A Retrospective of Another Opinion's Top Articles for 2022

Starting with our first article on Another Opinion, published back in 2005, we have done a year end review of our most popular top articles. It's an opportunity to review what was trending at the time and what you, our dear readers, was most interested in.  In keeping with that tradition, we will start with number five.

COVID has been with us for what seems an eternity, and with it Dr. Anthony Fauci, the CDC, and the never ending vaccines. Also tied to Dr. Fauci and COVID was whether was (or is) any relationship between the Chinese and the origin of the COVID virus, as well as its possible weaponization against the West. 

We also took a look at the profits being made off the vaccines by Pfizer, Moderna, and BioNTech which equated to a total of $93.5 million dollars every single day (or to put it in perspective, $65,000 every minute of every day). Lastly, we examined the possibility that these vaccines would morph into some kind of government control along the lines of new form of police state (no vaccination card no admission to grocery store or no job).

Our fourth article covered similar ground except the focus was on the obscene profits Big Pharma was making, not just on the COVID vaccines, but on ordinary prescriptions and healthcare in general. As we just covered in our most recent article, the U.S. healthcare system is ranked among the worst of all the developed nations in the world. We have the fewest available hospital beds, the highest medical costs, highest infant mortality rates, and lowest life expectancy of any industrialized nation.   

If that wasn't bad enough, nearly 2/3 of Congress (that's the House and Senate) gets money from Big Pharma. $7.1 million went to Republicans while Democrats received $6.6 million. Meanwhile, in 2021 Big Pharma spent an additional $263 million dollars to lobby Congress!  Also, because of cutbacks in government funding, Big Pharma now provides the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) with 75% of its drug review funding.

So what did they get for their money? How about no capping of drug prices, more control over what your physician prescribes, limiting the time your doctor gets to spend with you, and higher hospital bills for shorter stays. They also got more restrictions on converting higher cost "name brand" drugs into cheaper generic counterparts (under federal law, lower cost prescription medication has to be issued over the more expensive brand names unless there is a medical reason that would prevent a substitute).

Finally, Big Pharma has continued to step up its marketing of many drugs directly to public in order to encourage potential patients to request specific medication and boost sales. Big Pharma also expanded its all out offensive against holistic healthcare (common in Asia, Africa and Latin America).

This also includes preventative treatments and homeopathic healthcare which is an accepted practice in Europe and most of the world.  The outcome would be to make an already dependent and overmedicated population ever more dependent on what some call "controlled poisons" when discussing most prescriptions.

Our third most popular article was about Cancel Culture and the fight against freedom of expression and speech (among others).  Talk show host Joe Rogan made a comment on one of his podcast about disapproving of Biden's call for mandatory mask usage and requiring everyone to get COVID vaccines. It was just his personal opinion. Well that started a "firestorm" of protests from the Left. Apparently Rogan's comments weren't "politically correct". 

The Cancel Culture tries its level best to shame, bully, or intimidate anyone who says or does something which happens to offend them that day. Unfortunately they've been somewhat successful, causing individuals, groups, or even occasionally a corporation to back off. A few have even hired "consultants" to help them make sure that they're content is "PC"!

Nevertheless, the ultimate result has been to make individuals and others hesitant about what they say or do out of fear of backlash. It has caused people to measure everything they say or do. Libraries and bookstores have stopped carrying certain books or carry sanitized version of them. Same goes for movies.

Some TV stations will air censored version of movies or not broadcast older movies because of how some groups were portrayed or because all the actors were white; there were no individuals "of color". No so-called "diversity". But, at the same time, certain radio stations will play songs which encourages rape, violence, murder (especially of police officers) and just about every other depravity you can imagine and call it creative "entertainment" or racial expression. Heck, they even give out awards for this garbage!

It's reminiscent of Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia or China's "Culture Revolution" in 1966 under Mao Zedong. Whatever the state or party disapproved of was deemed as not socially acceptable (ie: not "politically correct"). As a result, certain books and movies were forbidden or destroyed while radio stations and newspapers were ransacked or shut down with thousands beaten, jailed, or murdered.  

Businesses were boycotted and many were fired from their jobs for holding "contrary" ideological positions. Some individuals were labeled "social misfits" or a threat to the state and sent to "reeducation camps" (a euphemism used for concentration camps). The horror of Kristallnacht (or "Night of Broken Glass") was borne out of this mentality. 

There are lots of things I don't like, disagree with, or disapprove of, be it movies, books, music, or media content. However, in a truly free society, each of us have the right to freedom of speech and expression. If I have an issue with it, I simply walk away, turn the channel, or don't buy what they're selling. It's me exercising my freedom of association and using the power of the marketplace.

Our second most popular article for 2022 was the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. Our focus was on why President Putin invaded his southern neighbor. There's been a long history between Russia and Ukraine dating back to the Kievan Rus in 832, but that didn't spark the invasion.

Following the end of WWII, Soviet Russia created a buffer state composed of Eastern European nations it had liberated from the Nazis and pro-Nazis. It was Stalin's intention that Russia would never again be threatened by the West (Sweden's King Charles XII in 1707, Napoleon had invaded in 1812 and Hitler in 1941). However, with the USSR's implosion starting in 1989, these states were left to their destinies.

In 1990 then President Mikhail Gorbachev was assured by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker that NATO would "not advance one inch eastward", and yet by the end of the 20th Century, all of them belonged to NATO. This meant the Russia faced NATO tanks, troops, ships, and missiles all along its western frontier. The one exception was Ukraine, which at the time included the valuable Crimea with Russia's second largest military and naval bases at Sevastopol on the Black Sea.  It also had something else. Vast oil and gas resources.

The United States and some EU countries helped orchestrate a coup to remove President Petro Poroshenko and his pro-Moscow government with pro-Western Volodymyr Zelenskyy (to help "spread democracy" no doubt).  Some claim that in exchange for Western support a deal was made for access to the oil and gas rich Black Sea.

Almost immediately Zelenskyy began saber rattling about full membership in NATO, which, if granted, would completely surround Russia on the west and put Sevastopol not only in danger, but would threaten Russia's access to the Mediterranean Sea.  Putin continued to warn Ukraine, the West, and the United States that NATO in Ukraine would not be tolerated.

When it became apparent that NATO would approve Ukraine's application for full admission, Russia moved to secure the Crimea and protect its military installations, as well as its control of its oil and gas reserves. When that failed to make Ukraine back off, Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Since then, the world has turned against Putin (with one lone exception, the Belarus).

Meanwhile, despite a full court press, Russian troops have failed to fully subjacent Ukraine which has militarily exhausted the former Super Power. As a result, Russian troops have focused on securing the pro-Russian Donbas provinces in Eastern Ukraine.  How this war will turn out is anybody's guess.

Some are predicting an eventual chemical, biological, or tactical nuclear strike, which seems unlikely. Others suggest a coup against Putin, which is possibility. There have been massive protests throughout Russia and a growing unrest among senior officers in the Russian military while in Ukraine, thanks to Western media and U.S. public relations and marketing firms, Zelenskyy has achieved near mythic status. Meanwhile, Western (mostly U.S.) energy companies are keeping a close eye on events.

