The Associated Press on Friday released video footage of the now-viral incident between a mounted Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agent and a Haitian migrant, which some claimed depicted the border patrol agent whipping the migrant.
AP reporter Sarah Blake Morgan, who said she was at the Rio Grande River, where groups of Haitian migrants have been attempting to enter the U.S. in recent weeks, shared the video on Twitter. The footage seems to indicate the whips are in fact reins, a claim that has since been corroborated by others.
Sorting through my footage from the border. I was in the river during the viral incident between a Haitian migrant and mounted CBP agent. It’s shaky – but here’s what I captured. pic.twitter.com/fnvxSU83tO
Democrats and corporate media outlets have purported since Monday that border patrol agents were whipping Haitian migrants at the southern border, after video and pictures emerged of agents riding on horseback with seemingly long reins.
The claim that CBP agents were whipping Haitian migrants at the border has been disputed by multiple sources. A border patrol agent told Fox News that whips “are not issued or authorized for use” and it was implausible that “a horse patrol unit would be whipping aliens.”
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas confirmed during a Monday press conference that agents were using long reins to control their horses, noting the agents in question had been reassigned to desk duties pending a DHS investigation into the matter.
“And there, the horses have long reins,” Mayorkas reiterated at a White House press briefing Friday.
Kerr Wardlaw, a sixth-generation rancher and horse expert, told KTSM that the agents who appeared to be swinging their horse reins in the air were actually using them as a tool to quickly move the rear end of the horse from left to right.
He also told the local outlet the border patrol agent depicted in the original photograph reached for the migrant only after that migrant tried to gain control of the horse.
Here’s What You Need to Know: This unique fighter couldn’t compete with the F-15.
The F-111 Aardvark was the U.S. Air Force’s premier strike aircraft for the majority of the Cold War. It served in practically every conflict from Vietnam forwards, until it was replaced by the F-15E Strike Eagle. It also served Strategic Air Command in a limited role as a strategic bomber.
But what made the F-111 great? Did the United States truly lose any capability by retiring it?
The F-111 was one of the earliest joint-service aircraft, meant to fulfill both the U.S. Air Force’s requirement for a swing wing strike bomber and the U.S. Navy’s requirement for a long-range interceptor.
The strike bomber role meant that it needed to go very low and fast to penetrate enemy air defenses. As a result, it was fitted with an advanced terrain following radar, swing wings for increased maneuverability at low speeds, and a generous bomb bay. Later NATO strike aircraft like the Panavia Tornado would gain a lot of design cues from the F-111, including the radar and swing wings.
The F-111 first was tested in combat in Vietnam during 1968, but issues with the design delayed its full fielding until Operation Linebacker. It would go on to become one of the most survivable bombers of the war due to its ability to penetrate at a low level, with only a 0.015 loss rate.
However, the F-111 would be rejected from the Navy’s competition to find a long-range interceptor in favor of a design that would become the more maneuverable F-14 Tomcat.
The Air Force was pleased with its performance and continued to upgrade the F-111. The F-111D was one of the first combat aircraft with a “glass cockpit,” that featured primarily screens instead of gauges to display information. It also featured some of the most advanced avionics of the time.
The F-111 also received the AN/AVQ-26 Pave Tack targeting pod, a device that combined a laser designator with an IR camera. It allowed the aircraft to self-designate targets for attack with laser-guided munitions. The Pave Tack was used to great effect during Operation Desert Storm to destroy individual tanks with accurate hits from laser-guided bombs.
But the F-111’s replacement, the F-15E Strike Eagle could do all of these things too. It could use targeting pods, it had a modern glass cockpit, and it could do low-level insertion. The Strike Eagle could also fight enemy aircraft on its own, as it inherited the powerful air-to-air radar and integration with the latest air-to-air missiles from its parent aircraft, the regular F-15.
The F-111 did have an advantage though. Both the initial requirements for the Navy and the Air Force required that the F-111 have a massive range. Comparing ferry ranges, the F-111 has over 60 percent more range than the F-15E Strike Eagle, with the Strike Eagle using external fuel tanks.
