Alpine School District May Split After All
Only 18 months after a bitterly contested initiative campaign to prevent the city of Orem from forming its own school district, Alpine School District may split after all.
A ballot initiative titled Proposition 2 was created to give Orem residents a choice on whether to remove their schools from the largest school district in the state of Utah or stay with Alpine School District and was put to a vote during the midterm election in November of 2022.
Two very vocal factions formed that year, one in favor of the split and the other against it. The Pro side was a group called Stand for Orem. The Con side went by the moniker Stronger Together. I addressed this heated campaign and the tactics used to thwart Orem’s bid to leave the biggest school district in the state. You can get the full story in this article titled “Battle Over New School District Gets Ugly.” In short, the Stronger Together faction combined with ASD in what can only be called a misinformation campaign to sway Orem voters to vote NO on the referendum. That campaign worked and 70% of Orem citizens voted No.
In my previous article I mentioned how Stronger Together relied more on emotional pleas, endorsements, and testimonials of notable community figures than hard data, a strategy that worked. They even had five local CPA’s come to bat for them and submit a letter to the editor at the The Daily Herald explaining why they thought a split was a bad idea. I believe that editorial was very influential and pushed a lot of unsure voters to the NO side.
Tim Christensen, CPA, Retired partner at Squire, CPAs, James Gilbert, CPA, Managing Partner of Gilbert & Stewart, CPAs, Steve Hortin, CPA, Senior Partner of The Hortin Group, Brett Duckworth, CPA, Partner of Duckworth & Gordon, and Douglas Halladay, CPA, President of Douglas D. Halladay & Company all suggested the data pointed to keeping ASD intact. They included financial data, cost per student, operating cost figures, property tax revenue, state MSP funding, and made comparisons to other schools in the state. They pointed to the problems with the Jordan/Canyons district split implying the same could happen with Orem/ASD. My main issue with their letter and its contents was nowhere did they provide citations to where their numbers came from. This was a common tactic with Stronger Together and ASD in their campaign against Prop 2. They would provide data but not identify where the data came from nor how it came to be. You could never fact check them.
Another disturbing part of this editorial letter was its mention of another CPA, John Barrick. Barrick was called out by name as the group of CPA’s disparaged his findings and those of other accounting professionals including the Utah Taxpayers Association who were on the pro side. The letter stated, “The numbers presented by the pro-split group do not make sense and are not accurate. We were very disappointed to learn that John Barrick and the other accounting professors did not ask any questions of ASD staff to try and reconcile their numbers. We, on the other hand, reviewed the numbers with ASD staff and are satisfied that all the questions/corrections that the professors raised have reasonable explanations.” This letter to the editor published only 10 days before the election openly disparaging Mr. Barrick and other financial experts didn’t sit well with those individuals as you might imagine. Mr. Barrick then penned a very long and fact-filled rebuttal. Unfortunately, it wasn’t published in The Daily Herald and most Orem residents never saw it. I wish they had. It provided a well articulated and cited argument for the split and countered the assertions of the five CPA’s with easily verifiable data. Here is a link to that rebuttal titled “Response To Provo Daily Herald Editorial on October 29th”
After reading and fact checking Barrick’s response it’s hard for me to believe the five CPA’s who put their name to that letter really took the time to sift through the data and make an honest assessment. It looks more like they took what ASD gave them and rubber stamped it. If the public had the same access to Mr. Barrick’s response as they did the CPA’s letter to the editor, I believe the vote would have been much closer. I can’t say it would have changed the result but it would have dispelled a lot of the myths and misinformation that had been pushed by a very active opposition group.
The Stand for Orem group warned that a split was inevitable at some point in the future regardless the outcome of the election, noting several feasibility studies done over the years had pointed to an eventual split and showing Orem would be capable of supporting its own school district. ASD and its supporters at Stronger Together were able to defeat Prop 2 only to suffer their own defeat when Proposition 1, a ballot initiative asking taxpayers to approve a $595 million dollar bond, was roundly opposed by Utah County voters. In hindsight it appears Stronger Together and ASD spent too much time and energy working to defeat Prop 2 and not enough working to promote Prop 1 which has put them in the uncomfortable position they find themselves in today, looking at a new feasibility study and going through the process of determining how a district split would work and how it should be applied if adopted.
That brings us to the current situation and ASD’s consideration for a district split. MGT Consulting Group out of Tampa, Florida has been commissioned to do the feasibility study on a district split and possible options should a split be warranted. MGT has partnered with the Utah State Board of Education to provide training, asset assessments, and support to school-based community coordinators across the state. This may explain why ASD chose this group to do the feasibility study rather than a local firm. A number of MGT presentations have been made at public meetings and online. A video of the slide deck used in the presentation with voice narration can be viewed here on YouTube. A PDF document showing the slides can be viewed HERE.
There are six split options being discussed. As an Orem resident my preferred choice is option 4, which puts Orem, Lindon, Vineyard, and Pleasant Grove into an “East District.” The MGT presentation estimates option 4 could carry an annual property tax increase based on two scenarios. One includes a fictional 20 year $200 million dollar bond while the other considers the increase in property values and associated taxes that would accompany that increase. If a bond was passed the increase in cost per household would be about $192 per year. Without a bond and based on the value of one tax increment, the increase in cost per household would be roughly $85 per year.
I found it interesting that the MGT study made keeping ASD intact and not splitting look very attractive. Read into that what you will based on what you know about ASD. I have my own skeptical and jaded opinions.
Patron feedback is being gathered via online surveys. All of the information gathered by MGT will be presented to the ASD board on April 23rd. The board will then consider that information and likely make their recommendation known sometime in May. At that point what happens next in your area will depend largely on the board members who govern your part of the district. Some are proposing Town Hall meetings to give patrons an opportunity to ask questions and share thoughts in person. You should contact your board representatives and ask them what they plan to do.
In the end, the decision lies with the school board. They can make the choice themselves or they can make a recommendation to put one of the options on the ballot for a public up or down vote. I don’t really like that only one option can be voted on. It would be nice if the public could have multiple votes on all six and whittle it down to one, but the logistics for something like that would be crazy and probably cause more confusion than already exists. I do hope the board gives the public the option to have a say and vote. I believe splitting into three districts is the best option.
Wait and see…
Based on Precedent, Trump Will Be Acquitted
Thanks to judicial precedent, Trump will likely have his indictment on having classified records in his Mar-a-lago home dismissed or acquitted if it goes to trial.
Thanks to Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch that precedent can be found in a FOIA request by Judicial Watch back in 2010. Take a look.
The “Clinton Sock Drawer” case, litigated by JudicialWatch
The shows how the Justice Department and the National Archives did an about face and ignored precedent and their own prior legal positions in targeting Trump over records that he had an unconditional right to have under the Presidential Records Act and the US Constitution. In 2010, Judicial Watch submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to Clinton Library and Presidential Museum, seeking access to the Clinton audiotapes from his time as President. The Obama National Archives (NARA) responded that the audiotapes are personal records and therefore not subject to the Presidential Records Act or FOIA.
Judicial Watch subsequently sued and requested that the Court to declare the audiotapes to be Presidential records and, because they are not currently in the government’s possession, to compel NARA to assume custody and control over them. Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled against Judicial Watch. In doing so, she explained: “Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion, see 44 U.S.C. § 2203(b), so [NARA] could not make . . . a classification decision” different from that of President.
“Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records.” “The PRA contains no provision obligating or even permitting the Archivist to assume control over records that the President ‘categorized’ and ‘filed separately’ as personal records. At the conclusion of the President’s term, the Archivist only ‘assumes responsibility for the Presidential records.’” “Plaintiff contends that its factual allegations about the nature and substance of the audiotapes clearly establishes them to be Presidential records, regardless of how they were treated by President Clinton.
The Court is not so sure. But even if the Court were inclined to agree with plaintiff’s reassessment of President Clinton’s decision, it would not alter the conclusion that the injury cannot be redressed: the PRA does not confer any mandatory or even discretionary authority on the Archivist to classify records. Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the President. While the plaintiff casts this lawsuit as a challenge to a decision made by the National Archives, the PRA makes it clear that this is not a decision the Archivist can make, and in this particular case, it is not a decision the Archivist did make because President Clinton’s term ended in 2000, and the tapes were not provided to the Archives at that time.”
Background: While in office, President Clinton enlisted historian Taylor Branch to assist him in creating an oral history of his eight years in office by recording 79 audiotapes that preserved not only President Clinton’s thoughts and commentary on contemporaneous events and issues he was facing as president, but, in some instances, recorded actual events such as presidential telephone conversations.
For example, the audiotapes contained the following content: President Clinton contemplating potential changes to his cabinet, including whether to fire CIA Director R. James Woolsey, Jr. and whether to nominate Madeleine Albright for Secretary of State; President Clinton’s thoughts and reasoning behind foreign-policy decisions such as the United States’ military involvement in Haiti and the contemplated relaxation of the United States’ embargo of Cuba; President Clinton’s side of telephone conversations with foreign leaders, members of the United States Senate, and cabinet secretaries; President Clinton speaking to several members of the United States Senate in which President Clinton attempted to persuade the Senators to vote against a specific amendment before the Senate; President Clinton’s side of a telephone conversation with Congressman William Natcher of Kentucky in which President Clinton explained his reasoning for entering into the North American Free Trade Agreement based on technical forecasts that he received during presidential briefings; and President Clinton’s side of a telephone conversation with U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher concerning a diplomatic impasse over Bosnia. President Clinton took these audiotapes with him when he left office.
He did not turn them over to the National Archives and Records Administration. Any indictment alleging “unlawful retention” of classified or national defense information is at odds with the Presidential Records Act, court precedent and the prior DOJ position on presidential prerogatives on records.
Go Woke is No Joke
If you’re a CEO who runs a company that provides goods and/or services, wouldn’t you want your marketing to drive the largest number of consumers of that product or service you possibly can to your company?
Why would a CEO knowingly attempt any controversial marketing strategy that could produce even a tiny negative result in sales? CEO’s are hired to drive the bottom line up and they are generally fired if that line drops significantly or doesn’t rebound to expected and projected levels.
So why would a CEO downplay significant consequences of a horribly poor marketing decision and indicate such marketing plans will continue? This appears to be the case with Anheuser Busch CEO Brendan Whitworth after backlash from a marketing gimmick involving transgender activist Dylan Mulvaney and the Bud Light brand that saw Budweiser sales plummet.
Theory: I believe this is the result of an ever growing Coporatocracy giving big business greater influence on government and vice versa. A government bailout when things go south in corporate America has become the new corporate welfare policy.
Bad CEOs who drive their company’s profits down with foolish decisions seem to get rewarded if their company is large enough. It’s that “too big to fail” concept we heard about with the banks and car manufacturers. Remember?
Could CEOs of multi-billion dollar corporations now believe their woke business policies will be met with tax dollars to shore them up if those policies take profits in the wrong direction? Could ESG and DEI scores be of more value now than actual profits?
In a true Capitalist system, businesses can’t survive on dwindling profits. The only way a business can put political agendas over profits is if government is subsidizing them for placing progressive politics above aggressive sales and profits.
It doesn’t make sense, but then neither does this corporate movement to gain a minuscule market share from tiny fringe demographics, while losing share with huge profitable demos as a result.
Could that be the case?
But this problem of corporate wokeness has another consequence. It erodes the power of the people to truly govern themselves.
How?
“We the people” have two powerful forms of leverage. One is our vote. That lever is designed to help us maintain government by and for the people. If our government representatives are not governing the way we want them to, we can use our votes to boot them out and bring in representatives that will listen and act accordingly.
The second is our dollar. That lever allows us to effectively “vote with our dollars.” If a company is doing things we don’t like we can simply take our dollars elsewhere. In a true Capitalist system the consumer can have significant influence on corporate behavior this way. If companies don’t listen to customers, they risk going out of business when those customers choose to go somewhere else for those same goods or services.
If those two forms of leverage are taken away, whether through forced change or corruption, the people lose their power to peacefully influence their elected leaders and their economy. I say peacefully because the people do have a third form of leverage and that is their sheer numbers. Once the first two are taken away the last is mass protest which, in this case, can turn into violent and bloody revolution.
There is no longer any doubt that our constitutional freedoms, our economic system, and our social and cultural norms are all under attack. The attacker is a familiar one represented by the wild haired, bearded face of Karl Marx and his branded ideology, Marxism. That ideology and all that have spun from it are at the core of today’s seemingly insane political and corporate policies.
Wokeness is just another name for it.
Battle Over New School District Gets Ugly
I’ve lived in Orem for 38 of my 62 years on the globe. I graduated from Orem High School in 1978. I own a home in Orem where I currently reside with my wife, youngest son, and two dogs. So the issue of possibly creating an Orem School District caught my attention. Initially, I was leaning against the idea. Many of my neighbors are against it. Friends and people I know who work as teachers and administrators in the Alpine School District have come out against it. But when it comes to political issues I’ve never been one to make a decision based on the decisions of others; family, friends, or otherwise. I also carry the blessing or curse, it can be both, of having a journalism background that leads me to be skeptical of everything government says and does. It requires I do my own due diligence to the best of my ability to discover and learn the facts and then make an informed choice.
So I started digging.
The city of Orem in Utah County has considered creating its own school district at varying times for over 20 years. A number of feasibility studies have been done over that period, with the most recent study being completed this year. Orem City Council voted 4-3 to put the proposal on the ballot and let the people of Orem vote on it. Alpine School District had been successful in previous years to dissuade Orem’s elected officials from putting the measure on the ballot and letting the people have a say, you know, democracy and such… This time, with a new mayor and several new city council members, democracy got its chance.
From the outset this issue was going to be a data driven decision for me. Public schools are funded by tax dollars, predominantly property tax dollars at the local level, state funding, and some federal funding. One might think crunching those numbers, as the feasibility study was designed to do, would make the choice pretty black and white. I mean, math doesn’t lie…unless those doing the math want it to. It seemed pretty straight forward. Look at the tax rolls and see how much money Orem residents pay in to the current Alpine School District. How much comes back to Orem schools? How has the district responded to Orem school needs, building issues/repairs, student learning and test scores, teacher pay, etc. Ultimately the decision should be based on which option will most improve the learning environment and education for Orem’s kids. Is that better accomplished creating a new district or going with the status quo?
