This guy is Gov DeSantis’ deputy press secretary, so, no joke.
In Florida, it is against the law to mislead and misrepresent the efficacy of a drug.
So, today, I’m announcing a petition to the Supreme Court of Florida to impanel a statewide grand jury to investigate any wrongdoing with respect to the COVID-19 vaccines.
— Jeremy Redfern (@JeremyRedfernFL) December 13, 2022
Key House Republican says gun rights bills will be on 2023 to-do list
Key backers of the gun rights amendment Iowa voters have just added to Iowa’s Constitution say they’ll introduce a series of gun-related proposals in the 2023 Iowa Legislature. House Republican Leader Matt Windschitl of Missouri Valley has been involved in gun-related issues since he was elected to the House in 2006.
“There are multiple different things we’ve been trying to get done to restore freedoms in Iowa and we’ve not been able to get across the finish line on some of those things,” Windschitl said this afternoon. “I’m not at a point right now where I’m going to discuss publicly what all of those items are, but you can expect us, after this victory, and restore freedoms to Iowans that never should have been taken away.”
Windschitl and others gathered in the statehouse this afternoon for a ceremony to mark passage of the amendment.
“Iowans now have the best protections for their fundamental right to keep and bear arms of any state in the nation,” Windschitl said.
The amendment got a majority of votes in 97 of Iowa’s 99 counties.
“Iowans have made their voice loud and clear,” Windschitl said. “Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.”
That last sentence is the state motto, adopted in 1847, the year after Iowa was recognized as a state. Secretary of State Paul Pate said the gun rights amendment was added to the state constitution on December 1st when statewide election results were certified.
“On November 8, Iowans voted overwhelmingly to amend the Constitution, enshrining in it the right to bear arms,” Pate said. “In fact, 65% of Iowans supported the adoption. Congratulations to all of you for your hard work and the efforts to secure its passage.”
Richard Rogers of the Iowa Firearms Coalition lobbied for the amendment as well as recent state laws on the use of weapons and gun permits.
“However, each and every improvement in the law was subject to being reversed, or worse, by the next or any future legislature,” Rogers said during the ceremony. “Now, with the ratification of this freedom amendment, as we call it, such a course will be much more difficult.”
This is the 49th amendment added to Iowa’s Constitution. It goes beyond the wording of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and says Iowa courts must evaluate any lawsuits challenging Iowa gun laws by the toughest legal standard.
Some of our neighbors to the North ……..
Canadian Provinces Refuse to Assist in Trudeau’s Gun Grab
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau banned some 1,500 makes and models of military-grade “assault-style” weapons in Canada in May of 2020, shortly after the mass killings in Novia Scotia. That ban ended licensed gun owners being allowed to sell, transport, import, or use these sorts of weapons in Canada.
At that time, Public Safety Minister Bill Blair said, “As of today, the market for assault weapons in Canada is closed. Enough is enough…. Banning assault-style firearms will save Canadian lives.”
Now, Trudeau and Canada’s Liberal government are preparing to launch the mandatory buyback of the outlawed weapons, and several provinces and territories say they won’t assist in the process.
“The most strident opponents, including the United Conservative Party government in Alberta, are suggesting the Royal Canadian Mounted Police [RCMP] ‘refuse to participate,’” reported The Washington Post.
Part of the provincial government’s concern is that this gun confiscation program pushed by the Canadian federal minister in charge of the RCMP is unfunded. In a press release, Alberta’s provincial government stated that “Alberta taxpayers pay more than $750 million annually to fund the RCMP as our provincial police service. Alberta’s government expects that no tax dollars or police resources be wasted implementing a program that will not increase public safety…. Alberta is not legally obligated and has informed Ottawa it will not offer assistance.”
They also advised the commanding officer of the RCMP in Alberta that “pursuant to the Provincial Police Service Agreement (PPSA), the confiscation program is not an objective, priority or goal of the province or the provincial police service, nor is such deployment ‘appropriate to the effective and efficient delivery of police services.’ Consequently, the RCMP should refuse to participate.”
