Young white liberal women, plagued with the ‘woke mind virus,’ have swung so far off the deep end that some are now threatening to align themselves with pro-Christian values. They are advocating for abstaining from sex, dating, marriage, and even children over the outcome of the 2024 presidential election because males voted for the ‘Orange Man’…

Far-left corporate media outlets like CBS News and the Washington Post have pushed out stories about South Korea’s “4B Movement”  gaining traction among feminists in the United States shortly after Trump won.

The 4B movement is comprised of four “no’s”—no sex, no dating or marriage with men, and no having children. Some young feminists have adopted it on various social media platforms in the US to show young men voting for Republicans has consequences.

Liberal women are abstaining from having s*x for the next 4 years. pic.twitter.com/VHLrhh26Im

— TaraBull (@TaraBull808) November 7, 2024

“Young men expect sex, but they also want us to not be able to have access to abortion. They can’t have both,” Michaela Thomas, an artist in Georgia, told WaPo. 

Thomas continued, “Young women don’t want to be intimate with men who don’t fight for women’s rights; it’s showing they don’t respect us.” 

Genuinely, end it with them if they don’t see the issue of that man being president.

Put yourself first. Put your body first. #4BMovement https://t.co/CLO45pMFZS pic.twitter.com/KpvAUPDaGO

— 🇵🇷𝕹𝖆𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖎𝖆 𝕺𝖗𝖙𝖎𝖟⧗𝕽𝖔𝖒𝖆𝖓𝖔𝖋𝖋🇵🇷 (@ScarletWidow901) November 6, 2024

Woman says she has an IQ of 130 and will now “stay dry” and not sleep with men because Trump was elected.

She said it’s punishment for taking away her right to an abortion.

Sounds good. She won’t need any abortions then.

Way to go IQ 130. pic.twitter.com/P6wgGrvYpt

— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) November 7, 2024

What’s hilarious is that these young white liberal women have become so confused – and so radicalized – that they don’t even realize not having sex with random guys from Tinder, Bubble, and or Hinge on the reg is more or less a reversion to traditionalism and morally right choices that align with Christian values.

Many liberal women are now beginning a movement called “4B” where they will stop dating and withhold any sex from their partners in response to Trump’s victory since they think abortion has been banned (it hasn’t been nationally banned).

Ladies, welcome to the pro-life movement!

— Ann Vandersteel™️ (@annvandersteel) November 7, 2024

Red State’s Brandon Morse commented on the movement: 

“Dude makes an excellent point about women’s sexuality. They went so left they started going right, claiming they’re going to stop being hoes and won’t put out until men respect them. Uh… that’s what we’ve been saying you should do all along.” 

Dude makes an excellent point about women’s sexuality.

They went so left they started going right, claiming they’re going to stop being hoes and won’t put out until men respect them.

Uh… that’s what we’ve been saying you should do all along. #4BMovement pic.twitter.com/60SZxNZ4DI

— Brandon Morse (@TheBrandonMorse) November 7, 2024

One woman pointed out, “I think that liberal women are finally starting to understand what pro-life conservative women have been telling them for years …” 

#4BMovement pic.twitter.com/5YwbZNNGLL

— LOU ALFARO (@_louiexlouie_) November 6, 2024

We penned a note shortly after Trump won, “Trump Wins, “Move To Canada” Searches Spike, Liberals Meltdown Online.”

Authored by Michael Poliakoff and Jack Miller via RealClearEducation,

Over the last 60 years, there has been unconscionable neglect of civics and American history at both the K-12 and university levels.

Surveys by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) show that fewer than 20% of colleges nationwide require an American history or government course for graduation. Unsurprisingly, this deficit has made its way into the training of teachers too. Future K-12 teachers are unlikely to learn the basic facts about our founding principles and our long history of working toward that more perfect Union our founders envisioned.

Fortunately, more and more public universities are doing their part to reverse this trend.

In 2016, the Arizona legislature created the School for Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership at Arizona State University. This school has become a valuable training ground for ASU students seeking a thorough understanding of our nation’s governing institutions and the responsibilities of citizenship in a free society while being exposed to a diversity of viewpoints.

