Brownstone Institute
Splitting The Difference: Is Partition The Endgame In Canada, U.S.?
[Sign up today for Not The Public Broadcaster newsletters. Hot takes and cool slants on sports and current affairs. Have the latest columns delivered to your mail box. Tell your friends to join, too. Always provocative, always independent. https://share.hsforms.com/16edbhhC3TTKg6jAaRyP7rActsj5 ]
The bumper sticker in Utah is brutally succinct. It shows the donkey image of the Democratic Party with the words, “If you’re going to vote like an ass go back to California.”
You can probably find a similar sentiment, if not bumper sticker, in places like PEI, rural Ontario, Florida, North Carolina, Montana or Texas. The urban elites are fleeing to them from the choked swamp of liberal big cities. They’re looking for lower taxes, lower real estate prices and lower crime rates. But they want to bring their Woke politics with them.
If there’s been one accomplishment of the Biden presidency it has been closing the Woke information loop. Nothing gets into the Progressive Castle to disturb the inhabitants. They listen, but they don’t hear. And their new neighbours want none of it. They don’t want people infected with imported Woke politics infecting their systems.
The latest flash-point example in both nations was the recent SCOTUS decision repealing the sacred liberal signpost of Roe v. Wade. In effect, the justices made no decision on abortion restrictions. They instead stated it was not a matter for the federal government to decide. It should be decided by voters, not judged, in the 50 U.S. states individually.
The Left in both countries predictably went ballistic, claiming SCOTUS overreach. Without reading the decision they insisted that women were again relegated to backrooms and coat hangars. Celebrities and Democrats placeholders made their usual noises to the Media Party about scrapping the Supreme Court or the Constitution if they can’t keep unlimited abortion. Justin Trudeau promised abortion mills for American women seeking to end pregnancies.
What they conveniently hide is that polls in the U.S. show that 37 percent would ban abortion entirely with only rape and incest exceptions, 49 percent support an abortion ban after 6 weeks and 72 percent support abortion ban after 15 weeks. In short the media/ Hollywood consensus— where people like Whoopi Goldberg boast of having seven abortions— represent just 28 percent of those polled. Not that these numbers will ever make it to MSNBC or CBC.
Along with guns, climate change, energy policy, information privacy and higher taxes, the Roe v. Wade fight illustrates the schism that has grown in postmodern society. Where finding compromise and accepting free speech were the bedrock of democratic societies in the U.S. and Canada, today finds warring camps unable and unwilling to agree on any major policy initiatives besides printing more money.
The Supreme Court and the political process are now used to punish opponents. The result? “America is more divided culturally and politically than at any time since the 1850’s. Real and authentic dialogue does not occur, and violence and the threat of violence increase daily. We are on a precarious path with potentially dangerous outcomes.”
Canada is undergoing a similar catharsis, driven by the ideological Justin Trudeau whose fealty to The Great Reset outstrips his interest in gas prices or runaway inflation at home. His attack on privacy and rights— aided by a compliant media— is epitomized by the current persecution of Tamara Lich, the Freedom Convoy coordinator. As a result, weary Canadians are dispersing across the nation to find cities or provinces agreeable to their politics.
The question is, have we reached a point at which citizens, disaffected by their states and provinces, begin moving en masse to entities that suit their politics? Already California is haemorhaging people and companies, with 119,000 citizens leaving the Golden State’s tax rolls in 2021 for places like Utah, Idaho, Texas or Tennessee. The state’s population has now shrunk to 2016 levels, despite the huge flow of illegal migrants into its midst.
In Canada, Toronto’s outward exodus is shielded by the huge influx of immigrants to the GTA. But the real-estate price spikes in smaller communities across the country speaks to the massive outflow of money and talent from the gridlocked city and its unrepentant Boomer values.
With no appetite for compromise from the current governments and their massive bureaucracies could we see something like the exit of the United Empire Loyalists after the American Revolutionary War in the 1780s? Those loyal to the Crown emigrated to pre-Confederation Canada to continue to enjoy the protection of the King. Those supporting the new and untested United States gravitated to the fledgling nation.
In that spirit will we see liberals and progressives who believe in unlimited abortion, gender fluidity, gun seizures, high taxes and draconian climate policies hive in “blue” states while those with contrary opinions gravitate to “red” states such as Texas, Florida, Tennessee or Utah? The re-election of Donald Trump in 2024 would further exacerbate the tensions— and threats— about schism.
In Canada, where provinces have fewer powers than U.S. states in deciding their own policies, could we see a similar schism as the West tries to chart a course different from that of Ontario, Quebec and B.C.’s lower mainland? And if those rejecting the progressive emerging Washington to Ottawa are forcibly made to kneel, surrender guns and acquiesce to state control in their everyday lives could we see violence?
