Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

Approximately 330,000 illegal border-crossings into the European Union were recorded in 2022, the highest figure since the migration crisis of 2016 and an increase of 64 percent from the previous year, according to the latest data from EU border agency Frontex.

The Western Balkan migratory route, which sees migrants travel through Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia to reach the European Union’s external border at Hungary, overtook the Central Mediterranean route as the most-used pathway by illegal migrants. More than 145,000 illegal migrants were detected using the route last year, a significant increase of 136 percent over 2021.

Migrants using this route last year were most commonly from Syria, Afghanistan, Turkey, and Tunisia.

Croatia’s membership of the European Union’s borderless Schengen Area, which came into effect on Jan. 1, 2023, will inevitably lead to greater challenges in this region, extending the length of the EU’s external border considerably.

A total of 102,529 migrants were detected attempting to breach the EU border in the Central Mediterranean region to reach Italy, an increase of 51 percent over 2021. Migrants from Egypt, Tunisia, Bangladesh, and Syria were most commonly reported to be active on this route.

The Eastern Mediterranean was the third-most-used route by illegal migrants, primarily traveling through Turkey into Greece. Almost 43,000, primarily Syrians, Afghans, Nigerians, and Congolese, followed this route last year — an increase of 108 percent over 2021.

Decreases in activity were reported in the three other designated routes acknowledged by Frontex. The Western Mediterranean route into Spain saw 14,582 illegal migrants, down 21 percent; the Western African route to the Spanish Canary Islands recorded 15,462 illegal border-crossings, down 31 percent; and the Eastern Land Border into Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia saw 6,127 illegal migrants, down 25 percent over 2021.

Meanwhile, a 37 percent increase was recorded in exits from the Schengen Area towards the U.K. where 71,081 individuals were detected.

The 13 million Ukrainian refugees recorded entering the EU via its external land borders between Feb. 24 and the end of the year are not included in the figures, Frontex confirmed.

More than 80 percent of illegal migrants detected were adult men.

“Women accounted for fewer than one in ten of the detections, while the share of reported minors fell slightly to around 9 percent of all detections,” Frontex stated in a press release on Friday.

The EU border agency stressed that the figures were based on preliminary figures, admitting “the final figures may be higher due to delayed reporting.”

The statistics on illegal border-crossings are separate from the number of asylum applications made across Europe, which perhaps gives a more informed view of the crisis enveloping the continent.

Almost 790,000 asylum applications were made in the EU between January and October last year, according to EU Agency for Asylum chief Nina Gregori. This represents an increase of 54 percent compared to the same period in 2021 and does not include the temporary protection afforded to Ukrainians.

“It’s pretty clear that the growing number of applications will continue for the foreseeable future,” Gregori said in December, with asylum applications in excess of 100,000 each month in the latter months of the year.

Via The Cradle,

The Biden administration has told Congress that it is preparing the $20 billion F-16 fighter jet deal with Turkey, despite objections by US lawmakers in the past, Reuters reported.

According to three unnamed sources who spoke with the news agency, the State Department sent an informal notice to Congress on Thursday to inform the committees overseeing arms sales in the Senate and House of Representatives. The potential deal received a lot of criticism in the past, with experts arguing that the sale would “embrace authoritarianism” and aid Ankara’s violation of its neighbors’ sovereignty.

“How do you reward a nation that does all of those things?” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Bob Menendez remarked during an interview, adding, “I don’t see it. Now, if they want to start changing their ways, that’s a different story.” Menendez is one of the four lawmakers whose approval is required for foreign military sales.

However, the deal is unlikely to receive approval by Congress as long as Turkey continues to block Sweden and Finland from joining NATO.

The announcement came to light a week ahead of Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu’s planned visit to Washington on Wednesday. Turkey and the US are expected to discuss several issues regarding their differences in Syria and arms sales.

Earlier in December, US Congress lifted restrictions that prevented the sale of F-16 jets to Turkey, according to documents obtained by the state-run Anadolu Agency.

Citing a finalized draft of the US National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) bill, the Turkish news agency claims amendments submitted by congress members to block the sale were dropped from the bill.

