The Australian government should be urgently investigating the “incredibly high” 13 per cent excess death rate in 2022, the country’s peak actuarial body says.
An extra 15,400 people died in the first eight months of the year, according to new analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data by the Actuaries Institute, with around one-third of those having no link to Covid.
Karen Cutter, an actuary of more than 25 years and spokeswoman for the institute’s Covid-19 Mortality Working Group, said 13 per cent was an “incredibly high number for mortality” and that it was “not clear” what was driving the increase.
“Mortality doesn’t normally vary by more than 1 to 2 per cent, so 13 per cent is way higher than normal levels,” she said.
The landmark decision, delivered on Thursday, is expected to have wide-ranging ramifications and has become a focus of protests for anti-vaxxers who held demonstrations outside the courtroom.
The six-month-old known as Baby W will not survive without urgent surgery for a congenital heart defect. His parents said they were unwilling to proceed unless they were given a guarantee he would only receive blood from unvaccinated donors.
New Zealand’s health authorities and blood service argued that allowing the parents to refuse vaccinated blood would set a dangerous precedent, in which patients could demand to pick and choose where their blood came from.
The FBI has become a corrupt organization in a corrupt Justice Department. It’s now more being led by criminals than going after criminals. A recent report confirms this.
In a recent report by far-left Newsweek the publication shared some very unsettling news. The FBI has increased the number of investigations of Trump supporters over the past two years.
According to internal FBI numbers obtained by Newsweek, “Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremism” was considered the prime threat (and dominated investigations) before January 6. Since then, anti-government, “anti-authority” and civil unrest cases have taken over as the number one threat, making up almost 90 percent of all investigations.
“A hate crime is targeted violence motivated by the offender’s bias against a person’s actual or perceived characteristics,” said an FBI report issued in October, “while a DT [domestic terrorism] incident involves acts dangerous to human life that are in violation of criminal laws and in furtherance of a social or political goal.” As the number of cases involving politics has expanded, the FBI has doubled the number of agents working on the subject.
President Joe Biden’s top focus is the economy and anyone who thinks it shouldn’t be, should “say that out loud,” the White House told the Daily Caller after the president told reporters Tuesday that he has “more important things going on” than visiting the border.
In a world where enormous sums of money rarely raise eyebrows, Bill Gates’ new pledge of $7 billion in aid to Africa should give us pause.
“Constantly reducing maternal mortality, constantly reducing neonatal mortality, under-5 mortality, that’s really the metric that drives our foundation,” said Gates while announcing the four-year pledge on November 17 in Nairobi. While laudable in theory, it is imperative that we ask—what will this money actually do?
International development funding inevitably comes with strings attached, and more often than not, those strings are tied to ideological agendas. Case in point: the Gates Foundation’s aggressive track record of abortion promotion, which stands in sharp contrast to the robust pro-life culture of many African countries. Abortion is illegal or heavily restricted across most of the continent. But money has a way of maneuvering around the law, and ultimately, much of the reason for pushing tremendous sums on developing countries is to dismantle established laws that protect unborn life. In this context, $7 billion could go a long way toward undermining what people actually want for their countries.
Nigeria’s central bank slashed the daily withdrawal limit from automatic teller machines in a bid to boost digital payments in Africa’s most-populous nation.
The Central Bank of Nigeria capped the maximum customer withdrawal at 20,000 naira ($44.97) a day, down from the previous limit of 150,000 naira, according to a circular sent to lenders on Tuesday. Weekly cash withdrawals from banks are restricted to 100,000 naira for individuals and 500,000 naira for corporations, and any amount above that limit will attract a fee of 5% and 10%, respectively, the central bank said.
On Monday, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs released the results of their latest poll regarding Americans' perceptions of the war in Ukraine, showing that support for an infinite stream of aid from Washington to Kiev is declining.
While a majority of respondents expressed support for the war-torn nation, the proportion who agreed that aid should be provided for "as long as it takes" slid below 50 percent.
According to the survey, which was conducted between November 18 and 20 of 1,030 and has a margin of error of 3.1 points, 48 percent of Americans now believe the US should support Ukraine for "as long as it takes," down from 58 percent in July.