Is it possible that, instead of a relatively peaceful departure of the Loyalists post Revolutionary War, we instead get the partition nightmare experienced by India in 1947. With the British Crown withdrawing from the sub-continent leaving a Hindu India and a new Muslim Pakistan, millions migrated to tribal protections. In the process millions were slaughtered in sectarian fighting.
Today, both possessing atomic weapons, the nations glare menacingly at each other, punctuated by border skirmishes. They remain more isolated than before from the former countryman under the Raj. Driven by idealogues, North America is perched precariously on such a philosophical partition. One that could easily become a physical partition. The Great Compromise of 2022 is waiting by the door, waiting to make its entrance. It will not be a grand entrance.
Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster (http://www.notthepublicbroadcaster.com). The best-selling author was nominated for the BBN Business Book award of 2020 for Personal Account with Tony Comper. A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster, he’s also a regular contributor to Sirius XM Canada Talks Ch. 167. His new book with his son Evan Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History is now available on http://brucedowbigginbooks.ca/book-personalaccount.aspx
Brownstone Institute
The Deplorable Ethics of a Preemptive Pardon for Fauci
From the Brownstone Institute
Anthony “I represent science” Fauci can now stand beside Richard “I am not a crook” Nixon in the history books as someone who received the poison pill of a preemptive pardon.
While Nixon was pardoned for specific charges related to Watergate, the exact crimes for which Fauci was pardoned are not specified. Rather, the pardon specifies:
Baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety, and financial security of targeted individuals and their families. Even when individuals have done nothing wrong – and in fact have done the right things – and will ultimately be exonerated, the mere fact of being investigated and prosecuted can irreparably damage reputations and finances.
In other words, the dying breath of the Biden administration appears to be pardoning Fauci for crimes he didn’t commit, which would seem to make a pardon null and void. The pardon goes further than simply granting clemency for crimes. Clemency usually alleviates the punishment associated with a crime, but here Biden attempts to alleviate the burden of investigations and prosecutions, the likes of which our justice system uses to uncover crimes.
It’s one thing to pardon someone who has been subjected to a fair trial and convicted, to say they have already paid their dues. Gerald Ford, in his pardon of Richard Nixon, admitted that Nixon had already paid the high cost of resigning from the highest office in the land. Nixon’s resignation came as the final chapter of prolonged investigations into his illegal and unpresidential conduct during Watergate, and those investigations provided us the truth we needed to know that Nixon was a crook and move on content that his ignominious reputation was carve d into stone for all of history.
Fauci, meanwhile, has evaded investigations on matters far more serious than Watergate. In 2017, DARPA organized a grant call – the PREEMPT call – aiming to preempt pathogen spillover from wildlife to people. In 2018 a newly formed collaborative group of scientists from the US, Singapore, and Wuhan wrote a grant – the DEFUSE grant – proposing to modify a bat sarbecovirus in Wuhan in a very unusual way. DARPA did not fund the team because their work was too risky for the Department of Defense, but in 2019 Fauci’s NIAID funded this exact set of scientists who never wrote a paper together prior or since. In late 2019, SARS-CoV-2 emerged in Wuhan with the precise modifications proposed in the DEFUSE grant submitted to PREEMPT.
It’s reasonable to be concerned that this line of research funded by Fauci’s NIAID may have caused the pandemic. In fact, if we’re sharp-penciled and honest with our probabilities, it’s likely beyond reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 emerged as a consequence of research proposed in DEFUSE. What we don’t know, however, is whether the research proceeded with US involvement or not.
Congress used its constitutionally-granted investigation and oversight responsibilities to investigate and oversee NIAID in search of answers. In the process of these investigations, they found endless pages of emails with unjustified redactions, evidence that Fauci’s FOIA lady could “make emails disappear,” Fauci’s right-hand-man David Morens aided the DEFUSE authors as they navigated disciplinary measures at NIH and NIAID, and there were significant concerns that NIAID sought to obstruct investigations and destroy federal records.
Such obstructive actions did not inspire confidence in the innocence of Anthony Fauci or the US scientists he funded in 2019. On the contrary, Fauci testified twice under oath saying NIAID did not fund gain-of-function research of concern in Wuhan…but then we discovered a 2018 progress report of research NIAID funded in Wuhan revealing research they funded had enhanced the transmissibility of a bat SARS-related coronavirus 10,000 times higher than the wild virus. That is, indisputably, gain-of-function research of concern. Fauci thus lied to the American public and perjured himself in his testimony to Congress, and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has referred Fauci’s perjury charges to the Department of Justice.