Alpine School District administers public schools for 14 cities. This is a very large school district and is in the top 50 largest districts in the country. Some say it has gotten too big and isn’t serving the needs of the students in some of the older cities in Utah County. The Daily Herald wrote a story about this back in 2016, when members of the school board discussed the idea of a split. At that time ASD had just over 75,000 students. It now has over 85,000.
It didn’t take long for the proponents and opponents of the Prop 2 as it appears on the ballot, to start slinging the mud at each other. The feasibility study was the first target for opponents who weren’t happy to see a positive result in favor of Orem’s desire to split. Opponents aggressively attacked Discovery Education Consultants, the group that conducted the study. StrongerTogether’s criticism lacked any data to allow readers to verify their claims. This becomes a theme of the arguments at ST’s website. But a closer look shows that 4 feasibility studies have come to the same conclusion yet ST doesn’t malign the other 3.
Both sides have websites giving their version of the numbers, reasons for or against, and all the typical fear mongering that goes with this kind of heated emotional issue. I have done my best to dig into the arguments of both sides, wade through the rhetoric, and try to find the verifiable numbers and facts. I’ve provided links to the two main websites here. I’ll provide other links at the end of this article.
StrongerTogether.com – The opposing view 
OremsFuture.com – The supporting view 
As mentioned before, in my mind this issue should be about data, numbers, what’s on the tax rolls, and how it all adds up for or against a new school district. How will the split effect current schools, class size, and teacher pay? How will it effect student learning, grades, and test scores? Getting those numbers has been harder than you might think as both sides work to spin them to their advantage, but what I’ve found so far has favored the spilt more than not.
Alpine School District, we’ll call it ASD going forward, has published numbers on their website that honestly I can’t find anywhere else and they do a poor job showing how they came to their conclusions. It leaves the reader with only one option, take their word for it. Opponents say a new Orem School District (OSD) will result in a 50% tax increase! Nowhere can I find any data that even comes close to corroborating that claim. In fact the Utah Taxpayers Association analyzed that claim and said it was totally fabricated. They even said a tax increase for Orem residents didn’t look likely at all based on the current funding and how that funding would be appropriated if Orem voted to split.
Orem is an older city with declining enrollment, older schools are in need of seismic upgrades and repairs or rebuilding for safety in an earthquake. Orem complains that it pays far more to the district than it gets out. ASD claims the opposite to be true but then blames any reduction in funding on the declining enrollments. But what do the numbers really say? That’s what I’ll attempt to summarize here while providing links to resources you can use to do your own due diligence.
ST makes the claim that ASD subsidizes Orem schools to the tune of $21 million per year and that the cost per student for Orem schools is higher than other schools because of declining enrollment, while operational costs have remained the same or increased. When I first saw this claim I was unable to find any data to substantiate it. The link on the page making the claim sent me to a Truth About Taxes page, but nowhere on that page was there any source data for the number in the claim. Then a link to a page I couldn’t originally find was posted on Facebook that did provide calculations for that number. I’m still not sure how to navigate to that page at the website, but thanks to Dallas Helquist for pointing me to that page in a Facebook post.
That said, the Utah Taxpayers Association makes a good point regarding this claim by ASD. “…If the claims by “Stronger Together” were correct (in that the remainder of Alpine School District subsidizes Orem to the tune of millions of dollars per year) why would they so vociferously oppose letting the Orem tax base form its own district? If one part of an organization is a financial drain, why oppose letting that part go? The vocal opposition to this proposal leads one to believe that the opposite is true: the Orem tax base is valuable and in fact, contributes more than its fair share to the Alpine School District.” Great question and one I’ll take a shot at answering in a moment.
What I found at the StrongerTogether website were a lot of claims and accusations but little verifiable data to back them up. As I went though the website it became very clear that the folks at ASD are simply telling Orem residents to vote no because “we say so and so do a lot of other important people.” Every text link is an internal link, meaning it just takes you to another page inside the website. None of the links I clicked took me to 3rd parties or outside sources. This website is rife with “What if’s” and fear inducing claims. Fear is a great motivator and this site uses it to the max. Everything from “teachers won’t stay in Orem” to “your taxes will go up by 50%.” ST continues to make the claim that Orem’s taxes will have to go up by 50% to pay for the new district even though that number has been mathematically debunked and proven to be a fabrication. Yet they continue to use it to frighten voters.
When you go to OremsFuture.com you’ll find their arguments FOR Prop 2, but also numbers to corroborate their arguments. The site has sourced graphs and data. What a concept! After reading through each website it became very clear, the OSD proponents are data driven, letting the numbers make their arguments, while the opponent’s arguments are largely emotionally driven. StrongerTogether is full of emotional pleas, endorsements, and testimonials but lacking in real data that can be cross-checked and verified with outside sources.
Unfortunately, when emotions rank higher than facts things tend to go downhill fast and the side relying on emotions, loyalties, and relationships to win rather than the merits of its argument tends to do and say things that aren’t 100% true and accurate. That’s where this story and this issue has turned ugly and starts reading more like an espionage novel than a ballot issue.
As mentioned earlier, the StrongerTogether website claimed it “began as a group of parents concerned about Orem City’s approach to splitting from Alpine School District and creating an Orem-only district.” Not quite…
StrongerTogether is actually a registered PIC (political issues committee). GRAMA requests have since revealed that it was ASD board members Ada Wilson and Sara Hacken who are behind the formation of the PIC and have admitted to forming it while insisting they did so as private citizens, not as ASD Board Members. Kinda sounds like a conflict of interest to me, but I digress. An email sent to their founding board members was signed as “ASD Board Representatives Ada Wilson and Sara Hacken.” Take from that what you will.
Oddly Wilson and Hacken’s email was dated February of 2022. You have to ask yourself, why would they go through the hassle of creating a PIC when the Orem feasibility study hadn’t even been completed, before anyone knew how an OSD would effect anyone in Utah County or the ASD? To make things more murky, StrongerTogether leadership claims ST was formed AFTER the feasibility study was published. This claim was made again at a cottage meeting recently. But this is a provable lie.
Why? Well, they probably didn’t expect a GRAMA request to be filed allowing others to see their email communications with dates and times on them.
Ada Wilson also sent emails to all of the nine PTA heads in Orem. Ada Wilson was working to sway the PTA to go against the OSD proposal by discrediting the feasibility study 5 months before it was even published. In an another email to Rob Smith, Cissy Rasmussen appears to admit that the claim “services will go down and taxes will go up” has no data upon which to substantiate the claim, but StrongerTogether continued to perpetuate that claim for months, even after the Utah Taxpayers Association debunked the claim. The emails and timelines acquired via the GRAMA request show that Ada Wilson and Alpine School District were actively working to discredit the feasibility study before it even began.
StrongerTogether claimed they asked and received permission from the regional PTA to forward a survey they had sent out to teachers in ASD, but there is a conflict of interest problem there as well. The founding board members of the StrongerTogether PIC are all members of the regional PTA. So basically they asked for and granted themselves permission to survey members. There are still founding members listed on the StrongerTogether website making the claim that ASD has no involvement with StrongerTogether in direct conflict with acquired emails. Why all the secrecy? Why the obfuscation and denials? Well, there may be a few ethical and even legal reasons for that.
