Paging Greta Thunberg

 I wrote a blog post in 2015 shortly after the horrific Islamic terrorist attacks in France that was entitled,

"No One Is Liberal When It Is Their Life".

That was when ultra liberal Francois Hollande was President of France. 

Hollahde was a committed liberal socialist.

A key platform that he ran on for the Presidency in 2012 was a promise for the early withdrawal of French combat troops from Afghanistan.

As recently as two months before the attacks he spoke out against those European countries that were attempting to limit the number of Middle Eastern migrants into their countries.

Those attacks quickly resulted in Hollande reversing course 180 degrees from his prior statements.

This is what I wrote at that time.

It has been said that "there are no atheists in foxholes". When the bullets and bombs start flying in war those in the middle of it are looking for a higher power to see them through harm's way.

It seems to me that there also exists a corollary aphorism.

There are no liberals when it is your life and security at risk.

If you don't believe it, look no further than the actions of French President Francois Hollande in the aftermath of the horrific ISIS attacks in Paris several weeks ago.

This is what Hollande said the morning after the attacks.

"We are going to lead a war which will be pitiless."

I guess that stands in contrast to the pitiful effort that President Obama has done in confronting ISIS.

Hollande also quickly ordered a state of emergency and closed France's borders. The first time that had occurred since 1944.

That is quite a change from his views in September (two months prior) isn't it?

It seems we are seeing a similar transformation in Europe in their views regarding the use of fossil fuels.

Dreams of a "green future" and having disdain for the use of fossil fuels sounds great as long as you have power to heat and cool your home, run your factories and turn on your hair dryer.

It is not so great when you find out your lives and your economies simply can't exist without them.

Europe is discovering this very quickly. 

Who ever thought that we would see this headline?

Or this?

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-25/germany-pushes-for-g-7-reversal-on-fossil-fuels-in-climate-blow#xj4y7vzkg

As winter nears we will see the full dimensions of this problem reveal itself in even starker detail in Germany and  the rest of Europe.

This is what France's top three energy companies are telling its consumers right now.

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/06/26/french-energy-giants-tell-households-ration-supplies-ahead-looming/

One more perspective on what may be coming.

Source: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-mistakes-were-made-why-germany-may-freeze-in-the-dark-this-winter/

You may recall that Germany had previously idled most of its coal-fired electric generator plants and half of its nuclear power plants as of December 31, 2021 (talk about bad timing!).

It had planned to close the rest of its nuclear power plants this year.

As I have stated before in these pages, I fully support developing newer, cleaner and more sustainable sources of energy. Count me as someone who would love to see a "green" perpetual motion machine to power everything man needs on the planet.

I have great confidence that given free markets economies and human ingenuity we will find better sources of energy to power our lives. This has been proven time and time again over the course of human history.

However, we have never voluntarily abandoned something that is accessible and affordable for something that is speculative and expensive.

Energy drives the economy. 

Ignoring that fact puts everything and everyone at risk on this planet.

Europe is beginning to see the reality of all of this.

Most of Europe foolishly bought into the climate change agenda and then compounded that mistake by relying on Russia for its oil and gas needs.

In the meantime, China must be laughing at the insanity of all of it.

China and India also recently announced that they intend to increase coal output by another 700 million tons by the end of next year.

To put that in context, that additional increase alone is enough to completely wipe all of the reductions the United States has achieved in carbon emissions since 2005 until today.

That reduction is not trivial---the United States has reduced carbon emissions almost 25% over that period despite an increasing population and economy. The increase also was greater after President Trump took us out of the Paris climate accords.

Looking at it from a broader perspective, this graph shows carbon emissions from 2000-2020 for the United States, Europe, China and India.

The argument is that banning fossil fuels are necessary to save the planet and humanity.

However, aren't China and India part of the same planet?

Since 2000, Europe and the United States have reduced carbon emissions by 2.5 billion tonnes.

At the same time, China and India have increased carbon emissions by 9.7 billion tonnes.

It seems that the Western economies have been playing a loser's game for over 20 years.

It is also not going to get any better looking at where China and India are headed.

The problem for Europe may soon not be just a reduced quality of life due to the "green agenda" but life itself may become more tenuous without energy to keep people warm and factories and farms running.

Energy and the economy are inextricably linked. 

Energy prices are also built into every aspect of the economy.

Consider recent increases in the Producer Price Index (year over year) in various European countries. These price increase will undoubtedly be heading to the European consumer soon.

By comparison, the most recent PPI for the United States was 10.8%.

You have to wonder how much longer before we understand the truth of the following aphorism.

"No one cares about Greta Thunberg when they are freezing or starving to death".