Tensions between the two states were flared by Turkey’s purchase of the Russian-made S-400 defense missile system, triggering US sanctions and sidelining Ankara from the 5th generation F-35 advanced fighter jets. As a result of the US ban on sales, the Turkish military industry launched the ÖZGÜR project to modernize its F-16 Block 30 fleet and circumvent the undeclared sanctions on maintenance and upgrades.

Authored by Abir Ballan via The Brownstone Institute,

Trust the Authorities, trust the Experts, and trust the Science, we were told.

Public health messaging during the Covid-19 pandemic was only credible if it originated from government health authorities, the World Health Organization, and pharmaceutical companies, as well as scientists who parroted their lines with little critical thinking. 

In the name of ‘protecting’ the public, the authorities have gone to great lengths, as described in the recently released Twitter Files (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) that document collusion between the FBI and social media platforms, to create an illusion of consensus about the appropriate response to Covid-19. 

They suppressed ‘the truth,’ even when emanating from highly credible scientists, undermining scientific debate and preventing the correction of scientific errors. In fact, an entire bureaucracy of censorship has been created, ostensibly to deal with so-called MDM— misinformation (false information resulting from human error with no intention of harm); disinformation (information intended to mislead and manipulate); malinformation (accurate information intended to harm). 

From fact-checkers like NewsGuard, to the European Commission’s Digital Services Act, the UK Online Safety Bill and the BBC Trusted News Initiative, as well as Big Tech and social media, all eyes are on the public to curtail their ‘mis-/dis-information.’ 

“Whether it’s a threat to our health or a threat to our democracy, there is a human cost to disinformation.” — Tim Davie, Director-General of the BBC

But is it possible that ‘trusted’ institutions could pose a far bigger threat to society by disseminating false information?

Although the problem of spreading false information is usually conceived of as emanating from the public, during the Covid-19 pandemic, governments, corporations, supranational organisations and even scientific journals and  academic institutions have contributed to a false narrative. 

Falsehoods such as ‘Lockdowns save lives’ and ‘No one is safe until everyone is safe’ have far-reaching costs in livelihoods and lives. Institutional false information during the pandemic was rampant. Below is just a sample by way of illustration.

The health authorities falsely convinced the public that the Covid-19 vaccines stop infection and transmission when the manufacturers never even tested these outcomes. The CDC changed its definition of vaccination to be more ‘inclusive’ of the novel mRNA technology vaccines. Instead of the vaccines being expected to produce immunity, now it was good enough to produce protection. 

The authorities also repeated the mantra (at 16:55) of ‘safe and effective’ throughout the pandemic despite emerging evidence of vaccine harm. The FDA refused the full release of documents they had reviewed in 108 days when granting the vaccines emergency use authorisation. Then in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, it attempted to delay their release for up to 75 years. These documents presented evidence of vaccine adverse events. It’s important to note that between 50 and 96 percent of the funding of drug regulatory agencies around the world comes from Big Pharma in the form of grants or user fees. Can we disregard that it’s difficult to bite the hand that feeds you?

The vaccine manufacturers claimed high levels of vaccine efficacy in terms of relative risk reduction (between 67 and 95 percent). They failed, however, to share with the public the more reliable measure of absolute risk reduction that was only around 1 percent, thereby exaggerating the expected benefit of these vaccines. 

They also claimed “no serious safety concerns observed” despite their own post-authorisation safety report revealing multiple serious adverse events, some lethal. The manufacturers also failed to publicly address the immune suppression during the two weeks post-vaccination and the rapidly waning vaccine effectiveness that turns negative at 6 months or the increased risk of infection with each additional booster. Lack of transparency about this vital information denied people their right to informed consent. 

They also claimed that natural immunity is not protective enough and that hybrid immunity (a combination of natural immunity and vaccination) is required. This false information was necessary to sell remaining stocks of their products in the face of mounting breakthrough cases (infection despite vaccination). 

In reality, although natural immunity may not completely prevent future infection with SARS-CoV-2, it is however effective in preventing severe symptoms and deaths. Thus vaccination post-natural infection is not needed. 