The F-111’s additional range allowed it to be strategically flexible. F-111s based in the United Kingdom were used to strike Libya during Operation El Dorado in 1986. The range was also greatly appreciated by Strategic Air Command, which fielded a the FB-111 variant as a strategic bomber. In that role, the F-111 was only replaced by the B-1 Lancer.
While shorter ranged aircraft are far cheaper to maintain and use, the F-111 struck a weird medium between the tactical strike aircraft and the strategic bomber. That medium allowed it to serve admirably during the Cold War, and the design should not be discounted as a weird compromise.
Charlie Gao studied political and computer science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national-security issues.
“History is made by intense, compact minorities,” says Washington Post columnist George Will, who believes that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) “and her squad or cohort have the energy in the Democratic Party. A lot of people say, ‘Gee whiz, I did not know Joe Biden was this far left. He’s not left, not a progressive, he’s a Democrat. And he goes where his party is being pulled.” Will says that starting in the mid-1960s, followers of Sen. Barry Goldwater (R–Ariz.) had the same effect on the Republican Party, eventually leading the recasting of the GOP as the party of small government and the election of President Ronald Reagan in 1980.
In 1973, Will was a young academic coming off a stint as a Senate staffer when he began writing columns for National Review and The Washington Post. Since then he has churned out “6,000 or so” pieces (his count) on a weekly schedule, calling to mind the longevity and endurance of Cal Ripken Jr., who played more consecutive baseball games than anyone in history and whose work ethic was lionized by Will in his 1990 bestseller, Men at Work: The Craft of Baseball.
Will’s newest book is American Happiness and Discontents, a collection of columns from 2008–2020 that covers the Great Recession and the Obama years to what he calls the crybaby presidency of Donald Trump and the rise of identity politics as a major force in contemporary America. Of special interest are his columns drawing complicated lessons from the World War II era, when the country triumphed over authoritarianism and genocide abroad even as it practiced racial apartheid at home. Will’s analysis of and love for America is unabashedly patriotic but it is never jingoistic or untroubled by tough historical truths.
Though he started out firmly on the conservative right, Will has become more and more libertarian, especially in his insistence that mere politics should never be the all-consuming passion of human endeavor and that America remains a place dedicated to a future that is better than the present. “If we can rein in our appetite for government to dispense benefits,” he says, and replace it with a government “that defends the shores, fills the potholes, and otherwise gets out of the way, we’re going to see again, the creativity of the American people.”
Photo Credits: Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Photo by SpaceX on Unsplash; Reason, 1978; Photo by Luke Stackpoole on Unsplash; Albin Lohr-Jones/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Albin Lohr-Jones/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom; Steve Sanchez/Pacific Press/Newscom; GEORGE BRIDGES/KRT/Newscom; Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom; William Reagan/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Everett Collection/Newscom; Tom Williams/Roll Call/Newscom; Roger L. Wollenberg UPI Photo Service/Newscom; 1987 Commercial—Mrs. Smith’s “Pie in Minutes”; Photo by Nelson Ndongala on Unsplash
A Niagara police officer who shot a fellow cop during an altercation nearly three years ago told his colleague’s assault trial that he found their interaction so implausible he feared nobody would believe what happened.
Det.-Sgt. Shane Donovan testified Wednesday at the trial of Const. Nathan Parker, who has pleaded not guilty to assault with intent to resist arrest, assaulting a police officer and assault with a weapon.
Donovan told the court that Parker assaulted him during a collision investigation in November 2018, pushing him hard enough to cause bruising and pulling out his baton and firearm. Donovan said he then shot Parker several times, including once in the torso.
“I could not believe what had happened and I expected no one else would believe it,” Donovan told the court.
Donovan said he asked a bystander if he had video, hoping there was evidence of what transpired.
Court heard that the bystander didn’t have video, so Donovan asked him to stay and watch so he could be a witness.
“I wanted witnesses to what was happening … because I had just shot a person, another police officer, so I want everyone to see what happened so if anything else went wrong, I’ve got evidence,” he said.
Donovan said he asked the bystander — a man who lived near the Pelham, Ont., site where the altercation and shooting occurred — to take note of the position of Parker’s baton and Donovan’s lanyard.
