You decide…In no less a liberal rag than Newsweek, Kevin Bass (MS MD/PHD Student, Medical School) has penned a quite surprising (and ‘brave’) op-ed saying that “it’s time for the scientific community to admit we were wrong about COVID and it cost lives…”As a medical student and researcher, I staunchly supported the efforts of the public health authorities when it came to COVID-19. I believed that the authorities responded to the largest public health crisis of our lives with compassion, diligence, and scientific expertise. I was with them when they called for lockdowns, vaccines, and boosters.I was wrong. We in the scientific community were wrong. And it cost lives.I can see now that the scientific community from the CDC to the WHO to the FDA and their representatives, repeatedly overstated the evidence and misled the public about its own views and policies, including on natural vs. artificial immunity, school closures and disease transmission, aerosol spread, mask mandates, and vaccine effectiveness and safety, especially among the young. All of these were scientific mistakes at the time, not in hindsight. Amazingly, some of these obfuscations continue to the present day.But perhaps more important than any individual error was how inherently flawed the overall approach of the scientific community was, and continues to be. It was flawed in a way that undermined its efficacy and resulted in thousands if not millions of preventable deaths.What we did not properly appreciate is that preferences determine how scientific expertise is used, and that our preferences might be—indeed, our preferences were—very different from many of the people that we serve. We created policy based on our preferences, then justified it using data. And then we portrayed those opposing our efforts as misguided, ignorant, selfish, and evil.We made science a team sport, and in so doing, we made it no longer science. It became us versus them, and “they” responded the only way anyone might expect them to: by resisting.We excluded important parts of the population from policy development and castigated critics, which meant that we deployed a monolithic response across an exceptionally diverse nation, forged a society more fractured than ever, and exacerbated longstanding heath and economic disparities.A students adjusts her facemask at St. Joseph Catholic School in La Puente, California on November 16, 2020, where pre-kindergarten to Second Grade students in need of special services returned to the classroom today for in-person instruction. – The campus is the second Catholic school in Los Angeles County to receive a waiver approval to reopen as the coronavirus pandemic rages on. The US surpassed 11 million coronavirus cases Sunday, adding one million new cases in less than a week, according to a tally by Johns Hopkins University.FREDERIC J. BROWN / AFPOur emotional response and ingrained partisanship prevented us from seeing the full impact of our actions on the people we are supposed to serve. We systematically minimized the downsides of the interventions we imposed—imposed without the input, consent, and recognition of those forced to live with them. In so doing, we violated the autonomy of those who would be most negatively impacted by our policies: the poor, the working class, small business owners, Blacks and Latinos, and children. These populations were overlooked because they were made invisible to us by their systematic exclusion from the dominant, corporatized media machine that presumed omniscience.Most of us did not speak up in support of alternative views, and many of us tried to suppress them. When strong scientific voices like world-renowned Stanford professors John Ioannidis, Jay Bhattacharya, and Scott Atlas, or University of California San Francisco professors Vinay Prasad and Monica Gandhi, sounded the alarm on behalf of vulnerable communities, they faced severe censure by relentless mobs of critics and detractors in the scientific community—often not on the basis of fact but solely on the basis of differences in scientific opinion.When former President Trump pointed out the downsides of intervention, he was dismissed publicly as a buffoon. And when Dr. Antony Fauci opposed Trump and became the hero of the public health community, we gave him our support to do and say what he wanted, even when he was wrong.Trump was not remotely perfect, nor were the academic critics of consensus policy. But the scorn that we laid on them was a disaster for public trust in the pandemic response. Our approach alienated large segments of the population from what should have been a national, collaborative project.And we paid the price. The rage of the those marginalized by the expert class exploded onto and dominated social media. Lacking the scientific lexicon to express their disagreement, many dissidents turned to conspiracy theories and a cottage industry of scientific contortionists to make their case against the expert class consensus that dominated the pandemic mainstream. Labeling this speech “misinformation” and blaming it on “scientific illiteracy” and “ignorance,” the government conspired with Big Tech to aggressively suppress it, erasing the valid political concerns of the government’s opponents.And this despite the fact that pandemic policy was created by a razor-thin sliver of American society who anointed themselves to preside over the working class—members of academia, government, medicine, journalism, tech, and public health, who are highly educated and privileged. From the comfort of their privilege, this elite prizes paternalism, as opposed