What was NIAID trying to preempt with their obstruction of Congressional investigations? What is Biden trying to preempt with his pardon of Fauci? Why do we not have the 2019 NIAID progress report from the PI’s who submitted DEFUSE to PREEMPT and later received funding from NIAID?
It is deplorable for Biden to preemptively pardon Fauci on his last day in office, with so little known about the research NIAID funded in 2019 and voters so clearly eager to learn more. With Nixon’s preemptive pardon, the truth of his wrongdoing was known and all that was left was punishment. With Fauci’s preemptive pardon, the truth is not yet known, NIAID officials in Fauci’s orbit violated federal records laws in their effort to avoid the truth from being known, and Biden didn’t preemptively pardon Fauci to grant clemency and alleviate punishment, but to stop investigations and prosecutions the likes of which could uncover the truth.
I’m not a Constitutional scholar prepared to argue the legality of this maneuver, but I am an ethical human being, a scientist who contributed another grant to the PREEMPT call, and a scientist who helped uncover some of the evidence consistent with a lab origin and quantify the likelihood of a lab origin from research proposed in the DEFUSE grant. Any ethical human being knows that we need to know what caused the pandemic, and to deprive the citizenry of such information from open investigations of NIAID research in 2019 would be to deprive us of critical information we need to self-govern and elect people who manage scientific risks in ways we see fit. As a scientist, there are critical questions about bioattribution that require testing, and the way to test our hypotheses is to uncover the redacted and withheld documents from Fauci’s NIAID in 2019.
The Biden administration’s dying breath was to pardon Anthony Fauci not for the convictions for crimes he didn’t commit (?) but to avoid investigations that could be a reputational and financial burden for Anthony Fauci. A pardon to preempt an investigation is not a pardon; it is obstruction. The Biden administration’s dying breath is to obstruct our pursuit of truth and reconciliation on the ultimate cause of 1 million Americans’ dying breaths.
To remind everyone what we still need to know, it helps to look through the peephole of what we’ve already found to inspire curiosity about what else we’d find if only the peephole could be widened. Below is one of the precious few emails investigative journalists pursuing FOIAs against NIAID have managed to obtain from the critical period when SARS-CoV-2 is believed to have emerged. The email connects DEFUSE PI’s Peter Daszak (EcoHealth Alliance), Ralph Baric (UNC), Linfa Wang (Duke-NUS), Ben Hu (Wuhan Institute of Virology), Shi ZhengLi (Wuhan Institute of Virology) and others in October 2019. The subject line “NIAID SARS-CoV Call – October 30/31” connects these authors to NIAID.
It is approximately in that time range – October/November 2019 – when SARS-CoV-2 is hypothesized to have entered the human population in Wuhan. When it emerged, SARS-CoV-2 was unique among sarbecoviruses in having a furin cleavage site, as proposed by these authors in their 2019 DEFUSE grant. Of all the places the furin cleavage site could be, the furin cleavage site of SARS-CoV-2 was in the S1/S2 junction of the Spike protein, precisely as proposed by these authors.
In order to insert a furin cleavage site in a SARS-CoV, however, the researchers would’ve needed to build a reverse genetic system, i.e. a DNA copy of the virus. SARS-CoV-2 is unique among coronaviruses in having exactly the fingerprint we would expect from reverse genetic systems. There is an unusual even spacing in the cutting/pasting sites for the enzymes BsaI and BsmBI and an anomalous hot-spot of silent mutations in precisely these sites, exactly as researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology have done for other coronavirus reverse genetic systems. The odds of such an extreme synthetic-looking pattern occurring in nature are, conservatively, about 1 in 50 billion.
The virus did not emerge in Bangkok, Hanoi, Bago, Kunming, Guangdong, or any of the myriad other places with similar animal trade networks and greater contact rates between people and sarbecovirus reservoirs. No. The virus emerged in Wuhan, the exact place and time one would expect from DEFUSE.
With all the evidence pointing the hounds towards NIAID, it is essential for global health security that we further investigate the research NIAID funded in 2019. It is imperative for our constitutional democracy, for our ability to self-govern, that we learn the truth. The only way to learn the truth is to investigate NIAID, the agency Fauci led for 38 years, the agency that funded gain-of-function research of concern, the agency named in the October 2019 call by DEFUSE PI’s, the agency that funded this exact group in 2019.
A preemptive pardon prior to the discovery of truth is a fancy name for obstruction of justice. The Biden administration’s dying breath must be challenged, and we must allow Congress and the incoming administration to investigate the possibility that Anthony Fauci’s NIAID-supported research caused the Covid-19 pandemic.
Republished from the author’s Substack
Brownstone Institute
It’s Time to Retire ‘Misinformation’
From the Brownstone Institute
By
This article was co-authored with Mary Beth Pfieffer.