“It shows the movement of what happened,” he explained. “If an officer comes and picks it up, it changes the scene. If someone kicks it, it changes the evidence of what happened.”
Donovan told the court he was concerned about the integrity of the scene, and didn’t leave until more officers arrived for fear evidence might be moved, despite the other officer’s protests.
“I think just being there was enough to provoke him,” Donovan said. “…He was constantly yelling.”
The Special Investigations Unit initially charged Donovan as well, but those charges were dropped when, his lawyer said, prosecutors found there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.
In cross-examination on Wednesday, Parker’s lawyer suggested Donovan was biased against his colleague.
“The reason you did not give police Const. Parker your cell number personally is because you had formed the opinion … the less you talked to him the better,” Joseph Markson posited.
Donovan denied that, saying he thought Parker already had his number and that he would have spoken to his colleague if necessary, but that he had tried to avoid it.
“He was not approachable, and I didn’t want to have any issues,” Donovan said. “I left it at that.”
In 2005 and 2006, two vacancies arose on the Supreme Court. President Bush initially picked John Roberts for the O’Connor seat, but then elevated Roberts to the Chief seat after Chief Justice Rehnquist died. (I sometimes dream what would have happened if Rehnquist hung on a few more months, and we got Chief Justice Alito). Bush tapped Harriet Miers for the O’Connor seat. After an outrage, Bush picked old-faithful Sam Alito for that position. Still, we know from The Nine and Supreme Conflict that Bush considered two other Fourth Circuit judges: Judges Luttig and Wilkinson.
It is hard to imagine how the Supreme Court would have proceeded if these two judges were picked instead of Roberts and Alito. It is even tougher to imagine the different leadership styles of Wilkinson and Luttig. Would either of them have played well with Kennedy? It’s also difficult to presume stasis. Things change and people change. Indeed, I tend to think that the Chief seat liquifies the backbone of the steeliest occupant. It happened to Rehnquist. It happened to Roberts. I hope it happens to Kagan one day.
Still, it is fun to imagine some counterfactuals. And one particular counterfactual is plausible. D.C. v. Heller (2008) was one of the most significant decisions of the early Roberts Court. At that time, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito had only been on the Court for two full terms. But their votes were essential to the 5-4 majority.
By the time Roberts and Alito arrived at the Supreme Court, Heller was already trickling up the pipeline. (Remember, Alan Gura, Clark Neily, and Bob Levy filed the suit with O’Connor was still on the bench). What would have happened with Wilkinson and Luttig on the Court? We have some grounds for speculation.
First, in 2008 Judge Wilkinson attacked Heller in the Virginia Law Review. He wrote, “The Roe and Heller courts are guilty of the same sins.” It is impossible to know whether a Justice Wilkinson would have viewed the case differently. But I am skeptical. I think he would have cast the fifth vote to uphold the D.C. law. There would have been an obsequious defense of judicial restraint.
Second, let’s consider Judge Luttig. After he lost his chance at the Supreme Court, he stepped down to become General Counsel at Boeing. From time to time, Luttig would publish an op-ed. Eventually, he got on Twitter and opined on several Trump-related controversies. Luttig had the cachet of a Republican federal judge, so people paid attention to him. But to my knowledge, Luttig never weighed in on the Second Amendment. Until now. Today, he filed an amicus brief supporting New York in NYS Rifle. He was joined by Peter Keisler, Carter Phillips, Stuart Gerson, and host of other people former Republican officeholders.
The brief urges the Court to uphold New York’s gun control law:
Amici have an interest in preserving our historical, traditional, and constitutional system of governance regarding the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms in public. As history and tradition demonstrate beyond peradventure, legislatures have, since long before the founding and continuously thereafter up to the present day, decided how to strike the delicate balance between the Second Amendment’s twin concerns for self-defense and public safety in assessing the permissible restrictions on the public carry of loaded guns.
The brief repeatedly cite Justice Kavanaugh’s Heller II dissent. If they could put Brett’s face on the cover they would have.