to average Americans who laud self-reliance and whose daily lives routinely demand that they reckon with risk. That many of our leaders neglected to consider the lived experience of those across the class divide is unconscionable.Incomprehensible to us due to this class divide, we severely judged lockdown critics as lazy, backwards, even evil. We dismissed as “grifters” those who represented their interests. We believed “misinformation” energized the ignorant, and we refused to accept that such people simply had a different, valid point of view.We crafted policy for the people without consulting them. If our public health officials had led with less hubris, the course of the pandemic in the United States might have had a very different outcome, with far fewer lost lives.Instead, we have witnessed a massive and ongoing loss of life in America due to distrust of vaccines and the healthcare system; a massive concentration in wealth by already wealthy elites; a rise in suicides and gun violence especially among the poor; a near-doubling of the rate of depression and anxiety disorders especially among the young; a catastrophic loss of educational attainment among already disadvantaged children; and among those most vulnerable, a massive loss of trust in healthcare, science, scientific authorities, and political leaders more broadly.My motivation for writing this is simple: It’s clear to me that for public trust to be restored in science, scientists should publicly discuss what went right and what went wrong during the pandemic, and where we could have done better.It’s OK to be wrong and admit where one was wrong and what one learned. That’s a central part of the way science works. Yet I fear that many are too entrenched in groupthink—and too afraid to publicly take responsibility—to do this.Solving these problems in the long term requires a greater commitment to pluralism and tolerance in our institutions, including the inclusion of critical if unpopular voices.Intellectual elitism, credentialism, and classism must end. Restoring trust in public health—and our democracy—depends on it.The problem was not people’s ignorance of the facts, it was the organized antagonism and censorship against anyone presenting data that was contradictory to the mandate agenda. This is setting aside proclamations like those from the LA Times, which argued that mocking the deaths of “anti-vaxxers” might be necessary and justified. After two years of this type of arrogant nonsense it’s hard to imagine people will be willing to pretend as if all is well.The active effort to shut down any opposing data is the root crime, though, and no, it can never be forgotten or forgiven.People are still livid…One cannot help but notice that the timing of the Atlantic’s appeal for passive forgetfulness and now this op-ed mea culpa coincides with the swiftly approaching end of the COVID emergency declarations, amid a growing political backlash to the last two years of meaningless lockdowns and mandates, and Democrats were instrumental in the implementation of both. A large swath of the population sees one party as the cause of much of their covid era strife. Perhaps the mainstream media is suddenly realizing that they may have to face some payback for their covid zealotry? “We didn’t know! We were just following orders!” It all sounds rather familiar. […]
Authored by David Hill & Jeffrey Kupfer via RealClear Wire,When Republicans in Washington talk about energy policy, one word often comes up: Solyndra. Before the recent elections, headlines blared about this defaulted government loan guarantee – “Republicans look for the next Solyndra.” With Republicans now controlling the U.S. House of Representatives, should they actually “look for the next Solyndra”? What are the real lessons from it for both Congressional Republicans and the Biden Administration? We believe there are lessons, and here’s what they are: (1) rigorous underwriting and continual oversight are necessary for government financial support programs – and that’s particularly important now, with billions of dollars in spending newly authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act; (2) loan guarantee decisions must be made solely on technological and financial merit – not politics; (3) defaults may happen with the DOE loan guarantee program – its whole purpose is to take risk. But that never excuses imprudent or politically-motivated risk-taking.We served as senior officials at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in the George W. Bush Administration, including after Congress authorized the DOE loan guarantee program for innovative energy projects in 2005. We helped write the program’s regulations and stand up the loan programs office (LPO). We were there when DOE started considering Solyndra’s loan guarantee application – though not when DOE approved and issued the guarantee in 2009.Solyndra, a California solar panel manufacturing company, had requested a loan guarantee for more than $500 million. Near the end of the Bush Administration, the DOE credit committee, which we had created and which consisted entirely of career officials empowered to do a thorough, nonpartisan review of projects, concluded the Solyndra application was, in essence, not ready for prime time. Despite the pressure DOE was under to issue a loan guarantee, our boss, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman never even considered overruling that committee. As a result, the Bush Administration did not issue a loan guarantee to Solyndra – or anyone else. In 2009 however, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act armed the loan guarantee program with millions in taxpayer dollars and the new Administration wanted to show it could do what the former one hadn’t. Late that year DOE issued Solyndra a $530 million loan guarantee. President Barack Obama even visited the company to tout the program.It took Solyndra only 24 months to burn through the DOE money and declare bankruptcy. The federal government took a massive financial loss. Critics argue Solyndra demonstrates all the worst things about government action and federal financial support. They point out the huge financial cost to taxpayers. They cite the political pressure from the highest levels of government. They point to DOE’s legally questionable and ultimately unsuccessful actions to save the project from default and the Obama Administration from embarrassment. The program’s defenders say sometimes things just go wrong and projects default – it happens in the private sector too. They say the loan guarantee program was created to take risks; and even so, it regularly turns a profit and has a good overall loss experience. They argue Solyndra officials weren’t truthful and that the current LPO office is better staffed and more diligent. So who’s right?The DOE loan guarantee program was created to advance innovative technologies, enable new types of energy projects, and improve environmental performance. It was to do that for projects the private financial sector might not be willing or able to support.With such a program, it is inevitable some projects won’t perform as well as expected. Technology also may develop in unpredictable ways, and economic, market or political trends may unexpectedly change. Defaults may happen, even with a perfectly run program.That said, the purpose of the DOE program is NOT to take risks only a sucker would take. Political motivations or insufficient diligence can lead to imprudent risk-taking. To avoid that, rigorous and transparent underwriting and oversight are important – particularly right now. A loan guarantee default that costs taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars is never a good thing and can never just be waived off. DOE must ensure that if defaults happen, they are not because the underwriting process was short-circuited, program standards were compromised to score political points, special interests were favored, or DOE had focused on financing marquis “signature” projects to score political points. The country is undergoing an energy transition; accelerating new types of clean energy projects is an important part of that effort. With unprecedented resources and a broad mandate, the DOE loan guarantee program can play a critical role. However, that will only happen if DOE applies careful scrutiny, proceeds with transparency and without political favoritism, and ensures only high quality projects receive guarantees. And both DOE and Congress must conduct vigorous oversight. Failure to do all of these things jeopardizes the loan guarantee program and the clean energy transition itself.David Hill is a former general counsel of the Department of Energy and an adjunct senior research scholar at the Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy; Jeffrey Kupfer is a former acting Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy, an adjunct professor at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz School and the president of ConservAmerica.Loading… […]
When it comes to labor market data (or rather “data”), Biden’s labor department is a study in contrasts (and pats on shoulders). One day we get a contraction in PMI employment (both manufacturing and services), the other we get a major beat in employment. Then, one day the Household survey shows a plunge in employment (in fact, there has almost been no employment gain in the past 9 months) and a record in multiple jobholders and part-time workers, and the same day the Establishment Survey signals a spike in payrolls (mostly among waiters and bartenders). Or the day the JOLTS report shows an unexpected jump in job openings even as actual hiring slides to a two year low. Or the straw the breaks the latest trend in the labor market’s back, is when the jobs report finally cracks and shows the fewest jobs added in over a year, and yet initial jobless claims tumble and reverse all recent increases despite daily news of mass layoffs across all tech companies, as the relentless barrage of conflicting data out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (which is the principal “fact-finding” agency for the Biden Administration and a core pillar of the Dept of Labor) just won’t stop, almost as if to make a very political point.But while one can certainly appreciate Biden’s desire to paint the glass of US jobs as always half full, reality is starting to make a mockery of the president’s gaslighting ambitions, as one by one core pillars of the administration’s “strong jobs” fabulation collapse. First it was the Philadelphia Fed shockingly stating that contrary to the BLS “goalseeking” of 1.1 million jobs in Q2 2022, the US actually only added a paltry 10,000 jobs (just as the Fed unleashed an unprecedented spree of 75bps rate hikes).Then, it was Goldman’s turn to make a mockery of the “curiously” low initial jobless claims, by comparing them to directly reported state-level WARN notices (mandatory under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act) which no low-level bureaucrat and Biden lackey can “seasonally adjust” because there they are: cold, hard, fact, immutable and truly representative of the underlying economic