Greta Thunberg made lots of headlines in 2019 when she was telling elected officials of Western countries  they had failed her generation on climate change because "you did not act in time."

She was right about not acting in time.

She just got the issue wrong.

Paging Greta Thunberg. Paging Greta Thunberg. Paging Great Thunberg.

Democrats and Democracy

It has been interesting watching the reactions to the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Liberal Democrats seem to be confused in that they believe that a constitutional "right" has been taken away in the Supreme Court's ruling.

There is no such "right" to an abortion in the Constitution. It is also a fact that there was nothing in the Nation's history or tradition that would even suggest that such a right was ever contemplated until the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down by a divided Supreme Court almost 200 years after the Constitution was originally ratified.

The Constitution sets out specific "rights" in the document. It left other matters to the democratic process. Roe v. Wade attempted to establish a right about something that the Founders clearly meant to be decided by the voters and their representatives.

The Founders laid out a very specific construct on how additional "rights" could be added through the amendment process. It has been used to provide women the right to vote. It was used to abolish slavery. It was even used to prohibit the ability to make, distribute and consume alcohol. It then was used to reverse that prohibition.

The amendment process is not easy. It was meant to insure there was a clear consensus before our founding document was changed. 

You need 2/3 of the votes in the House and Senate. You also need 3/4 of the legislatures in the states. You don't need the President's concurrence. However, if you have the votes and support of the people you can have any right (of take away any enumerated right) you want.

Many on the Left also seem to be confused on how the Supreme Court can strike down a restrictive gun law in New York but also rule  that each state should have the latitude to determine its laws on abortion.

The difference is that the right to bear arms is specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The right to an abortion is not mentioned (or even hinted at) anywhere in the document.

Each state also has rights enumerated in the Constitution as set out in the Tenth Amendment.

In simple terms, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets out the limits to the powers of the federal government. 

Any powers that the Constitution does not give to the federal government are the states’ responsibility.

Liberals are also arguing that the Supreme Court should not be overturning the precedent that existed and was established with Roe v. Wade.

However, those same Liberals did not seem to have any problem 49 years ago when the Supreme Court ignored prior precedence when they first determined there was a right to abortion.

They also don't seem to believe that there was anything wrong when the Supreme Court in Brown vs. Board of Eduction in 1954 overturned the prior constitutionality of racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine established in 1896 in Plessy v. Ferguson.

Democrats also did not seem to mind when the Supreme Court ruled there was a "right" to gay marriage seven years ago.

At the time of that ruling, 30 states had provisions in their constitutions limiting marriage to one man and one woman. Those states included California! Another seven states had statutes that banned gay marriage.

Democrats had no problem when the Supreme Court ignored these state constitutional provisions and 200 years of historical and legal precedence.

That Supreme Court ruling also overturned a federal law. "The Defense of Marriage Act" held that any spouses in a gay marriage under any state law would not be eligible for any federal benefits (Social Security, Medicare, welfare, etc.). It was clear where democracy was on this issue at that time.

It is also interesting to see Democrats who have tried to make so much of the "insurrection" of January 6 turn around and state that they will now defy the law of the land.

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurrection

What is this coming from an elected member of the House of Representatives?

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/maxine-waters-reacts-dobbs-ruling-hell-supreme-court-we-will-defy-them

That kind of sounds like a call for insurrection.

Even worse is the Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin stating that the military is going to do what they believe is best for the military.

What? 

I guess Secretary Austin forgot about the oath that all military members take upon joining the service.

That oath states that why will support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

This is even more troubling in that current U.S. law does not permit abortions at U.S. military facilities or the use of military insurance to pay for an abortion.except in cases where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or the mother's life is at risk.

Is Secretary Austin stating that the military is a higher authority than the Supreme Court when it comes to the Constitution or Congress when it involves the law?

The problem the Democrats have is they leaned on a non-legislative body to create a right in the Constitution that did not exist. A "right" that was meant to be determined by the democratic process.

Democrats had many opportunities over the last 50 years to attempt use the democratic process to give that right some type of legislative or constitutional authority.

They never even tried.

The reason they did not is they never had the votes despite times in which they had overwhelming numbers in the House and Senate and a Democrat as President. 

The will of the people was simply not there on the issue.

It was easier to rely on nine justices (five is all they really needed).

When Democrat Presidents ran for office they also sounded like moderates for the same reason.

Bill Clinton said that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare."

Barack Obama used similar messaging when he ran for President and even stated early in his first term that he wanted to "reduce the number of women seeking abortions." 

Joe Biden stated for decades while in public office that his Catholic faith meant that he was personally opposed to abortion but it was his duty to protect a woman's right to choose because it was the law of the land.

What about now?