The release continued, “Despite taking this step, the federal government may still direct the RCMP to serve as confiscation agents. To prevent this from happening, Alberta will formally dispute any attempt to do so by invoking Article 23.0 of the PPSA.”
Fiduciary responsibility requires that return on investor’s $$ be given top priority over politically correct ‘woke’ BS
Florida Withdraws $2 Billion from BlackRock Over ESG Investing.
According to a press release, Florida Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis announced that the Florida Treasury would begin divesting $2 billion worth of assets currently under management by BlackRock. The State Treasury will immediately have Florida’s custody bank freeze approximately $1.43 billion worth of long-term securities and remove BlackRock as the manager of about $600 million worth of short-term overnight investments. Asset managers invest these taxpayer funds as part of Florida’s Treasury Investment Pool. By the beginning of 2023, the State Treasury will divest all short- and long-term investments from BlackRock and relocate investment responsibilities to other fund management entities.
Patronis said, “As Florida’s Chief Financial Officer, it’s my responsibility to get the best returns possible for taxpayers. The more effective we are in investing dollars to generate a return, the more effective we’ll be in funding priorities like schools, hospitals, and roads. As major banking institutions and economists predict a recession in the coming year, and as the Fed increases interest rates to combat the inflation crisis, I need partners within the financial services industry who are as committed to the bottom line as we are — and I don’t trust BlackRock’s ability to deliver. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink is on a campaign to change the world. In an open letter to CEOs, he’s championed ‘stakeholder capitalism’ and believes that ‘capitalism has the power to shape society.’ To meet this end, the asset management company has leaned heavily into Environmental, Social, and Governance standards – known as ESG – to help police who should, and who should not gain access to capital.”
At least one analyst downgraded BlackRock earlier this year because of the political risk associated with ESG investing. Following the third quarter release, UBS analyst Brennan Hawken downgraded the company’s stock from Buy to Neutral and dropped the target price to $585 from $700. Hawken’s note on the change cited growing pushback on BlackRock’s environment, social, and governance (ESG) investment strategy.
Rep. Jim Jordan calls out ATF Director Steve Dettelbach over Biden administration gun rules
WASHINGTON, D. C. – U.S. Rep Jim Jordan of Champaign County is targeting newly-confirmed U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director Steve Dettelbach over new gun rules that Jordan calls “a deliberate attempt to usurp the authority of Congress and infringe on American citizens’ fundamental Second Amendment rights.”
In a Monday letter to Dettelbach, the incoming House Judiciary Committee chair accused ATF of ignoring or failing to sufficiently respond to Jordan’s past requests for documents and information about the bureau’s efforts to regulate firearms through the rulemaking process. An ATF spokesman said Tuesday that his agency “has responded to the prior letters and will respond to the new letter and any future letters.”
Jordan also told Dettelbach his committee “may be forced to resort to compulsory process to obtain the material we require,” warned it “may require prompt testimony from ATF employees” and asked Dettelbach to “preserve all existing and future records and materials in your possession” relating to the gun rules.
The ghost gun policy clarifies that the kits qualify as “firearms” under the Gun Control Act, and that commercial manufacturers of the kits must become licensed and include serial numbers on the kits’ frame or receiver. Commercial sellers of the kits must become federally licensed and run background checks prior to a sale, as they must do with other commercially-made firearms. The fact that the kits were previously sold without backround checks made them “easily acquired by criminals who otherwise would not be permitted to possess a firearm,” the Justice Department said.
“Ghost guns look like a gun, they shoot like a gun, and they kill like a gun, but up until now they haven’t been regulated like a gun,” said a statement from John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety.
“Companies now sell accessories that make it easy for people to convert pistols into these more dangerous weapons without going through the statute’s background check and registration requirements,” the Justice Department said in announcing the new rules. “These requirements are important public safety measures because they regulate the transfer of these dangerous weapons and help ensure they do not end up in the wrong hands.”