truth, and what they show is that – as the Goldman chart below confirms – layoffs are rising far faster than what the DOL’s Initial Claims indicates.More importantly, Goldman also found that WARN notices also track the JOLTS layoff rate: WARN notice counts remained elevated in late 2020 even as the layoff rate declined, but this likely reflects unusual reporting delays during the pandemic and the exclusion of layoffs at closing establishments in the JOLTS survey, which WARN notices capture provided firms remain in business. Not surprisingly, Goldman’s tracking estimate based on December and January WARN notices for the large states covered not only shows that the recent drop in initial claims is unlikely, but that it is also consistent with a layoff rate of around 1.1%, higher than the 0.9% in the November JOLTS report. And now, another core pillar of the US labor market is being dismantled, and it has to do with the Fed’s favorite labor market indicator: the JOLTS report of job openings.As UBS economist Pablo Villaneuva writes in a recent report by the bank’s Evidence Lab group, Job openings in the JOLTS survey have not declined much since the March peak. Indeed, the BLS reports that openings were only 12% below the March 2022 peak in November and remain 48% above the pre-pandemic, 2019 average. This slight move downward has, as we noted recently, led to only a small decline in the vacancies-to-unemployment ratio, from 1.99 in March to 1.74 in November, still well above the 2019 average of 1.19.Of course, such a high level of job openings is alarming to the Fed for the simple reason that it means Powell has failed at his mission at cooling off what appears to be a red hot jobs market; no wonder the Fed Chair has frequently flagged the high level of job openings as a sign of ongoing strength in the labor market. The bottom line, as UBS notes, is that “the BLS measure, although it has declined, remains historically high.”However, as in the abovementioned case of unexpectedly low jobless claims, there may be more here than meets the eye. According to Villanueva, “a range of other measures of job openings suggest normalization in the labor market—softening much more convincingly, often to pre-pandemic levels” – translation: whether on purpose or accidentally, the BLS is fabricating data. Also, the UBS economist flags, job openings are not a great indicator of current labor market conditions—they lagged the last two downturns in the labor market.So what’s the real story?Well, as usual there is BLS “data” and everyone else… and as UBS cautions, other measures of openings tell a very different story: “Our UBS Evidence Lab data on job listings is weekly and more timely than the BLS series. The last datapoint is for the week of December 31. It shows openings down 30% from the March 2022 peak and only 25% higher than the 2019 average.”While BLS bureaucrats and Biden sycophants can argue UBS data is inaccurate, other longer dated series also indicate weaker openings. Take for example the NFIB Small Business Survey includes labor market measures that have correlated strongly with the JOLTS data over time but have weakened more sharply than the JOLTS measure in recent months. The percentage of small firms unable to fill open positions has a correlation of 0.95 with JOLTS openings since 2000. This series has declined 20% relative to the peak in May 2022 and is only 13% above the 2019 average. The NFIB series on percentage of firms with few or no qualified applicants tells a similar story.Finally, the “Opportunity Insights” measure of openings (see here) is also below pre-pandemic levels.So what’s going on here?As the UBS economist puts it, “in short, other surveys of job openings generally suggest that the BLS measure may be overstating labor market tightness. One reason to think the accuracy of the JOLTS data may have declined is that the sample shrank noticeably at the start of the pandemic. In 2019, the survey response rate was 60%. In December, it was 30%.”Or perhaps it’s not gross BLS incompetence (or propaganda): maybe it’s just a data quirk at key economic inflection points. As UBS observed in August, job openings tend to lag other labor market indicators. Ahead of the 2001 recession, the private sector job openings rate was still rising as private employment peaked and started printing negative. Again in 2007, as job openings were peaking, payroll employment in the revised data had slowed considerably, and job openings remained near their peak as employment was beginning to contract outright.Whatever the reason for the discrepancy in this latest labor series, the bigger picture is getting troubling.We already knew that the employment as measured by the Household survey has been flat since March even as the Establishment survey signaled 2.7 million job gains since then. Shortly thereafter the Philadelphia Fed found that contrary to the BLS “goalseeking” of 1.1 million jobs in Q2 2022, the US actually only added a paltry 10,000 jobs in the second quarter of 2022. As such, the validity and credibility of the US nonfarm payrolls report is suspect at best.A few weeks ago, Goldman also put the credibility of DOL’s weekly jobless claims report under question, when it found that initial claims as measured at the state level without seasonal adjustments or other “fudge factors” were running far higher than what the DOL reports every week.And now, we can also stick a fork in the JOLTS report, whose accuracy has just been steamrolled by UBS with its finding that job openings – a critical component of the US labor market and the Fed’s