Exclusive: Fox News Executives Censor Tucker Carlson in Order to Protect Pfizer

The first line of Tucker Carlson’s monologue last night was, “How powerful exactly are the big pharmaceutical companies in this country?

It turns out the answer is: powerful enough to censor Tucker Carlson, the #1 most watched show on cable news.

Thank you for reading Karlstack. This post is public so feel free to share it.

The censored story in question is this bombshell from Project Veritas that broke Wednesday evening, in which their hidden camera team captures a Pfizer executive named Jordan Walker — the Director of Research & Development Strategic Operations, just 3 rungs down from the CEO on their org chart — bragging about how Pfizer is conducting gain of function research on the Covid virus (he coyly refers to it not as “gain of function”, but “directed evolution”, wink wink).

Twitter avatar for @Project_Veritas

Project Veritas @Project_Veritas
BREAKING: @pfizer Exploring “Mutating” COVID-19 Virus For New Vaccines “Don’t tell anyone this…There is a risk…have to be very controlled to make sure this virus you mutate doesn’t create something…the way that the virus started in Wuhan, to be honest.” #DirectedEvolution
Image

This story was promptly censored by Google.

Twitter avatar for @DrEliDavid

Dr. Eli David @DrEliDavid
.@Project_Veritas exposed what’s probably the most important story on Pfizer and Covid. But if you Google it, you get this:
Image

None of the cable news anchors at any network reported on it, not even at Fox.

Except for one, Tucker Carlson.

Here is the 16-minute long monologue, broken up into 2 parts:

When the episode was uploaded to Fox Nation this morning, however, the monologue was less than 4 minutes long. Fox Nation is Fox’s subscription video service that uploads every episode after it airs.

Fox Nation is paywalled, so you can’t check yourself, but here is a screenshot showing the first guest appearing at the 4:02 mark. In contrast, in the full monologue, this guest appears at the 16:00 minute mark.

Where did those missing 12 minutes go?

Continue reading “”

‘A perfect storm for the whole food system right now’: One of the world’s largest fertilizer companies warns that every country—even those in Europe—is facing a food crisis

The Ukraine war upended the global economy in many ways. Energy markets have been among the most affected, with declining Russian oil and natural gas exports to the West sparking a domino effect of fuel crises worldwide. But the war has also warped another critical facet of the global economy: food.
Prior to the war, Russia and Ukraine were global breadbaskets as top producers and exporters of wheat, sunflower seeds, and barley. The fighting ended up aggravating hunger and food crises in low-income countries that are dependent on imports. But both Russia and Ukraine are also key cogs in the global fertilizer industry, and the war has triggered a shortage of the critical commodity that few people consider but is nevertheless essential to global food security.
Much as Russian President Vladimir Putin leveraged the world’s reliance on his country’s fossil fuels to weaponize energy supplies during the war, he is doing something very similar with fertilizer and food, Svein Tore Holsether, CEO of Norwegian chemical company Yara International, among the world’s largest fertilizer producers and suppliers, told the Financial Times in an interview published Thursday.
Putin’s energy gambit, which sent fossil fuel prices soaring and left Europe on the brink of recession last year, has so far not gone as expected, with a warm winter working against him and Europe able to buy natural gas from elsewhere. But Holsether warned the world’s reliance on Russia for fertilizer threatens more disruption of food supply, adding to existing challenges of logistics bottlenecks and climate change.
“If you look at the role that we have allowed Russia to have in global food supply, we depend on them. How did that happen? What kind of weapon is that? And Putin is weaponizing food,” Holsether said.
“It is sort of a perfect storm for the whole food system right now: very challenging in Europe, of course, with higher prices; even worse in other parts of the world where a human being dies every four seconds as a result of hunger,” he added.

Continue reading “”

Disarming The People: How Dictatorships Used Gun Control

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Mao Zedong once said, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

Which is why he made sure no one in China could access that political power. Throughout history and well into the modern world, gun control legislation heralded the death of democracies. Usually, it preceded an attempt by the government to take full control of people’s lives. Weapon bans frequently led to human rights abuses, including massacres and sometimes outright genocide.

It’s almost as if they don’t remember the lockdown. Granted, it was for the sake of public health ….in the beginning. Still, once the United States government began restricting travel and requiring the entire population to take a COVID vaccine designed in just a couple of days, as was the case with Moderna, many Americans began to view this as an abuse of government authority, especially when some who took the “life-saving” vaccine died from COVID anyway.