On the other side of this was Donald Trump who ran for President and pledged to appoint Supreme Court justices that would follow the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.

There was no bait and switch. He told the voters what his position was and he did what he said he would do when he was elected.

Here is Trump is his final debate with Hillary Clinton in which he clearly stated what he intended to do in the appointment of justices. He also predicted that with the justices he intended to appoint that Roe v. Wade would eventually be overturned.

Trump was elected by the people and he did exactly what he promised voters he would do.

This is a clear example of democracy in action. 

Some Democrats are now saying that they want to pass legislation that conforms with the Roe v.Wade decision.

However, if they do would this even be constitutional in that the Supreme Court has ruled this is a state's rights issue?

I also doubt Democrats are really serious about this in that they would clearly prefer to use this as a political issue heading into the mid-terms than trying to find a solution.

If the Democrats do move forward you can be sure the legislation would go much further than Roe v. Wade. Their radical base in the party would want to allow abortions for the entire nine months.

What would they do if a group of moderate Republicans offered to go along if abortion was limited to rape, incest and the first 12 weeks  of pregnancy but no further?

This is where most of the rest of the world is that allows abortion and polling indicates that is where a majority of American voters are.

This is from a Pew Research Center poll. from May, 2022.

Source: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23167397/abortion-public-opinion-polls-americans

The majority do not want unrestricted rights to abortion nor do they want absolute restrictions.

I would think this is where democracy will probably take us on this issue after a period of some confusion and consternation in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision.

The only problem is that Democrats have proven they do not like democracy.

Once Again Headed In The Wrong Direction

Joe Biden has now decided the answer to high gasoline prices is for the gas station operators to lower their prices.

Source: https://twitter.com/BonginoReport/status/1539694149754134528

He suggests that it is some sort of patriotic duty to do so.

This is what Biden said Wednesday on the subject of high gas prices.

To the companies running gas stations and setting those prices at the pump: This is a time of war, global peril, Ukraine.  These are not normal times.

Bring down the price you are charging at the pump to reflect the cost you are paying for the product.  Do it now.  Do it today.  Your customers, the American people, they need relief now.

As usual Biden (or whoever wrote the speech) is factually challenged.

They also clearly do not read Barron's or know much about the economics of the gas station or oil business,

Most gas stations (57%) are owned by individual operators. They are not owned by companies or giant corporations.

Source: https://thehustle.co/the-economics-of-gas-stations/

Most major oil companies have backed out of the retail gas station business because it isn't very profitable.

In fact, ExxonMobil, which Biden has recently been criticizing almost daily, got out of the retail gas business in 2008.

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25126563

The ExxonMobil stations you see are usually owned by individual operators or retail distribution chains that license the name and buy their products from ExxonMobil.

According to IBIS World, gas stations makes an average profit margin of just 1.44% on their fuel sales.

ExxonMobil had a net profit margin of 6.23% in the first quarter, 2022. It would have been lower if it was still in the retail gas business.

Gas stations make the bulk of their profits on what they sell inside---sodas, lottery tickets, bottled water and candy.

Source: https://thehustle.co/the-economics-of-gas-stations/

When will Biden ask Coca Cola and Pepsi to lower their prices or for gas station operators to cut the cost of those soft drinks in half?

I continue to be amazed that Biden is directing all of his focus on inflation on the supposed outrageous profits of oil companies and gas station operators but seems oblivious to the profit margins of companies like these.

Pfizer                                 30.65%

Alphabet (Google)          24.17%

Meta (Facebook)             26.75%

Netflix                               20.30%

Tesla                                  17.69%

(All data from Google Finance)

How come Biden is not calling on these companies to reduce their prices to lower their profits?

Biden's strategy on gas price inflation also includes asking Congress to provide a 90-day suspension of the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon on gas and 24 cents on diesel fuel.

I don't even understand why Biden thinks he has to ask Congress to do this. If he believes he has the authority to cancel $10,000 or more of student loan debt per person why would he not just go ahead and sign an executive order and suspend collection of the gas tax?

(Interesting sidetone---the federal gas tax suspension would cost the federal government $10 billion compared to a $321 billion price tag for cancellation of $10,000 of student debt for every borrower).

Of course, the real question is how is suspending the gas tax for 90 days going to solve anything?

Isn't it something like this?

 

There is only one rationale for even suggesting it.

It is called POLITICS.

How do I know it is just about politics?

It is because a consummate politician told me it was.

He called it a political stunt.

Source: https://twitter.com/Forbes/status/1539658221861740544

If you wonder why Biden is not following the advice of his friend Barack Obama you need only look at this recent Gallup poll. 

There is outright panic in the White House right now.

87% of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction.

76% of Democrats hold that view as well.