Ada Wilson was doing a lot of her communicating with ASD officials and administrators including Rob Smith ASD business administrator on their ASD official email accounts which would be a violation of the Political Activities of Public Entities Act, Utah State Code 20A-11-1205. On February 17, 2022, David Stephenson the communications director for ASD sent an email to Ada Wilson and Sarah Hacken with the subject line: Proposed Messaging for Orem City. The email contained a full page of anti-split talking points, the same talking points used by StrongerTogether for months now.
Ada Wilson, Sara Hacken, and PTA members also used additional district resources to campaign against Prop 2. One email detailed how district employees helped Cissy Rasmussen bypass the district firewall to ensure their Prop 2 surveys reached the teachers. Based on emails acquired through a GRAMA request, it appears StrongerTogether, ASD, and the PTA used district time and resources to campaign against Orem’s proposal. The problem is private citizens don’t have access to the resources or carry the influence school board members do, which is one reason why this kind of behavior is illegal as well as unethical.
Was it ignorance? Was it overzealous loyalty to ASD that made these people do some of the things they did? Or was it money?
ASD is pushing Prop 1 on the ballot right next to Prop 2. Prop 1 is asking taxpayers to approve a $595 million dollar bond. Now the fog starts to clear a bit. If Orem splits from ASD, how is that bond going to be paid for without tax increases on everyone else in the district? ASD knows that Orem, Lindon, Vineyard, and other east bench cities must be kept in the club for them to pay for this massive spending. A bond that will add another $116 million to Orem’s portion of ASD debt but return only $20 million for the construction of two new gymnasiums in Orem…wait what? Why does Orem need or want two new gyms? Are you starting to see why so many Orem residents are beginning to say yes to Prop 2 once they understand all of the facts?
StrongerTogether says teachers won’t stay in Orem if Prop 2 passes. It has come to my attention that teachers, who do not wish to be identified, were told by Prop 2 opponents they’ll lose their jobs if Prop 2 passes. Gee, I can’t imagine why teachers would be against it… Of course that’s nonsense and according to “math” OSD will be able to keep teachers at current pay and even increase pay. However, teachers do lose their jobs when ASD closes schools and it has closed and combined Orem schools in recent years. During an October 18th bond presentation, Kim Bird and David Stephenson from ASD announced that they are considering closing more title 1 schools in Orem. They are considering closing and consolidating seven more Orem schools. Talk about disruption to the students and putting teachers’ jobs in jeopardy. ASD is now saying that’s not true, but people who attended the bond presentation say otherwise.
In a recent debate, Ada Wilson said that they will be closing and “merging” more Orem schools. At the bond presentation, ASD confirmed that. How many more schools will we have left by the time Alpine finally decides to split the district on their terms? The split will eventually happen, but on whose terms is the question.
Here’s the cynical side of me. ASD has said publicly that a district split will eventually happen, but now is not the right time. Could their timing concerns have anything to do with holding on to Orem for a few more years and getting more of our schools closed (due to declining enrollment), selling the land, continuing to collect Orem tax dollars, and make sure Orem’s bank account is in play for the nearly $600,000,000 bond they are aggressively pushing to pass? Those reasons make a lot more sense to me than the ones they display on their website and in their literature. Especially knowing how it all started and the subterfuge to make Orem residents believe the opposition was just made up of concerned folks with kids in Orem schools. “Trust us” was their mantra. “We know best” when asked why. Sounds a lot like big government, doesn’t it?
On the StrongerTogether website it states, “At Stronger Together, we have no motive other than what is best for students and the community as a whole. In that spirit, many of us—average parents, grandparents, teachers, and taxpayers have spent months of our personal time to do a careful examination of the study.” I disagree. I believe they have 595,000,000 reasons to block Orem’s proposal and I believe the main backers and promoters of the NO on Prop2 campaign are, in fact, ASD insiders.
I don’t blame my neighbors and other residents of Orem for wanting to trust the Alpine School District. But this time, they’ve done and said things that go beyond what I deem appropriate and ethical behavior and have misled people with information and numbers that not one single certified financial analyst has verified. They have maligned individuals by name, spread rumors about the intentions and credibility of those who conducted the feasibility study, attacked the study itself, and then when the non-partisan Utah Taxpayers Association debunked their claims of increased taxes to fund OSD, they attacked the Utah Taxpayers Association with claims they were “bribed” and “paid off.” Those claims forced the UTA to come out and defend their position. You can read that here: Utah Taxpayers Association Response to Allegations of Bribery
I know most folks don’t have the time or even want to take the time to dig into this kind of stuff, but our kids and grandkids deserve the best possible education we can give them. To be totally honest that’s probably only available with Home Schooling in this day and age, of which I am an advocate. But I also know that’s not feasible for many parents. Based on what I’ve learned and the disturbing revelations regarding ASD’s handling of this issue and campaign of rumor and innuendo against it, I will be voting yes on Prop 2.
The cards are definitely stacked against it. Unfairly, in my opinion, but the chances of this proposition passing are slim. I hope I’m wrong, but if I’m not, I hope the people at Alpine School District show more ethical restraint and don’t become vindictive toward the parents, teachers, and Orem City leaders who believed an Orem School District was the right thing to do at the right time. I hope the school district realizes and admits to the value they have placed on Orem and treat its residents and schools accordingly.
I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind at this point, but if verifiable facts and figures matter, and people should seriously question the opposition and their rhetoric. Call the ASD offices and ask that they provide citable information that you can use to verify their financial claims, but don’t expect much, not even 3rd party financial analysts can do it.
I want to believe everyone in this fight is truly fighting for what’s best for the kids. We won’t really know until well after the election, but I will tell you this, I will be paying much closer attention to what ASD and our school board does going forward if Prop 2 is defeated.
I hope everyone will.
Other links in favor of Prop 2
Orem School District Funding Calculations with John Barrick PhD, CPA
Yes on Prop2 Cottage Meeting – Part 1
Yes on Prop2 Cottage Meeting – Part 2
Orem City District Feasibility Study
Other links that oppose Prop 2
Orem Teachers are voting No on Prop 2
Stronger Together Facebook Page
Other Source Materials
Alpine School District Business Services
Utah County Property Taxes – Treasurer
Utah Taxpayers Association Schools Spending Report
National Center for Educational Statistics
ASD Enrollment History and Projections
We Buy Votes! Contact Joe Biden and the DNC.
Joe Biden and the Democrats are actually going forward with their insane idea and the most “in your face” bailout in history. They’re effectively telling every responsible American taxpayer that ever took out a loan, be it student loan, mortgage loan, car loan, or signed on to any debt and the PAID OFF the debt, that they need to buck up and help pay for new debts they never signed on to.
You, me, and every other hard working stiff will now be paying for the student loans of millions of people who willingly signed their names to contracts to put the extra cash in their pocket they needed to pay for college, but now feel it too burdensome to uphold their end of the bargain and pay off their loans. The desperate Democrats are all too willing to take your money and mine and buy themselves some votes for the November mid-terms.
I have a lot to say about this and most of it requires language my mom would slap me for using. Then I saw a post on Facebook by one of my favorite people, Mike Rowe, which summed up this boondoggle better than I ever could.
I encourage you to share this on your social media. Copy and paste it. I don’t think Mike or Charlie will be too unhappy if this goes viral. Charlie Cooke wrote this for the National Review and you can also read it there. I also encourage you to go to Mike’s website and support his foundation.
The Democrats and Joe Biden are out of control. It’s time for all of us, regardless our political views, to stand together against foolish and harmful policies like this one.