It is possible that Judge Luttig would have supported Heller in 2008, but drew the line at the right to keep and bear arms in the home. In other words, the right exists in the house, and nowhere else. I don’t know any Second Amendment supporters who draw that line, but they could exist. If Luttig’s views on the Second Amendment mirrored those of Judge Wilkinson, then Heller would have come out very differently. And for all we know, Justice Kennedy may have gone along with it. Justices Scalia and Thomas may have been the only dissenters.
For the past 15 years, many conservatives have regreted that Bush picked Roberts over Luttig. At least with respect to the Second Amendment, Luttig may very well have been worse. Ditto for Wilkinson.
NBC News has an interesting report out this week on one of the less-discussed side-effects of the pandemic in the United States and around most of the developed world. The subject primarily deals with employment, specifically how companies have responded to government shutdowns and social distancing requirements. We already knew that remote working surged massively in any type of job where it was an option. But even for jobs that have to be done “in person,” technology was employed to get things done when workers couldn’t (or wouldn’t) come to the workplace. In many cases, that meant additional automation. In others, companies moved to incorporate robots where possible.
But now that we may (eventually) be moving toward the end of the pandemic, a lot of jobs that used to be done by people may not be coming back. Having invested in robotics and learned how much of the workload these smart machines can actually take care of, there may be little incentive for employers to go back to the old flesh and blood model of their workforce.
Now unemployment is a lot higher, and a much-mentioned post-pandemic economic trend is the continuation of greater workplace automation that began during the outbreak to protect people from Covid-19. The economics team at Wall Street bank Goldman Sachs are highlighting the shift to ecommerce and the “digitization of the workplace” — including cost and time savings from remote work and virtual meetings — as keys to higher productivity and economic growth over the next few years. Meanwhile, labor shortages and surging demand have businesses looking at how to employ technology of all sorts to replace needed workers.
Supermarkets are installing more self-checkout kiosks, with some even experimenting with computer-vision capabilities that would eliminate the need for cashiers. Even older technology, such as QR codes, are being employed at places like restaurants, so diners can order from their tables by scanning those pixelated square barcodes rather than consulting a server. The Financial Times reported recently on a jewelry store owner who revamped her set-up so that window shoppers can use smartphones to purchase items by scanning those little square codes. She used to pay a part-time salesperson, but not anymore.
Necessity may be the mother of invention, but it’s also turning out to be the father of the destruction of a lot of lower-wage jobs. In addition to the examples mentioned in the linked report, this phenomenon may be particularly prevalent in the foodservice industry. As has been regularly reported, even after workers were cleared to return to the workforce, the fast-food industry was having a very difficult time getting workers to return, often because they were making at least the same amount of money from federally enhanced unemployment benefits that kept on paying for a very long time.
The problem is that the technology was already available to replace many of those workers. People who take orders can readily be replaced by automated kiosks that are currently ready to be installed and can be used by almost anyone. There’s even a robot out there already that flips burgers. Some of these outlets are already realizing that they really didn’t need all that many human workers.
What kept many outlets from making the switch in pre-pandemic days was the initial cost of switching to the new technology and uncertainty over how well it would perform. And as long as there was a steady supply of high school graduates willing to mop floors and operate the fry machine, why bother taking the leap? But once everyone went home and the kiosks and robots went to work, the world changed. Why would you bring back three shifts of human checkout clerks when you can set up a kiosk that will work for 18 hours straight without complaining, never takes breaks or vacations and won’t call in sick unless it has to undergo maintenance? The machines may be expensive initially, but they pay for themselves quickly enough and then labor costs actually decrease significantly.
NBC attempts to make the anti-Luddite arguments that we’ve heard in the past, saying, “but it creates jobs!” And to a certain extent, that’s true. There are probably a lot more job openings today in the tech sector for people to design, build and do maintenance on robotics. But that doesn’t mean that you’re creating any jobs that will be open to the workers you just put out on the street. You can’t just tell someone with a high school degree and two years of experience bagging Whopper Juniors to go out tomorrow and start designing robots. And even if you could, it takes far fewer people to maintain kiosks and robots than used to be required to staff up the entire store.