The ASU model has since been replicated at 13 universities in several other states.

Founded a year ago, the School of Civic Life and Leadership at the University of North Carolina (UNC)-Chapel Hill, which ACTA helped create, has already gained national attention. It was deservedly featured in articles in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere. And for good reason.

UNC-Chapel Hill’s School of Civic Life and Leadership (SCiLL) offers a civic life and leadership minor that introduces students to key ideas from philosophy, history, political science, and economics. It helps prepare them for participating in consequential policy discussions and debates.

SCiLL is explicitly dedicated to promoting civil discourse and free speech and inculcating the responsibilities of informed, engaged citizenship. UNC-Chapel Hill students who do not participate in SCiLL classes nevertheless benefit from its speaker series and Program for Public Discourse.

Programs such as these consist of a separate academic unit within the university, supported by the state and private donors. Crucially, the head of that unit has hiring authority and almost always reports directly to the provost or president of the university.

New institutes like SCiLL not only educate undergraduates but are also developing M.A. and Ph.D. programs. And they have already reached out to train the K-12 social studies teachers in their regions so that those teachers will be better able to teach their own pupils.

The goal is to continue expanding these programs in states across the country.

The Tennessee General Assembly answered Governor Bill Lee’s call to establish an institute devoted to teaching informed patriotism with a $6 million initial appropriation by an overwhelming bipartisan vote.

The Institute of American Civics at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville offers minor and certificate programs in American civics and constitutional studies, as well as many other events, programs, and scholarships for students. It also features outstanding professional development programs for secondary school teachers. It is already drawing some of the best and brightest students – especially those who want to make a positive difference but previously could not find a constructive, nonpartisan path to pursue this passion.

Through the efforts of Ohio state senators Jerry Cirino and Rob McColley, the State of Ohio has made the largest investment yet – $24 million – for the creation of civic education centers at five public universities in the state. Ohio State University, for example, now has the Salmon P. Chase Center for Civics, Culture, and Society. Four other state universities are rapidly coming online with programs devoted to the American constitutional life.

And at the University of Florida in Gainesville, the Hamilton Center is on its way to hiring 50 professors, including distinguished faculty recruited from elite institutions who have grown weary of having their views be marginalized.

Young professors whose interests in the American founding, constitutional and diplomatic history, and our roots in Western civilization are often left without prospects in academe. Now, however, they are finding excellent opportunities to teach at civic centers being established throughout the country. And thousands of public university students now have a chance to get a world-class education in citizen leadership that will serve them well across an array of career pathways.

Nonprofit organizations and their donors can play a valuable part in advancing efforts like these.

For example, ACTA makes the case to trustees and legislatures that establishing these centers must be a priority.

And for many years, the Jack Miller Center has invested in training and helping young professors in their careers and supporting established professors, including funding for outstanding postdoctoral fellows in American political thought and political theory.

Today, the Jack Miller Center’s academic network includes over 1,200 professors on over 300 campuses around the country.  A number of them now hold faculty and senior leadership positions in these new schools and institutes of civic thought and leadership.

These new institutes are devoted to teaching the whole story of America. As the late Bruce Cole, a former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities and former member of the Jack Miller Center’s Board of Directors, said, they will provide “a story of the center and the margins, the peaks and the valleys.” In contrast to what sadly so often happens on campus, they not only recognize the flaws that must be mended but also the American achievements that inspire the world.

We have an opportunity with new generations of students to create informed patriots and renew their search for the promise of achieving the American dream. Working together, the states, the organizations working in this field, and donors can make this civics renaissance become a reality across the country.

Michael Poliakoff is the president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. Jack Miller is the founder and chairman emeritus of the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America’s Founding Principles & History.

It appears President Vladimir Putin is jumping at the opportunity of pursuing a serious reset with the United States under the future Trump presidency. In surprisingly positive Thursday remarks, Putin issued congratulatory statements and heaped praise on Trump for winning the election, also saying he acted “like a man” following the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania last summer.