I want to find someone that is in the 13% that thinks we are headed in the right direction.

The Difference Between What Something Is and How It Appears

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" 

You might have heard this philosophical thought experiment at some point.

It raises questions regarding observation and perception which leads to additional questions.

Can something exist without being perceived by consciousness?

Can we assume the unobserved world functions the same as the observed world?

What is the difference between what something is and how it appears?

I have been thinking about this a lot recently as I review the latest Covid data and compare it to the media attention it is receiving today compared to last year.

Last year at the this time, and for all of the previous year, we heard about Covid morning, noon and night.

The incessant messaging bombarded our consciousness.

Masks and other visible reminders of Covid permeated our observed world wherever we went.

Today that is not the case.

There is barely a mention of Covid amidst the news of inflation, gas prices, the stock market meltdown and Ukraine.

You would think Covid had almost gone away.

However, compare confirmed cases last year at this time to what we see currently.

Cases are over 8 times higher now than they were last year and it is barely raising a concern.

This number is also undoubtedly understated when considering the much higher use of home testing this year compared to last year.

Some would argue that the reason for less attention and concern is that the predominant Covid variant today is not as virulent and the vaccines have made the risk of severe illness less likely.

Is that the case?

That view is not supported by the data.

Daily new hospital admissions are substantially higher today than they were at this time last year.

This is especially true for those age 70+ which are the most vulnerable and also the most highly vaccinated group in the country (91.3% of age 65+ fully vaccinated, 70% boosted once. 32% boosted twice per CDC data.).

Hospital admissions for Covid are more than double what they were last year for those age 70+ and 50% higher for all ages in total.

How is this possible if the vaccines are supposed to be "highly effective" in preventing severe disease?

Covid deaths are essentially the same as they were last year.

The 7-day average was 321 last year on June 20, 2021. It is 311 right now.

In addition, most people do not realize that deaths during the Omicron wave this winter were much higher for those age 65+ than they were with the Delta wave last summer which was supposed to be much more deadly. This is a fact that even The New York Times acknowledged.

However, when you consider that there have been over 300 million vaccine doses administered in the United States since this time last year (600 million doses in total since vaccination began) wouldn't the expectation be that deaths would have fallen dramatically?

Has there ever been a vaccine that was considered successful where cases and hospitalizations went up and deaths increased or stayed the same?

The trends in other parts of the world are just as troubling right now.

Consider Portugal which is one of the most vaccinated and boosted nations in the world.

Almost 90% of every man, woman and child in Portugal is fully vaccinated.

65 booster doses have been administered for every 100 people in the nation. The comparable number in the United States is 36 per 100.

There are 20 times the number of confirmed cases in Portugal right now than there were at this time last year.

More troubling are Covid deaths.

Deaths in Portugal are over 10 times what they were at this time last year.

71% of Covid deaths in Portugal have come after Covid vaccines were introduced.

Deaths have also accelerated since boosters were introduced.

It is interesting to compare Portugal with South Africa.

Portugal is a much more advanced country with considerably better health resources for its citizens than what is available in South Africa.

As an indicator, the average life expectancy in Portugal is about 17 years longer than in South Africa.

The Omicron variant was first identified in South Africa. Additional variants to Omicron have also been initially identified in South Africa.

Note that not even a third of the population is fully vaccinated in South Africa.

There have been less than 10% of the booster doses per capita in South Africa as in Portugal.

According to the narrative, you would think Covid would be ravaging South Africa as compared to Portugal.

However, the exact opposite is true.

This chart shows Covid deaths per capita in Portugal and South Africa since the beginning of the year.

Portugal is experiencing more Covid deaths right now than it did in the January, 2021 surge.

South Africa has 1/20 of the deaths per capita that Portugal is seeing right now.

What is also interesting is that deaths per capita in both countries were tracking pretty closely until January, 2021 when vaccines were first introduced and Portugal began its aggressive mass vaccination campaign.

At that point, the experience of the two countries diverged.

When I see data like this I cannot help but think of the warnings of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche and the risks he sees in mass vaccination efforts such as Portugal has engaged in.

I have written about Vanden Bossche's theories before in these pages here, here and here.

Vanden Bossche has recently warned that he foresees that Omicron will mutate further into a variant that is both more contagious and more virulent than we have experienced before.

Source: https://twitter.com/DavidLWindt/status/1533532689957113856

He predicts that it will be significantly more deadly.

Hospitalizations will spike, especially in highly vaccinated countries.

Source: https://twitter.com/DavidLWindt/status/1536694303384391680

Most troubling is that he believes the virus will be more dangerous to those who are vaccinated than those who are not and even more dangerous to those who are boosted than those who are merely vaccinated.