—-
Mike Rowe
When I do weigh in, I try to acknowledge both sides of the argument, and make my points with as much respect as I can muster. Today, however, I can see only one side. Today, I can find nothing to respect in the President’s decision to transfer billions of dollars in outstanding student loans onto the backs of those people my foundation tries to assist – the same people I’ve spent the last twenty years profiling on Dirty Jobs.
With that in mind, I’m not going to write the piece I just sat down to write. Instead, I’m going to share the attached article from Charlie Cooke, who writes better than I do, and shares my disdain for what just happened. If you share our disdain, then please, share this post as well. This decision is without question, the biggest pre-Labor Day slap in the face to working people I’ve ever seen.
—-
BIDEN’S STUDENT-DEBT BONFIRE IS A CLASSIST MESSAGE TO THE UNCREDENTIALED: SCREW ‘EM
By Charlie Cooke
A few moments before I sat down to write this piece, I opened the door to six guys in blue shirts who had come to my house to replace our air-conditioning units. The Florida weather being what it is, I’ve seen some of these guys work on our air conditioners before, and they’re as skilled and knowledgeable and conscientious and hard-working as you might expect. The company they work for, which is local to North Florida, was started by a guy who chose to forgo college in favor of taking out a small-business loan to strike out on his own. Most of the technicians who work for him didn’t go to college, either. They took a different path. And, well . . . what absolute chumps the president has just made of them for that!
Squirm if you like, but that’s the truth of the matter: As of today, the six air-conditioning technicians in my house are on the hook for college loans that were signed for, spent, and enjoyed by other people. Confirming the measure today, President Biden announced that any American who has both college debt they vowed to repay and an individual yearly income under $125,000 (or a family yearly income under $250,000) will be given up to $20,000 by the Treasury — which means by you, and by me, and by everyone else who pays taxes in America.
Why? Well, that’s the question.
The answer can’t be, “because that’s what the relevant law anticipates or requires.” As of yet, Congress has provided no authorization for the executive branch to arbitrarily write off some of the money that borrowers owe to taxpayers. As of yet, Congress has passed no rules that allow down-on-their-luck presidents to throw money at people for political gain. As of yet, Congress has given no instruction that if the president’s friends might like a little more cash, he can raid the Treasury to give it to them. Certainly, Congress has set up a loan program. But the deal there is rather simple, all told: First you borrow, and then you pay back what you borrowed. There is no mention of “forgiveness” days or of “help” or of rolling Chekhovian jubilees, and by pretending otherwise, President Biden is making a mockery of his oath to uphold the Constitution.
Another answer that won’t fly is, “To lower the cost of education.” As President Biden made clear today, this is a one-time deal, a lottery, a lightning strike. People who paid off their loans last week aren’t covered. People who will take out new loans after the policy has run its course aren’t covered. The problems in the system aren’t addressed. The colleges, and their endowments, are left unmolested. American culture’s increasingly credentialist presumptions aren’t altered. Within four years, overall debt will return to its present level.
With the stroke of a pen, the already-fake deficit savings within the Inflation Reduction Act will be wiped out. This isn’t a reform. It’s not even pretending to be reform. It’s a contemptuous, abusive, unbelievably expensive shot in the dark — the net effect of which will be that fewer people correctly calibrate whether college is worth it, fewer colleges change their offerings to meet market demand, and, because this sort of executive giveaway will now loom large as a possibility, fewer people feel the need to save for college.
It seems so arbitrary. Why does Biden not want to do the same thing for loans on trucks owned by plumbers? Why not for mortgages — which, given how heavily it subsidizes them, the federal government clearly thinks are worthwhile? Why not for credit cards or auto payments or mom-and-pop credit lines? The answer, I’m afraid to say, is disgustingly classist: Because Joe Biden and his party believe that college students are better than everyone else. Because Joe Biden and his party believe that college students are of a finer cut. Because Joe Biden and his party prefer college students to you, and they think that those students ought to be rewarded for that by being handed enormous gobs of your money.
Electricians, store managers, deli workers, landscapers, waitresses, mechanics, entrepreneurs? Screw ’em. Sure, college graduates make more money than non-graduates, and their unemployment rate is lower, too. But non-graduates don’t have access to the president, so they don’t matter. They’re tradesmen, the riff-raff, the great unwashed. They’re background noise, dirty-handed types, second-classers. They don’t deserve $10,000 in debt reduction. What would they even do with it? Go hunting? Give it to their church? Their role is to subsidize the superior people, and the superior people go to college.
Why did Joe Biden do all this? That’s why. Why was this what Joe Biden chose to break his oath to achieve? That’s why.
When it came down to it, good ol’ Scranton Joe sent cash from the sort of people he cynically pretends to care about to the sort of people he actually cares about: the privileged, accredited, self-dealing clerisy that his ever-dwindling political party now calls its base.
Utah Politics: Republicans Rats and Rumors
I live in Utah. I was born and raised here. I left Utah for a number of years as my career in broadcast journalism took me to other parts of the country, but returned after retiring from TV News in 2005. I love my home state and I love Utah County, but what I have learned about some of our local and state government elected officials over the past few weeks is not only shocking, but frankly, disheartening and sickening.
Utah County has long been a stronghold of active faithful members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, at one point being close to 90% church members. As members we are taught and believe strongly in being honest, having integrity, and treating others honorably. However, in such a high concentration of like-minded people it becomes easy to assume everyone holds those same characteristics at the same high level and live by them in the same way. That simply isn’t the truth. All people are fallible and make poor decisions and bad choices including the illegal kind.
Utah County has grown extensively over the past 30 years. What was a county of about 200,000 people in 1980 had grown to nearly 700,000 by 2021 and continues to see new residents increasingly flow into the cities in this county. That certainly brings change, including change to the overall makeup of the communities we live in. But it is still predominantly LDS or Mormon or as the church prefers it, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
What I have learned about some of our officials in Utah County will be shocking to many in a place commonly known as Happy Valley. Happy Valley is supposed to be full of good, honest, hard working people who love each other and go to church on Sunday, but Happy Valley has some very scary skeletons in its closet including some with a lot meat still on the bone.
It’s hard to know where to begin because there is so much to cover. The easy place to start is with the Mike Smith, David Leavitt feud that has made national news in recent weeks. Mike Smith is the Utah County Sheriff and David Leavitt is Utah County Attorney. Both are elected officials. David Leavitt is up for reelection and the primary is Tuesday, June 28, 2022. Just weeks before the primary Sheriff Mike Smith opened up a cold case. According to KSL News it implicated Leavitt.
Utah County Attorney David Leavitt said Wednesday that he’s been wrongly accused of cannibalism, as well as the murder of small children. The accusation, according to Leavitt, stems from an investigation by the Utah County Sheriff, Mike Smith. Further, Leavitt believes that the Utah County Sheriff is using his position for political gain, as both the Utah County Sheriff and the Utah County Attorney are up for reelection in 2022. Leavitt has called for an independent investigation of a press release made public on Tuesday (cited below.) And he said he wants an investigation into Utah County Sheriff Mike Smith as well as Smith’s office.