“His behavior at the time of the attempt on his life made an impression on me,” Putin said at the Valdai Club in the Black Sea city of Sochi. “He turned out to be a courageous man. And it’s not just about the raised hand and the call to fight for his and their common ideals… He behaved, in my opinion, in a very correct way, courageously, like a man.”

Significantly these were the very first public remarks given by Putin after the Tuesday election. The Russian leader emphasized that Trump’s campaign promises to negotiate an end to the Ukraine war “deserve attention”. Putin further highlighted Trump’s desire to improve relations with Moscow as a major plus as part of the remarks.

“It seems to me, it deserves attention what was said about the desire to restore relations with Russia, to help end the Ukrainian crisis,” Putin said. “I have always said that we will work with any head of state who has the trust of the American people.”

Without doubt, these mark the warmest words issued by Putin regarding the spiraling US relationship in years, and certainly the most positive remarks since the invasion of February 2022. Rhetoric between Moscow and Washington have over the course of the war up to now been marked by severe accusations and even veiled nuclear threats.

And importantly, Putin signaled he might speak to Trump, per state media:

Putin congratulated Trump on his win, and said that he is open to a phone call with the president-elect. “It wouldn’t be beneath me to call him myself,” Putin added.

The US-President elect has in turn told NBC the following:

President-elect Donald Trump said that Vladimir Putin wasn’t among the “probably” 70 phone conversations he has held with world leaders since winning the election, but that he still is planning to speak with the Russian president, according to NBC News. 

“I think we’ll speak,” Trump told NBC, Thursday, the news organization said. 

This type of positive dialogue while the Ukraine war rages was unthinkable under the Biden-Harris administration, and for that reason the Kremlin was very closely watching the US election.

Interestingly, despite their recent subtle tensions, Ukraine’s Zelensky and President-elect Trump have spoken in the wake of the landslide election victory. Trump confirmed to NBC that Zelensky was among the congratulatory phone calls from world leaders he’s received so far since Tuesday.

President Zelensky also issued a congratulatory statement on X, expressing hope he could work with Trump to implement “peace through strength” and that his country was “interested in developing mutually beneficial political and economic cooperation that will benefit both of our nations.”

Ukrainian soldiers SHOOT a mannequin wearing a TRUMP SHIRT.

Are they upset that American funds will end?pic.twitter.com/1Ic86hcddf

— Resist the Mainstream (@ResisttheMS) November 7, 2024

However, following this, in a Thursday press briefing, Zelensky sought to pour cold water on the potential for a quick peace:

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy poured cold water Thursday on a plan by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump to strike a rapid peace deal between Kyiv and Moscow, arguing it would amount to a “loss” for Ukraine.

“I believe that President Trump really wants a quick decision” to end Russia’s war against Ukraine, Zelenskyy told journalists in Budapest. “He wants that. It doesn’t mean that it will happen this way.”

He complained that a rapid ceasefire would be tantamount to “preparation to ruin and destroy our independence.” Below are more of Zelensky’s words aimed at Trump, revealing serious tensions remain, given in Budapest:

“He [Trump] wants this war to be finished,” Zelenskyy said through an interpreter. “We all want to end this war, but a fair ending … If it is very fast, it’s going to be a loss for Ukraine.”

The Ukrainian leader also responded to an appeal from Hungarian strongman Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, issued minutes earlier from the same stage, for a rapid ceasefire deal between the two warring camps.

“I heard that it’s better to implement a ceasefire and then, ‘we’ll see,’” Zelenskyy said, referring to Orbán’s comments. “[A] ceasefire was tried back in 2014. We tried to reach this ceasefire and we lost Crimea and then we had the full-scale invasion.”

But for several months as Ukrainian forces have suffered a string of defeats in Donetsk, putting the Russian army on the brink of capturing the strategic city of Pokrovsk, there have been signs that behind the scenes Western diplomats have actually been increasing the pressure on Kiev to find an exit strategy – sooner rather than later. 

Authored by Thomas Buckley via ‘The Point’ substack,

So, well, now that’s over, let’s look at the 2028 presidential race.

If you are polite, you just swore in your head – if you’re normal, you did it out loud.

But sometimes we like to torture our readers, so let’s look ahead four years, shall we?