A government gets away with whatever its people allow. A recent attempt to ban semi-automatic firearms across the state of Illinois was met with widespread resistance. 88 percent of the state’s counties refuse to enforce the governor’s mandate, and they can because of the Second Amendment. Additionally, sheriffs work for their communities, not for the state.

Continue reading “”

ISIS-Inspired Terrorist Convicted on All Accounts for 2017 NYC Attack

A federal jury on Thursday convicted ISIS-inspired terrorist Sayfullo Saipov on 28 counts stemming from a deadly incident in 2017 during which he drove a rented truck through numerous civilians.

Prosecutors relayed that Saipov, a native of Uzbekistan, had indicated his motivation for the attack came from his interpretation of Islam, which had been inspired by ISIS propaganda.

“‘The Islamic State shall endure.’ These were his words to tell the world why, why he attacked this city, why he targeted innocent civilians, why he turned a bike path into his battlefield, why he ran them over without mercy,” said Assistant US Attorney Jason Richman during the court proceedings, the New York Post reported.

Saipov’s lawyer contended that though he was inspired by ISIS propaganda, Saipov did not carry out his attack in order to join the group outright. Defense attorney David Patton did not deny his client’s guilt for the attack, but merely disputed that he was seeking to join the terror group in so doing.

Twenty-six of the charges Saipov faced were for federal racketeering and stemmed from the allegation that he sought to join the terror group.

Nine of the counts for which the jury convicted him make Saipov eligible to receive the death penalty, according to the Post. The trial will soon proceed to an argument about the application of that penalty.

 

January 27

1302 – Dante Alighieri is exiled from Florence.

1606 – The trial of Guy Fawkes and other conspirators of the Gunpowder Plot to blow up Parliament begins

1776 – The “noble train of artillery” of heavy guns captured from Fort Ticonderoga New York, Henry Knox in command, arrives at Cambridge, Massachusetts.

1785 – The first public university in the U.S., the University of Georgia at Athens, is founded.

1825 – Congress approves the formation of the Indian Territory within what is now the state of Oklahoma.

1880 – Thomas Edison receives a patent for his incandescent lamp

1939 – First flight of the Lockheed P-38 Lightning.

1943 – The first American bombing attack on Germany during World War II  takes places when the 8th Air Force sorties 91 B-17 and B-24 bombers to attack the U-boat construction yards at Wilhelmshaven.

1945 –  The Soviet Army’s 322nd Rifle Division liberates the surviving inmates of the Auschwitz-Birkenau deathcamp in Poland.

1951 – Above ground nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site begins with Operation Ranger, with B-50 bombers dropping 5 bombs over Frenchman Flat in Nye county Nevada.

1967 – During a launch rehearsal test on Pad 34 of the Kennedy Space Center at 06:31 hrs EST, astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee are killed in a fire inside their Apollo 1 Command Module

1973 – The signing of the Paris Peace Accords officially ends the Vietnam War.

1980 – Through cooperation between the U.S. and Canadian governments, 6 American diplomats secretly make their escape from Iran.

1991 – Over Iraq, USAF pilots, flying F-15s, engage Iraqi jets. Captain Jay Denney shoots down 2 Iraqi MiG-23s, and Captain Ben Powell shoots down an Iraqi MiG-23 and Mirage F-1

1996 – Germany first observes the International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

2010 – Apple announces the introduction of the iPad.

2011 – The Yemeni Revolution begins as over 16,000 protestors demonstrate in Sana’a, the capitol city

2013 – During a university student party at the Kiss nightclub in the Brazilian city of Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, 242 people are killed when a fire breaks out from a band igniting pyrotechnics on stage.

Dangerous and Unusual: How an Expanding National Firearms Act Will Spell Its Own Demise

Abstract

The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) is the strictest federal gun control law currently in effect. It criminalizes the mere possession and transfer of specifically enumerated categories of firearms deemed to be especially dangerous and unusual, such as machine guns and silencers.

Commensurate with this viewpoint, the NFA imposes on violators harsh felony penalties, from lengthy prison sentences to six-figure fines. However, the NFA permits lawful civilian ownership of these firearms under a taxation and registration scheme administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

In its 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the United States Supreme Court clarified what “arms” the Second Amendment protects—those that are “in common use” and those “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” but not those that are “dangerous and unusual.”