Finally, our most viewed article for 2022 was, in part, about the sudden and dramatic rise in food and gas prices, but at its core it was about the growing power of the Corporatocracy and ruling Oligarchy which has seized control of America.

We pointed out how just five corporations control over 95% of everything you read, watch, or hear. It even controls your entertainment, from music and movies to video games. We discussed how four companies control practically everything (65%) we buy at the store, from clothes and electronics to food. 

We told you that four corporations own 85% of all meat processed in America while three controlled 66% of all pork.  just 15 cent of every dollar spent went to the farmer (most food production, however, comes from giant corporate farms owned by mega corporations, which are heavily subsided by the government.  When it comes to fertilizers, 65.8% of the market is owned by four companies.

Take a look at technology. Only five companies own 80% of the market. When it comes to energy---oil and gas mainly---a relatively small group runs it all, while suppressing alternative energy sources such as wind and solar.  Meanwhile, there's only about 30 companies which totally dominate the our financial markets.  Globally, they are about a dozen. Most of them are Chinese owned.

These companies are part of (indeed the core of) the global Corporatocracy which runs the world. They certainly run the government of the United States. It's senior board members are part of ruling oligarchy (or as some prefer, kleptocracy) that call the shots in Congress, the White House, and the Judicial system. Their lobbyists write our laws that we are told to obey.  It has nothing to do with "socialism" or "communism", although those names are bandied about to make us fear them. Why? Because they fear the people---us.

We've provided a link to these articles below so you can re-read them or perhaps read them for the first time in the same order as above.  We hope you found these, as well as our others articles informative and useful. Ever since our first article was published in July of 2005, we've tried our best to provide you, our dear readers, with accurate non-partisan information. No slant. Just facts. We even include links to our sources in case you want to delve deeper.

If you enjoy our work, please pass it along. We don't have a marketing department and therefore depend on you to help spread the word. We also ask that you "like" us on whatever platform you're using so our articles can stay in front of people. A lot of these platforms don't like what we have to say since it goes against their corporate line (toeing the line has never been one of my strong suits).

Finally, we would like to thank each and every one of you for taking the time to read Another Opinion. We sincerely couldn't do it without your help. Have a happy, healthy, and safe New Year in 2023. Take care everyone.

 

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

Dr. Fauci: The Man, Myth,Legend...and Schemer?

Big Pharma: A Monopoly in Need of a Cure

Joe Rogan and Cancel Culture: Freedom For Some But Not All

Understanding the Real Reason Why Russia Invaded the Ukraine

 

Who Wants to Play Monopoly?

 

 

Biden's "New World Order"

President Joe Biden recently spoke to the U.S. Business Roundtable, powerful non-profit lobbyist association, and made a rather interesting comment. He said "Now is a time when things are shifting. We’re going to — there’s going to be a new world order out there, and we’ve got to lead it. And we’ve got to unite the rest of the free world in doing it".  So, what are we to make of that?  

The first thing we should to note is the near silence by the corporate media to the comment. When President George H.W. Bush, speaking of the situation in the Persian Gulf, said "Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective -- a new world order -- can emerge...", the media pounced on it. Political talk shows were all over his remarks about a "new world order" and its projected meaning, and yet with Biden, the media's response is rather low key. Why is that, besides the obvious fact that Bush was a Republican and Biden is a Democrat?

President Bush's comment, made in 1991, was in regards to the growing situation with Iraq's invasion of the Kuwait (or more specifically, the takeover of Kuwaiti oil fields which impacted key oil companies with which Bush had close connections as a Texas oilman). He was speaking about an American led coalition of nations acting in unison in removing Iraqi President from Kuwait; the United States as the world's chief police officer and arbiter of all things sacred  just.

In this case with Biden, he was addressing some of the most powerful individuals in America, the presidents and CEO of the nation's largest corporations such as Ford, General Motors, Facebook, Amazon, Exxon, Twitter, and Alphabet, about  the current situation in the Ukraine.

He also went on to say that the world has reached a "inflection point" (which is a major change in direction) which only occurs every three or four generations. He added that it was up to the U.S. to determine the outcome of this global change and then lead it.

Unlike Bush's speech, in which the U.S. and its allies at the time had jointly used sanctions backed up with military operations, Biden was addressing the use of sanctions and the potential of NATO to contain Russia, which is, in itself, questionable given Europe's dependence on Russian oil and gas.

If, going on Biden's comment, we look back roughly three or so generations back to what he says was the last great inflection point in humanity's history, we're looking at World War II. That war, which was in truth a continuation of the first world war, marked the rise and fall of Nazi Germany and Fascism, the Holocaust, the creation of Israel and expulsion of Palestinians,  the beginnings of the Cold War, and with it, the change of the world's economy.

Following the end of World War II, America's global role did change. It became the dominate world economy. It also became, albeit briefly, the world's sole "superpower".  It helped lead the way to the creation of the United Nations in June 1945, just two months after VE Day and two months before VJ in the Pacific. It orchestrated the creation of NATO in 1955 as the Cold War between the three Western Allies and Soviet Russia begun (the Warsaw Pact, was formed in 1955 as a response to NATO).

But perhaps more important,  this "inflection point" created a new economic order out of the ashes of war which called for global trade on a previously unheard of level, a breakup of trade restrictions, the creation of global reserve currency---the U.S. dollar, and the eventual end of the gold standard. The post WWII period was seen as the "Golden Age of Capitalism".

However, all that glitters isn't necessarily golden. The economic colonialism it created led to the rise of OPEC and the use of oil and gas as an economic weapon (resulting in the oil and gas crisis of 1973/74) along with the stock market crash and subsequent recession of 1973 through 1975 (the joke at the time was "if it's a recession in Washington DC then it's a depression in the rest of America").

We also saw America first exert its attempt to be the world's policeman; enforcing what it saw as right and wrong, which included overthrowing of legitimately elected governments (almost always "socialist") and the installation of brutal right wing militaristic juntas. Many times it also included the assassination or imprisonment of leaders and political opponents. But, as long as they were "business friendly", that was all that mattered. So, what was President Biden implying with his comment?

If Biden was implying that because of the recent quagmire Russia has found itself in or that somehow Russia will emerge as a weaker and less effective economically or militarily, he needs to reconsider his opinion. There's no question that Putin's invasion of the Ukraine was ill-conceived, even though his reasoning---to avoid encirclement---was understandable.

Russia has incurred the wrath of the world. It is facing historic economic sanctions, but sanctions alone aren't going to be effective. Russia has developed some strong trade relationships with other countries; particularly China, which now finds itself in a unique position. Both countries have a long history of being "frenemies", not altogether too different than the one it has with the United States.  If forced to choose between the West and Russia, China's economic interests lays to the West and Russia knows it.