This bizarre story got the attention of national news media outlets and the story went viral. Last week the Utah County Commission voted unanimously NOT to investigate the nearly 2 decades old allegations of Satanic rituals and sex slaves, but Smith and those trying to oust Leavitt from his County Attorney seat continue to use it and other allegations of impropriety and poor management of the county attorney’s office as they campaign for Jeff Gray to replace Leavitt. Utah state officials like Utah State Attorney General Sean Reyes and former Utah Speaker of the House Greg Hughes jumped into the fray piling on Leavitt.
Even Glenn Beck has been part of the smear, whether intentional or not, I don’t know. I respect Beck and have been a long time listener to his program, but after hearing his interviews with both Sheriff Smith and then David Leavitt, it appears pretty obvious Beck already made up his mind who the good guys and bad guys were.
Glenn Beck and Sheriff Mike Smith interview.
Just over one week later Leavitt got his opportunity to speak on Becks radio program, but the reception he received and the time he was given was very different from that of Sheriff Smith. If that audio becomes available I will update this post and include it here. Suffice it to say, it was one of the most unfair, cynical, and predetermined-outcome interviews I’ve ever heard on Beck’s program. It was a railroad. In all my years as a journalist and news reporter I have never seen someone treated so disrespectfully by an interviewer as Leavitt was by Beck.
Already in a tailspin, Leavitt’s campaign took another critical hit.
But is the negative campaign against Leavitt legitimate? Or is this a story of David and Goliath where Goliath wins the fight?
The Reason We Have a Second Amendment
This is American History. The history few of our public schools or institutions of higher learning teach any more. Our ignorance has and always will be our undoing.
The Second Amendment was inspired by British plans to disarm every American. A part of you probably already knew this, but didn’t have the details. Those details should chill you to the bones and give you every piece of evidence you need moving forward through the renewed gun debates. So buckle up.
It began In 1768. “The freeholders” led by John Hancock and James Otis, met in Boston at Faneuil Hall and passed several resolutions, including “that the Subjects being Protestants, may have Arms for their Defense.” The royal governor rejected this proposal. The petition was then circulated under the pseudonym “A.B.C.” It is likely this was Samual Adams. “It is reported that the governor has said that he has Three Things in Command from the Ministry, more grievous to the people than any thing hitherto made known. It is conjectured 1st, that the inhabitants of this province are to be disarmed. 2nd The province is to be governed under Martial Law. 3rd that a number of gentlemen who have exerted themselves in the cause of their country are to be seized and sent to Great Britain. Unhappy America! When thy enemies are rewarded with honors and riches; but they friends punished and ruined only for asserting thy rights, and pleading for they freedom.”
Shortly after Sam Adams’ petition was circulated, per the Boston Evening Post, (Oct. 3, 1768) British troops took over Faneuil Hall. Then, per The New York Journal, (Feb. 2, 1769) they ordered colonists turn in their guns. “That the inhabitants had been ordered to bring in their arms, which in general they had complied with; and that those in possession of any after the expiration of a notice given them, were to take the consequences. Sam Adams would write about this time later that month saying, “it is said orders will soon be given to prevent the exportation of either navel or military stores, gun-powder, to any part of North-America.”
In another article he signed “E.A.”, Samual Adams went on to recall, “The right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense.” Under the auxiliary subordinate rights of the English Bill of Rights. Shortly after in 1770 protesters “armed with sticks” were shot dead in the streets of Boston during the infamous Boston Massacre. It would be 4 years before the first physical attempt to disarm the Colonists would be tried and would fail. This per the Massachusetts Spy, Sept. 8, 1774 – “It is said, it was proposed in the Divan last Wednesday that the inhabitants of this town should be disarmed and that some of the new-fangled counsellors consented thereto, but happily a majority was against it.”
Now comes the part that makes my blood boil and reminds me of Democrat voters who most assuredly would be on the side of the English and would pull a similar stunt to entrap their opponents. In an affidavit, a man name Thomas Ditson testified that an Undercover British soldier pressured to him to buy a gun he had. When Ditson caved, a group of British soldiers appeared and he was tarred and feathered. “I enquired of some Townsmen who had any guns to sell,” he said. “One whom I did not know, replied he had a very fine gun to sell.” Ditson felt, “there was something not right…and left the gun”, but the townsmen followed him and urged him to buy the gun.
The Connecticut Courant had this account in April 3, 1775 revealing ammunition seizures followed. “The Neck Guard seized 13,425 musket cartages with ball, (we suppose through the information of some dirty scoundrel, of which we have now many among us) and about 300 pounds of ball, which we were carrying into the country – this was private property – The owner applied to the General first, but he absolutely refused to deliver it.”
This was followed shortly there after by the widely published American account of April 19, 1775, when a British officer shouted: “Disperse you Rebels—Damn you, throw down your Arms and disperse.” Then per the Connecticut Courant, a General Gage decided to change the British tune. See, They just wanted to hold the guns for a little bit “for safe keeping” and then they promised to return them; “And that, the arms aforesaid at a suitable time would be return’d to the owners.” Bostonians proceeded to turn in 1778 muskets, 634 pistols, 973 bayonets and 38 blunderbusses.
In June of 1775 General Gage declared martial law and offered to pardon to all who would lay down their arms—except Samuel Adams and John Hancock. Seriously though, how badass were these guys? The Gazettes in Virginia and Maryland both reported more attempts to confiscate weapons through the summer of 1775. The Continental Congress adopted “The Declaration of Causes of Taking Up Arms”, July 6, 1775. This was drafted by Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson, and to be perfectly honest, we should probably know as much about it as we do the founding Documents.
Wonder why we don’t.
“It was stipulated that the said inhabitants having deposited their arms with their own magistrates, should have liberty to depart.” They accordingly delivered up their arms, but in open violation of honor, in defiance of the obligations of treaties, which even savage nations esteem sacred, the governor ordered the arms deposited as aforesaid, that they might be preserved for the owners to be “seized by a body of soldiers.” In other words, they went back on their “word.”
In 1777, British General William Knox, under British Secretary of State, circulated a proposal entitled “What is it to be Done with America?” Along with the unlimited power to tax and an official Church, what else did he propose? You guessed it. YET AGAIN. Gun confiscation. “The militia laws should be repealed and none suffered to be reenacted, & the arms of all the people should be taken away, & every piece of ordnance removed into the King’s stores, nor should any foundry or manufactory of arms, gunpowder, or warlike stores, be ever suffered in America, nor should any gunpowder, lead, arms or ordnance be imported into it without license; they will have but little need of such things for the future, as the King’s troops, ships, and forts will be sufficient to protect them from any danger.”
This time it was too late. The colonists were at war. The damage had been done.
To this point in time the colonists had endured entrapment, banning of imports, promises of “safekeeping” and return at some point, direct seizure of guns, and tar and feathering of any who refused to comply. But the British weren’t opposed to shooting anyone bearing what they called “arms.”
As we watch Congress bloviate today over ways to disarm us, we’re reminded of all these ways the British tried to do the same thing 250 years ago and how that congress fought to save us from the common enemy. We beat the British and won our freedom, however, it appears those who consider themselves our betters and currently rule in positions of government and power have decided to use these old worn out and tired tactics against America again.