He also stated a month ago that he expected we might see this during the summer rather than with an expected seasonal surge in the Fall.

Is this what we are seeing in Portugal?

Has this next stage also begun in Israel that is also one of the most vaccinated and boosted countries in the world?

This is the headline from a story out of Israel from last Friday.

Source: https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/coronavirus/1655482328-covid-israel-reports-70-rise-in-seriously-ill-patients

I don't know but the data I am seeing should raise questions in anyone who is paying attention.

As I have written before, I fervently hope that Dr. Vanden Bossche is wrong.

However, the data, and what we have seen over the last year and a half, better supports the predictions that Vanden Bossche has made compared to anyone else I have studied.

If Vanden Bossche is correct, we face some very challenging times ahead.

I don't even want to comprehend what is the result if we have hundreds of thousands of vaccinated people who might be hospitalized or die after trusting government and public health authorities that they had to be vaccinated for their own health and the good of society.

If Vanden Bossche is correct, the advice we were given was 180 degrees wrong.

If anything close to what Vanden Bossche is saying is correct, the sound will not just be like one tree falling in a forest.

It will be as if the entire forest came down.

And the reverberations will last several generations as trust in our institutions and health professionals will be irreparably damaged.

I will say it again.

We need to hope and pray that Vanden Bossche is wrong.

However, no one should ignore what he is saying. That is especially true considering his past record.

The fact that you were not there to hear the sound of the tree falling does not mean that it can be totally ignored or dismissed as misinformation.

It is information. Take it or leave it as the case will be. It is not misinformation merely because it does not conform to the narrative or how someone wants things to appear.

Only future events will tell us how big the tree (or the forest) was when it fell or whether it fell at all.

In these times it is important to always keep in mind the difference between what something is (the reality) and how it appears (the narrative).

I will continue to write about the data and facts for you to consider and compare to the media and public health narrative so you can make up your own mind on what is reality and who and what to believe (BeeLine included).

What Emergency?

This past week the FDA authorized emergency use of the Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines for children as young as 6 months of age.

For the Pfizer vaccine, this extended the authority for those ages 6 months up to 5 years of age.

For Moderna, this now allows the vaccines for use up to 17 years of age. Previously, Moderna had only been authorized for those 18 years of age and older.

Since the authority is being given you might want to know what the emergency is?

According to the CDC, there have been 143 deaths of children ages 1-4 from Covid since January 1, 2020. 

Over that same span of almost 2-1/2 years, there have been 382 deaths from the flu and pneumonia.

Source: https://data.cdc.gov/widgets/9bhg-hcku?mobile_redirect=true

Covid deaths in this age group are barely a third of flu and pneumonia deaths and there were few cases of influenza for a good portion of the last two years.

For all children 0-17 in the United States, there have been 1,086 reported deaths from Covid since January 1, 2020 compared to 1,601 deaths from flu and pneumonia and 81,532 total deaths.

This is out of a population of almost 75 million who are under the age of 18.

Does this look like an emergency?

What is even more concerning is that the United States is the only country in the entire world that has authorized these vaccines for children this young.

No countries in Europe have done it. Sweden still has not authorized these vaccines for anyone under age 12.

Israel has not done it.

Japan has not done it.

China has not done it.

Cuba has not done it.

Joe Biden's Chief of Staff, Ron Klein, thinks this is an accomplishment?

I don't think he is making the point he thinks he is.

You may recall that when the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were authorized initially for adults it was stated they were 95%+ effective for preventing infection from Covid based on the clinical trials.

We now know that was nowhere close to being true.

How effective are the vaccines supposed to be for children?

For children ages 2-5 the clinical trial data released by Moderna found that its vaccine was only 36.8% effective in preventing Covid. It was 50.6% effective for those 6 months to 23 months.

It has always previously been the rule that if a vaccine was not at least 50% effective it could not be authorized by the FDA for use.

I guess "the science" has changed.

Follow ups in the clinical trials also only included a mere two months. We also know that any effectiveness these vaccines have seems to drop rapidly after two months such that at six months there is little, if any, protection.

That is why we are now on what seems to be an endless call for additional booster shots.

Is it not curious that the follow up in the trials stopped at two months?

I would also suggest that all parents view this video by Dr. Claire Craig who provides a detailed review of the Pfizer trial to better understand what were the underlying results of that clinical trial. It is difficult to believe that this is "the science" and the FDA authorized the vaccine for use with children.

An important tool that is used in medicine to determine whether any health intervention is useful is the Number Needed to Treat (NNT) calculation.

This is a simple explanation of the concept.

Source: https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/tips-for-understanding-studies/number-needed-to-treat/

This is due to the fact that every medical intervention carries risks. Therefore, it is important that there are clear benefits in the intervention to justify the associated risks.