On the Democrat side of the aisle:

First, I wonder how one says “neener neener” in each of the world’s 7,000 languages?

Mean, but I think we all deserve a football spike or two after the last four years.

Donald Trump is the happiest person in the country today, the 73 or so million people who voted for him are a close second, and in a very close third is Gavin Newsom.

It can only be assumed that the his Plumpjack (such a creepy name) wine flowed very freely last night at whichever house Gavin and the First Partner were at.  Donald Trump just did Newsom a huge favor – he vanquished the one person who could have absolutely guaranteed he couldn’t run for president at least 2032 and by that time – let’s face it: the boyish charm will have worn off a bit and the oil slick oin his head will be a bit grey and those are his two “best”  electoral qualities so, phewww.

With her out of the way, Newsom now has a clear path to the nomination.  The national media will fawn over him and try to convince the rest of the country that California is not actually as much of a third world basket case as and if it is it’s, um, Ronald Reagan’s fault.

Last night’s results also means that Newsom will tack to the middle for the next two years as governor, desperately trying to rub the progressive stink off of himself.  Not that that’s really great, but – for California – it’s better than nothing as he may turn back some of the most egregiously silly ideas the legislature tries to foist upon the state.

Case in point, Newsom issued a statement yesterday that he will “work with” the new administration.

One serious downside for Newsom did emerge last night – the nation’s opinion of the state.  That will be tough to overcome, hence one can expect the aforementioned policy shifts.

As for Newsom’s potential competition, let’s start with Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.  True, Kamala lost his state but that is not at all on him, as it were.  In fact, it seems she did him a favor by passing him over for the veep spot on the ticket.

Of course she only settled on the rolling dough of goofball that is/was Tim Walz (note to Democrats: stopping nominating chubby white guys named Tim to be vice president,  it just doesn’t work) because Shapiro is Jewish. 

There is no other reason, no matter what she has claimed.  She simply could not have a dastardly colonizing rapacious JEW on her ticket, what with her base being so rabidly anti-Semitic (not anti-Israel, just straight up anti-Semitic.)

If the relatively moderate Shapiro holds Pennsylvania together for the next few years – which will be made easier by Donald Trump’s labor and energy policies, to be honest – he will be very strongly positioned for 2028 as the saner alternative to Newsom.

Then we have Illinois Gov. J.B Pritzker, but he has some very heavy baggage.  First, he looks like a Thomas Nast caricature of an evil Gilded Age plutocrat/corrupt politician.

Take a look:

And now Pritzker:

He is also in charge of one of the most poorly run, brokest, and corrupt states in the country that has outmigration numbers that give California a run for its money.  And Chicago has more murders than pretty much anywhere.

In other words, he does not have the charm to try to cover things like that up like Newsom does.

True, he’s a zillionaire (richer than Trump, actually) but it is inherited wealth (hotels) and his other trust fund relatives have done some absurdly woke things with their share of the money.  His cousin Jennifer – it used to be James –gave a $2 million donation to create the world’s first endowed academic chair of transgender studies, at the University of Victoria in British Columbia.

Oh, and here she/he/whatever is:

Kudos for her military service when she was a guy and her continuing support of veteran’s causes but, well, yikes.  Fat old white guys should not wear dresses.

Case in point, Admiral Rachel Levine:

Speaking of women, there’s Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.  Personally, I’m baffled by her appeal and why she is constantly touted as the Democrats “next big thing,” and that even before her Flamin’ Hot Eucharist stunt.

Oh, and here’s the link to the vid: https://x.com/i/status/1844449775992893861

She’s very controlling and privileged – her record during the pandemic could be the poster child for “rules for thee, not for me,” although she did get pretty lit at a football game so I’ll give her that.

And then you have Pete Buttigieg – he’s gay, ya’ know – and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore – he’s black, ya’ know – and then a bunch of other folks who will give it a shot.

And many others – except Kamala, lol – will give it a shot for it is a rather rare occurrence that a nomination for either party is completely wide open.

On the Republican side, it’s Vice President Presumptive J.D. Vance’s race to lose.