The age of the robots is upon us, and its arrival was apparently significantly hastened by the pandemic. Fortunately, they don’t look much like Terminators or have that sort of firepower. Well… at least not yet. But the day is probably coming.
Here is a timeline for Sept. 11, 2001, when commercial airliners crashed into the New York World Trade Center twin towers, the Pentagon and, after passengers mounted a counterattack, a Pennsylvania field.
Nearly 3,000 people were killed, including more than 2,600 at the World Trade Center, 125 at the Pentagon, and 265 on the four planes.
American Airlines Flight 11
0759 EDT: American Airlines 11 departs from Boston for Los Angeles
0814: The flight has its last routine communication with the ground
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
0819: A flight attendant calls the airline’s reservation office in North Carolina via an airphone and reports an emergency
0841: A duty manager in American Airlines’ operations center in Fort Worth, Texas, is told air traffic controllers have declared the flight a hijacking and think the plane is headed toward New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport
0844: North Carolina airline employee loses phone contact with the flight attendant. Another flight attendant in a phone call to American’s office in Boston says: “Something is wrong. We are in a rapid descent.” Asked to look out a window to try and determine where they were, flight attendant says: “We are flying way too low.” Seconds later she says, “Oh my God, we are way too low.”
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
0846: Flight 11 crashes into the World Trade Center’s North Tower
1028: North Tower collapses
United Airlines Flight 175
0758: United Airlines 175 departs from Boston for Los Angeles
0842: The flight reports a “suspicious transmission” overheard from another plane (American Airlines 11). It is the flight’s last communication with the ground
0852: A flight attendant calls the airline’s San Francisco office and reports the plane has been hijacked, both pilots killed, a flight attendant stabbed and hijackers probably flying the plane
0858: The flight takes a heading toward New York City
0903: The plane strikes the World Trade Center’s South Tower
0958: South Tower collapses in 10 seconds
American Airlines Flight 77
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
0810: American Airlines 77 departs from Dulles for Los Angeles
0854: Flight deviates from assigned course. Two minutes later transponder is turned off
0900: An American Airlines executive learns communications have been lost with flight, making it American’s second plane in trouble. All American Airlines flights in Northeast that have not yet taken off are ordered to remain on the ground. American makes the ground stop nationwide after learning a United Airlines plane is missing
0929: Flight 77 autopilot disengaged
0934: Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport advises U.S. Secret Service of unknown aircraft heading in direction of the White House. Plane makes a 330-degree turn and points toward Pentagon and downtown Washington
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
0937: Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon
United Airlines Flight 93
0842: United Airlines 93 departs from Newark for San Francisco
0928: Flight 93 suddenly drops 700 feet (210 meters). Eleven seconds into the descent air traffic control in Cleveland receives the first of two radio transmissions; captain or first officer is heard declaring, “Mayday”
0958: Flight 93 passenger assault on hijackers begins
1002: Flight 93 plows into field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania
Federal Aviation Administration acts
0906: FAA stops departures of all flights bound to or through airspace of airports controlled by New York air traffic control and adjacent control centers
0908: FAA halts takeoff of all civilian planes nationwide
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
0945: FAA orders all civilian aircraft to land at nearest airport as soon as possible; 4,546 flights were airborne
0905: President George W. Bush is seated in a classroom in Sarasota, Florida, when his chief of staff whispers to him, “A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.” Bush remains in the classroom about five to seven minutes
0935: President’s motorcade departs, arriving at airport between 0942 and 0945
0954: Air Force One departs without any fixed destination and lands at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana; soldiers encircle the plane before Bush descends. Bush is flown to Washington on a backup Air Force jet
*Sources: The 9/11 Commission report https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Exec.htm by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States; the 9/11 Memorial & Museum https://www.911memorial.org/911-faqs; FBI archives on 9/11 investigations https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/history/famous-cases/9-11-investigation/american-airlines-11; Reuters article https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sept11-bush/witness-with-president-bush-after-the-planes-hit-on-sept-11-idUSTRE78A0O920110911, “Witness: With President Bush after the planes hit on Sept 11” (Compiled by Leslie Adler; Editing by Jonathan Oatis)
Share this article in your social network
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.