preferred labor market indiator – are far lower than what the Dept of Labor suggests.Bottom line: while it is obvious why the Biden admin would try hard to put as much lipstick as it can on US jobs data, the same data when measured with alternative measures shows a far uglier picture, one of a US labor market on the verge of cracking and hardly one meriting consistent rate hikes by the Fed.Which, considering that in less than 24 hours the Fed will hike rates by another 25 bps, is extremely important, and we wish that we weren’t the only media outlet to lay out the facts as the negative impact of continued policy error and tightening by the Fed will impact tens of millions Americans, not to mention the continued errors – whether premeditated or accidental – by the US Department of Labor. Alas, as so often happens, since nobody else in the “independent US press” is willing to touch the story of manipulated jobs data with a ten foot pole, it is again up to us to explain what is really going on.The full UBS report available to pro subs.Loading… […]
The “blame everyone but the criminals” strategy being employed in most major U.S. cities – and contributing to the increase in crime while emboldening future criminals – doesn’t show signs of stopping anytime soon. Case in point? The auto thefts in Seattle have gotten so bad that city attorneys in the liberal-run utopia are hilariously suing the manufacturers of Hyundai and Kia for failing to install anti-theft technology on their vehicles.Talk about missing the point.As Axios pointed out, auto thefts across the country have been on a surge over the last few years. In Seattle, Hyundai and Kia thefts were 620% higher than other auto brands. Perhaps this is what has motivated Seattle City Attorney Ann Davison to sue the manufacturers. Most thefts have taken place in Northgate, Capitol Hill, Central District and Beacon Hill, the report says. “The city is seeking unspecified damages and asking the car manufacturers to fix the problem,” Axios wrote. The suit claims that “Hyundai and Kia failed to use immobilizer technology that ensured car ignitions could not be started without their keys long after other carmakers had adopted the same technology”. This made the two brands of vehicles “easier to steal”, the report says.It also blames YouTube videos that “showed how to steal car models simply by removing a plastic piece under the steering wheel and using a USB cord and turning it like a key”. This, of course, takes the focus away from the rise in criminals attempting to get into property that isn’t theirs to begin with. Perhaps someone should inform that the first thing someone needs to do to steal a car, is break and enter into property that isn’t theirs. Maybe that’ll help realign expectations before this suit is hastily thrown out of court. Hyundai rightfully dismissed the lawsuit as “improper and unnecessary”, telling Axios that “Hyundai Motor America has made engine immobilizers standard on all vehicles produced as of November 2021.” They also said that “Owners of past models can also bring their vehicles to a local Hyundai dealer for the purchase and installation of a customized security kit…”And, of course, this is why we expect the exodus from cities like Seattle, and those of its ilk, to continue. Loading… […]
Oklahoma State Superintendent Ryan Walters recently demanded to know “every dollar” spent on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) at state universities.
In a letter obtained by Tulsa World, Walters gave a February 1 deadline to the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, the body that oversees 25 colleges and universities in the state system.
Walters requested DEI spending from the past 10 years and any DEI-related program materials. “Additionally, I want an overview of your staffing and the colleges underneath your oversight as the Chancellor of Oklahoma Higher Regents within every DEI program or and [sic] expenditures,” he wrote.
Angela Caddell, the State Regents Associate Vice Chancellor for Communications, spoke to Campus Reform about responding to the letter by the February 1 deadline. “We are working with our state system colleges and universities to compile the information requested,” Caddell said.
Walters told KOCO News 5 that his request will help investigate the extent to which colleges and universities provide indoctrination, not education and workforce development.
Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt appointed Walters as Secretary of Public Education in 2020, and Oklahomans elected him as State Superintendent during the 2022 midterms, according to Tulsa World.
His request comes shortly after Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis sent a memo to the state’s public colleges and universities asking for DEI and critical race theory (CRT) spending, as Campus Reform reported. A document published by the Independent Florida Alligator, the student newspaper for the University of Florida (UF), revealed that the State University System of Florida (SUSF) spent $28 million on DEI and CRT in just one year. Only your patronage to our store is what keeps this beacon of truth lit in the controlled-narrative darkness.
$15 million of DEI/CRT spending came from taxpayer funds.
At Oklahoma’s public universities, DEI programming the past year included a drag queen story hour hosted for children as young as two at Oklahoma State University (OSU). The OSU Office of Multicultural Affairs, which “offers workshops focused on diversity, inclusion, equity, [and] social justice,” co-hosted the event with the OSU Museum of Art.