The WHO also participated in falsely informing the public. It disregarded its own pre-pandemic plans, and denied that lockdowns and masks are ineffective at saving lives and have a net harm on public health. It also promoted mass vaccination in contradiction to the public health principle of ‘interventions based on individual needs.’ 

It also went as far as excluding natural immunity from its definition of herd immunity and claimed that only vaccines can help reach this end point. This was later reversed under pressure from the scientific community. Again, at least 20 percent of the WHO’s funding comes from Big Pharma and philanthropists invested in pharmaceuticals. Is this a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune? 

The Lancet, a respectable medical journal, published a paper claiming that Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) — a repurposed drug used for the treatment of Covid-19 —  was associated with a slight increased risk of death. This led the FDA to ban the use of HCQ to treat Covid-19 patients and the NIH to halt the clinical trials on HCQ as a potential Covid-19 treatment. These were drastic measures taken on the basis of a study that was later retracted due to the emergence of evidence showing that the data used was false. 

In another instance, the medical journal Current Problems in Cardiology retracted —without any justification— a paper showing an increased risk of myocarditis in young people following the Covid-19 vaccines, after it was peer-reviewed and published. The authors advocated for the precautionary principle in the vaccination of young people and called for more pharmacovigilance studies to assess the safety of the vaccines. Erasing such findings from the medical literature not only prevents science from taking its natural course, but it also gatekeeps important information from the public.

A similar story took place with Ivermectin, another drug used for the treatment of Covdi-19, this time potentially implicating academia. Andrew Hill stated (at 5:15) that the conclusion of his paper on Ivermectin was influenced by Unitaid which is, coincidentally, the main funder of a new research centre at Hill’s workplace —the University of Liverpool. His meta-analysis showed that Ivermectin reduced mortality with Covid-19 by 75 percent. Instead of supporting Ivermectin use as a Covid-19 treatment, he concluded that further studies were needed.

The suppression of potentially life-saving treatments was instrumental for the emergency use authorization of the Covid-19 vaccines as the absence of a treatment for the disease is a condition for EUA (p.3).

Many media outlets are also guilty of sharing false information. This was in the form of biased reporting, or by accepting to be a platform for public relations (PR) campaigns. PR is an innocuous word for propaganda or the art of sharing information to influence public opinion in the service of special interest groups. 

The danger of PR is that it passes for independent journalistic opinion to the untrained eye. PR campaigns aim to sensationalise scientific findings, possibly to increase consumer uptake of a given therapeutic, increase funding for similar research, or to increase stock prices. The pharmaceutical companies spent $6.88 billion on TV advertisements in 2021 in the US alone. Is it possible that this funding influenced media reporting during the Covid-19 pandemic? 

Lack of integrity and conflicts of interest have led to an unprecedented institutional false information pandemic. It is up to the public to determine whether the above are instances of mis- or dis-information. 

Public trust in the Media has seen its biggest drop over the last five years. Many are also waking up to the widespread institutional false information. The public can no longer trust ‘authoritative’ institutions that were expected to look after their interests. This lesson was learned at great cost. Many lives were lost due to the suppression of early treatment and an unsound vaccination policy; businesses ruined; jobs destroyed; educational achievement regressed; poverty aggravated; and both physical and mental health outcomes worsened. A preventable mass disaster. 

We have a choice: either we continue to passively accept institutional false information or we resist. What are the checks and balances that we must put in place to reduce conflicts of interest in public health and research institutions? How can we decentralise the media and academic journals in order to reduce the influence of pharmaceutical advertising on their editorial policy?

As individuals, how can we improve our media literacy to become more critical consumers of information? There is nothing that dispels false narratives better than personal inquiry and critical thinking. So the next time conflicted institutions cry woeful wolf or vicious variant or catastrophic climate, we need to think twice.

The profile of risks facing the world is evolving constantly. Events like last year’s invasion of Ukraine can send shockwaves through the system, radically shifting perceptions of what the biggest risks facing humanity are.

Visual Capitalist’s Nick Routley created the graphic below to summarize findings from the Global Risks Report, an annual publication produced by the World Economic Forum (WEF).

It provides an overview of the most pressing global risks that the world is facing, as identified by experts and decision-makers.

These risks are grouped into five general categories: economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal, and technological.