Democrats expressed support for never-ending aid at twice the rate of Republicans, at 61 and 33 percent, respectively, even if it meant American households would be hit with higher gas and food prices.
When asked whether the US should urge Ukraine to "settle for peace as soon as possible" so as to avoid increased costs for American households, 47 percent said yes, up from 38 percent in July.
California made news last week when Governor Gavin Newsom’s reparations committee called for giving descendants of slaves (meaning all black people in their view) $223,000 each due to “housing discrimination.” Now some Democrats in New York want to follow California’s example.
Supporters of reparations previously pushed failed legislation this year calling for a commission to provide billions in reparations for black people. In the wake of California’s actions, however, they will try again to bully the state legislature and Governor Kathy Hochul into approving a commission.
“We saw what happened in California. We want to pass a bill that starts a conversation about reparations,” said Assemblywoman Michaelle Solages (D-Nassau), chairwoman of the New York Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic and Asian Legislative Caucus, to The Post.
Assemblywoman Taylor Darling (D-Nassau) said it would be a “slap in the face” if Gov. Kathy Hochul and the legislature don’t green-light a reparations study commission.
Darling also scoffed that the $223,000 figure that California’s task force recommended for each black descendant there was too low.
On October 7, 1940, Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum of the Office of Naval Intelligence submitted a memo to Navy Captains Walter Anderson and Dudley Knox (whose endorsement is included in the following scans). Captains Anderson and Knox were two of President Roosevelt's most trusted military advisors.
The memo, scanned below, detailed an 8 step plan to provoke Japan into attacking the United States. President Roosevelt, over the course of 1941, implemented all 8 of the recommendations contained in the McCollum memo. Following the eighth provocation, Japan attacked. The public was told that it was a complete surprise, an "intelligence failure", and America entered World War Two.
President Roosevelt (FDR) provoked the attack, knew about it in advance and covered up his failure to warn the Hawaiian commanders. FDR needed the attack to sucker Hitler to declare war, since the public and Congress were overwhelmingly against entering the war in Europe. It was his backdoor to war.
FDR blinded the commanders at Pearl Harbor and set them up by -
denying intelligence to Hawaii (HI)
on Nov 27, misleading the commanders into thinking negotiations with Japan were continuing to prevent them from realizing the war was on
having false information sent to HI about the location of the Japanese carrier fleet.
Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared to contradict his own agency during a Nov. 23 deposition by claiming that he is not involved in the redaction of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, a transcript of the record revealed on Monday.
Authorities are likely to conduct a lengthy investigation into former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried before potentially making an arrest for any illegal actions involving his now-bankrupt companies, legal experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
When asked the question, “What impresses you more about George W. Bush and Barack Obama, their absence of intelligence or their absence of integrity,” a ready answer comes to mind, and it is clearly not the same for each. But in the case of Bush’s first Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, I think you will have to agree that it’s a tough call.
That was the first thing that came to my mind when I saw in the pages of The New York Timesthat Rumsfeld had essayed a comparison between the momentous events in Hawaii on December 7, 1941, and in New York City, Arlington, VA, and Shanksville, PA, on September 11, 2001. The one big similarity that he was able to note was that—as the official script reads—we were caught completely by surprise in each case.
In turn, that got me to thinking along the lines that I lay out in the opening paragraphs of my article, “America’s Dreyfus Affair, the Case of the Death of Vincent Foster.” Suppose you were a professor of United States history and had the opportunity to give the following assignment to your students in an exam: “Compare and contrast Pearl Harbor and 9/11.” What are the answers that you would be looking for from your best students?
Surely they would have to say that each of the events resulted in our going to war. That’s where the comparison almost has to begin. But no sooner have we written it than a contrast arises. When Japan attacked us, we were, by definition, already at war. Disregarding, for the moment, what might have led up to the attack, one could hardly say about our war with Japan, as with our subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, that it was a “war of choice.” One might argue, however, that the war with Germany was a war of choice, even though Hitler declared war on the United States four days later on December 11. His rationale was not, as is commonly believed, that they were obligated by treaty to do so, but that the United States had every intention of going to war with Germany after the attack and he might as well beat us to the punch. One can’t read FDR’s speech of December 9, 1941, and come to any other conclusion than that Hitler was correct in his assessment, whether or not the “beating to the punch” move was wise from a propaganda perspective. That FDR speech laid the blame for the Pearl Harbor attack as much on Germany as on Japan and was clearly intended to prepare the country for war with all three Axis powers, Germany, Italy, and Japan.