Under this formulation, NFA restrictions received an incidental presumption of constitutionality. That was then, this is now.

In the intervening years since Heller, NFA firearms have exploded in popularity, amounting to millions of lawfully registered examples in civilian hands. As the NFA registry grows year after year, the federal government enjoys ever-increasing tax revenues. Consequently, registry expansion offers a lucrative and effective means of implementing gun control measures—ATF reclassification of existing non-NFA firearms and accessories as falling under the NFA can compel registrations or preclude ownership of controversial items altogether.

This Comment argues that the NFA’s modern expansionary trend is on a collision course with the Heller mandate. After Heller, the only constitutional NFA registry is a small one, reserved for the truly dangerous and unusual. By focusing on modern developments in three NFA categories—short-barreled rifles, silencers, and machine guns—this Comment contends that some NFA prohibitions are already constitutionally unsound and absent judicial intervention, Congress should remove them from the NFA altogether.

Dangerous and Unusual_ How an Expanding National Firearms Act Wil

Another problem with Gun Violence Archive’s numbers

Supporters of gun control love to use Gun Violence Archive as an authoritative source on the number of shootings we have in this country. The number of mass shootings as compiled by the site–a number that doesn’t reflect what most people think of as a mass shooting, it should be remembered–is presented uncritically by the media.

It happens all the time, and in the wake of two shootings in California, it’s happening yet again. While we know plenty about those two shootings and will likely learn more as we go forward, proponents of gun control site Gun Violence Archive’s total number of mass shootings to show it’s more than those two incidents.

Take this editorial as just one example.

History is full of horrific events in which we shake our heads and ask, “How did that happen? What were they thinking?”

The Holocaust and slavery are two prime examples.

It begs the question of what is transpiring today that will be regarded by future generations as deplorable. That historians will record with the hope that they will never be repeated.

Climate change, yes. And then there is gun violence.

California has had three mass shootings in the last four days. Seven people were killed and one injured in Half Moon Bay on Monday. One person was killed and six injured at an East Oakland gas station later that evening. Eleven people were killed and nine injured in Monterey Park on Saturday.

We are not even at the end of the first month of 2023. Yet the Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay shootings bring the number of mass shootings (in which four or more people were killed or injured) to 39 this year, according to the Gun Violence Archive. That follows the 647 mass shootings recorded in 2022 and 690 mass shootings in 2021.

Of course, what follows is the true-to-form call for gun control we typically see from many editorial boards.

Now, in the wake of two deadly mass shootings, I sort of get it. However, they’re not just holding those two incidents up as why we somehow need gun control. They’re holding Gun Violence Archive’s numbers up as well.

And yet, what do we know about any of those shootings?

Well, we know three or more people were injured at those shootings–the low standard the site uses to categorize something as a mass shooting in the first place, which includes gang warfare, drivebys, and so on–but little else.

If we’re going to have a conversation about how we need gun control, about how certain guns shouldn’t be allowed in private hands, or how certain people should be legally barred from buying guns, shouldn’t we also need to know about any of those hundreds upon hundreds of so-called mass shootings?

I ask because I know statistically where most of those weapons came from, and it’s not from lawful gun sales.

How can you say that the gun laws are insufficient when so few of these hundreds of “mass shootings” were carried out with a lawfully-obtained firearm in the first place?

See, Gun Violence Archive is a favorite among the media and anti-gun set (but I repeat myself), yet it only shows part of the picture. To cite their numbers without important context on where those guns were obtained amounts to little more than trying to view a masterpiece by only looking at one single bit with a microscope.

It’s not a full picture by any stretch.

And it matters because while actual mass shootings make headlines, the real violence problem in our country happens in our inner cities. They get counted by Gun Violence Archive to try and push gun control when all the gun laws in the world aren’t going to help.

Yeah, this is the result of affirmative action; Promoting people merely by their status as a minority, rather than the content of their character
…and their IQ.
And what does this say about the quality of Gonzaga University School of Law? She’s got a JD. Juris Doctor, the degree usually required to practice law and still is a utter ignoramus about the content of the Constitution.
But demoncraps like stupid and ignorant judges, as they’re more likely to follow their proggie political indoctrination

John Kennedy Stumps Biden Judicial Nominee With Questions About the Constitution

Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) stumped a Biden judicial nominee by asking her what is said in certain parts of the U.S. Constitution since she is being considered for a federal position.

