Op-Eds

There is a blackout on any conversation about how Ivermectin beat COVID-19 in India. When I discussed the dire straits that India found itself in early this year with 414,000 cases per day, and over 4,000 deaths per day, and how that evaporated within five weeks of the addition of Ivermectin, I am often asked, “But why is there no mention of that in the news?”

Yes, exactly. Ask yourself why India’s success against the Delta variant with Ivermectin is such a closely guarded secret by the NIH and CDC. Second, ask yourself why no major media outlets reported this fact, but instead, tried to confuse you with false information by saying the deaths in India are 10 times greater than official reports. — Read this Op-Ed published by Dr. Hope

COVID-19 vaccine mandates have become a hotly contested issue, as coronavirus cases and hospitalizations rebound nationwide, driven by the highly contagious delta variant and unswerving vaccine hesitancy. New York City will soon be the first major U.S. city to require proof of vaccination to enter restaurants, gyms, and other indoor public spaces. Dr. Marty Makary, a professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and editor in chief of MedPage Today, argues that mandating vaccines for “every living, walking American” is, as of now, not well-supported by science. Moreover Makary, author of “The Price We Pay: What Broke American Health Care—and How to Fix It,” has concerns about the two-dose vaccine regimen for young people.

As told to Lindsay Lyon as part of Two Takes, a U.S. News series examining opinions about key issues. Responses have been edited for length and clarity.

Should all Americans be required to get the COVID-19 vaccine?

No. As a physician with a lot of experience dealing with patients who don’t follow what we ask them to do, I believe you win more bees with honey than fire. Read the rest of the Op-Ed Commentary on U.S. News and World Report

Last week, PayPal announced a partnership with the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center to “investigate” the role of “white supremacists” and propagators of “anti-government” rhetoric, subjective labels that potentially could impact a large number of groups or people using their service. PayPal says the collected information will be shared with other financial firms and politicians. Facebook is taking similar measures, recently introducing messages that ask users to snitch on their potentially “extremist” friends, which considering the platform’s bias seems mainly to target the political right. At the same time, Facebook and Microsoft are working with several other web giants and the United Nations on a database to block potential extremist content.

The actions of these major companies may seem logical in an internet riddled with scams and crime. After all, nobody will defend far-right militias or white supremacist groups using these platforms for their odious goals. However, the same issue with government censorship exists with corporate censorship: If there is a line, who draws it? Will the distinction between mundane politics and extremism be a “I’ll know it when I see it” scenario, as former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart described obscenity? If so, will there be individuals able to unilaterally remove people’s effective ability to use the internet? Could a Facebook employee equate Ben Shapiro with David Duke, and remove his account?

The implications of these crackdown efforts will be significantly more broad than just prohibiting Donald Trump from tweeting at 3 a.m. Young people cannot effectively function in society if blocked from using Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, Uber, Amazon, PayPal, Venmo and other financial transaction systems. Some banking platforms already have announced a ban on certain legal purchases, such as firearms. The growth of such restrictions, which will only accelerate with support from (usually) left-wing politicians, could create a system in which individuals who do not hold certain political views could be blocked from polite society and left unable to make a living.   — Read the Complete Op-Ed on the Hill

The Food and Drug Administration claims to follow the science. So why is it attacking ivermectin, a medication it certified in 1996?

Earlier this year the agency put out a special warning that “you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19.” The FDA’s statement included words and phrases such as “serious harm,” “hospitalized,” “dangerous,” “very dangerous,” “seizures,” “coma and even death” and “highly toxic.” Any reader would think the FDA was warning against poison pills. In fact, the drug is FDA-approved as a safe and effective antiparasitic. Read this very interesting Op-Ed in full: Wall Street Journal

In the event the original article can no longer be accessed, this is a PDF copy of the original Wall Street Journal article.

Mr. Biden knows surging prices for gas and other goods hurt middle-class Americans and could undermine his Presidency. This is one reason he refused a proposal to pay for the Senate’s bipartisan infrastructure deal by increasing the gas tax.

But note the irony that Mr. Biden is now urging OPEC to open its taps even while his Administration is pursuing policies with the goal of shutting down U.S. oil and natural gas production. His Administration has sought to halt new leases on federal land, suspended leases in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and is expanding endangered-species protections to limit oil production on private land, among other policies designed to punish fossil fuels.

But reducing U.S. production means reduced global supply even as demand surges. This means more pricing leverage for OPEC and Russia—and for Iran if Mr. Biden lets Tehran escape sanctions on its oil exports as part of a renewed nuclear deal. So Russia and Iran will benefit from Mr. Biden’s fossil-fuel disarmament while Americans pay more for energy.  Source: Wall Street Journal Op-Ed

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s latest speech had little to do with his usual anti-Israel propaganda. He also barely made a mention of the fact that his longtime ally Ebrahim Raisi was elected as the Iranian president, nor was his speech rife with the usual calls for Arabs worldwide to support Hamas and fight for Jerusalem.

Friday’s address focused on domestic issues in Lebanon – the water and power supplies, petrol rations, and food stamps. Lebanon, you see, is in a freefall and it is threatening to take Hezbollah and Nasrallah down with it.

For the past few years, Lebanon has been plagued with an insurmountable political crisis that has prevented the formation of a government. It was also hit by a dire financial crisis that has left it bankrupt. Banks have shuttered, food has become scarce, hospitals are unable to care for patients, and now the military is struggling to provide its troops with the necessary supplies.The Day after Lebanon Impodes (Op-Ed) Israel Hayom

It never fails.

Just as we get a glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe, there might be a chance of crawling out of this totalitarian cesspool in which we’ve been mired, we get kicked down again.

In the same week that the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously declared that police cannot carry out warrantless home invasions in order to seize guns under the pretext of their “community caretaking” duties, the Biden Administration announced its plans for a “precrime” crime prevention agency.

Be sure to read the entire commentary by John Whitehead, director of the Rutherford Institute, as he reveals the coming police state!