ATF estimates around 3 million stabilizing braces have been sold since 2013
“Through its proposed rule, ATF seeks to subject stabilizing braces to GCA criminal penalties and NFA regulation without Congressional prohibition of the underlying activity,” Jordan said in a prior letter to ATF.
“In effect, what was designed as a niche accessory to assist disabled shooters, has become a loophole for gun companies to sell short-barreled rifles,” the organization said.
18 State AGs call on UPS, FedEx to clarify gun-purchase tracking polices
In an effort led by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, 18 state attorneys general are asking major shipping companies to clarify new policies allowing them to track firearm sales with unprecedented specificity and bypass warrant requirements to share that information with federal agencies.
Reports from Montana federal firearm license (FFL) holders made to Knudsen’s office indicate that UPS and FedEx are now requiring them to ship separately and track firearms, firearms parts, and firearm products. This is done allegedly so gun purchases can be tracked and retain documents about what specific items those shipments contain and make that information available to the companies upon request, according to an announcement from Knudsen’s office.
The coalition of attorneys general sent letters Tuesday to leadership at both companies requesting additional information on their new policies and the possibility that the effort was coordinated in part with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
“These demands, in tandem, allow [UPS/FedEx] to create a database of American gun purchasers and determine exactly what items they purchased… In doing so you, perhaps inadvertently, give federal agencies a workaround to normal warrant requirements. This allows [UPS/FedEx] to provide information at will or upon request to federal agencies—information detailing which Americans are buying what guns,” Attorney General Knudsen’s letters state. “Additionally, we recommend that you consider taking actions to limit potential liability moving forward, including the immediate cessation of any existing warrantless information sharing with federal agencies about gun shipments.”
In addition to requesting updated FFL-related shipping policies from the two companies, Knudsen asked them to clarify the following:
In addition to Knudsen, state attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming signed one or both letters.
GOP Rep. Greene Says Kevin McCarthy, House GOP Will Defund Special Counsel Investigating Trump
Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green on Friday said that current House Minority Leader and likely next House Speaker Kevin McCarthy would deny funding to the Department of Justice special counsel investigating former President Donald Trump.
In a Tweet detailing the plan, Greene insisted McCarthy would invoke the Holman rule, a procedural measure by which the House may adjust appropriations legislation to reduce the salary of or fire specific government employees. They may also use it to cut specific programs.
“Holman Rule. Look it up! [McCarthy] is going to put it in place,” Greene wrote. “That means no money for Garland’s politically weaponized Special Counsel. Don’t promise too many jobs! Whoops defunded.”
It was not immediately clear whether Greene was predicting such action or announcing that McCarthy had made the decision. Just the News has sought comment from Greene’s office. McCarthy’s office could not immediately be reached.
Attorney General Merrick Garland announced Friday that he was appointing Jack Smith as special counsel to oversee the DOJ investigations relating the former president.
“The Department of Justice has long recognized that in certain extraordinary cases it is in the public interest to appoint a special prosecutor to independently manage an investigation and prosecution,” Garland said. “Based on recent developments, including the former president’s announcement that he is a candidate for president in the next election and the sitting president’s stated intention to be a candidate as well, I have concluded that it is in the public interest to appoint a special counsel.”
McCarthy has thus far not announced any plans akin to what Greene has indicated. The California Republican this week won his party’s nomination for speaker while the party. Republicans won control of the House during the 2022 midterm elections, meaning McCarthy will likely be the one driving the lower chamber’s operations in the next congressional session.
Maine re-elects Democratic governor who opposes "assault weapon" bans, magazine limits, universal background checks, gun licenses, under-21 gun bans, and red flag laws https://t.co/2ng9PSRZ7K
— Rob Romano (@2Aupdates) November 16, 2022
Comment O’ The Day
If they were smart enough to nominate her for President, she’d get 350+ electoral votes lol
– Kostas Moros
Governor wants money to arm teachers, staff inside Mississippi schools
JACKSON, Miss. — Gov. Tate Reeves said he wants Mississippi lawmakers to put up more money to put armed teachers and staff inside schools.