Let’s dive into this year’s findings.

2023’s Risk Profile

In the lower–middle portion of the chart are the risks that could have serious impacts—such as attacks involving nuclear or biological weapons—but that were highlighted by fewer experts.

Over in the top-right quadrant of the chart are the risks that a number of experts mentioned, and that are causing a strain on society. Not surprisingly, the top risks are related to issues that impact a wide variety of people, such as the rising cost of living and inflation. When staples like food and energy become more expensive, this can fuel unrest and political instability—particularly in countries that already had simmering discontent. WEF points out that increases in fuel prices alone led to protests in an estimated 92 countries.

One risk worth watching is geoeconomic confrontation, which includes sanctions, trade wars, investment screening, and other actions that have the intent of weakening the countries on the receiving end. Efforts to mitigate this risk result in some of the key themes we see for the coming year. One example is the onshoring of industries, and “friend-shoring”, which is essentially moving operations to a foreign country that has more stable relations with one’s home country.

How Prepared Are We?

It’s one thing to be aware of risks, but it’s quite another to have the ability to head off negative events when they come to fruition.

The chart below is a look at how prepared we are globally to deal with specific types of risks that could arise in the next few years.

At the top of the chart are risks that experts feel society is better equipped to handle with current plans and resources. Moving towards the bottom of the chart are risks that experts feel are more of a threat since mechanisms for handling them are weak or non-existent.

Experts are generally more confident in solutions in the military or healthcare domains. Environmental and societal challenges leave policy and decision-makers less confident.

One telling observation from the data above is that none of the risks left a majority of experts feeling neither confident in our ability to prevent the risk from occurring, or prepared to mitigate its impact. As the 2020s are shaping up to be a turbulent decade, that could be a cause for concern.

Submitted by Gun Owners Of America.,

The ATF has finally unveiled its “final rule” regarding pistol braces.

This rule, also called “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Stabilizing Braces,” could result in serious criminal charges for owners of up to 40 million guns if they do not register their braced firearms with ATF.  

🚨BREAKING🚨

The @ATFHQ just released @JoeBiden‘s unconstitutional pistol brace ban that affects as many as 40,000,000 lawfully purchased firearms.

Read the new rule here ⤵️https://t.co/dVWgf3isNo pic.twitter.com/6dYftjaDXQ

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) January 13, 2023

GOA’s Legal & Federal Affairs team are currently going over the final rule with a fine-toothed comb, but here’s what we know so far.  

According to the final rule, gun owners who possess braced firearms will have 120 days to destroy, reconfigure, register, turn in their firearms to ATF, or face NFA violations which include $250,000 in fines and a hefty prison sentence. 

In addition, ATF has released a list titled “Commercially available firearms equipped with a stabilizing brace that are short-barreled rifles.”

ATF claims that the list is representative of how the agency will apply the definition of “rifle” to firearms equipped with a stabilizing brace.

The immediate logistics of this final rule have been called into question by even the anti-gun corporate media. It is a well-known fact that ATF’s NFA division consistently misses its own performance benchmarks and routinely sees wait times for ATF form approvals and tax stamps in the 300-400 day range. If 40 million firearms are added to that waitlist, it is logical to assume that gun owners forced to comply with this unconstitutional registration scheme may wait years in limbo.

But don’t despair! Gun Owners of America is currently pursuing multiple actions to defeat this unconstitutional ATF overreach on America’s 2nd Amendment Rights. 

The first is to work with members of Congress to overturn the rule via the Congressional Review Act.

The Congressional Review Act allows members of Congress to introduce a Joint Resolution of Disapproval to reverse any agency rule or action they deem unconstitutional.

Of course, if Congress doesn’t cooperate, GOA will not give up. We are prepared to file a lawsuit immediately and fight this subversion of the lawmaking process in the court system. 

Erich Pratt, Gun Owners of America’s Senior Vice President, had this to say: 

“This administration continues to find new ways to attack gun owners, and this time their target is brace-equipped firearms that allow persons with disabilities to safely and effectively use pistols. We will continue to work with our industry partners to amplify the disapproving voices in the firearms industry, and the Gun Owners Foundation, our sister legal arm, will be filing suit in the near future.”  