In a seismic political shift, Republicans have laid claim to an issue that Democrats left in the gutter—the declining health of Americans. True, it took a Democrat with a famous name to ask why so many people are chronically ill, disabled, and dying younger than in 47 other countries. But the message resonated with the GOP.
We have a proposal in this unfolding milieu. Let’s have a serious, nuanced discussion. Let’s retire labels that have been weaponized against Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., nominated for Health and Human Services Secretary, and many people like him.
Start with discarding threadbare words like “conspiracy theory,” “anti-vax,” and the ever-changing “misinformation.”
These linguistic sleights of hand have been deployed—by government, media, and vested interests—to dismiss policy critics and thwart debate. If post-election developments tell us anything, it is that such scorn may no longer work for a population skeptical of government overreach.
Although RFK has been lambasted for months in the press, he just scored a 47 percent approval rating in a CBS poll.
Americans are asking: Is RFK on to something?
Perhaps, as he contends, a 1986 law that all but absolved vaccine manufacturers from liability has spawned an industry driven more by profit than protection.
Maybe Americans agree with RFK that the FDA, which gets 69 percent of its budget from pharmaceutical companies, is potentially compromised. Maybe Big Pharma, similarly, gets a free pass from the television news media that it generously supports. The US and New Zealand, incidentally, are the only nations on earth that allow “direct-to-consumer” TV ads.
Finally, just maybe there’s a straight line from this unhealthy alliance to the growing list of 80 childhood shots, inevitably approved after cursory industry studies with no placebo controls. The Hepatitis B vaccine trial, for one, monitored the effects on newborns for just five days. Babies are given three doses of this questionably necessary product—intended to prevent a disease spread through sex and drug use.
Pointing out such conflicts and flaws earns critics a label: “anti-vaxxer.”
Misinformation?
If RFK is accused of being extreme or misdirected, consider the Covid-19 axioms that Americans were told by their government.
The first: The pandemic started in animals in Wuhan, China. To think otherwise, Wikipedia states, is a “conspiracy theory,” fueled by “misplaced suspicion” and “anti-Chinese racism.”
Not so fast. In a new 520-page report, a Congressional subcommittee linked the outbreak to risky US-supported virus research at a Wuhan lab at the pandemic epicenter. After 25 hearings, the subcommittee found no evidence of “natural origin.”
Is the report a slam dunk? Maybe not. But neither is an outright dismissal of a lab leak.
The same goes for other pandemic dogma, including the utility of (ineffective) masks, (harmful) lockdowns, (arbitrary) six-foot spacing, and, most prominently, vaccines that millions were coerced to take and that harmed some.
Americans were told, wrongly, that two shots would prevent Covid and stop the spread. Natural immunity from previous infection was ignored to maximize vaccine uptake.
Yet there was scant scientific support for vaccinating babies with little risk, which few other countries did; pregnant women (whose deaths soared 40 percent after the rollout), and healthy adolescents, including some who suffered a heart injury called myocarditis. The CDC calls the condition “rare;” but a new study found 223 times more cases in 2021 than the average for all vaccines in the previous 30 years.
Truth Muzzled?
Beyond this, pandemic decrees were not open to question. Millions of social media posts were removed at the behest of the White House. The ranks grew both of well-funded fact-checkers and retractions of countervailing science.
The FDA, meantime, created a popular and false storyline that the Nobel Prize-winning early-treatment drug ivermectin was for horses, not people, and might cause coma and death. Under pressure from a federal court, the FDA removed its infamous webpage, but not before it cleared the way for unapproved vaccines, possible under the law only if no alternative was available.
An emergency situation can spawn official missteps. But they become insidious when dissent is suppressed and truth is molded to fit a narrative.
The government’s failures of transparency and oversight are why we are at this juncture today. RFK—should he overcome powerful opposition—may have the last word.
The conversation he proposes won’t mean the end of vaccines or of respect for science. It will mean accountability for what happened in Covid and reform of a dysfunctional system that made it possible.
Republished from RealClearHealth
-
Business2 days ago
Freeland and Carney owe Canadians clear answer on carbon taxes
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
The Deplorable Ethics of a Preemptive Pardon for Fauci
-
Business2 days ago
Liberals to increase CBC funding to nearly $2 billion per year
-
Business2 days ago
Carney says as PM he would replace the Carbon Tax with something ‘more effective’
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Biden Pardons His Brother Jim And Other Family Members Just Moments Before Trump’s Swearing-In
-
Business2 days ago
UK lawmaker threatens to use Online Safety Act to censor social media platforms
-
illegal immigration2 days ago
Trump to declare national emergency on border, issue executive orders
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
Trump Takes Firm Stand, Exits Paris Agreement Again