Under the proposal, teachers or staff members would be nominated by the school district to undergo a thorough training program on active shooter situations and issued a gun, holster and bullets. The Mississippi Department of Public Safety would train the selected staff members.
“While law enforcement is the best-case scenario, having someone who is on the scene trained with a firearm that could possibly stop a shooter before more lives are lost is a good thing to have,” said Public Safety Commissioner Sean Tindell.
The governor’s plan pays $500 a month to the personnel who are trained for the enhanced safety role.
Akemi Stout, president of the Jackson Federation of Teachers, doesn’t support the proposal.
“How can this be to be so important to arm educators? People are afraid of their guns, so imagine if there is an instant where there is an armed intruder in the school and that person freezes, or the gun is taken from them,” Stout said.
Supporters point to the Pearl High School shooting, where an assistant school principal retrieved his weapon from his car to stop the shooter.
Also included in the governor’s budget recommendations are eliminating the state income tax, advancing the “new pro-life agenda,” giving Mississippi children “a first-rate education,” lowering health care costs and building a “high-quality” workforce.
“Our ultimate aim is straightforward: to advance responsible policies that lay the foundation of a strong society and allow Mississippians to flourish,” Reeves said in a statement. “We will maximize freedom, we will protect your rights and safety, and we will build a future that every Mississippian can be proud of. In other words, my budget continues to put you – the taxpayer – first.”
Lawmakers return to the Capitol in January for the start of the session.
Texas Governor Declares Invasion at Border, Invokes Constitutional Powers in Historic Action
Frustrated by an unending crisis fueled by drug and human trafficking at the southern border, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday declared his state was under an invasion and invoked special powers granted under the U.S. and Texas constitutions.
Abbott’s decision came after three dozen counties in his state passed resolutions calling for the dramatic action. The Republican governor said the declaration allows him to send National Guard troops to the border, treat drug cartels as terrorist organizations and build his own border wall separate of the federal government
I invoked the Invasion Clauses of the U.S. & Texas Constitutions to fully authorize Texas to take unprecedented measures to defend our state against an invasion.
I'm using that constitutional authority, & other authorization & Executive Orders to keep our state & country safe: pic.twitter.com/2Jt5HEMgp5
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) November 15, 2022
Abbott wrote in a letter to county officials the invocation of the constitutional powers was authorized by an executive order he signed back in July. His tweet Tuesday was the first time he publicly claimed he was invoking the invasion clauses of the U.S. and state constitutions.
Abbott previously garnered national headlines by busing thousands of illegal migrants to blue cities such as Chicago, New York and Washington D.C. But his new action Tuesday marked a major escalation that carries both political and legal consequences.
Abbott said his executive order had allowed him to:
The Range Access Act Would Bolster Public Lands and Gun Rights
As more Americans purchase firearms, opportunities to access shooting ranges on public lands should be expanded.
A newly-introduced House of Representatives bill aims to bolster public range access for new and returning recreational shooters.
Congressman Blake Moore (R-UT) introduced the timely Range Access Act to “require the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to ensure that each qualifying National Forest and BLM district” designate—at a minimum—one public recreational shooting range without charging a user fee.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which manages the USFS, states some ranges located on National Forest lands impose usage fees.
“This legislation is an important step in expanding access to recreational shooting practice. Americans from coast to coast love spending time in the outdoors, and expanding our ability to recreate on and enjoy our public lands is one of my core focuses in Congress,” said Congressman Blake Moore in a press release. “The Range Access Act would establish free shooting ranges for sportsmen to safely participate in target practice while supporting our wildlife conservation and local economies.”
The legislation also received praise from the nation’s preeminent shooting sports and conservation organizations.
“The National Shooting Sports Foundation commends Congressman Blake Moore for introducing this vitally important legislation to increase access for the public to practice marksmanship at safe recreational shooting ranges,” said Lawrence G. Keane, National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “This legislation, which would require the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to have at least one qualifying recreational shooting range in each National Forest and BLM district, is crucial to ensuring safe public recreational shooting. Congressman Moore’s bill would also benefit conservation by reducing pollution at non-dedicated ranges on federal public lands while also generating additional Pittman-Robertson revenue.”