By clicking on the sign up button you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. You may unsubscribe any time by clicking on the unsubscribe link at the bottom of our emails. Postmedia Network Inc. | 365 Bloor Street East, Toronto, Ontario, M4W 3L4 | 416-383-2300
Thanks for signing up!
A welcome email is on its way. If you don’t see it, please check your junk folder.
The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.
We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again
LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.
(LifeSiteNews) — If you’re like most people who feel you’ve suddenly awakened in a new and totally unrecognizable America, in which hastily-produced vaccinations are offered as the only salvation from a spurious public health menace, your reaction to the rapidly changing social order has probably not been déjà vu.
But while lockdowns, mask mandates, and an apparent move toward vaxxed and unvaxxed water fountains are all new developments, the path of mass immunization for no legitimate reason has been trodden before.
For a bit of historical background to our current situation, we need look no further than the 1976 swine flu debacle, an entirely contrived catastrophe in which an unsuspecting American public was snookered into taking a rushed-through injection while big business and big government covered up the risks of neurological damage and even death.
‘The flu season is upon us’
In a recently resurfaced investigative documentary, 60 Minutes journalist Mike Wallace took on the story of the 1976 public health disaster that even The New York Times called a “fiasco.”
The saga began after a single soldier at Fort Dix, New Jersey, contracted a strain of influenza and died.
What was not immediately reported was that the soldier had gotten up out of his sick bed to participate in a physically strenuous nighttime march in the middle of the winter, after which he passed away.
Instead of overexertion, the flu was blamed for his death, and not just any flu: a strain of the virus known as H1N1 and dubbed the “swine flu,” thought at the time to have the capability of plunging the United States into a 1918-type pandemic that could cause a million deaths.
The trouble was, according to 60 Minutes, only a handful of other soldiers at Fort Dix contracted the swine flu, all of whom recovered.
The crisis was a non-starter.
Nonetheless, the event, combined with a handful of unconfirmed reports of other swine flu cases in various other countries, was packaged as a harbinger of viral destruction and triggered a massive government wartime campaign for nationwide immunizations using hastily produced flu shots out of a misguided sense of urgency.
As it turned out, rushing through the production of influenza inoculations to attempt to get ahead of an ostensibly looming health crisis was a recipe for disaster.
As Discover Magazine reported in a 2013 article, the haste with which the flu vaccine was produced led developers to use an attenuated “live virus” rather than an inactivated form, thereby increasing the chance that the vaccinated would develop adverse side effects from the injection.
But the government didn’t stop to examine the risks and failed to warn the public of potential side effects.
Instead, government officials claimed that the public would not be safe from the swine flu scourge until 80% of Americans were vaccinated.
Vaccinate ‘every man, woman, and child in the United States’
In March 1976, President Gerald Ford announced in a press conference that the government planned to vaccinate “every man, woman, and child in the United States.”
In April, Ford signed into law the federal government’s “National Swine Flu Immunization Program,” a sweeping vaccination scheme with a $135 million price tag.
After initially facing resistance from vaccine manufacturers in rushing through the new drugs, the corporations only agreed to go through with it after the government agreed to provide them protection against any claims that the vaccine had caused adverse reactions.
Months later, a massive public relations campaign was kicked off, with persuasive advertising including an impressive lineup of politicians and celebrities pictured getting the shot.
As Wallace later observed, however, not all celebrities who allegedly got the shot ever did — notably, flu shot marketing listed actress and dancer Mary Tyler Moore as a prominent personality who got the jab, but when interviewed by 60 Minutes, she said that she had never taken it.
Just 10 weeks after the shots were rolled out on October 1, roughly a quarter of the U.S. population (about 46 million people) had been vaccinated.
Heading up the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at the time was Dr. David Senser, who helped devise the government’s immunization program and whose CDC led the public relations campaigns urging people to take the shot.
After resigning in 1977 after the swine flu narrative crumbled, Senser told 60 Minutes that while “several” cases of swine flu had been reported around the world by the time his CDC launched its mass immunization program, none had been confirmed.
Asked if any outbreaks of the virus had been reported anywhere in the world, Senser answered: “No.”