Militarily, the Ukraine hasn't proven to be the "marshmallow" Putin's military advisers envisioned it to be.  We can see Putin's growing frustration and impatience through the increase in his use of more and more destructive weapons like hypersonic missiles or  "vacuum bombs".  We've also witnessed his advances breaking down thanks to stiff resistance of Kiev's military and the tenacity of its citizens.

This is, in quick order I suspect, going to put Putin at his own "inflection point" of either facing a protracted war similar to the one Russia fought in Afghanistan; escalating the war to a nuclear or biological level which would earn more than mere condemnation or sanctions and a likely reprisal by NATO and the U.S., or concluding a peace which excludes a NATO presence in the Ukraine and annexation of the Donbass. 

We would also be amiss not to mention President Biden's call for Putin to be charged as a "war criminal" and held accountable by the Hague for war crimes. As an aside, the Nuremberg Trials following WWII, was the first time a country's leaders were ever had personally responsible for the policies and orders given during the conflict.

Since then,  few leaders have been arrested or voluntarily turned themselves in to faced a trial. It's highly unlikely that Putin will be subject to either. First of all, it's very difficult to determine what a political leader ordered and how their subordinates interrupted those orders, especially under wartime conditions.

If the extermination camps had not been discovered, and (to be brutally honest), had the Jews living in U.S., the UK, and elsewhere, hadn't had the clout they did, it's unlikely that any of the Nazi leaders would have put on trial, let alone executed. Don't believe me?  Consider the Roma gypsies.

More Roma were murder (based on percentage of population) than Jews or any of the other groups in Nazi camps, and yet what compensation or recognition have they received? Did these homeless people receive land for a country? How many museums or monuments exist for them? 

As an aside, there's no question that Japanese, Hungarian, Romanian, and Italian war leaders were just as guilty as were some of Nazis, and yet virtually none were executed in the numbers that the Nazis were, nor the fact that the Allies were guilty of war crimes too, though not to the same extent.

Lastly, let's consider the notion of a "new world order" itself. The concept was intended to the creation of a more integrated world, ranging from stabilized trade, global justice, and manufacturing to issues like poverty, disease control, education, and environmental issues. Some would include the spread of democracy. 

In truth, the "new world order" is nothing more than an illusion. It requires a central authority that requires the suppression of national sovereignty. It assumes that the nations are lining up to become "democratic", when in truth democracy isn't for everyone, least of all American style democracy.

Did you know that of all the world's democracies, none---not one---has modeled itself on the United States? Instead, they've chosen the British parliamentarian style principally because it doesn't rig the system with two "winner take all" corporate owned parties, but allows everyone to have a voice with multiparty representation.

For that matter, America isn't a democratic as it thinks it is. In fact, it's ranked #25 according to the Heritage Foundation, putting it in the lower half of the "Mostly Free" section.  In addition, America is listed as a "flawed democracy", which is one step above a failed democracy.

Officially the U.S. is still called a Republic, but is in fact a Corporatocracy, which is a sort of neo-fascist merger between government and big business.  So, who is the "freest country in the world? Singapore, followed by Switzerland and Ireland. Surprised?

America has also forfeited its role as the world's policeman and arbiter of what it defines as "good" or "moral". The world doesn't want to become mirror images of the U.S.. Perhaps this type of leadership was needed following the chaos of WWII where a certain guidance was needed, but no more. Nations don't want a "big brother". They want fair trade and to be treated as equals. They want to develop and embrace their own culture, traditions, and values, and with it, their own economies without being dominated or manipulated by imperialistic corporations.

So, where does the leave President Biden and his "new world order"? Well, other than stroking the egos of a few dozen powerbrokers who together own both political parties, not much. American hegemony is on the decline. Using the threat of economic or military muscle to force of open markets or gain access to resources will not be effected going forward.

Capitalism must constantly consume and innovate to survive or else it dies. In addition, it faces a growing competition from China. Therefore, it must find ways to create equitable and long lasting partnerships to succeed such as investing in its partner's education, job training, and infrastructure. Relationships can no longer be disposable or one sided.   

At the same time, America must encourage other nations to become their own regional policemen and assume responsibility for their own security. America can no longer afford to pick up the tab. It needs to invest in its own education, technology, and infrastructure in order to remain competitive.

If there is a "new world order",  it will have to be one of regionalization coupled with fair trade. There is a time for expansion and then there is a time for internalization. Now is the time for the later.

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation.  

 

Biden says U.S. must lead 'new world order'

Bush 'Out Of These Troubled Times...A New World Order'

Lists of wars from 1946 to 1989

2022 Index of Economic Freedom

 

 

Keep on Truckin! The Canadian Anti-Mandate "Freedom Convoy"

At present there appears to be approximately 250 ongoing protests in 110 countries over government imposed restrictions pertaining to various issues, from strikes over austerity to economic cutbacks to anti-corruption to  calls for democracy . 78% of these are aimed at authoritarian or authoritarian leaning governments.

Of these 250 protests, which involve hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions) worldwide. 25 of these protests are directly related to anti-Covid mandates, which range from mandatory masking, lockdowns, quarantines, employment restrictions, and vaccinations. In many cases, the anti-mandates protests are accompanied by protests against other restrictions to human freedom.

In Belgium, the people are protesting rules on mandatory masking at locations where "Covid Passes" are already required.  "Covid Passes" have become common in most of Europe. They provide documentation that the holder has been vaccinated. Those who are unvaccinated and/or don't have a Covid Pass are prohibited from entry into restaurants or other public locations.

In the Netherlands the protests concern mandatory lockdowns. Unlike Belgium, the protests in the Netherlands have become increasingly violent with shots being fired and fires started in the middle of the street. Many of protestors are seen waving "Gadsden flags" and carrying banner reading "Resistance" and "Freedom".

France is facing similar problems, especially on the island territory of Guadeloupe, where there have been previous protests over the Covid Passes and lockdowns. As in the Netherlands, there has also been gunshots aimed at the police. Austria, the UK, and Italy, countries outside of Europe such as Argentina, New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Israel, and about a dozen others  have been dealing with similar problems, which also stem from quarantines, lockdowns, and Covid Passes. In short, people are demanding liberty.

Germany had the largest mass protest in its history---and estimated 188,000 people turned out to demonstrate against enforced masks, vaccinations, lockdowns, Covid Passes, and "vax-to-work" requirements. What's even more interesting is that the protests brought together those on Germany's extreme Left and on its Far Right, uniting them on at least this one issue.

Since the Covid measures started almost three years ago, there have been at least 1046 protests throughout German towns and cities.  If there's one thing Germans know, its tyranny and its impact on individual rights.

But perhaps one of the most underreported protests is taking place in Canada and involving the truck drivers and their self proclaimed "Freedom Convoy". Perhaps the reason the "Freedom Convoy" is so underreported is the popularity of it by the masses.

The mainstream media tries to create the picture of an unpopular protest (trying to tie it to Far Right and hate groups, including the use of the Gadsden, Nazi, and Confederate flags and pro-Trump signs), and yet upwards of over 800 trucks plus hundreds of other vehicles are involved (some estimates have put that number to around 50,000 or more).

When Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau issued a National State of Emergency and ordered citizens to stay home. Instead thousands came out in support. They lined the route to the national capital in Ottawa. They joined the truckers in Ottawa and on the Ambassador Bridge on the Canadian-U.S. border between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario. 

When the police ordered Canadian citizens not to fuel the trucks or face possible arrest, fines, or jail, thousands showed up with gas cans. When a judge shut down a "Go Fund Me" account in support of the truckers, other sites sprung up immediately.  Canadians authorities are now threatening to forcefully remove protestor's semi trucks as well as the protestors themselves. I don't think that's a smart idea.

Meanwhile, there is a rising concern over the lack of shipment coming into the U.S., which could have a added negative effect on the economy given the already severe backlog of unloaded ships at U.S. ports due to Covid restrictions. In some places, store shelves are already sparse and the country is increasingly in the grip of a rising inflation.

The continued scarcity will only make things worse by driving up prices.  Truckers are the backbone of not just the American economy, but pretty much the economy of every industrial society on the planet. Without truckers, very little gets delivered, be it food, medicine, clothes, or whatever.

So what's fired up the normally docile and overly polite Canadians? Pretty much the same as everyone else. The truckers were ordered to get vaccinated or face suspension, fines, or loss of the job, particularly if their load crosses into the U.S.. The protest was organized by Tamara Lich, the secretary of the relatively new conservative leaning Maverick Party which supports greater autonomy for Western Canada (perhaps that's the reason for the media's link to neo-Nazis and such). However, the truckers insist that they are grown ass men and women and they can make their own informed decisions. You know, pretty much like everybody else.

As an aside, Ms. Lich and others leaders of the Freedom Convoy were arrested in the wee morning hours of February 18th. At the time, Ms. Lich was simply standing out front of a building in downtown Ottawa talking with supporters.  Her arrest fueled rumors that the police, under orders from Trudeau, were planning on taking some sort of aggressive action (the following morning, the police, some on mounted horses), arrested about 100 individuals and began forcefully moving trucks, which is only the beginning. 

It should be noted that the protesters have been very peaceful and orderly to date. Residents in Ottawa also received a notice on their front porches that morning advising them that any violent behavior wouldn't be tolerated. 

After all this time and the peaceful nature of the protest, why would anyone assume there would suddenly be violence unless the police were planning on doing something violent and they want residents to stay away? Trudeau also threatened truckers with a loss of their commercial licenses if they didn't leave now. Trudeau is showing himself to be a petty tinpot tyrant and incapable of handling a peaceful and legal protest. Obviously he lacks the backbone and insight to lead to Canada. 

In addition, the trucker protest has sparked fears here in the States as smaller protests seem to be forming ad hoc. There's currently a trucker convoy, which originated in San Diego, headed along the southern coastal highway headed up to Washington D.C. or the 100+ cowboys (yes, cowboys) on horseback the "Freedom Convoy" from the American side of the border, not to mention similar protests popping up in places like New Zealand and the Netherlands.

Nevertheless, the Canadian trucker "Freedom Convoy" isn't getting a great deal of press, at least not on television in the States, and certainly not anything positive. Even coming up with pictures for this article is difficult). The same goes for the other anti-mandate protests taking place around the world. What coverage there is presents the protestors as something most aren't, namely extremist, uncaring, or racist (tell that to the Hispanic, Asian, or black truckers and protestors).  

Counter protestors have started showing up using not just the usual signs, bull horns, and throwing of trash (among other things), they are also blaring a pretty vulgar "porno-metal" "gay cowboy" song to disrupt or shut down anti-mandate channels.  Meanwhile, the mainstream media continues to report that the anti-mandate convoy is in "chaos" and has become "disorganized" and is "falling apart"; something that the organizers and those on the scene deny. Why the disparity of observations?

I think it's because the protests themselves doesn't present the government, be it the U.S., Canadian, or any of the other governments, in a particular good light. The reality is open challenge to the government's authority. It shows the people are rejecting government dictates as we have the right to do. They are rejecting "We-Say-So" herd mentality in favor of informed individuality.

If people want to mask up or vaccinate, then do it by all means. It's your right to, but don't try to impose it on everyone else. It's a short step from mandates vaccines to "everyone's good" to imposing mandatory religious beliefs, social values, or political ideology. That's not what democracy is all about. At least I hope not.

While the government can and should make recommendations, especially when it comes to public health, it is "We The People" who have the absolute final say. We, as individuals, assume the risk and responsibility either way. The government works for us, not the other way around.

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on Facebook or whatever platform you use to read A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation.

Covid: Huge protests across Europe over restrictions

Carrots, sermons, sticks: Vaccine mandates face oppositionaround the globe

250,000 trucks are participating in the "Freedom Convoy" in Canada

Canadian Trucker Convoy Descends on Ottawa to ProtestVaccine Mandates

'Snowball effect': Canada's trucker convoy sparks anti-mandate protests globally

 

Global Protests Tracker

Largest Ever Protests in the History of Germany Are Anti-Vax & It Won't Matter

Protests against Germany's Covid restrictions turn violent as Europe moves to stem Omicron

Europe's COVID mandate protests are getting big and violent

Ram Ranch Resistance: How a gay cowboy song became ananti-convoy anthem

Dr. Fauci: The Man, Myth, Legend...and Schemer?

 

As we near the third year of the Covid pandemic, there is no doubt that when the history of this epoch is written, the name of Dr. Fauci will be front and center. But, having said that, what do we know about this man who has had more influence on Americans, and perhaps the world, than any individual in decades?

For many, Dr. Fauci is the "white knight" coming to save civilization from some pestilence, be it natural or manmade. For others, he's closer to one of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse.  Either way, Dr. Fauci has played a key role in shaping domestic policy while further dividing Americans. Maybe it's time we pull back the curtains and take a look at Dr. Anthony Stephen Fauci.

Anthony Stephen Fauci was born on Christmas Eve 1940 in Brooklyn, New York, making him 81 years old. His grandparents emigrated from Italy in the late 1800's; his paternal grandparents from Sciacca and his maternal grandparents from Naples.

He was (naturally) raised Catholic, but has since become a Humanist (he was named "Humanist of the Year" in 2021 by the American Humanist Association). His father, Stephen, was a Columbia University educated pharmacist. His mother and sister worked at the family's pharmacy directly below their apartment.

Fauci attended the private Jesuit Regis High School before going on to attend the College of the Holy Cross where he majored in classical studies with a pre-med emphasis. After graduating in 1962 with a Bachelor of Arts degree, he went on to Cornell Medical College (now known as Weill Cornell Medicine) and graduated top in his class in 1966 with a Doctor of Medicine.  He then interned in internal medicine at New York Medical Hospital---Cornell Medical Center (Weill Cornell Medical Center).

From there he went to work at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) where he was a clinical associate at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Laboratory of Clinical Investigations.  By 1974 he was head of their Clinical Physiology Section. In 1980 he was named chief of NIAID's Laboratory of Immunoregulation.