Each of the three questions Kennedy posed, Judge Charnelle Bjelkengren did not have an answer. She is being considered to be the United States District Judge For The Eastern District Of Washington. She has been serving as a judge of the Spokane County Superior Court since 2019.

Bjelkengren got her Juris Doctor from Gonzaga University School of Law.

“Judge, tell me what Article V of the Constitution does?” Kennedy asked.

“Article V is not coming to mind at the moment,” Bjelkengren replied after a long pause.

“How about Article II?” Kennedy followed up.

“Neither is Article II,” said Bjelkengren.

Bjelkengren said in her many years of experience in the judicial system in Washington state, she never had to deal with the legal concept of purposivism, which Kennedy said she will have to deal with it should she be confirmed to the federal position.

Article V outlines the process to add amendments to the the Constitution and Article II lays out the rules on who is eligible to be president of the United States. Students are typically taught about the makeup of the Constitution in grades 4 through 8.

Well, to put it bluntly,  all federal and the vast majority of state gun laws are unconstitutional not just under the Heller & McDonald decisions, but also simply don’t meet the Bruen test. The game is actually over, but it’s like a snake with its head chopped off. The opposing side is going to flop around awhile until it gets the message that it’s dead.

Why the ATF’s Pistol Brace Ban Is Unconstitutional
The nearly 90-year-old federal law restricting short-barreled rifles has been superseded by time and technology. It’s past time the Supreme Court took notice.

The recent rule change regulating stabilizer braces for AR-15 pistols by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) is unconstitutional. But not for the reasons you may think or the ones that have been widely argued. The National Firearms Act (NFA), which the ATF claims allows for the rule, has been overcome by events and no longer applies to these weapons.

First, some background.

A stabilizing brace is an accessory for AR-15 pistols that was ostensibly designed to help fire a short-barreled weapon more accurately. The controversy arose due to the NFA, which bans rifles with a barrel shorter than 16 inches. These are known collectively as short-barreled rifles (SBR). AR-15-style pistols definitely have barrels shorter than 16 inches, but since they do not have a stock allowing them to be fired from the shoulder, they are classified as pistols.

No problem so far. But the stabilizing braces began to obscure this distinction. At first they simply extended a short distance from the rear of the pistol and had straps that wrapped around the forearm of the shooter, thus stabilizing the weapon. But they eventually extended further to become essentially a collapsible stock which when extended made the AR-15 pistol for all intents and purposes an SBR.

Continue reading “”

Lawyers who helped win US Supreme Court case train sights on Illinois assault weapon ban

CHICAGO — Two Second Amendment lawyers who helped win a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a New York concealed carry gun law are now challenging the constitutionality of Illinois’ assault weapons ban – with help from the National Rifle Association.

Paul Clement, who successfully argued the New York case, is one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the latest federal lawsuit seeking to overturn Illinois’ two-week old ban.

Clement is a former partner in Kirkland & Ellis’ Washington, D.C., office who served as solicitor general of the United States, representing the government in cases before the nation’s top court from 2004 to 2008, during the George W. Bush Administration.

Clement and attorney Erin Murphy began their own firm after Chicago-based Kirkland & Ellis decided it would no longer handle Second Amendment-related litigation. Murphy, who was part of the New York case, is also working on the challenge to Illinois’ assault weapons ban, filed Tuesday in the Southern District of Illinois.

Plaintiffs in the new federal lawsuit are Sparta resident Caleb Barnett, Marion resident Brian Norman, Benton-based Hood’s Guns & More, Benton-based Pro Gun and Indoor Range and the National Sports Shooting Foundation, Inc.

Although the NRA is not listed as a plaintiff, a spokesperson for the organization told the Sun-Times it joined the National Sports Shooting Foundation to bring forth the suit, similar to what it did in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which was ultimately taken up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Continue reading “”

Demand for ‘Commonsense Gun Laws’ is the Road to Citizen Disarmament

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Polls show that a majority of Americans want Congress to pass commonsense gun laws,” Dave Saldana asserts for Reader’s Digest in an opinionated hit piece on the right to keep and bear arms posted (under “news,” naturally) on MSN. “These laws would not ban gun ownership or repeal the Second Amendment.”

Reader’s Digest…how disappointing. I guess with all the other woke “capitalist rope-sellers,” seeing them turn was to be expected.