Nonetheless, apparently going on faulty data and a mistaken belief that the swine flu would lead to an apocalyptic-scale pandemic, Senser’s CDC shifted into overdrive, launching an urgent and nationwide vaccination scheme.
It’s a chain of events at least mildly reminiscent of last March’s Imperial College London COVID-19 model, in which epidemiologist Neil Ferguson projected a cataclysmic number of deaths from the virus, leading to public hysteria and the lockdown of both the United States and the U.K. under draconian and unprecedented shutdowns.
The model turned out to be based on faulty data and Ferguson himself was discredited after violating his own social distancing recommendations to engage in an extramarital affair.
‘I can’t believe that they would say that they did not know that there were neurological illnesses associated with influenza vaccination’
In 1976, the panicked response to the potential of a swine flu outbreak led to the rushed creation of vaccination centers relying upon personnel other than doctors to perform vaccinations in a sweeping immunization program.
Lacking a sufficient number of medical professionals to advise people properly, the emergency setup required the CDC to devise a “consent form” providing people with the information they needed to know before getting the jab.
Information sheets at the time informed Americans that the vaccines had been successfully tested.
“What it didn’t say was that after those tests were completed, the scientists developed another vaccine, and that was the one given to most of the 46 million who took the shot,” the 60 Minutes report noted. “That vaccine was called X53A.”
Asked if X53A had ever been field tested, Dr. Senser told the network: “I don’t know.”
After the vaccines were linked to serious injuries, including neurological conditions, Senser said that no one had ever informed himself or his colleagues in the CDC that there could be the risk of neurological damage from the injections.
However, Dr. Michael Hattwick, who directed the surveillance team for the swine flu program and the CDC, and whose job required that he nose out any potential harms that could come from the immunizations, said, “that’s nonsense.”
Asked whether he and the CDC knew that neurological disorders could result from the vaccine, Hattwick said “absolutely.”
“I can’t believe that they would say that they did not know that there were neurological illnesses associated with influenza vaccination,” he said. “That simply is not true. They did know that.”
Asked for his reaction to Hattwick’s claims, Dr. Senser implied that the surveillance team director was lying, and insisted he had no knowledge of potential neurological damage resulting from the shots.
Contrary to Senser’s claims, a July 1976 CDC report specifically listed neurological complications as a potential side effect of the vaccines.
‘They should have told us’
In 1976, the Ford administration did not shut down the national economy. Neither governments nor businesses cracked down on public gatherings, imposed mask mandates, forced social distancing, or locked down schools and workplaces.
In 1976, vaccination status was not made a prerequisite for participation in ordinary life. The vaccines, while urged, were not mandated.
But while government officials hyped up the urgency of a public health crisis that turned out to be nothing more than the sniffles, the swine flu debacle was more or less a sin of omission: while pushing vaccination, the government failed to advise the public of the risks, or to let them know that the anticipated crisis had simply never materialized.
After tens of millions of trusting Americans voluntarily rolled up their sleeves for the swine flu jab, hundreds developed Guillain-Barré syndrome, a paralysis-inducing disease that has also been traced to COVID-19 vaccines.
One woman interviewed in the 60 Minutes documentary was Judi Roberts, an active, healthy teacher in her mid-30s who developed Guillain-Barré syndrome within weeks of taking the wholly unnecessary flu shot in late 1976.
“I’d never taken any other flu shots, but I felt this was going to be a major epidemic,” Roberts said. “And the only way to prevent a major epidemic of a really deadly variety of flu was for everyone to be immunized.”
Roberts said she was motivated to get the shot after hearing about the young Fort Dix soldier who allegedly died from the swine flu, but would have acted differently had she known the whole story.
“If this disease is so potentially fatal that it’s going to kill a young, healthy man, a middle-aged schoolteacher doesn’t have a prayer,” she said, but added that “if I had known at that time that the boy had been in a sick bed, got up, went out on a forced march, and then collapsed and died, I would never have taken the shot.”
The consent form supplied ahead of vaccination was supposed to warn people of possible adverse side effects from taking the injection, but Roberts said she had never heard of any negative effects except for a sore arm, fever, or other mild reactions.