A rule of thumb is that an NNT of less than 5 is associated with a meaningful health benefit. This means that treating 5 people with a health procedure, drug, vaccine in order to prevent one adverse event provides a meaningful health benefit.

An NNT of 15 or above is almost certain to be associated with a small net benefit at most.

The higher the NNT the more certain you are that the intervention should not be undertaken. 

The risks of the intervention do not justify any potential health benefit.

What is the calculated NNT for the Covid vaccines for children?

This is a slide that was in the presentation to the FDA last week that was quickly passed over without discussion.

I guess you can understand why that was.

Credit: https://twitter.com/the_Arkivist/status/1538197968632926214/photo/1

The obvious question is why did the FDA recommend these vaccines for children when the data clearly suggests that the benefits are not justified by the risks?

It is difficult to look at the data and not conclude that the FDA, CDC and others involved in the vaccine approval process are either completely incompetent or totally co-opted by Big Pharma.

The latter is the only logical explanation.

The emergency here appears to be that Pfizer and Moderna need to sell more vaccines because vaccine uptake has fallen to almost nothing,

This is the latest CDC data on vaccine uptake.

That has led to this. 

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/covid-vaccine-doses-wasted-rcna31399

“The demand has plateaued or is coming down, and that leads to open-vial wastage — especially with multidose vials,” said Ravi Anupindi, a professor of operations research and management at the University of Michigan who has studied vaccination campaigns.

“It’s a demand problem,” he added.

In addition, liability protection is only provided to Pfizer and Moderna for these vaccines going forward if they are approved for children and the CDC puts them on the childhood vaccine schedule. If this is done, liability protection extends to adults using the vaccine as well. Only vaccines that are authorized for emergency use or are approved and on the CDC's childhood vaccine schedule are given liability protection under the law.

It appears to some observers the primary reason to extend the vaccine to children is to get the Covid vaccines on the childhood vaccine schedule which will then provide Pfizer and Moderna with liability protection for both children and adults since Pfizer and Moderna now have "approved" vaccines for adults.

For example, that is the conclusion of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. who is the Chairman of the non-profit organization, Children's Health Defense.

If that is not the case, how do you explain this decision looking at the facts above?

I always thought the first priority of any society was to protect the children.

You would like to think that still applies in the United States in 2022.

Looking at the facts above makes me wonder whether that is still true.

Time To Look In The Mirror

Joe Biden seems to be working hard every day to find someone to blame for high gasoline prices.

He has blamed Vladimir Putin.

He has blamed the Saudis for not pumping more oil.

He has now apparently decided to blame ExxonMobil and the oil companies for their profits being too high.

Source: https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/white-house-shifts-blaming-putin-oil-companies-high-gas-prices-patriots

Biden is also saying that it is their "patriotic duty" to produce more gasoline.

He has even threatened oil refiners with using "emergency powers" if they don't get more gasoline supplies to the market.

The president has harshly criticized what he views as profiteering amid a global crisis that could potentially push Europe and other parts of the world into a recession, saying after a speech Friday that ExxonMobil "made more money than God this year." 

ExxonMobil responded by saying it has already informed the administration of its planned investments to increase oil production and refining capacity.

 

Of course, Biden is the same guy who cancelled the Keystone Pipeline on his first day in office and stated while he was running for President that oil executives should be put in jail for the environmental damage caused by oil and gas drilling.

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7837265/We-jail-Biden-wants-prosecute-fossil-fuel-executives-environment-damage.html

The Biden administration is also responsible for implementing regulations upon taking office that have effectively meant that at least two million barrels of refining capacity per day that we had in the United States in 2020 is no longer operating.

That puts us at about the same refining capacity we had in 2010---18 million barrels per day.

However, gasoline demand that was 18 million barrels per day in 2010 is now 20.5 million barrels.

Therefore, we need 20.5 million barrels per day and we only have the refining capacity for 18 million.

Do you see a problem?

I can confidently state that if Donald Trump was in office the oil companies would not have shut down 2 million barrels/day of capacity.

Biden and the Democrats have made the regulatory burden of operating these plants economically unfeasible.

What about the argument that ExxonMobil and the other oil companies and refiners are making too much money?

ExxonMobil's net profit margin for the first quarter, 2022 was 6.23%.

This means that ExxonMobil made just a little over 6 cents on each dollar of sales on its oil and related products.

If ExxonMobil controlled the entire supply chain from oil exploration, to refining, to wholesale distribution to retail sale (they don't), Exxon Mobil would make about 31 cents on gasoline at $5.00/gallon.

Let's compare that to the taxes that federal and state government's make on the sale of a gallon of gas.

