on their energy bills.

• California is transitioning to a new net billing tariff for residential solar and a flat monthly fee structure for electricity in an effort to make electrification more affordable.

Consumers in California have seen their electricity bills surge in recent years and double over the past decade as utilities are investing more in wildfire prevention and transmission lines to accommodate growing renewable energy output.

As these utilities invest billions of U.S. dollars to make the grid more resilient, they pass the higher spending on to consumers. 

So California now has the second-highest average electricity bill in the United States, second only to Hawaii. 

“Untenable” Surge 

California is looking to rapidly shift away from fossil fuels and make its grid more resilient, but these efforts show the other side of the greening of the grid – power generation costs may be plunging, but transmission and distribution costs are rising, leading to higher spending from utilities. 

These increased expenditures are passed on to consumers by the investor-owned utilities Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric. As a result, electricity bills in California have risen so much in recent years that in some places, the power bill exceeds the cost of rent, The Wall Street Journal reports in a featured article. 

The surge in bills has been “untenable,” according to the consumer advocate’s office at California’s utilities regulator. 

In its latest 2024 Q2 Electric Rates Report last month, the Public Advocates Office tracked residential electric rate changes across Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison (SCE) service territories through July 1, 2024. 

The report found that over the last few years, California’s electric bills are generally rising due to higher electricity use from things such as air conditioning, and higher overall electricity prices. 

Since January 2014, residential average rates for the PG&E service area have jumped by 110%, those of SCE have surged by 90%, and SDG&E rates have soared by 82%.

The primary statewide drivers of soaring rates have been investments in wildfire mitigation, transmission and distribution investments, and rooftop solar incentives or the so-called net energy metering, the Public Advocates Office said.  

Overall, residential electricity rates have increased substantially since 2014, surpassing inflation, it noted.  

It couldn’t be surprising then that nearly 1 in 5 households are behind on their energy bills, according to the office. A total of 18.4% of the customers of the three investor-owned utilities are in arrears in their energy bills. 

Changes in Charging for Electricity 

This year, California has changed the way utilities charge for electricity and is transitioning from net energy metering to net billing tariff for residential solar projects. These regulatory changes have hit residential solar installations and are set to change the way power bills are formed starting next year.

The move to the net billing tariff in California dragged down the total U.S. residential solar market, which saw in the second quarter of 2024 its lowest quarter since Q1 2022 at 1.3 GWdc, reflecting a 25% decline year-over-year and 18% quarter-over-quarter. 

“While slowdowns are occurring nationwide, these declines were heavily influenced by California, where quarterly installations have shrunk for the last two quarters as NEM 2.0 projects are built out and the state transitions to the net billing tariff,” the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) said in its latest quarterly report.

In another significant change, California’s utilities will charge from next year or 2026 a flat monthly fee of up to $24.15 on all customers while reducing the charges imposed per kilowatt of electricity used.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) says that the new billing structure “lowers overall electricity bills on average for lower-income households and those living in regions most impacted by extreme weather events, while accelerating California’s clean energy transition by making electrification more affordable for all.”

The usage rate for electricity will be reduced by 5 to 7 cents per kilowatt-hour for all residential customers, which makes it more affordable for everyone to electrify homes and vehicles, regardless of income or location, because the price of charging an electric vehicle or running a heat pump is lower. 

However, critics of the new billing structure have said it will hurt customers who live in small homes and have relatively small electricity use as the lower per-kWh rate would not offset the new flat fee.  

It remains to be seen how the new billing structure will affect California customers and whether it will lead to the expected mass electrification of homes. 

A total of 78% of Americans are concerned about their rising energy bills, an exclusive CNET Money survey has shown. Around 80% of U.S. adults in all regions, including the Northwest, Midwest, South, and West, said that their finances have been impacted by growing home energy costs, according to the survey.

California leads in U.S. solar and battery installations, but the cost of bringing that power generation to consumers has soared with the need to expand, upgrade, and protect the power grid. 

Authored by Victor Joecks via American Greatness,

The book “1984” is supposed to be a warning. Today’s leftists are using it as an instruction manual…

George Orwell’s classic novel is set in a dystopian world where Big Brother controls the population through information control and surveillance. See if any of this sounds familiar.

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

During her career, especially when running for president in 2020, Kamala Harris took a number of radical positions. She praised efforts to defund the police. She once insinuated that Immigration and Customs Enforcement was comparable to the KKK and suggested the agency should be rebuilt “from scratch.” She wanted to decriminalize border crossings. She co-sponsored the Green New Deal. She supported a mandatory gun buyback program, eliminating private insurance and reparations. She was in favor of banning fracking and plastic straws.

Those policies play great in San Francisco, but not in battleground states. Not to worry. She’s flip-flopped on at least five major policy positions since becoming the presumptive nominee.

Instead of exposing this duplicity, the national mainstream media is participating in it.

“Harris is calibrating her policy pitch for going to battle with Trump,” the Associated Press wrote about her reversals.

“If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened — that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death.”

The attempted assassination of Donald Trump happened just over three weeks ago. The iconic photo of a bloodied Trump defiantly standing and pumping his fist went viral. Outside of conservative sites and social media accounts, it’s barely been seen since. The national media has largely moved on, eager to fluff up Harris.

Less than two weeks ago, pro-Hamas rioters stormed Washington, D.C., to protest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to Congress. They tore down U.S. flags outside of Union Station and raised Palestinian flags. They burned an American flag, vandalized monuments and assaulted park police. Charges against some of the few people arrested have already been dropped.

An easy prediction: You’ll hear less about these two stories than Trump’s out-of-context “bloodbath” remark and Jan. 6. It’s like events that would make Trump look heroic and hurt the left never happened.

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten …”

You can see this happening in real time. Last week, I googled “Trump rally.” The top result was “Kamala Harris rally in Atlanta.” The same thing happened to Elon Musk and many others.

Recently, Meta AI refused to acknowledge that Trump was almost assassinated. Meta is the parent company of Facebook. It inaccurately labeled a fist-pumping photo of a bloodied Trump as “altered.” When people used Google to search for information on Trump’s attempted assassination, its auto-fill wouldn’t even suggest his name.

Both companies claim they weren’t trying to rig search results. Those excuses would be more believable if almost all mistakes like these didn’t go in the same direction.

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end, we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”

Illegal aliens are merely undocumented migrants. Men who claim to be women are women. People voting for Donald Trump are a threat to democracy. Ramming scissors into the skull of an 8-month-old preborn baby and sucking her brains out is health care. Israel is the oppressor for defending itself against genocidal terrorists. Diversity requires ideological conformity.

2024 looks a lot like “1984,” but you get to help write the ending. Choose wisely.