When the reality of econuttery is finally realized, it gets the boot.
Wind Farm in Germany Is Being Taken Down for Expansion of Coal Mine
In the throes of an energy crisis, a German energy company is moving forward with plans to dismantle a wind farm adjacent to its coal mine in order to expand operations.
The removal of one of the wind farm’s eight wind turbines occurred last week, with two more coming down next year and the rest getting removed by the end of 2023.
Recognizing the “paradoxical” nature of the situation, Germany energy company RWE, which operates the Garzweiler coal mine, said it’s necessary.
“We realize this comes across as paradoxical,” RWE spokesperson Guido Steffen told the Guardian. “But that is as matters stand.”
The expansion comes in tandem with a plan to temporarily return three of RWE’s lignite-fired coal units to the market, a decision that was approved by Germany’s cabinet. The units were previously on standby.
“The three lignite units each have a capacity of 300 megawatts (MW). With their deployment, they contribute to strengthening the security of supply in Germany during the energy crisis and to saving natural gas in electricity generation,” RWE said in September.
“Originally, it was planned that the three reserve power plant units affected would be permanently shut down on September 30, 2022, and September 30, 2023, respectively,” RWE added.
Germany’s cabinet approved the decision to bring back the idled coal units to boost energy supplies, as energy imports remain hindered by the Russia-Ukraine War. (Fox Business)
The ministry for economic and energy affairs of the state of North-Rhine Westphalia, meanwhile, is urging RWE to reconsider its plans.
“In the current situation, all potential for the use of renewable energy should be exhausted as much as possible and existing turbines should be in operation for as long as possible,” a spokesperson told the Guardian.
BARR: Hate Unconstitutional Gun Control? Make Friends With Your Sheriff
A number of sheriffs in upstate New York are declaring that their officers will not prioritize or “aggressively enforce” the state’s recently enacted, highly restrictive gun control law. These elected sheriffs have concluded quite correctly that the state’s new law is at odds with both the Constitution of the United States and with the most recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that declared New York’s previous and long-standing gun control law – the Sullivan Act – unconstitutional.
The sheriffs’ actions have rekindled a recurring debate about the powers of the more than three thousand local sheriffs serving in every state except Alaska and Connecticut.
The United States has had elected sheriffs long before there was a “United States of America,” with the first one taking office in Virginia in 1652. Police departments, on the other hand, are a relatively new phenomenon. The first municipal police department was not established until 1838 in Boston, Massachusetts.
Unlike most county sheriffs, who hold their positions under their state constitutions, police chiefs answer only to local office holders who appointed them, not to the voters. It is this distinction that has caused a number of sheriffs in “Blue States” to earn the ire of the Left.
Two factors have exacerbated this enmity in recent years – increasingly restrictive gun control measures and abusive COVID mandates by Blue State governors and legislatures. Sheriffs who decline to prioritize enforcing such laws find themselves increasingly maligned by the Left, notwithstanding the fact that they are carrying out their sworn duty to support the federal and state constitutions, and in accord with the wishes of the voters they represent.
Consider Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva, who declared in 2021 that he would not force officers under his command to be vaccinated against COVID, as mandated by that county’s liberal Board of Supervisors.
Even more vexing to liberals, however, is the number of sheriffs who in recent years have refused to enforce what they consider unconstitutional infringements on the rights of citizens in their jurisdictions to exercise their Second Amendment rights in the face of Blue State gun control laws.
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) berates these sheriffs who follow the Constitution of the United States as “radicalized” officials who do not themselves understand the Constitution. The recently discredited SPLC simply cannot bring itself to accept that elected law enforcement officials should be permitted to resist such government overreach.
However, these “constitutional sheriffs” are not alone in their views. Since the Supreme Court’s seminal Bruen decision in June that tossed New York’s Sullivan Act, similarly restrictive laws in other states have fallen. Even more to the point, some of the very restrictions in the legislation signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul just days after the Supreme Court rendered its opinion, as part of her attempt to undercut the High Court’s directive, were blocked last week by a federal judge in New York City.