Campus Reform reported other Pride Month events at OSU: “Condom Bingo, a pride parade, the Dragonfly Drag Show,” a discussion on gender-neutral restrooms, and a Lavender Graduation, an LGBTQ-specific commencement.
In order to build back better they must destroy the old system. […]
Pfizer Inc shares slid as much as 3.5% in premarket trading (before bouncing back) after the company forecasted COVID-19 vaccine sales for 2023 would miss the average Wall Street estimate by more than $2.5 billion.
The New York-based drug company expects Covid vaccine sales this year to be around $13.5 billion, below analysts’ $16 billion forecast. Sales for its Covid pill Paxlovid were forecasted at about $8 billion, below the $9.2 billion expected by analysts.
Pfizer expects revenue for Covid-19 vaccines and pills to slide this year because of large government stockpiles but might see an increase in sales in 2024.
Revenue might fall even more this year as Americans appear to be pushing back on getting booster after booster.
Additionally, President Biden is expected to declare an end to the Covid national and public health emergencies on May 11.
Pfizer projects revenue this year to be between $67 billion and $71 billion after skyrocketing 23% to $100 billion in 2022.
For the fourth quarter, revenue was up by 2% to $24.29 billion, supported by the growth in the primary care business as Covid vaccine demand slumped. Take part in the ultimate win-win deals on the web by checking out our store now!
Pfizer shares dropped as much as 3.5% in premarket trading. Shares are down 12.5% since topping around $54.70 in December.
But, as things tend to do, Pfizer shares were panic-bid back into the green as the cash market opened…
Analysts have been concerned about Covid vaccine demand woes this year, leading Wells Fargo’s Mohit Bansal to downgrade the company from a buy in mid-January to equal weight. Bansal was concerned about near-term earnings risk due to falling demand for Covid products.
UBS analyst Colin Bristow cut Pfizer to neutral from buy, reiterating Bansal’s point about slumping demand for Covid products and a product pipeline that’s “not quite ready for prime time.”
There are currently nine buys and 15 holds, though no sells on Pfizer by analysts. Their average 12-month target is around $53.44.
What’s clear in this quarterly report is that Americans are pushing back against taking their gene therapy drug that government officials, big pharma, mainstream media, celebrities, and anyone else pushed so hard over the last few years.
In order to build back better they must destroy the old system. […]
The Japanese government has lashed out at Beijing, condemning an incident wherein a flotilla of Chinese government vessels breached Japan-claimed waters around the around the disputed Senkaku islands in the East China Sea.
Tokyo has lodged a formal diplomatic complaint after a Japanese-registered private vessel operating within Japanese-controlled waters was approached by four Chinese Coast Guard ships in the early morning hours of Monday. Tokyo says its coast guard patrols forced the Chinese ships to depart the area.
The encounter was tense, based on the description given to US military news outlet Stars & Stripes, which recounted that “The first Chinese ship approached Minamikojima from the southeast and entered the 12-mile limit at 2:47 a.m., according to the coast guard spokesman. He said the vessel appeared to be armed with a deck-mounted machine-gun.”
Three more Chinese ships followed the first armed patrol, after which “A contingent of Japan Coast Guard vessels positioned themselves between the Chinese and Japanese ships and warned the Chinese vessels to leave the area,” according to Japanese officials. “The first Chinese vessel departed the waters south of Uotsurijima at 12:35 p.m.”
As for the Chinese side, which doesn’t recognize Japanese sovereignty over the islands or the surrounding waters, its Marine Police spokesperson Gan Yu said it responded to multiple Japanese ships “illegally” entering the waters of the the Diaoyu islands (China’s recognized name for the Senkakus).
“We urge the Japanese side to immediately stop all illegal activities in these waters and ensure that similar incidents will not happen again,” Gan said.
The Chinse incursion near the islands was the second this year, after a Jan.10 incident. The longtime dispute has helped to worse Japan-China relations, also at a moment Tokyo’s deepened military cooperation with Washington has angered Beijing.Visit our store now before the sale ends!
Starting last year the US began pledging military support to Japan in the event of a Chinese attack on the Senkakus. The Biden White House position, recently reaffirmed to Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, is that the islands fall under Article V of the Japan-US Security Treaty, which is the basis for mutual defense.