Aidan Johnston, GOA’s Director of Federal Affairs, added:  

“President Biden just initiated the largest federal gun registration scheme in our nation’s history without even the passage of a new law. GOA is actively working with Congress to pass a resolution blocking this rule under the Congressional Review Act, and we continue to lobby lawmakers to support Rep. Clyde and Sen. Marshall’s Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act. If President Biden will not sign such legislation, then Congress must defund this rogue agency.”  

GOA has a history of overturning these unconstitutional rule changes. In 2020, when the ATF under the Trump administration attempted to regulate pistol braces, GOA rallied our members to take action. GOA members flooded the proposed rule with comments. Because of this, ATF abandoned its attempt and withdrew the rulemaking. 

While GOA is prepared to take the ATF to court over this issue, we’re interested in cutting the ATF’s ability to regulate Short Barreled Rifles, Short Barreled Shotguns, and similar types of firearms.   

To strip the ATF of its ability to regulate these types of firearms, we’re targeting the core of the issue, the National Firearms Act. The outdated and unconstitutional NFA allows ATF the leeway to make these unconstitutional rule changes. We’re working with Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas and Congressman Andrew Clyde of Georgia to pass the SHORT Act, which would remove Short Barreled Rifles and Shotguns from the NFA. 

But we can’t do it alone. We need your help fighting back against the rogue ATF and the anti-gun Biden administration. Help us fight by calling your Senators and Congress members and asking them to support the SHORT Act and the Joint Resolution of Disapproval. 

*   *   * 

We’ll hold the line for you in Washington. We are No Compromise. Join the Fight Now.

Last year was a bad year for corn — the latest US Department of Agriculture (USDA) report shows drought conditions and extreme weather wreaked havoc on croplands. 

USDA unexpectedly slashed its outlook for domestic corn production amid a severe drought across the western farm belt. Farmers in Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas were forced to abandon drought-plagued fields. 

The agency estimated farmers harvested 79.2 million acres, a decline of 1.6 million acres versus the previous estimate — the smallest acres harvest since 2008. 

The unexpected cut to US harvested corn acres means grain supplies are a lot tighter than realized. A report Thursday showed the corn area in the world’s largest producer is at the smallest since 2008 with crops failing in states such as Texas and Nebraska. That’s due to persistent drought conditions in the western part of the country that could also hit harvests for wheat plants that are currently dormant for the winter. — Bloomberg

The crop-failed lands reduced total harvest corn acreage to levels not seen since 2008. 

Less acreage tightens supply and might continue to put a bid under corn prices. 

Global food prices remain at crisis levels.

Here’s the current drought situation across the farm belt. 

Corn production woes from the US don’t bode well in the fight to crush food inflation. It seems as if the prices for our food will remain high well through 2023. 

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

An American doctor is joining the calls for the withdrawal of the messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccines, pointing to new research that highlights a connection between the shots and adverse events.

Dr. Joseph Fraiman, a doctor based in Louisiana who also conducts research on COVID-19 and other health issues, says it’s time to halt the administration of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines until new clinical trials prove the benefits from the vaccines outweigh the harms.

The new research, including a reanalysis of the trials for the vaccines, raise concerns about whether the benefits from the vaccines outweigh the harms, according to the doctor.

“I don’t see how anyone couldn’t be certain that the benefits are outweighing the harms on a population level, or even in the high-risk groups. I don’t see the evidence to support that claim,” Fraiman told The Epoch Times. “But I also can’t say that there’s evidence to support that it’s potentially more harmful, but there’s also uncertainty here. … Given that scenario, I believe that people should not be given the [vaccines] outside of a clinical trial, because we need to figure out … if their benefits outweigh harm or if harm outweighs benefits.”

“The only thing that can answer that question is going to be a randomized trial,” he added.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which cleared the shots and has never stopped promoting them, did not return an inquiry.

The Data

Fraiman led a study that reanalyzed the original Pfizer and Moderna trials. He and his colleagues concluded in a study published following peer review that the vaccinated were at higher risk of serious adverse events.