In January of 2020, he was appointed to President Trump's task force in dealing with the Covid-19 virus and served as the de facto spokesman. At the time he said the virus wasn't a "major threat" to the public, and the overall risk to the average American was "low". In March he predicted that the infection rate would be around 1%, which was still around ten times that of the annual flu.

In that role he routinely testified before numerous Congressional committees and subcommittees on the effectiveness of various strategies to contain the spreading Covid-19 virus. In December 2021, Dr. Fauci was appointed to President-elect Joe Biden's administration as the Chief Medical Advisor to the President, where he currently remains and oversees efforts to deal with the virus.

According to his biography, Dr. Fauci has been a leader in the study and treatment of numerous infectious diseases such as Ebola, AIDs/HIV, SARS, Swine Flu, and, of course, COVID-19, among many others. In the process, he's received several awards, including the Ernst Jung Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Robert Koch Prize. I have no doubt that at some point he'll receive the devalued Nobel Peace Prize in Medicine (the Nobel Peace Prize lost much of its esteem when it was given to President Obama in 2015 for doing absolutely nothing).  

As if it couldn't get any better, Dr. Fauci holds 12 patents dealing with immunology (mainly HIV related), which is his specialty.  But doesn't he also own or have an interest in the vaccines pertaining to the COVID virus, particularly Moderna? That's what Robert Kennedy Jr. has alleged, but is it true?

Kennedy had claimed the Fauci invested $500 million dollars into the Moderna vaccine, and thus owns half of the patent. He went to say that Fauci and "the five guys who work for him" were therefore entitled to receive royalties.  Later, Kennedy amended his statement and claimed that the National Institutes of Health, which is the parent of NIAID where Fauci worked, owned half the Moderna patent.

However, according the NIH's  director, Dr. Francis Collins, it's possible that the NIH may own some intellectual property rights which was used in the development of Moderna's Covid-19 vaccine, no percentage or financial amount has been put forward.

The NIH did acknowledge that there is a pending scientific paper by four NIH immunologist who have filed a patent application for a 2019-nCoV vaccine which is currently pending. However, Dr. Fauci's name is not among the four applicants. Furthermore, if the patent is granted, these four scientists are prohibited by federal law from receiving more than $150,000 in royalties each per year.

So, hopefully that clears up the misnomer of Fauci owning stake in any of the Covid-19 vaccines. But that leaves the question, what does he have an financial interests in and how must does he make a year? Let's take his salary first.

Dr. Fauci, as director of the NIAID, and his wife, Christine Grady, who is the chief bioethicist at the National Institutes of Health, earn a combined salary of $668,312.00 annually, which ain't exactly chump change.  They have investment gains of around $794,369.00 which includes stocks, bonds, and money market portfolios for 2020.

Their investments are broadly held, meaning no specific investments in pharmaceutical companies, including those directly involved with the Covid-19 vaccine.  Dr. Fauci's total investment account for the same year was about $8.4 million. His wife's was  $2.1 million. With some couponing, I think they'll get by.

Fauci does have a stake in a San Francisco restaurant by the name of "Jackson Fillmore" of somewhere between $1000 and $15,000. However, according to their financial disclosure statements, they've not earned any income from this investment in 2019 or 2020.

Dr. Fauci has earned about $100,000 in royalties and professional reimbursements, most from editing medical textbooks.  Included in that $100,000 was travel reimbursements of $6328.00 for attending a board meeting of McGraw Hill Publishing Company.

Lastly are the various perks and pension benefits.  Fauci's disclosure statement estimate the value to be somewhere around $200,500.00. According to a Forbes report, when Dr. Fauci retires, he will receive a retirement pension of $350,000. Thus, in conclusion of his finances, it appears that Dr. Fauci and his wife made only $1.7 million in 2020, which by Washington standards is pretty much chump change.

When I decided to investigate Dr. Fauci, I wasn't sure what to expect. From everything I've read and seen online, he was a typical duplicitous Washington schemer of the kind we've come to expect and accept of professional politicians and their ilk.

According to the various articles, Dr. Fauci owned the patents to the Covid-19 vaccines, or stock in the companies which made the vaccines, or was directed involved with providing research pertaining to the virus to the Chinese, and so forth. However, no such verifiable information was discovered. Of course, that still doesn't mean he couldn't exert some more subtle forms of influence.

Dr. Fauci does own mutual funds and other forms of investments, but none are directly connected to any of manufactures of the Covid-19 vaccines. There's nothing to indicate that Dr. Fauci has or had direct personal contact with the Chinese regarding the Covid virus, but that doesn't exclude the possibility of the National Institutes of Health or personnel within one of its 27 different subsidiaries or indirect contact via emails or reviews  with individuals who do.

Having said that, there's no question that companies like Pfizer, Moderna, and BioNTech aren't making money off the vaccines. You can bet they're raking it in as are those who provide medical mask, gloves, hoses, ventilation equipment, and other medical supplies.

As an aside, Pfizer, Moderna and BioNTech make around $65,000 (combined) per minute off the Covid-9 vaccines (or a combined $93.5 million per day every day).  They've received over $8 billion dollars from taxpayers and expect to make pre-tax profits of $34 billion dollars while producing five new billionaires with a combined net worth of $35.1 billion dollars.

There's also the strong likelihood that Dr. Fauci either knows or is familiar with individuals within these companies. I would be shocked if he wasn't. It's a relatively small and close knit industry, especially at the level he operates in, but I don't see any no guilt by association. Before I retired, I was the senior legal manager for a receivables company and I knew or knew of hundreds of attorneys, credit managers, law lists, and people in the legal field around the world. The thing about specialization is that it makes for a generally small professional world.  

There's no doubt, at least in my mind, that the Covid-19 virus is a intentionally weaponized version of the flu or that it was intentionally "leaked" on the general population by or with the implicit consent of the Chinese government with the full knowledge that tens of thousands or even millions of Chinese would die as a byproduct. "Collateral damage" I believe is the sanitized term for it. There is no doubt that Covid-19 is in any way a naturally occurring virus.

To date over 5.5 million worldwide have died, but to a determined foe, that's a small price to pay to destabilize the world's economies (particularly the United States), while making a huge profit selling the cure to disease it created. Better yet, the virus will continue to morph and spin off variants like Omicron. Thus providing a unending source of revenue while continuing to weaken ideological opponents and killing off the weakest among us. It sounds cold, and it is. But remember that Chairman Mao was responsible for murdering over 48 million people as part of his "Great Leap Forward".

It also doesn't surprise me that the more insidious elements here at home have used the occasion to further encroach on our individual freedoms. America is, after all, a "soft fascist" Corporatocracy managed by a small but obscenely wealthy clique of oligarchs. We've become a de facto surveillance state overseen by this corporate-government partnership.

We're just one crisis, real or manufactured, from a police state. What better than a unending health crisis, especially one which results in promoting hostilities between divergent ideological, religious, ethnic, and racial groups for and against "mandates for our own good"?