In order to build back better they must destroy the old system. […]
Americans believe the top problem facing the US is its government, a Gallup poll published on Monday revealed. Over a fifth (21%) of poll respondents named poor leadership as the most serious issue, outstripping even inflation, which fell to second place with just 15% of votes.
In a rare show of bipartisan unity, 24% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, along with 18% of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents agreed that government incompetence topped the list.
Inflation was number two on the mind of both parties — 18% of Republicans listed it as the top issue, compared to 11% of Democrats. Another 18% of Republicans were more focused on immigration, an issue which fell to a distant 6th place among Democrats.
Economic confidence remains at rock bottom, with just 2% of respondents describing conditions as “excellent” and 15% believing they are “good.” Nearly half (45%) think conditions are “poor,” while 38% rate them “fair.” The vast majority — 72% — see things getting even worse, though an optimistic 22% see the US’ economic fortunes improving.
Despite their generally dismal economic outlook, 64% of poll respondents said it was “a good time to find a quality job in the US.” The pollster’s Economic Confidence Index, computed based on respondents’ view of the economy now and predicted trends, remains underwater at -39, though it has improved slightly since peak inflation last summer.
Approval ratings for President Joe Biden and Congress remained constant at 41% and 21%, respectively. Polling was conducted during the first three weeks of this month, during which Americans witnessed House Republicans’ repeated failure to elect a Speaker and watched Biden’s spokespeople struggle to explain the growing pile of classified documents discovered in his various properties.
In a Gallup poll conducted earlier this month, nearly four out of five respondents predicted “economic difficulty,” while nine in ten said they expected more “political conflict.” Other popular predictions included price increases, a decline in American power, and a jump in crime rates.1776 around the world starts when you visit our store!
In order to build back better they must destroy the old system. […]
Newly empowered House Republicans are kicking off their long-planned investigations into a wide variety of issues, beginning with hearings on the US-Mexico border crisis, the origins of Covid-19, and pandemic relief programs.
The House Judiciary Committee’s first meeting of the new Congress, led by Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), will be “The Biden Border Crisis: Part I.”
Then, the House Energy and Commerce investigations subcommittee will hold a hearing titled: “Challenges and Opportunities to Investigating the Origins of Pandemics and Other Biological Events,” as part of its probe into the origins of Covid-19.
Meanwhile, the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, led by James Comer (R-KY) will kick off a hearing on waste, fraud and abuse related to federal pandemic spending, The Hill reports.
“I don’t think history will be kind to the PPP loan program,” said Comer during a Monday appearance at a National Press Club event, referring to the program that provided businesses with forgivable loans. “I think it’ll be eventually viewed in the same manner that the big bank bailouts were when people find out where a lot of that money was going.”
Republicans had been plotting extensive investigations into the Biden administration for more than a year before the midterm elections. Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), in preparation for taking the House majority, organized GOP members into “task forces” to come up with oversight and legislative priorities. Republican members of committees started investigations last year when they were in the minority.
Republicans now have control over committee hearing topics, a better chance of getting answers from administration officials, and are armed with subpoena power to compel testimony and documents — though no committee has used it yet.
Next week, the Oversight panel is set to hold a hearing on the U.S.-Mexico border and a hearing with former Twitter employees about the platform’s suppression of the New York Post’s story on the Hunter Biden hard drive in 2020. -The Hill
Speaking of the Bidens, the Oversight panel is also conducting an ‘extensive probe’ into the business dealings of President Biden’s family which will focus on Hunter Biden.Let Big Tech and the corporate media know they are powerless in stopping the spread of truth by visiting our store now!
Republicans on the House Oversight, Judiciary and Intelligence committees have also sought information related to President Biden’s mishandling of classified information, while the House Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees are going to be investigating the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan.
And in what will hopefully take the spotlight – House Republicans have formed the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government under the House Judiciary Committee, in response to those who wanted a “Church-style” committee to investigate how the DOJ and intelligence agencies were used in a character-assassination plot against former President Trump and others. […]
Lee Ann McAdoo joins Owen Shroyer live in studio to discuss how the U.S. government is engaged in mind control operations using media, sports, and politics.Unlike legacy media outlets, Infowars relies on YOUR SUPPORT to remain on air.
In order to keep us afloat, visit the Infowars Store to purchase great products such as dietary supplements, books, t-shirts, survival gear and much more. […]