That’s one data point. Another is the identification of safety signals, or adverse events, that are potentially caused by the vaccines but require further study. The FDA revealed in December 2022 that the Pfizer vaccine was linked to blood clotting in elderly individuals. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which recommends the vaccines for virtually all Americans, found hundreds of other signals in its research, according to records obtained by The Epoch Times.

Several serious problems that can lead to death have been causally linked, or proven to be caused by the vaccines. They include myocarditis, or heart inflammation.

While U.S. health officials have repeatedly downplayed the severity of myocarditis and a related condition, pericarditis, German researchers who dug into the deaths of 25 people who died suddenly at home after vaccination ruled out every potential cause except for vaccination for five of the people. They reported their results in a study that was published after peer review in late 2022.

“Given alternative causes are unlikely to cause myocarditis within one week of vaccination, this is essentially conclusive evidence that we’re seeing sudden cardiac deaths from the vaccines,” Fraiman said.

Fraiman also noted that excess mortality, or deaths from all causes, have risen during the pandemic—with spikes correlating with the introduction of the vaccines. Vaccines may not have caused the additional deaths, he says, but some researchers, including British professors Norman Fenton and Martin Neil, have examined the data and found a signal that the vaccines were linked to at least some of the excess deaths. U.S. officials say some of the deaths may be from COVID-19.

Initial Thoughts

When the vaccines were first introduced, Fraiman backed giving them to the elderly and others at high risk from COVID-19, or people of all ages with serious underlying health conditions. He says he also did not recommend against vaccination for any ages, though he told younger family members he was not sure if it was a good idea to get a jab.

Fraiman also says the vaccines likely reduced hospitalizations in the first two quarters of 2021, recalling how he did not see a single vaccinated person in his hospital until June of that year.

When he and the other scientists discovered the vaccinated were at higher risk of serious problems, he shifted to a stance of the harms likely outweighing the benefits among healthy people.

With the new evidence of harm, along with Omicron being less dangerous and more likely to evade vaccine immunity, Fraiman questions whether the benefits outweigh the serious harms even among the elderly and otherwise infirm.

“I see the likelihood that the harm could outweigh the benefit in the group who stood to benefit the most from the vaccine,” he said.

Standards Fall

Clinical trial data on the vaccines have been hard to come by, especially trials not run by the vaccine makers themselves, and the standards for the trials have been lowered over time.

The FDA authorized shots for children based on immunobridging, or trial data that found the vaccines triggered a similar antibody response in kids than that in adults. For the new bivalent boosters, created because the original vaccines have been providing much lower levels of protection against Omicron and its subvariants, no clinical data, not even antibody measurements, was provided at all. Months later, that data is still not available to the public.

Some observational studies have estimated the boosters provide subpar protection against infection and solid protection, at least initially, against hospitalization. Randomized, controlled trials are typically considered superior.

Fraiman recommends withdrawing the vaccines and U.S. officials going to the vaccine makers and asking them to demonstrate the benefits outweigh the harms in light of the changed dynamics of the pandemic. The trials should feature investigators looking closely at each COVID-19 hospitalization to distinguish whether they were caused by COVID-19, or the COVID-19 diagnosis was incidental. That distinction is known widely as being hospitalized, or dying, with COVID-19 versus from COVID-19.

The trial would take five or six months, similar to the original ones, Fraiman says.

Other Calls

Some countries, such as Denmark, meanwhile, have stopped offering booster shots to certain segments of the population. A growing number of experts, meanwhile, are calling for the administration of the Moderna and Pfizer shots, which are by far the most administered in the United States, to be halted.

The group includes Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a British doctor who turned against the vaccines in 2022 due to the growing evidence of side effects. Malhotra’s citations included the Moderna and Pfizer trials, which showed no reduction in mortality or severe disease, and the research led by Fraiman.

Read more here…

FEMA hired a California government contractor to translate disaster-assistance information into two native Alaska languages, but all it and the natives got was a big heap of nonsense. 

After a typhoon hammered the west coast of Alaska in September, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hired a Berkeley-based company, Accent on Languages, to translate instructions for applying for disaster aid. 