I seriously doubt Dr. Fauci is part of any such cabal. While immensely talented and well educated, he's merely a bit player playing out his role with honorable intentions I believe. Besides, his relatively low wealth would preclude his membership among the ruling class. To use a Star Wars analogy, Dr. Fauci may serve the Empire, but he's not of the Empire.

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on Facebook or whatever platform you use to read A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation.

 

Patents by  Inventor Anthony S. Fauci

Fact Check: SARS-CoV2 was not created using genes from HIV, Fauci does not hold patents for 'HIV component' to SARs-CoV2

8-170 submitted by Dr. Moehanid Talia

Conspiracy theorist spreads false claim about Fauci,patents, and COVID-19

Does Anthony Fauci Own "Half the Patent' for Moderna COVID Vaccine?

 

Disclosures Show Dr. Fauci's Household Made $1.7 Million in 2020, Including Income, Royalties, Travel Perks, and Investment Gains

Pfizer, BioNTech, and Moderna making $1000 profit every second while world's poorest countries remain largely unvaccinated

 

 

 

 

Big Pharma: A Monopoly in Need of a Cure

 In last week's article we discussed some of the monopolies which dominate the American economy, and by extension, Congress, the Judiciary, and the Presidency.  While powerful, especially the financial sector, perhaps none are currently more powerful than Big Pharma. Just how big and powerful?

While we get to that in just a moment, but consider this. 70% of all Americans are dependant in some way, be it medicine or medical equipment, on what Big Pharma says we need. For the majority of that 70%, what they receive is critical to their overall health and even their very survival.

So, just who is "Big Pharma" anyway? Names such as Bayer, Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson and Johnson are household names we're familiar with, particularly thanks to the Covid pandemic. However, many others are simply unknown except through their products which are extensively marketed.

 Starting in reverse order with the tenth largest and most influential global pharmaceutical company (all revenue is from 2020) is Sonfi, the French manufacturer of Zantac, Plavix, and Ambien, reported just over $41 billion dollars in revenue. Next is Pfizer, whose revenue was about $42 billion. Bristol Myers Squibb racked up $42.5 billion dollars. GlaxoSmithKline was seventh with $43.5 billion dollars.

In sixth place was Janssen, which is part of Johnson and Johnson. Their revenue in 2020 was $45.5 billion dollars. AbbVie, the maker of Humira, made $45.8 billion dollars. Merck earned a under $48 billion. Novartis, a Swiss producer of drugs such as Ritalin, earned its shareholders $48.6 billion dollars. Second place belongs to Roche Pharmaceuticals (a division of the Roche Group), manufacturer of Valium, and also a Swiss company. It's revenue for 2020 was a staggering $49.5 billion dollars.

Finally, the top earner in 2020 was a state owned Chinese company named Sinopharm, whose revenue was $50.4 billion dollars. Sinopharm is headquartered in Beijing China. It's official name is the China National Pharmaceutical Group Corporation, a holding company for China National Pharmaceutical Corporation, China National Pharmaceutical Industry Corporation, the China National Pharmaceutical  Foreign Trade Corporation, and the China National Medical Device Corporation.

 In 2009, Sinopharm merged with China National Biotec Group. You may be more familiar with their subsidiary---the Wuhan Institute of Biological Products. Sinopharm is known for R&D and the production vaccines, included the widely distributed BIBP vaccine which is being used in the treatment of Covid-19. Other leading companies which didn't make it into the top ten included AstraZeneca (12th), Eli Lilly (14th), Bayer (16th), or Novo Nordisk (17th).

As an aside, Moderna is a pharmaceutical and biotechnology company focusing on RNA therapeutics and vaccines dealing with the immune system. It's only commercial product to date is the Moderna Covid 19 vaccine.

In the U.S., the deepest pockets belong to six companies, Eli Lilly with a market value of $98 billion, GlaxoSmithKline with $103 billion, Merck has a market value of $164 billion, Pfizer $212 billion dollars, Novartis at $273 billion, and Johnson and Johnson with a market value of $274 billion. 

It's worth noting the Big Pharma doesn't spend the majority of its substantial profits on developing on medication or devices. In fact, marketing receives 19 times more funding than development, all to provide you, the customer, with that nice warm and fuzzy feeling you get watching one of those homey  "one of us" commercials on TV, radio, in print, or social media because they care.

Going further, the top 14 U.S. pharmaceutical companies spent a combine $31 million dollars just on lobbying Congress in the first quarter of 2021. Pfizer alone spent $3.7 million.  The trade association, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturing spent 8.6 million on Congress for that same quarter.

That doesn't include the millions they spend on wooing doctors, pharmacists, dentists, optometrists, hospitals, nursing homes or rehab centers, nor does it include money spent on medical associations, professional medical unions, colleges, seminars, or trade shows hawking their latest wonder drug or medical devise. After all, where did you think all those "samples" or other medical items (include anatomical displays and posters) you see at the doctor's office come from? 

Lastly, they spend millions yearly cultivating what they call "thought leaders" in the medical and pharmaceutical field. Thought leaders are individuals who widely respected locally, regionally and nationally that are used to promote various drugs or devises to other professionals in the medical industry. This is often the reason physicians recommend one pill or product over another. These "thought leaders" are usually very well compensated for their endorsement with trips to fancy getaways for "seminars" (all expenses paid), honorariums, and other very nice perks.

In 2020, 2/3 of Congress cashed a check from Big Pharma. The majority of money, 7.1 million, went to Republicans while Democrats received 6.6 million, but that's still just part of the story. Big Pharma spent $263 million dollars in 2021 lobbying Congress. Every member of Congress had a minimum of three lobbyists from Big Pharma knocking on their door. What were they trying to buy?

Big Pharma abhors the idea of the Federal Government passing legislation capping prescription prices (and who can blame them with a captive market of 70%?). They equally hate the notion of allowing individuals to shop around for their prescriptions in places like Canada or Mexico (where they often cite a lack of quality or oversight) and elsewhere.

The truth of the matter is that the quality of these drugs, if bought from reputable companies, are the same or better than here in the U.S.. The main difference is that the price of drugs are four times more expensive in the U.S. as they are elsewhere, and that's just the way Big Pharma likes it.

Lobbyists for Big Pharma don't always focus on every legislator. Often, they'll concentrate on key committee members who have the clout to either push through a piece of legislation (which they wrote), or just as importantly, has the ability to keep other pieces of legislation they oppose tied up in committee. This is thanks to Congress's rigid hierarchy, but also to the extensive and always up-to-date research they compile of not just every legislator, but also their key staffers.  They often know beforehand who they can count on and who they can't.

The top influence buyers are Starkey Hearing Technologies, which gave around $564,000 to members of Congress; the majority of which went to Republicans. However, Masimo Corporation (maker of medical devises) gave all of its $533,714 to Democrats. Pfizer split its $487,000 equally between the two parties. RAAS Nutritionals gave all its $400,000 to Democrats.

Other donors included Abbotts Labs which donated slightly more of its $284,000 to the GOP. Johnson and Johnson did just the opposite with its $275,000. Eli Lilly gave most of its $214,000 to Democrats too, as did the remaining top 20 donors.