Trump cannot run again, so that opens up the nomination.  And short of Trump nuking Canada and/or appointing Mike Pence as his Chief of Staff, Vance is the very very odds-on favorite.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis could have thought about challenging for 2028, but he made the huuuuge mistake of running for president this time around.  And his campaign was a pathetic disaster, so that’s strike two through eleven.

Other than that, at this moment there is no alternative to Vance for the Republicans.

But another issue that will be extremely important in the run up to 2028 will be what the Democrats do internally.

No changes in California – they have 147 legislators out of 120, of course – but in the national arena.

Tuesday’s results must show the party that it is utterly out of touch and that when it does try to touch people it can only be described a “BAD touch!!”

But if the Democrats try to move to the center-ish they will have to deal with the lunatics they have let run the asylum.

Gaza.  Trans.  DEI.  Government unions.  Speech codes.  Greenaholism.  Microaggressions.  And on and on…

The party has based its existence over the past few years, as well as much of its funding, on those very things. 

To paraphrase supporters of Joe Biden in 2020, they have let the children run the room.

And now the regular Democrats – who obviated their responsibility –  have to give them a spanking and that is going to be difficult.  I mean, you have people on the loony left of the party that refer to being “pro-life” as being part of “the forced birth movement.”

The wokerati – who bitch and moan about everything anyway – will not go gently into that good night.

And whiny. And squirmy.  And howly.  And ragey.

But it will be fun to watch.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

A Colorado law that bars adults younger than 21 from buying and selling guns is allowed because it does not violate the U.S. Constitution, a trio of federal judges said on Nov. 5.

Age limits on gun purchases are widely imposed across the country and do not implicate the Constitution’s Second Amendment, U.S. Circuit Judge Richard E. N. Federico wrote for the panel that was assigned the case.

The law “is presumptively lawful as a law that imposes conditions or qualifications upon the sale and purchase of arms and thus does not fall within the protections of the plain text of the Second Amendment,” he said.

Under a test established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 in a case known as Bruen, judges analyzing whether gun laws are constitutional must first determine whether the laws regulate conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s “plain text.”

If a law does not cover such conduct, judges do not proceed to the second step established by the nation’s top court.

The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The plaintiff who brought the case had demonstrated that 18- to 20-year-olds fall within “the people” and the guns he wants to buy are “arms,” the appeals court said. But he failed to prove that the law “implicates his right to ‘keep and bear’ arms,” which is the third prong of the first step, Federico said.

“Laws or regulations imposing conditions or qualifications—such as a minimum purchase age of 21—on the commercial sale or purchase of arms, when not employed for abusive ends, remain outside the scope of the Amendment’s protections under the third prong of Bruen step one,” the judge said.

The panel remanded the case back to U.S. District Judge Philip A. Brimmer with instructions to dissolve an injunction Brimmer entered against the law in 2023, months after it was signed.

Brimmer had said the law did regulate conduct covered by the Second Amendment and found Colorado Gov. Jared Polis failed Bruen’s second step, which is showing a regulation is consistent with the nation’s history of firearm restrictions.

“Colonial laws that disarmed persons who presented a risk of danger to the state or to the country are not analogous to a categorical ban on a segment of society that has not professed hostility to the state or to the nation. And any such analogy would be ‘far too broad.’” he wrote at the time. “Thus, the Court finds that the Governor has not identified founding era gun laws that are analogous to SB23-169.”

A 50bps rate-cut six weeks before the election – not political at all.

And now Fed Chair Powell has to explain why he cut rates again despite surging macro data (growth scares completely erased and reignited inflation fears), record high stocks and soaring Treasury yields.

There was barely a blip of reaction across markets after the hawkish statement, so it will come down to what Powell says… though Dec rate-cut odds are sliding…

Will Powell use the presser to jawbone expectations of the Fed’s rate-cut trajectory down now that (inflationary) Trump will be in The White House?

UBS says it is likely that Chair Powell will be peppered with questions on the pace of rate cuts to come, the potential for skips, and maybe even where rates will ultimately end up.

We expect the Chairs tone remains similar to that of the September meeting and that any guidance will remain data dependent…

We doubt he will commit to anything at this juncture, neither another rate cut in December nor skipping that meeting.