Now it seems many of those who supposedly serve in congress are no different than our old enemy. They are, quite frankly, the enemy within. They do their dirty work by preying on the good hearts and minds of the people. Using the victims of shootings to push their age old ploy. Effectively dancing on the graves of the dead while using the dead to shame any who would suggest disarmament isn’t the answer to the evil designs of evil people. This is how they gain powerful minorities or even outright majorities calling for an end to the horrible loss of life. No one wants to see innocents slain. No one. Not pro-gun nor anti-gun. But the anti-gunners know how to manipulate. They know how to blur the truth, how to hide or fix the data, how to use Hollywood and Professional athletes to push the narrative.
Strangely, the shootings always come in bunches right around elections. They happen in inexplicable numbers in short periods of time almost as if they are driven by the 24 hour news cycle frenzy. Talking heads reading the scripts handed to them by the “King’s Men” and before we know it they have the votes and our right to defend ourselves, our homes, and our property are gone and millions of law abiding Americans become criminals overnight.
So what do we do?
We learn from our past.
Sam Adams had always drawn the connection that those who wanted to disarm us, also fiercely wanted to stop us from petitioning our grievances. There is more power in petitioning grievances than we realize and that is why the founders enshrined it in the first amendment—Before the second amendment.
Maybe that’s a good place to start. In the meantime, bone up on our history and be ready to defend the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights…EVERY ONE OF THEM.
Sources: Archives of Boston Evening Post, Boston Gazette, Massachusetts Spy, Massachusetts Gazette, Connecticut Courant, Essex Gazette, Connecticut Journal, Virginia Gazette, and The Independent Institute.
A Declaration for the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms.
Thanks to The Red Headed Libertarian on Twitter for the sources and highlights.
Are Electric Cars Really Green?
NOTE: I didn’t write this excellent breakdown and analysis of electric vehicles and “green energy” or whether they are truly “green” and therefore less damaging to the environment than fossil fuel vehicles. If I can find the name of the original author I will gladly provide attribution.
Batteries, they do not make electricity – they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators. So, to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid. Also, since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal-fired plants, it follows that forty percent of the EV’s on the road are coal-powered, do you see?”
Einstein’s formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.
There are two orders of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. Please note they all contain toxic, heavy metals.
Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium. The United States uses three billion of these two battery types a year, and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. California is the only state which requires all batteries be recycled. If you throw your small, used batteries in the trash, here is what happens to them.
All batteries are self-discharging.
That means even when not in use, they leak tiny amounts of energy. You have likely ruined a flashlight or two from an old, ruptured battery. When a battery runs down and can no longer power a toy or light, you think of it as dead; well, it is not. It continues to leak small amounts of electricity. As the chemicals inside it run out, pressure builds inside the battery’s metal casing, and eventually, it cracks. The metals left inside then ooze out. The ooze in your ruined flashlight is toxic, and so is the ooze that will inevitably leak from every battery in a landfill. All batteries eventually rupture; it just takes rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill.
In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles. The good thing about those is, ninety percent of them are recycled. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to recycle single-use ones properly. But that is not half of it. For those of you excited about electric cars and a green revolution, I want you to take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share what we call environmentally destructive production costs.
A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds, about the size of a travel trunk. It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells.
It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth’s crust for just – one – battery.”
Sixty-eight percent of the world’s cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. These mines have no pollution controls, and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. There have been many articles written about this tragedy in periodicals that you have probably never seen nor heard of and your local and national news sources don’t cover stories like this. Regardless whether you are aware of such atrocities, should we factor in the stories of these children as part of the cost of driving an electric car?” Yes, I think we must.
I’ll end this note with these thoughts. California is building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being ‘green,’ but it is not. This construction project is creating an environmental disaster. Let me tell you why.
The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium-diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled.
Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades.
There may be a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions.
“Going Green” may sound like the Utopian ideal but when you look at the hidden and embedded costs realistically, with an open mind, you can see that “Going Green” is more destructive to the Earth’s environment than meets the eye or ear depending on your sources for information.
The Data is Destroying the Political Left’s Covid Narrative
The most recent and plentiful data for Omicron is coming out of Europe and surrounding countries and the data doesn’t bode well for Fauci, Biden, Globalists, and the corporate media’s Covid narrative. It’s making them look like fools and liars, which may have something to do with their sudden willingness to actually tell the truth…while including their own spin of course.
Daniel Horowitz and other journalists, who no longer work for the news networks or major print media, have been providing insight based on the hard data for well over a year now and have been correct when the Fauciites have been wrong. This has happened over and over and over again since 2020.
Once again, the data tells the true story. Follow IT, not Fauci.
“When you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health, that of the family, but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community. And in other words, you become a dead end to the virus.” ~Dr. Fauci, Face the Nation, May 16, 2021
By Daniel Horowitz via TheBlaze.com
96% of all Omicron cases in Germany among vaccinated: Among the 4,206 Germans infected with Omicron for whom their vaccination status was known, 95.58% were fully vaccinated. More than a quarter of them had booster shots. Given that the overall background rate for vaccination in Germany is 70%, this means that the shots now have a -87% effectiveness rate against Omicron. Only 4% of Omicron cases are coming from the 30% of the country which is unvaccinated. In other words, not being vaccinated has 87% efficacy against infection in Germany, using the same calculation that vaccine advocates have employed.
Omicron among vaccinated outpacing unvaccinated by 28% in Ontario: The government in Ontario posts continuous data on case rates by vaccination status. The fact that the vaccinated have rapidly overtaken the unvaccinated in new infections demonstrates a clear negative effect of the shots against Omicron.
In Denmark, 89.7% of all Omicron cases were among fully vaccinated: As of Dec. 31, just 8.5% of all cases in Denmark were unvaccinated, according to the Statens Serum Institut. Overall, 77.9% of Denmark is fully vaccinated, and Omicron seems to hit younger people for whom there is a greater unvaccinated pool, which indicates clear negative efficacy. Even for non-Omicron variants, the un-injected composed only 23.7% of the cases.
Just 25% of the Omicron hospitalizations in the U.K. are unvaccinated: Not only are the vaccinated more likely to contract Omicron, but they are likely more at risk to be hospitalized. While American hospitals put out unverifiable information about “nearly everyone seriously ill with COVID being unvaccinated,” the U.K. continues to put out quality continuous data that shows the opposite. According to the U.K.’s Health Security Agency’s latest “Omicron daily overview,” just 25% of those in the hospital with suspected Omicron cases are unvaccinated.
33 of 34 hospitalizations in a Delhi hospital were vaccinated: The Indian Express reported that 33 of the 34 people hospitalized for Omicron in Delhi’s Lok Nayak hospital were fully vaccinated. Two of them received the booster shot. While some of them were international travelers, it’s important to remember that India has a much lower vaccination rate than the West. This is another small indication that not only might one be more likely to get Omicron after having gotten the shots, but possibly could be more vulnerable to hospitalizations, very likely due to some form of antibody dependent disease enhancement (ADE).
The vaccinated are exponentially more likely to get re-infected with COVID: A new preprint study from Bangladesh found that among 404 people re-infected with COVID, having been vaccinated made someone 2.45 times more likely to get re-infected with a mild infection, 16.1 times more likely to get a moderate infection, and 3.9 times more likely to be re-infected severely, relative to someone with prior infection who was not vaccinated. the findings of this first-in-its-kind study harmonize with what a Public Health England survey found in October; namely, that the vaccines seem to erase a degree of N (nucleocapsid) antibodies generated by prior infection in favor of narrower S (spike) antibodies.