The top Big Pharma lobbyist for 2021 was the trade association, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers, Inc which gave $22,903.000 (mainly to Democrats), dwarfing the other four leading lobbying organizations, whose donations hovered between $7 and 9 million each.

Big Pharma has fought to keep the conversion of name brand drugs (like Bystolic, which is used for controlling difficult to maintain blood pressure) from becoming generic because that would substantially lower prices and effectively remove that drug from their inventory, which affects their bottom line.

Therefore, pharmaceutical companies make minor changes in their drug patients (in what's called "evergreening") to extend their control over various drugs and keep prices artificially high. "Evergreening" is something some member of Congress would like to see, but not so Big Pharma.

Speaking of generics, it's worth noting the very little new drugs are actually developed in-house by some of the major drug makers. Using a 2017 annual report, STAT, which analyses the biomedical, pharmaceutical, and medical industry, looked at 62 new products belonging to Pfizer and Johnson and Johnson (44 for Pfizer and 18 for J&J).  Out of the 44 new products, only 10 were developed by Pfizer and two of Johnson and Johnson's 18. 

In looking at the drug market in general, 81% of all new developments came from outside sources. Typically one of the big pharmaceutical companies will acquire the rights to the new drug and sit on it without ever developing it for the market or, alternatively, will "lease" out the patent for research purposes.

At this point you are probably wondering who is suppose to keep Big Pharma in check. Well, the answer is (at least theoretically) the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). But all is not as it seems. The role of the FDA is to monitor the pharmaceutical and medical industry while verifying its claims, help regulate prices, and approving any new drugs brought to the public market. Additionally, the FDA is partially funded by this same industry through user and other fees.

However, with decades of cutbacks in funding, the FDA has now come to rely on those it regulates for its operational budget. Big Pharma provides 75% of the FDA's funding of its drug review budget. In effect, since the drug and other companies control the purse strings, the FDA has become all but impotent.

Should the FDA attempt to push back or exert to much control, all the drug companies has to do is reduce, delay, or stop introducing anything which generates a fee in order to have an impact.  As a result, in December of 2021, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform released a very revealing report about the clout of Big Pharma and its influence over the FDA.

For instance, the prices of the top leading 12 drugs used by Medicare recipients increased 250% simply by using various market strategies to avoid conversions to generics to minimize competition as well as "hiding" real profits and extending their monopoly over these drugs by decades. Furthermore, these same 12 drugs are now priced at over 500 times what they were when they were first introduced to the market.   

The same report also discovered that the top 14 drug companies spent $577 billion dollars on stock buybacks and dividends over the last previous five years, which was $56 billion more than was spent on research and development. These same 14 companies also received millions in taxpayer based grants and subsidies designed for the development of new drugs, not to mention huge tax breaks.  

So, what does this mean for you and me? It means simply that the medical industry, like any other industry, is largely confined to a few very wealthy and influential corporations whose first loyalty is its officers and shareholders. It also means that the care of the patient is often secondary to the profit made from some pill or device. A cured patient is a lost customer. Lower prices are lost profits.

Big Pharma will continue to peddle its influence in the halls of Washington, and closer to home in state legislatures while it has a pill for every ill to sell to us, real or imagined. Professional medical associations are often motivated by the bottom line to move patients through like an assembly line.

The more patients seen the greater the billable hours and drugs or whatever else sold. Meanwhile insurance companies second guess doctors in order to minimize costs, overriding recommendations even to the point of harm to the patient.

Western medicine, unlike in the East, is focused mainly on the treatment of symptoms and outcomes, whereas in Eastern medicine the focus is on prevention first. Medical professionals in the West tend to ignore natural or homeopathic cures, which may take a little longer, has fewer (if any) side effects, preferring what some call "controlled poisons" whose potential side effects can be worse than the illness.  Sadly, we can say the same about Big Pharma, whose profit over patient side effects are killing America.  The ancients saw healing as a gift from the gods. Today it's big business and profit.

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on Facebook or whatever platform you use to read A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation.

 

Pharma 50: The 50 largest pharmaceutical companies in theworld

STAT: Do large pharma companies provide drug developmentinnovation? Our analysis says no

Pharma campaign Cash Delivered with Surgical Precision

The Biopharmaceutical Industry Provides 75% Of The FDA's Drug Review Budget

OpenSecrets: Pharmaceutical and Medical Products

Rules For Thee But Not For Me: Congressional Exemptions (Including Covid Vaccine)

Maybe it's the word "mandate" which I don't like. It conjures up images of jackboots. It sounds so finite; so authoritarian.  I've never cared for authoritarianism, especially when it comes from the government, and particularly when it involves my personal choices. I've always been a strong advocate of individual rights.  So were our Founding Fathers. They were big on individual rights and restricting government's ability to impede those rights.

So, when President Joe Biden comes out with "mandates" about vaccinations, I have an issue with that. It's not that I necessarily oppose the vaccinations. I think they are likely beneficial, particularly if you're someone with a impaired immune system such as the elderly or someone with a illness which affects their immune system. However, the government also claims natural immunity alone isn't enough even for young and healthy people, which seems odd.    

Naturally, I have some questions about the vaccines themselves and the record time they were developed and approved. Most vaccines go through a long and laborious procedure of test trials and reviews lasting years, not four months, before being receiving the FDC stamp of approval (in fact, the average process takes 10-15 years). Apparently, however, the COVID vaccines were an exception, which is a little disconcerting.

And yet, President Biden has issued a mandate requiring virtually everyone to either get vaccinated or regularly tested.  Many employers, as well as schools, however, have insisted that everyone be vaccinated or lose their job. Other employers are more "lenient".  They are opting to forego proof of vaccination and instead require weekly testing, wearing a mask, and avoiding contact with customers and other employees as much as possible. How generous, especially if your income depends on customer contact (note intended sarcasm).

One reason I italicized the word "virtually" is because this mandate, which is causing so much grief among you and I, doesn't apply to members of Congress, the President, or their immediate staff. Yelp, you read that right. President Biden, VP Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, and the usual suspects are exempt from the "jab". That doesn't mean they can't get the shot if they want to. It's just means they don't have to if they don't want to. I have a problem with that.

If the various vaccines are so safe, and Covid is so contagious, then why are they exempt from the same jab we're told we have to go to work, send our children to school, or is required by all other government employees including the military?  As an aside, all four of the military branches discharged military personnel for refusing the vaccination.

We've all been told to "social distance" by at least six feet, wear a mask, and avoid social gatherings, and yet how often have we seen government leaders, such as members of Congress, huddle around a microphone or photo-op without a mask (or drop their mask as soon as they think the press is leaving)? How about members of the G7 all setting around talking mask free? Monkey see monkey don't?

I'm particularly amused...and a little miffed...to hear government leaders or the uber rich tell us wear masks indoors or to avoid contact with family, especially during the holidays; tell us to remain inside unless it's essential that we go out, and then avoid all contact and get back as soon as we can. I'm sure they're in full compliance with their own instructions...not! Vaccinations aside, all this made me wonder what else besides the Covid jab is Congress and the President exempt from but still applies to us.