FEMA quickly turned the company’s work into tri-fold, glossy brochures that left native Alaskans utterly perplexed, as they encountered phrases like: 

• “Your husband is a polar bear, skinny.”
• “Tomorrow he will go hunting Alaska very early, and will (bring) nothing”  
• “When she said so, the dog ran farther off from the curtain.”

University of Alaska Fairbanks linguist Gary Holton says one of the translations is a random assortment of phrases copied from a compilation of far-eastern Russian folklore: “Yupik Eskimo Texts from the 1940s.” 

“They clearly just grabbed the words from the document and then just put them in some random order and gave something that looked like Yup’ik but made no sense,” Holton told AP. He summed up the work as a “word salad.” 

In a publicly-posted letter, Accent on Languages CEO Caroline Lee said her firm will reimburse FEMA $5,116. “We make no excuses for erroneous translations, and we deeply regret any inconvenience this has caused to the local community.” 

Lee said when the “horrifying,” botched translations came to her attention, that her company hired a new team of translators to do the project over again. FEMA has fired the company. 

Former Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Tara Sweeney wants more than a reimbursement, saying the company is guilty of fraud — “and you can’t put a price on the impact of denying services to vulnerable communities because of misinformation.” The grandstanding Sweeney even called for congressional hearings. 

We wonder if Accent on Languages was itself a victim of fraud on the part of whomever it assigned to do the original translation. 

Associated Press presented the fiasco as new evidence of systemic racism. Reporter Mark Thiessen called it “an ugly reminder for Alaska Natives of the suppression of their culture and languages from decades past,” and quoted Sweeney as she linked the bogus translations to her mother being beaten in school for speaking her native tongue.  

Like so many government contractors with ownership and leadership optimized for affirmative-action-driven contract awards, Accent on Languages touts itself as a “female, minority-owned business.”

Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A coalition of outspoken critics and skeptics of the mainstream narratives on COVID-19 has brought an antitrust lawsuit against some of the world’s largest news organizations, accusing them of working in collaboration to suppress dissenting voices surrounding the pandemic.

The lawsuit (pdf), filed on Tuesday in a federal court in Texas, targets The Washington Post, the British Broadcasting Corp (BBC), The Associated Press (AP), and Reuters—all of which are members of the “Trusted News Initiative (TNI),” a self-described “industry partnership” formed in 2020 among legacy media giants and big tech companies.

“By their own admission, members of the TNI have agreed to work together, and have in fact worked together, to exclude from the world’s dominant internet platforms rival news publishers who engage in reporting that challenges and competes with TNI members’ reporting on certain issues relating to COVID-19 and U.S. politics,” the complaint reads.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a critic of the Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccination policies, led the lawsuit. He is joined by Creative Destruction Media, Trial Site News, Truth About Vaccines founders Ty and Charlene Bollinger, independent journalist Ben Swann, Health Nut News publisher Erin Elizabeth Finn, Gateway Pundit founder Jim Hoft, Dr. Joseph Mercola, and Ben Tapper, a chiropractor.

The plaintiffs, the lawsuit alleges, are among the many victims of the TNI’s “group boycott” tactic, defined as a coordinated effort to facilitate monopoly by cutting off the competitors’ access to supplies and necessities.

In this case, the TNI members are accused of engaging in group boycott—in concert with their big tech partners—against small, independent news publishers by denying them access to internet platforms they need to compete and even survive in the online news market.

“As a result of the TNI’s group boycott, [the plaintiffs] have been censored, de-monetized, demoted, throttled, shadow-banned, and/or excluded entirely from platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, and Linked-In,” the lawsuit states.

For example, the lawsuit claims, TNI members have been working with Big Tech to censor what they condemned as “misinformation,” such as reports that COVID may have originated in a laboratory in the Chinese city of Wuhan, that the COVID vaccines do not prevent infection, and that vaccinated people may still transmit COVID to others.

This alleged effort to establish a dominant media narrative by shutting off nonestablishment outlets, according to the lawsuit, has violated both federal antitrust and freedom of speech laws.

“Federal antitrust law has its own name for this kind of ‘industry partnership,’” the lawsuit states. “It’s called a group boycott and is a per se violation of the Sherman Act.”

Read more here…