The federal tax is 18 cents a gallon. State taxes vary from Pennsylvania's 58 cents and California's 51 cents a gallon to Alaska's 9 cents and Hawaii's 16 cents.

Most state gas taxes range between 20 and 40 cents a gallon. That means we generally pay anywhere from 38 to 58 cents in taxes on each gallon of gasoline we buy in the United States. In Pennsylvania and California, it is over 70 cents per gallon.

Therefore, government is actually deriving more benefit from each gallon of gasoline sold than ExxonMobil or any other private entity involved in the oil business..

How does that 6.23% net profit margin that ExxonMobil earned in the first quarter, 2022 compare to other high profile companies?

Take a look.

Pfizer                               30.65%

Alphabet (Google)          24.17%

Meta (Facebook)             26.75%

Netflix                             20.30%

Tesla                                17.69%

(All data from Google Finance)

How come Biden is not calling on these companies to reduce their prices to lower their profits?

Of course, Biden also seems to conveniently forget that oil companies lost massive amounts of money in 2020.

The five major oil companies lost a combined $76 billion.

ExxonMobil lost $22.4 billion for the year. 

It is really something to see Biden flail away trying to shift the blame anywhere he can.

He is a man who stated clearly he wanted to put the oil and gas companies out of business.

He stated oil executives should be in jail.

He shut down the Keystone pipeline that would have made it easier to get crude oil to refiners.

His administration has made it more difficult to drill and its regulations have contributed to the shutdown of oil refineries.

He is now surprised that his actions that have reduced supplies has resulted in higher prices and more profits to the oil industry?

The fact is that Biden and his policies have probably done more to increase gasoline prices and oil profits than anyone else.

I suggest that it is time for Mr. Biden to look in the mirror if he wants to blame someone for those high prices.

Nothing But Political Theater

I have a friend who was asked if he has watched any of the Congressional Select Hearing about January 6th.

I thought his response was spot on.

" I watched five minutes. I don't spend my time watching things that are not fair and balanced."

I was very critical of the actions of the rioters who entered the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. 

I stated that Trump had erred in calling his supporters to Washington, D.C. to rally. He should have foreseen that things could spin out of control.

However, I also stated that most of what transpired that day was solely related to the herd mentality of crowds. Most who participated in going into the Capitol were following the herd rather than consciously participating in a riot much less an insurrection.

In fact, videos show that a number of the "rioters" were waved into the building by Capitol Hill police as if they were visitors right off a tour bus.

My suspicion was that there were instigators in the crowd that lit the fuse and the rest transpired organically. 

For example, look at this surveillance video from the Capitol of the first people to breach the building by breaking the windows. They are all dressed alike in black. This is a video you will not see at the hearing or  thousands of additional hours of video on the events of that day that are counter to the narrative you will hear. Why?

Source: https://twitter.com/RickyBeBack/status/1534572036093120513

I still have seen little on who these people were. Were they Antifa? Government informants? The Proud Boys? Something clearly does not add up.

You can read the blog post I wrote the night of January 6 here.

It is fully within the authority of Congress to investigate what happened, who was responsible and consider what could have been done to prevent it from occurring.

However, any hearings that Congress conducts should have both parties represented and the appointees should be made by the leaders of each delegation. Any evidence presented should also not be one-sided. There should be ample opportunity to hear both side of every issue. Rebuttal evidence and testimony should be part of the proceeding.

None of this is a part of the January 6th hearing.

The hearing seems to have as its purpose nothing more than 1) deflect from the current news that is highly damaging to Joe Biden and the Democrats and 2) damage Donald Trump in something that resembles Impeachment #3 in order to attempt to keep him from the Presidency in 2024.

It has nothing to do in looking for truth or justice. That was imminently clear before the hearings even began.

What would be wrong with a fair and balanced hearing where the totality of the evidence could be heard and assessed?

What would be wrong with having some Republicans who supported President Trump participate and be allowed to offer additional evidence or cross examine witnesses?

What bothers me further about all of this how the January 6th riot is being examined but nothing is allowed to be said or investigated about what transpired with the Black Lives Matter riots of the summer of 2020.

For example, the government alleged that the incursion into the Capitol building caused $1.5 million in damages. The BLM riots caused over $1 billion in damages according to estimates. 

Source: https://www.westernjournal.com/blms-mostly-peaceful-riots-cost-1000x-damage-jan-6-capitol-unrest/

The damages did not stop there. Small businesses destroyed. Lives lost. Police cast as villains rather than heroes.

BLM’s riots devastated small businesses, victimized innocent bystanders and sparked an intense incline in violence against police.