One item which caught my eye immediately is FOIA, or the Freedom of Information Act. Members of Congress, and any associated committees, are not subject to FOIA, which, in effect, means they don't answer to you. The explanation given is that responding to FOIA requests could put Congressional members "under undo pressure".

What about "insider trading"? In 2012, President Obama signed into law a bill prohibiting insider trading; that is, financial information received from sources outside the normal legislative process. But some enterprising legislators left a loophole in the bill as usual. Information received in the normal conduct of legislative business, including closed briefings, is not considered insider trading. So, if you learn something in a closed briefing about, let's say, a vaccine, that's not considered to be insider trading, you might want to have your broker on speed dial.  

Whistleblower protection. Ever hear the expression "See something say something"? Well, not if you work for the legislative branch! Congress passed the Whistleblower Protection Act in 1989 to encourage federal employees, including those working in the executive branch to speak up if they see or hear something that's not kosher while protecting them from retaliation, including termination (at least in theory). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act gives similar protection to workers in the private sector.

However, Congress exempted itself and those who work in the legislative branch from protection. That includes those working in the Library of Congress, the Architect of the Capitol, and other federal jobs. So, if you  suspect something you'd better keep your damn mouth shut if you know what's good for you!

Along those same lines is subpoenaing health and safety records, and the ability to conduct investigations. The Occupational and Health Safety Act permits the U.S. Department of Labor to conduct investigations and obtain records from private businesses if required. However, the Office of Compliance, which issues those subpoenas, does not have the authority to investigate or subpoena records of alleged violations from the legislative branch. Kinda handy don't you think?

Public sector unions are the largest segment of organized labor in the United States. However, in addition to the above, Congress is exempt from keeping regular workplace records such as pertaining to the Age Discrimination Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act  to name just two.

It's worth nothing that in 1997, Congress passed Congressional Accountability Act. What's that you ask? It required Congress to adopt and apply certain legislation which had previously been signed into law but which Congress has exempted itself from.

A few of those laws (and when they were enacted) included the 1964 Title VII Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Occupation Health and Safety Act of 1970, and the Veteran's Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994. Remember, these weren't formally adopted by Congress until 1997 even though they were passed into law years or decades earlier.

Then there's the topic of receiving outside money. Members of Congress receive a base salary of $174,000 (Majority and minority leaders in the Senate make a base of $193,400).  The House Speaker (that's Nancy Pelosi) makes $223,500. That doesn't include all the various perks they get such as gym membership, per diem, subsidized insurance (there's a taxpayer based fund which pays their premiums), first class seats on planes, free parking...anywhere (and no tickets!). Of course, there's always the "outside" perks which really make the job worthwhile.  

Why fly commercial when you can get a catered flight on a private airplane courtesy of a corporation or political association anywhere and at any time you want? Why live off a measly $174,000 when you can form your own personal leadership PAC to solicit mega donations which you can use to pay for all sorts of "political" related expenses? Others have set up special tax exempt foundations (funded by a "pay to play" scheme) and pay themselves in the six or seven figure range for "consulting".

You also can get speaking fees paying in the hundreds of thousands.  In 2001, Bill and Hillary gave 729 political talks averaging $210,795 each of them! After her tenure as Secretary  of State, Hillary received $22 million dollars in speaking fees. Most of the money---15.9 million---came from corporations which regularly lobby Congress.

While ordinary members of Congress may not do that well, they can still make a large chunk of change, and we're not even talking book deals or semi-regular appearances on talk shows! As an aside, bear in mind that just over 50% of Congressional members were millionaires (many are multi-millionaires) going into a job that pays $174,000.  You can bet that ain't doing it for their health or our wellbeing either.

The top 10% of Congressional members have three times the wealth as the bottom 90%, which is still far more than the average American household owns. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), saw her wealth go from $41 million to $115 million since making it into that top 10% bubble. Senator Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) wealth went from a paltry $3 million dollars to over $34 million. Then again, for some it doesn't matter. Senator Kelly Loeffer (R-GA) came into the game with a net worth of over $500 million.  The game has been rigged so that only those with deep pockets can play.

On the topic of money, there is one myth I want to dispel. Members of Congress don't get their salary for life, even if they serve just one term. Members can receive a full pension only if they're 62 years old and served for a minimum of five years; 50 years old and have served 20 years; or they've served for 25 years regardless of their age.

 Also, regardless of how long they served, they cannot receive more than 80% of the salary at the time they left Congress. They must also pay 1.3% of their salary into the Federal Employees' Retirement System and 6.2% in Social Security taxes.

Many members of Congress, including key staffers, often end up on Washington's K Street as corporate lobbyists, "advisers" or "consultants" (members of Congress must legally wait 12 months before they start glad handing their former colleagues). How many are we talking about?

About 78% of former House members and 87% of former Senate members, plus key staff members, become lobbyists while most of the remainder "advise" or "consult" on a part-time basis. On average, when a Congressman becomes a lobbyist, they get a 1,452% raise over their former $174,000 salary (plus all the perquisite perks) while lobbyists spend approximately $3 billion dollars lobbying Congress and other federal agencies. Lobbyists also write the overwhelming majority of all legislation too.  Is it any wonder that we're a Corporatocracy?

On that note, I'd like to ask you dear reader if any of this sounds like "socialism" to you? I can't imagine it does. Socialism is public ownership or control. Communism is state ownership of everything. That's includes private businesses, banks, and property. That's means no Wall Street. No lobbyists. That means everything you read above couldn't and wouldn't happen under socialism, Communism or Marxism.

Hopefully, this article has shed some light on the abuses and misuses of Congress, as well as the political system in general, for you. President Biden can "mandate" all he wants, but for countless Americans, it carries little or no weight, especially given that Biden and Congress have exempted themselves. But, as shown above, they've exempted themselves from many other laws too (and that's just a partial list).

The Status Quo that created the rules created the two tier legal system. Some say it's biased towards blacks, or Hispanics, or gays, or women, or the poor, and in a sense they'd be right.  Its aim is to separate us from them and us from each other. The more divided we are, the easier we are to control and manipulate. President John Kennedy said, in 1962, that "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable". That clock is about to strike midnight.

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider subscribing. It's free! Lastly please be sure to ""like" us on Facebook or whatever platform you use to read A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation.

 

Why is Congress exempt from the Biden Covid mandate?

No, President Biden's mandate for federal workers does not apply to members of Congress and their staff

Here's who paid Hillary Clinton $22 Million in Speaking Fees

Majority of Lawmakers in the 116th Congress are millionaires

When a Congressman becomes a lobbyist he get a 1,452% raise(on average)

 

Do As We Say, Congress Says, Then Does What It Wants

Perks Members Of Congress Give To Themselves

 

Laws That Do Not Apply To Congress

Congress exempt from several federal laws

How Senators May have Avoided Insider Trading Charges