What the “majority of Americans want” depends not only on where the polls lead them with calculated questions but also on what they actually know about the “laws” they are being queried on, which in this case, is mostly what the media tells them. That, and rights aren’t contingent on majority rule—otherwise, two of us could do whatever we wanted to one of you.

Funny how when you test them on it, protecting minorities isn’t really what the left wants to do at all. Unless by “minority,” you mean the global elites…

As for the assurance that 2A and guns are safe if you give the grabbers what they want, the rest of Saldana’s regurgitation of tired talking points and goals they’ve let slip for decades show that to be a lie. And since the right it recognizes was not created by the government, something that has been recognized in the Cruikshank and Heller cases by the Supreme Court, repealing the Second Amendment would not eliminate what it was worded to protect, the ravings of retired dotard “justices” notwithstanding.

In any case, saying they won’t take all guns when they have no legitimate authority to take any is more than a bit like saying “We don’t want to rape you, just molest you a bit.”

The only rational response to that is “No. Your move.” Besides, they really do want to rape you.

Continue reading “”

January 26

1564 – The Council of Trent establishes an official distinction between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.

1699 – Under terms of the Treaty of Karlowitz, signed in Sremski Karlovci Serbia, the Great Turkish War of 1683–1697 in which the Ottoman Empire was defeated at the Battle of Zenta by the Holy League, officially ends. The Ottomans ceding control of Central Europe, and establishing the Habsburg Monarchy as the dominant power in the region.

1837 – Michigan is admitted as the 26th U.S. state.

1838 – Tennessee enacts the first prohibition law in the United States.

1855 – Under terms of the The Point No Point Treaty signed at Point No Point, on the northern tip of the Kitsap Peninsula. the  S’Klallam, Chimakum, and the Skokomish tribes cede the northern Kitsap Peninsula and Olympic Peninsula to the U.S.

1861 – The state of Louisiana secedes from the Union.

1863 – Massachusetts Governor, John Albion Andrew receives permission from the Secretary of War to raise a militia regiment of men of African descent, the 54th Massachusetts Infantry commanded by Colonel Robert Gould Shaw.

1870 – Virginia rejoins the Union under Reconstruction

1885 – Troops loyal to the purported Mahdi, Muhammad Ahmad bin Abd Allah, conquer Khartoum, killing the Governor-General Charles George Gordon.

1905 – The world’s largest diamond ever, the Cullinan, weighing 3,106.75 carats (that’s 1 pound 5 ounces) , is found at the Premier Mine near Pretoria in South Africa.

1911 – Glenn Curtiss flies the first successful American seaplane.

1915 – The Rocky Mountain National Park is established by an act of the U.S. Congress.

1920 – Former Ford Motor Company executive Henry Leland launches the Lincoln Motor Company.

1945 – While in command of B Company 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment, near Holtzwihr, France, 2nd Lieutenant Audie Murphy displays valor and bravery in action for which he will later be awarded the Medal of Honor.

1949 – The Hale telescope at Palomar Observatory sees first light under the direction of Edwin Hubble, becoming, at the time, the largest aperture optical telescope.

1980 – Under terms of the Camp David Accords, diplomatic and business relations between Egypt and Israel are formally established.

1991 – Flying F-15s over Iraq, USAF Cpts, Rhory Draeger, Tony Schiavi and Cesar Rodriguez each engage and shootdown Iraqi Mig-23 fighters.

1992 – Boris Yeltsin announces that Russia will stop targeting United States cities with nuclear weapons.

1998 – On live T.V., President Clinton openly lies when he denies having had “sexual relations” with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

2009 – Nadya Suleman, the “Octomom” gives birth to the world’s first surviving octuplets at the Kaiser Permanente Bellflower Medical Offices in Bellflower, California/

2020 – A Sikorsky S-76B helicopter flying from John Wayne Airport to Camarillo Airport, crashes in Calabasas, 30 miles west of Los Angeles, killing all 9 aboard, including Kobe Bryant and his daughter Gianna.

 

The nomenklatura is real. It sprang to life with the first law Congress passed that restricted the people and exempted goobermint.

American Nomenklatura.