With state and federal courts seeming to agree with sheriffs who decline to vigorously enforce laws they view as inconsistent with their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, especially as related to Second Amendment rights of citizens in their jurisdictions, it is becoming increasingly difficult for their detractors on the Left to argue with a straight face that the sheriffs are the outliers.
Three years ago, the gun control group founded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg — “Everytown for Gun Safety” — published a paper highly critical of sheriffs who declined to prioritize the gun control measures the organization championed. The title of the piece was, When Sheriffs Refuse to Follow the Law.
It is, however, becoming increasingly clear to citizens across the country that it is liberal, anti-gun public officials like Hochul who are not following the law, and that it is constitutional sheriffs who are the ones following it.
Arizona Defies CDC, Will Not Require COVID-19 Vaccine for Public School Students
Arizona will not require students to receive the COVID-19 vaccine in order to attend public schools in the state, the legislature announced in a statement.
The state’s Senate Majority Leadership Team, via an email press release, pointed to HB 2086, a now-signed law, that “clearly and explicitly states that COVID-19 vaccinations cannot be a requirement for school attendance in Arizona.”
Last week the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted unanimously to add the COVID-19 vaccine to the adult and childhood immunization schedules. The ACIP recommended the receipt of four shots in total, beginning at six-months-old.
Consequently, some states will now legally require that students receive the vaccine in compliance with CDC recommendations, but Arizona will not be among them. A majority of states use the ACIP vaccination schedule as a reference for their own laws. The CDC itself does not determine state policy on public school admissions in relation to vaccination status.
“This is just another example of how out of touch the federal government and its agencies are with everyday families. With Republicans currently in control of our state government, we can promise that we will never subject Arizonans to the requirement of an experimental vaccine that has raised questions over long-term health implications,” Republican Senate President Karen Fann said of the ACIP vote.
‘Massive Fiduciary Breach’: Missouri Pulls $500M Worth of Pension Funds From BlackRock’s Control
Missouri State Treasurer Scott Fitzpatrick announced on Tuesday that the state’s pension fund is selling all of its assets that are managed by BlackRock, a move that will divest up to $500 million from the asset manager.
The Missouri State Employees’ Retirement System is withdrawing its assets from BlackRock’s control because the state believes that the company is using its control of pension funds to push a “left-wing” agenda, as opposed to making money for its clients, according to a press release.
Missouri joins several other Republican-run states that have also pulled funds from BlackRock for similar reasons.
“We should not allow asset managers such as BlackRock, who have demonstrated that they will prioritize advancing a woke political agenda above the financial interests of their customers, to continue speaking on behalf of the state of Missouri,” Fitzpatrick said in the press release. “It is past time that all investors recognize the massive fiduciary breach that is taking place before our eyes, and do something about it.”
Republican state treasurers in Louisiana, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Utah will divest a total of $1 billion from BlackRock by the end of 2022, according to The Financial Times. The removal of state money from BlackRock’s management comes after 19 Republican attorneys general accused BlackRock of boycotting the fossil fuel industry at the expense of its clients, according to a letter sent to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink.
BlackRock, which manages roughly $8.5 trillion worth of assets, denied such allegations and claimed that it has “hundreds of billions of dollars” invested in energy companies, according to a response letter the company sent. The company also stated that it was fully considering the interests of its investors in relation to its climate-focused investment agenda, as 90% of global governments are committed to phasing out fossil fuels by 2050.
BlackRock is committed to achieving net-zero emissions by no later than 2050, according to its website.
“Fiduciary duty must remain the top priority for investment managers—a duty some of them have abdicated in favor of forcing a left-wing social and political agenda that has failed to succeed legislatively, on publicly traded companies,” Fitzpatrick said.
Large asset managers such as BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street are pushing private companies to adopt environmental, social and corporate governance standards. Republicans have previously claimed that those standards seek to force businesses to promote climate activism as well as diversity, equity and inclusion policies.