This finding also correlates with what researchers from Mount Sinai in New York and Hospital La Paz in Madrid found last year – that the second dose of the vaccine “determines a contraction of the spike-specific T cell response.” In that report, researchers already observed that other research has shown “the second vaccination dose appears to exert a detrimental effect in the overall magnitude of the spike-specific humoral response in COVID-19 recovered individuals.”
At this point, how is there any benefit, much less a net benefit, from the shots? There are currently 21,000 deaths reported to VAERS, along with 110,000 hospitalizations and over 1 million total adverse events. Most deaths and injuries are never reported to VAERS. Now that the efficacy is, at best, a wash and at worst negative, why are we not discussing the short-term and long-term liabilities of the shots?
Remember, the VAERS numbers don’t even begin to quantify the long-term concerns, such as cancer and auto-immune diseases. A heavily redacted analysis of the Pfizer shot (p. 16) from the Australian Therapeutic Goods Agency (TGA) flatly conceded, “Neither genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity studies were performed.”
Consider the fact that the CEO of Indiana-based life insurance company OneAmerica, which has been around since 1877, revealed last week that the death rate among 18- to 64-year-old Hoosiers is up 40% from pre-pandemic levels. That is four times above what risk assessors consider catastrophic. Yes, some of this has been due to the virus, but given the age group, OneAmerica CEO Scott Davidson said that most of the claims for deaths being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths. Brian Tabor, the president of the Indiana Hospital Association, who spoke at the same news conference as Davidson, said that Indiana hospitals are flooded with patients “with many different conditions.” Any wonder what those ailments are if not COVID itself?
Indeed, those who say the injections are a “medical miracle” are correct, just not in the way they meant it.
Pfizer Creates New Version of Ivermectin to Save the World
The “I” word. That word that makes Fauci, Democrats, and pharmaceutical executives fume and raise their fists in defiant opposition. It made them so angry they created a campaign to discredit it and ban it. It made them so mad they asked their pals in the legacy media to call it horse and cow dewormer and mock anyone who said it should be considered as an effective early treatment for Covid-19.
Ivermectin. A medication used to treat parasite infestations. In humans, these include head lice, scabies, river blindness, strongyloidiasis, trichuriasis, ascariasis, and lymphatic filariasis. In veterinary medicine, the medication is used to prevent and treat heartworm and acariasis, among other indications.
Yet thousands of physicians, nurses, medical researchers, and other health care professionals discovered it provided amazing benefits to covid patients at all stage of the illness. These people were quickly shut down, threatened, mocked, and attacked by the legacy news media and the trolls of social media.
Dr. John Campbell PhD, trains nurses and develops open learning resources for nurses and health care professionals. He broke down the hard core science behind the Pfizer pill and Ivermectin and provided a clear and easy to understand comparison which shows Ivermectin to be KING and the new Pfizer pill to be a functional copy of Ivermectin. In other words the two “act” and work in the body in the same way. Ivermectin just does a better job of it.
That won’t stop Joe Biden and Anthony Fauci and the CDC and their water boys at the legacy media from continuing to carry their disinformation and misinformation about Ivermectin to the eyes and ears of the public so they can convince them their NEW PILL is the answer to the pandemic. Of course their new pill will cost 10 times or more what Ivermectin does.
Here’s the goods:
New Pfizer antiviral and ivermectin, a pharmacodynamic analysis by Dr. John Campbell.
New Pfizer antiviral, PF-07321332, C₂₃H₃₂F₃N₅O₄ PF-07321332 is designed to block the activity of the SARS-CoV-2-3CL protease,
So, what is a protease? So what is a protease inhibitor? And, what is 3CL? Chymotrypsin-like protease (3CL main protease, or 3CL Mpro)
Identification of SARS-CoV‑2 3CL Protease Inhibitors by a Quantitative High-Throughput Screening (3rd September 2020)
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsptsci.0c00108#
The activity of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 viral infection was confirmed in 7 of 23 compounds. Microscopic interactions between ivermectin and key human and viral proteins involved in SARS-CoV-2 infection.
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2021/cp/d1cp02967c
The strength and persistency of the interaction between IVE and the binding site of 3CLpro indicate that a partial inhibition of the catalytic activity could have place as the drug interacts with the main subdomains that define the enzyme binding pocket: Identification of 3-chymotrypsin like protease (3CLPro) inhibitors as potential anti-SARS-CoV-2 agents.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-020-01577-x
As shown in Fig. 4, out of 13 OTDs only ivermectin completely blocked ( more than 80%) the 3CLpro activity at 50 µM concentration.
Development, validation, and approval of COVID-19 specific drugs takes years. Therefore, the idea of drug repositioning, also known as repurposing, is an important strategy to control the sudden outbreak of life-threatening infectious agents that spread rapidly.
Ilimaquinone (marine sponge metabolite) as a novel inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 key target proteins in comparison with suggested COVID-19 drugs: designing, docking and molecular dynamics simulation study.
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2020/ra/d0ra06379g
From the docking analysis, ivermectin showed the highest docking score with an average energy of −8.5 kcal mol−1 among all the compounds. Remdesivir showed the lowest binding energy and highest docking score of −9.9 kcal mol−1
Ivermectin, C48H74O14 – Exploring the binding efficacy of ivermectin against the key proteins of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis: an in silico approach…
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/
We have documented an intense binding of both ivermectin B1a and B1b isomer to the main protease with subsequent energy (ETot-) values of -384.56 and -408.6.
PF-07321332 is designed to block the activity of the SARS-CoV-2-3CL protease.
Risk of virus developing resistance to PF-07321332
Molecular Docking Reveals Ivermectin and Remdesivir as Potential Repurposed Drugs Against SARS-CoV-2
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2020.592908/full
With SARS-CoV-2 S Spike protein Ivermectin showed high binding affinity to the viral S protein as well as the human cell surface receptors ACE-2 and TMPRSS2.
In agreement to our findings, ivermectin was found to be docked between the viral spike and the ACE2 receptor. Binding Interactions of Selected Drugs With Human TMPRSS2 Protein (ACE2 protein). The docking results revealed that ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity to the active site of the protein (MolDock score −174.971) and protein–ligand interactions.
Binding Interactions of Selected Drugs With Human ACE-2 Protein, ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity to the active site of the protein (MolDock score −159.754) and protein–ligand interactions.
With SARS-CoV-2 S Glycoprotein Ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity to the predicted active site of the protein.
With SARS-CoV-2 Nsp14 Protein ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity (MolDock score −212.265) and protein–ligand interactions.
Binding Interactions of Selected Drugs With SARS-CoV-2 PLpro Ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity to the predicted active site of the protein (MolDock score −180.765) and protein–ligand interactions. – END
Bottom line: Ivermectin WORKS. Pfizer knows it. Moderna knows it. Merc knows it. Joe Biden, Tony Fauci, and the Democrats know it. They’ve known it since the beginning. They intentionally lied about it and spread disinformation using their pets in the legacy media. They pilloried anyone who tried to tell the truth. They got the top dogs at the AMA and all the medical societies to go along and put the hammer down on any physicians, nurses, or other medical professionals who even questioned their mandates.
It boggles the mind how effective the propaganda and coercion has been and how many Americans STILL believe the fools running the show.
The Long Version 