Democrats in the House of Representatives blocked an amendment that would have protected religious Americans from retaliation based on their opposition to same-sex marriage, in order to jam legislation furthering the LGBT lobby’s agenda through Congress’s lame-duck session.
House Rules Committee Chairman Rep. James McGovern shot down Republicans’ last chance of defending religious liberty in the ill-named Respect for Marriage Act on Monday when he refused to even let Rep. Chip Roy’s amendment solidifying First Amendment protections be brought to the House floor for a vote.
McGovern’s reasoning for bypassing procedural debate was rooted in the fact that Roy’s amendment would give the process of passing the RFMA a shelf life that could last well into the newly-elected Republican House.
House Republicans launched an investigation Tuesday probing whether major climate groups that spearhead the “environmental, social, and governance” (ESG) movement are violating antitrust laws.
In a letter sent to executives of the Steering Committee for Climate Action 100+, Republicans led by Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan are demanding a treasure trove of documents that illustrate the coalition’s network of influence. Climate Action 100+, they wrote, “seems to work like a cartel to ‘ensure the world’s largest corporate greenhouse gas emitters take necessary action on climate change.'”
“Woke corporations are collectively adopting and imposing progressive policy goals that American consumers do not want or do not need. An individual company’s use of corporate resources for progressive aims might violate fiduciary duties or other laws, harming its viability and alienating consumers,” Republicans warned. “But when companies agree to work together to punish disfavored views or industries, or to otherwise advance environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals, this coordinated behavior may violate the antitrust laws and harm American consumers.”
Late last month, Yoel Roth — the former head of trust and safety at Twitter — was a featured panelist at a conference hosted by the Knight Foundation titled “Informed: Conversations On Democracy In The Digital Age.” Roth spent the hour-long panel fielding editorialized questions from left-wing tech journalist Kara Swisher in which the two revealed how leftists view Big Tech as little more than a mechanism for further consolidating their grip on institutionalized power.
Roth’s answers provide insight into how he, and likely the majority of his peers in the managerial elite, feel about the intersection of institutional power and the rights of American citizens. Big Tech and Silicon Valley have a well-documented disdain for free speech, and people like Roth seemingly believe they have a moral obligation to perpetuate a censorship regime that overwhelmingly favors leftwing political figures and their preferred cultural trends.
During the discussion, Roth stated that he advised his old team from Twitter, who he believes are “highly values-driven and have chosen to do the work of internet sanitation,” to think about Musk’s acquisition of the company as “being a frog in a pot of boiling water” and to write down their personal “limits” that they should use to determine when and if they ought to cease working for Twitter.
In an already packed Supreme Court term—one in which the justices will consider everything from racial preferences in the college-admissions process to President Joe Biden’s student-loan forgiveness plan—one case looms large: 303 Creative v. Elenis.
The state law requires, among other things, equal access to places of public accommodation regardless of disability, race, sex, sexual orientation (including transgender status), or religion. “Places of public accommodation” include any business engaged in offering sales, services, or facilities to the public.
Conservative and libertarian students have been forcibly silenced by the woke and progressive. Many universities have placed restrictions on free speech and debate, primarily when conducted by conservatives, going contrary to the spirit of higher learning as a time to speak and debate issues respectfully without restrictions.
The Gateway Pundit reports on one such case where a group of right-leaning students is fighting back.
“In July of 2021, Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) students at the University of Alabama in Huntsville were told they needed a permit to protest political issues.
“The policy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville states that students need clearance three days in advance for a protest.” The policy also restricts campus protests to small “speech zones.” Finally, groups intending to protest need specific permission from the university to be allowed to hold said protest.
The students of the YAL found this policy to be an undue burden to their First Amendment right to free speech. They also maintain that the policy violates the Alabama Campus Free Speech Act, which guarantees the right to free speech on college campuses. The act was signed into law by Governor Kay Ivey in 2019. So, with the help of Alliance Defending Freedom, YAL filed suit against the university.