BlackRock did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
BLUF
This analysis found that there is an 84% increase in the relative incidence of cardiac-related death among males 18-39 years old within 28 days following mRNA vaccination
Florida Surgeon General Joseph A. Ladapo, MD, PhD, said in a statement Friday afternoon that the state now recommends against giving men ages 18 to 39 mRNA coronavirus vaccines, citing a heightened risk of cardiac-related death.
The statement from Ladapo comes at the conclusion of an analysis conducted by the Florida Department of Health that was carried out using a self-controlled case series, a technique used to evaluate vaccine safety, the state said.
“This analysis found that there is an 84% increase in the relative incidence of cardiac-related death among males 18-39 years old within 28 days following mRNA vaccination,” the statement said. “With a high level of global immunity to COVID-19, the benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this abnormally high risk of cardiac-related death among men in this age group. Non-mRNA vaccines were not found to have these increased risks.”
“As such, the State Surgeon General recommends against males aged 18 to 39 from receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines,” the statement continued. “Those with preexisting cardiac conditions, such as myocarditis and pericarditis, should take particular caution when making this decision.”
Most importantly, the analysis found that non-mRNA vaccines, such as the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, “were not found to have these increased risks among any population.”
“Studying the safety and efficacy of any medications, including vaccines, is an important component of public health,” said Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo. “Far less attention has been paid to safety and the concerns of many individuals have been dismissed – these are important findings that should be communicated to Floridians.”
Today, we released an analysis on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines the public needs to be aware of. This analysis showed an increased risk of cardiac-related death among men 18-39. FL will not be silent on the truth.
Guidance: https://t.co/DcWZLoMU5E
Press Release: https://t.co/Y0r9yepi7F— Joseph A. Ladapo, MD, PhD (@FLSurgeonGen) October 7, 2022
Biden’s move on pot has Second Amendment ramifications
President Joe Biden is no friend of gun owners. What’s more, is that he doesn’t seem interested in even trying to pretend he is, what with his anti-gun rhetoric time and time again.
So if he does something that could potentially benefit the Second Amendment crowd, it’s only by accident.
President Joe Biden on Thursday announced executive actions that would pardon thousands of people with prior federal offenses of simple marijuana possession.
Biden then called on governors to follow suit with state offenses for simple marijuana possession, saying that “just as no one should be in a Federal prison solely due to the possession of marijuana, no one should be in a local jail or state prison for that reason, either.”
The president also directed U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra and Attorney General Merrick Garland to review how marijuana is classified under federal law as a Schedule I drug, the Drug Enforcement Agency’s most dangerous classification that includes substances like heroin and LSD.
Biden’s executive order to pardon simple possession includes the District of Columbia as well as people convicted in the federal court system.
Now, simple marijuana possession isn’t necessarily something that will preclude anyone from owning a gun. The pardons aren’t likely to make a big difference toward gun ownership.
But the potential reclassification of marijuana is.
As we’ve noted, people who use marijuana in accordance with the laws of their state are still legally prohibited from even owning a gun. It’s what led Florida Ag Commissioner Nikki Fried to file a lawsuit. She’s no friend of gun owners either, but she is very much in the pro-legalization effort, so this ties into that.
Now, understand that what Biden is doing here is a political stunt. Democrats aren’t doing as well in the polls as the president would like, so he’s making a big splash with something that polls pretty well. This is an attempt to garner support for Democrats.
However, that doesn’t mean gun owners won’t benefit.
After all, there’s nothing in the Second Amendment that says gun rights can be removed from someone for getting a prescription. Nothing in that whole “shall not be infringed” thing is followed up with “unless they use this one substance that only makes them a threat to the snack aisle at the nearest curb store.”
Yet federal law actually does. It doesn’t differentiate between heroin or cocaine and marijuana.
Hell, you can still own a gun if you’re prescribed Fentanyl, which is the drug of choice in the whole opioid epidemic, but not pot.
Biden’s move is, for once, welcome.