He might say the FOMC would consider lowering rates at the next meeting, but stop there.

Watch live here (due to start at 1430ET):

It’s been an ‘eventful’ six weeks since The Fed decided (on Sept 18th) to slash interest rates by 50bps.

The macro-economic data has literally exploded stronger…

Source: Bloomberg

…with inflation reigniting and growth surprises soaring…

Source: Bloomberg

…and that has slammed rate-cut expectations down by over 100bps…

Source: Bloomberg

Which has helped lift gold and stocks while crude prices have collapsed (and Bitcoin has gone vertical)…

Source: Bloomberg

But, more problematically, the mortgage rate has ripped higher since The Fed cut…

Source: Bloomberg

The market is fully priced for 25bps cut today, but December is now a coin-toss (54% odds of another 25bps).

Will The FOMC (and Powell’s presser) jawbone expectations down further? Will Bowman dissent again?

So what did The Fed do?

• *FED LOWERS BENCHMARK RATE 25 BPS TO 4.5%-4.75% RANGE

• *FED SAYS RISKS TO GOALS REMAIN ‘ROUGHLY IN BALANCE‘

• *FED: LABOR MARKET CONDITIONS HAVE ‘GENERALLY EASED‘

No dissent on this rate-cut decision.

Key changes:

• Most notably, removing language that Fed has “gained greater confidence that inflation is moving sustainable toward 2 percent”.

• Adding that labor market conditions have “generally eased” since earlier in the year, replacing “job gains have slowed”.

Read the full redline below:

Authored by Luis Cornelio via Headline USA

Far-left activists and self-identified Democrats appear to have found a scapegoat for their humiliating defeat in the 2024 presidential election: Hispanic Americans. 

Many leftists have unleashed racist insults and smears against Hispanic Americans after they played a major role in fueling Donald Trump’s comeback on Election Day.

On average, Hispanic-majority counties went for Trump by 10 percentage points, according to The New York Times. These numbers have sparked vitriolic responses from prominent left-wing voices.

On Wednesday’s episode of The View, host Sunny Hostin suggested Latino men supported Trump to “deport” themselves, invoking a racist stereotype about Hispanics and legal status. Hostin also referred to pro-Trump white women as “uneducated.” 

Hostin proclaims “black women tried to save this country again last night” and lashed out at “uneducated white women.”
Farah Griffin actually stood up to her and said that kind of racial hatred is what turned people away from Democrats. pic.twitter.com/wj9VxiMRgc

— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) November 6, 2024

Elie Mystal, a columnist for the leftist site The Nation, posted several tweets, including one where he accused Hispanics of thinking “they’re white.” In one tweet, he appeared to conflate an unnamed racial minority with white supremacy. 

“White supremacy cannot be defeated unless we’re all in it together (obviously, a majority of white people are not gonna help). But… this election *really shows* that a lot of other ‘people of color’ do not want to defeat white supremacy, they want to join it,” Mystal wrote. 

White supremacy cannot be defeated unless we’re all in it together (obviously, a majority of white people are not gonna help).

But… this election *really shows* that a lot of other “people of color” do not want to defeat white supremacy, they want to join it.

— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) November 6, 2024

Other left-leaning users, similar to Hostin, expressed shock that Hispanic Americans would vote for Trump and his pro-border security policies. 

“45% from Latinos while running on a massive mass deportation campaign. I just don’t get it man,” one user wrote, garnering nearly 30 million views and hundreds of mocking replies. 

Chandler Crump, a 20-year-old Republican commentator, swiftly shut down the viral post with a blunt reply: “Did you ever consider the possibility that Latinos are… legal citizens?” 

Did you ever consider the possibility that Latinos are… legal citizens? https://t.co/2omVNFzSEU

— Chandler Crump (@realCCrump) November 6, 2024

Commentator Melissa Chen chimed in on the discussion, mocking the left’s rhetoric by tweeting, “Dear Latino Men, You’re now the new face of white supremacy. Welcome to the club. Signed, Asians and Jews.”