Though the Jan. 6 uprising is inexcusable, the left appears determined to emphasize the damage incurred at the Capitol while neglecting the violence that plagued American streets for months last year.

If we can call out the inexcusable actions of January 6th how is it that nobody seems to be concerned about the riots and anarchy we saw in the summer of 2000?

That seemed to the point of Washington Commanders defensive coordinator Jack Del Rio's comments last week when he asked why the BLM riots were not being investigated in the same way that January 6th was. Del Rio seems to have crossed the line when he referred to January 6th as a "dust up".

That ended with Del Rio being fined $100,000.

Del Rio now clearly understands which city he is living in.

He is not in Jacksonville, FL where he used to be head coach of the Jaguars. 

For that matter, consider the media attention given to the January 6th hearings compared to the attempted assassination of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

I have yet to see any evidence that there was one rioter at the Capitol that had any firearm with them.

I would think it would be pretty difficult to conduct an insurrection without a weapon.

However, a person arrested outside of Kavanaugh's house, Nicholas Roske, had flown from California to Washington with the specific intent to murder the justice.

Roske confessed to police that he intended to kill Kavanaugh because he was angry about the surprise leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion that suggested a reversal of Roe v. Wade, and because he “believed that the Justice he intended to kill would side with Second Amendment decisions that would loosen gun control laws,” according to an FBI affidavit.

Roske appears to have had more weapons in his possession than all of the January 6th rioters combined.

“An inventory search of the seized suitcase and backpack revealed a black tactical chest rig and tactical knife, a Glock 17 with two magazines and ammunition, pepper spray, zip ties, a hammer, screwdriver, nail punch, crow bar, pistol light, duct tape, hiking boots with padding on the outside of the soles, and other items,” according to the criminal complaint. The padded boots would have helped Roske enter and move through the Kavanaugh home quietly.

I don't want to think about the upheaval and foment that would be caused in this country if such an act did take place.

However, The New York Times buried the Kavanaugh story on page A20 while it gave prominent billing to the "Attack on Democracy" and the January 6th hearing on its front page last Thursday.

How could the attempted assassination of a Supreme Court justice not also be considered an act of insurrection and an attack on democracy?

The same was true of all of the Sunday mainstream media news shows on CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC

Source: https://regionalmedia.live/kavanaugh-assassination-attempt-ignored-by-sunday-shows/

From my perspective, the Democrats are doing themselves and the nation a disservice by not even attempting to put on a "fair and balanced" hearing on January 6th.

If there is damning evidence on Donald Trump or anyone else let's have it presented consistent with the standards of American jurisprudence and hear from both sides.

The fact they are not willing to do so speaks volumes. That attitude also means many simply don't want to be bothered watching political theater than something that might inform and persuade.

In fact, a recent Rasmussen survey found that 39% of voters say they will not watch any of the hearings, 22% say they will watch some of the hearings and only 14% of voters say they will watch most of the hearings.

Interestingly, since the hearings began, the percentage of voters who say they are concerned about the Capitol Riot investigation has dropped by 2 points.

Compare that level of concern by voters with other issues.

Source: https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1536727472015818757

Many are undoubtedly asking what ever happened to the even-handed administration of justice in this country?

I also find it interesting that the biggest argument that the Democrats and others are making against Trump is that he should have just accepted the "results" of the election and moved on. They argue that if he had, the events of January 6th would not have occurred.

Of course, the same people that say this seem to forget that they were still pushing the narrative that Russia had hacked the election results or colluded with Trump to steal the 2016 election through most of Trump's four years.

In addition, if it is important to move on, what point is served in a hearing about January 6th now? It is over and done with. The FBI has investigated and hundreds have been apprehended and jailed. Some have now been held in solitary confinement without bail for 18 months while awaiting a trial. Doesn't the Constitution say something about the right to a speedy trial?

The voters have much bigger concerns on their minds. In fact, election integrity is a much bigger concern than the January 6th investigation if you look at the survey above.

Why do they get political theater rather than a fair and balanced view of the facts?

Why is there more interest in this political theater than anyone looking at policies that would result in solutions to the issues (inflation, election integrity, violent crime, gas prices, etc)  that are on the top of that list of voter concerns?

Results in a special election for a U.S. House seat yesterday suggests that voters believe Democrats are not focused on the right issues.

An 84% Hispanic dominated congressional district near the Rio Grande that had elected Democrats for over 100 consecutive years flipped to the Republicans.

Source: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/14/texas-special-election-tx-34-mayra-flores-dan-sanchez/

This district voted for Obama by over 40 points in 2008.

The GOP candidate, Maya Flores, won by 7 points in 2021.

The political reality is that the voters reign supreme in our system.

The lesson---Politicians who play games and participate in political theater will eventually pay the price.