The problem, however, is that it’s directing people to just look at rescheduling marijuana. It doesn’t actually do anything. Considering how the Department of Justice has tried to defend the prohibition in the Florida lawsuit–which included using blatantly racist laws of the past, it should be noted–I won’t hold out much hope that it will actually happen.
Yet if it does, suddenly an untold number of Americans who would like to own a gun and use the marijuana their doctor prescribed will be able to lawfully do so. They won’t have to worry about being arrested for exercising their Second Amendment rights.
And if Biden is able to deliver this, it’ll be a rare moment of this anti-un White House benefitting gun owners, even if it’s only by accident.
Honestly, considering the way things have gone over the last year at the federal level, I’m willing to take what wins I can get.
It’s also blatant vote pandering a month from midterm elections that looks to rake the demoncraps over the coals.
Biden Pardons Thousands Convicted of Marijuana Possession Under Federal Law
The move represents a fundamental change in America’s response to a drug that has been at the center of a clash between culture and policing for more than a half-century.
WASHINGTON — President Biden on Thursday pardoned thousands of people convicted of marijuana possession under federal law and said his administration would review whether marijuana should still be in the same legal category as drugs like heroin and LSD.
The pardons will clear everyone convicted on federal charges of simple possession since it became a crime in the 1970s. Officials said full data was not available but noted that about 6,500 people were convicted of simple possession between 1992 and 2021, not counting legal permanent residents. The pardons will also affect people who were convicted under District of Columbia drug laws; officials estimated that number to be in the thousands.
The pardons will not apply to people convicted of selling or distributing marijuana. And officials said there are no people now serving time in federal prisons solely for marijuana possession. But the move will help remove obstacles for people trying to get a job, find housing, apply to college or get federal benefits.
Mr. Biden urged governors to follow his lead for people convicted on state charges of simple possession, who vastly outnumber those charged under federal laws.
Still, the president’s actions — which come about a month before the midterm elections and could help energize Democratic supporters — represent a fundamental change in America’s response to a drug that has been at the center of a clash between culture and policing for more than a half-century.
Speaking of BlackRock…….
Louisiana State Treasurer John Schroder announced his state will divest funds from the multi-trillion dollar investment firm, BlackRock, due to environmental, social and governance (ESG) policies some claim boycott the oil, gas and coal industries.
“Your blatantly anti-fossil fuel policies would destroy Louisiana’s economy,” Schroder said in a letter sent Wednesday to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink.
“Once complete, this divestment will reflect $794 million no longer entangled in BlackRock money market funds, mutual funds or exchange-traded funds (ETFs) holdings,” according to the letter.
BLUF
The American public knows better than the White House and Politico that there isn’t any victory to celebrate. This emperor has no clothes. Unfortunately, he’s surrounded by a sycophantic media industry that continues to extol his finery nonetheless.
Biden’s economic victory lap keeps getting interrupted by reality, or something.
Emboldened by a string of legislative victories, President Joe Biden has leaned into his record on the economy, increasingly confident that the nation’s outlook is brightening after months under a cloud of rising prices and consumer anxiety.
Wages are up, gas prices are down, the thinking goes. And following a year of fits and starts, Biden clinched congressional deals aimed at reshaping major parts of the U.S. economy — and cementing elements of his own presidential legacy.
But just as the White House was rushing to capitalize on its winning streak — in hopes of turning around an economic narrative that has dogged the administration from its earliest days — complications have arisen. The lengthy fall in gas prices finally ended, inflation has stayed stubbornly high and a bleak global economic landscape has rattled the markets, with both the Dow Jones and S&P 500 nearing their weakest levels of the year.
The cross currents of economic and political news have left the White House in a tricky position.
It’s not just a “tricky position” — it’s a flat-out lie. The Inflation Reduction Act didn’t have anything to do with inflation, and in fact will slightly increase inflation in its first year. The IRA was nothing more than a skinny version of Biden’s Build Back Better plan, with tons of government spending offset somewhat by massively expanding the IRS to suck more resources out of taxpayers to fund it.