A few weeks after Elon Musk formally acquired Twitter in October 2022, a senior official at the company who quit in the wake of Musk’s arrival took to the New York Times to pour cold water on Musk’s vision for the social-media platform. Yoel Roth, whose title had been Head of Trust and Safety, sought to assure his fellow progressives. Roth wrote that even if Musk wanted to remove the web of content-moderation rules and procedures Roth had helped create and enforce, the tech billionaire would be unable to achieve his aim. “The moderating influences of advertisers, regulators and, most critically of all, app stores may be welcome for those of us hoping to avoid an escalation in the volume of dangerous speech online,” he wrote.

What Roth meant was this: No Internet platform is an island, and Musk simply didn’t have the power to do what he wanted despite his 100 percent ownership of the social-media platform. It wasn’t merely that Musk would have to contend with Twitter’s progressive workforce, which believes that some political speech is so awful that it should be throttled or banned. He would also come into conflict with European regulators, the Federal Trade Commission, and Congress, all of whom also seek to limit what can be said online. And what about the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, a trade organization of some of the world’s biggest consumer brands that advocates for “online safety”—a euphemism for protecting social-media users from accounts that may offend, harass, or trigger them?

He would also be dogged by advocacy groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, which have found a new and lucrative mission monitoring social-media platforms for hate speech. They work hand in hand with elite journalists and think tankers, who have taken to tracking the spread of misinformation and disinformation online. In Washington, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security have personnel whose job it is to alert social-media companies to foreign propaganda and terrorism. In Atlanta, the Centers for Disease Control seeks to quarantine dangerous information that might lead Americans to forgo masks or vaccine boosters. And perhaps most important, there are other Silicon Valley giants—Apple and Google—that provide the digital storefronts or app stores that Twitter needs to update their software and continue to run its service.

Call it the “content-moderation industrial complex.” In just a few short years, this nomenklatura has come to constitute an implicit ruling class on the Internet, one that collectively determines what information and news sources the rest of us should see on major platforms. Talk about “free speech” and “the First Amendment” may actually be beside the point here. The Twitter that Musk bought was part of a larger machine—one that attempts to shape conversations online by amplifying, muzzling, and occasionally banning participants who run afoul of its dogma.

The existence of this nomenklatura has been known for a few years. But thanks to Musk and his decision to make Twitter’s internal communications and policies available to journalists Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, and others, more detail is now known on why and how this elite endeavors to protect us from all manner of wrongthink.

Continue reading “”

Sen. Hawley’s Insider Trading Bill Returns To Congress Under New Title ‘PELOSI Act.’

U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) reintroduced his 2022 insider trading bill Tuesday that would ban lawmakers and their spouses from holding and trading individual stocks and force political figures to return profits to American citizens under a new title dubbed the “PELOSI Act.”

The Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act comes just over a year after Hawley introduced the original bill, in which he accuses politicians of somehow outperforming the stock market every year they hold office.

This time around, the senator’s updated version takes a jab at California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who many Republican lawmakers had slammed after her husband, Paul Pelosi, sold up to $5 million worth of shares in Nvidia, a California company that produces semiconductors, just before the House voted on a bill surrounding the domestic chip manufacturing industry.

“For too long, politicians in Washington have taken advantage of the economic system they write the rules for, turning profits for themselves at the expense of the American people,” Hawley said in a news release.

In addition to prohibiting members of Congress from taking advantage of the market and wielding their power and privilege over American citizens, The PELOSI Act would also ban said politicians from holding diversified mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, or exempt U.S. Treasury bonds.

Six months upon assuming office, the bill would require new congressional members to divest or place prohibited holdings in a blind trust — to remain there while they are serving the American people.

Spouses of American politicians in Congress would also have to forfeit any investment profits back to the American people through the U.S. Treasury.

Violation of the Act could result in losing the ability to deduct the losses of those investments on their income taxes and other additional fines.

Earlier this month, Business Insider reported at least 78 congressional members, Democrats and Republicans alike, had violated a 2012 law known as the STOCK Act — Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act — which lawmakers designed to combat insider trading among lawmakers and force public servants to disclose their personal financial dealings, including any stock trade made by themselves, a spouse, or a dependent child.

Still, according to the report, lawmakers allegedly broke the law, citing ignorance, clerical issues, and accounting mistakes.

“As members of Congress, both Senators and Representatives are tasked with providing oversight of the same companies they invest in, yet they continually buy and sell stocks, outperforming the market time and again,” Hawley said. “While Wall Street and Big Tech work hand-in-hand with elected officials to enrich each other, hardworking Americans pay the price.”