Chen’s tweet reflected how Asian and Jewish Americans have also faced condemnation from the far left. 

Notice now they’re not calling them “Latinx” 🤣

— Melissa Chen (@MsMelChen) November 6, 2024

Screenshots of Reddit conversations revealed additional attacks on Hispanics…

…with a user commenting, “I know this will sound racist, but Latinos f***ing disgust me,” and another adding, “Latinos aren’t immune from being f***ing idiots.” 

Authored by Alex Berenson via substack,

Other products do not have absolute lawsuit protection; why should vaccines – especially expensive new ones – be any different?

Lawsuits aren’t fun.

At best they’re draining and distracting – especially against big companies with tough legal teams. (Trust me.) Federal courts have now raised the bar even to reach the “discovery” phase of suits, where plaintiffs can see documents relevant to their claims.

No, lawsuits aren’t fun. No one sues a Fortune 500 company for kicks.

But sometimes they’re are necessary. Except, apparently, when it comes to vaccines.

In its infinite wisdom, in 1986, Congress passed a law making it nearly impossible for any American to sue pharmaceutical companies over vaccine injuries.

Instead, it routed all claims to a special federal court program that would judge possible injuries on a “no-fault” basis and compare them to a prespecified list of injuries.

In 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed and even strengthened the protection that the 1986 law gave Big Pharma, ruling that it prevented any lawsuits over “design defects” in the vaccines it covered.

In other words, as long as a drug company has issued boilerplate warnings about its vaccines, it essentially cannot be sued outside the vaccine court program unless it sells a contaminated vaccine batch.

The law covers any vaccine that the Centers for Disease Control has recommended for “routine administration” to children or pregnant women – that is, nearly all vaccines. (mRNA Covid jabs are for the moment covered separately, under a 2005 law about epidemic responses that offers even more complete immunity to Big Pharma. Eventually they are likely to move under the umbrella of the 1986 law.)

On principle, I think offering complete immunity to corporations is a mistake.

Tort lawsuits and plaintiffs’ lawyers can be annoying. They are also essential.

When companies cut corners on product design, when they hide problems or risks, when they mislead regulators (or buy them off with revolving door hiring), when they promote their products in blatantly false ways, lawsuits can be the only way to hold companies accountable. They’re a last resort, a way to get justice for defective or dangerous products from the Ford Pinto to Oxycontin.

And even the mere threat of lawsuits may force companies to consider whether they need to design their products better or disclose possible dangers.

(The Ford Pinto, unsafe at any speed!)

When the 1986 law was passed, its advocates said vaccines were an exception; they were a low-profit corner of the drug industry that needed special protection from lawsuits because they could occasionally cause children devastating injuries. Without immunity, we would have no vaccines at all, the law’s advocates argued. (I know some of you think this is a good idea; I don’t agree.)

But that in the years since, drug companies have fundamentally changed that calculus. New vaccines are far more expensive, and they are much more biologically complicated than earlier, simple “inactivated-virus” or “live-attenuated” vaccines. As their names suggest, those are basically just dead or weakened viral particles given with a small “adjuvant” to provoke an immune system response.

mRNA shots are the ultimate example of this, and the mRNA Covid jabs were not just profitable but among the most profitable Big Pharma products ever in 2021 and 2022. They also offer – at best – far less durable protection than traditional shots, making them more akin to a traditional pharmaceutical product than a vaccine that offers decades or a lifetime of protection.

Why on earth would we encourage their manufacturers to take chances with public health by protecting them from lawsuits?

The 1986 law has outlived its usefulness. Maybe it should be repealed entirely. At a minimum, it must be revised so that it covers only the biologically simple and low-profit vaccines it originally did.

Otherwise Big Pharma will continue to try to stretch the definition of vaccines so that new products qualify for its protection, and the people they injure will have little or no recourse.

As importantly, removing the protection would send a strong signal that vaccines are not the quasi-holy relics their advocates claim – believe in science! Instead, they are (medical) products that need to be judged on their costs and benefits, like all others, and be subject to routine legal review, like all others.

Vaccines should produce immunity, not receive it.

And neither should social media companies, but let’s not go there today.