Roberts’ husband also got the shot, and agreed that he was not forewarned of potential risks.
“I looked at that document, I signed it, nothing on there said I was going to have a heart attack, or I was going to get Guillain-Barré, which I’d never heard of,” he said.
In the interview, the 60 Minutes journalist asked Roberts what her reaction would be if she discovered that the CDC and other government officials indeed knew about the risks associated with the vaccines.
“They should’ve told us,” Roberts said.
In October 1976, the swine flu immunization program was halted in nine states after three elderly people died following inoculation, just six months after President Ford signed a bill authorizing the immunization plan.
While the 1970s federal government lost the public trust for its botched immunization scheme in response to a trumped-up public health crisis, it did one thing right: After serious side effects and deaths were reported from the vaccines, it halted the rollout and scrapped the PR campaign.
What about our current public health debacle? More than nine months into the launch of rushed-through experimental drugs supposedly to treat COVID-19 (the fatality rate of which is drastically lower than the public was initially led to believe), reported injuries and even deaths attributed to the drugs have skyrocketed.
Data released late last month show that between Dec. 14, 2020 and August 27, 2021, a total of 650,077 total adverse events connected with COVID-19 shots were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the government-funded database for logging adverse reactions to vaccines.
Among the reported adverse events were 85,971 serious injuries and 13,911 deaths. As of last month, at least 504 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, the same syndrome that afflicted Judi Roberts in 1976, were reported to VAERS in connection with the COVID-19 jab.
U.S. VAERS reports can be filed by doctors, pharmacists, other healthcare workers, or private citizens who have experienced or witnessed an adverse event. While each case must be investigated to determine a causal relationship between the vaccine and the event described, it is illegal to fabricate a VAERS report.
It is possible that reported adverse reactions may provide only a glimpse at the true damage. A 2009 Harvard-Pilgrim Healthcare study found that the VAERS’ passive reporting system had captured only 1% of the true adverse events that should have been reported to the system.
How many serious adverse reactions and deaths must occur after COVID-19 vaccination before vaccine mandates are stopped and the hastily-produced inoculations are poured down the drain?
‘Who’s going to take the shot?’
In late 2020, mainstream media outlets ran stories detailing the “fiasco” of the 1976 swine flu response and its hurried vaccination scheme, eager to discredit the efforts of then-President Donald Trump and his “Operation Warp Speed.”
“With a pandemic looming, the US president announced a warp-speed effort to vaccinate every man, woman and child in the country,” wrote the BBC of the swine flu effort in a September 2020 article, clearly hinting at Trump’s sped-up vaccination development program while describing a universality in the vaccination scheme that Trump never promoted.
Ultimately, “Warp Speed” turned out to be the perfect lose-lose strategy for the 45th president.
The program was designed to push through COVID-19 inoculations and put an end to a trumped-up pandemic, which was itself expertly harnessed by bad actors in media and government to put an end to Trump’s presidency.
By 2021, of course, the establishment won the battle, ousting Trump from office after blaming him for every COVID death, berating him for refusing to mask up, accusing him of irresponsibly speeding up vaccine development, and then accusing him of staging an insurrection, deplatforming him from public discourse, and impeaching him a second time, just for good measure.
But corporate media thought-pieces comparing COVID-19 shots with the debacle of the 1976 influenza immunization scheme faded away after the White House was ceded to Joe Biden in a bizarre swearing-in ceremony whereby the barely sentient new president peacefully and legitimately took power surrounded by razor-wire and armed troops.
Suddenly, elites in the media and government scrambled to legitimize the COVID-19 vaccines they had spent so much time discrediting, and the new narrative had to leave the past behind.
1976 was a debacle, surely, but 2021 would be different.
Thus the same Joe Biden and Kamala Harris who publicly slung mud at Trump for his administration’s rushed-through vaccine program, asking “who’s going to take the shot?” and quipping, “if Donald Trump tells us to take it, I’m not taking it,” once in power immediately shifted to an aggressive knockdown-drag-out vaccination scheme, demanding complete and total acceptance of the same hastily produced experimental concoctions they had derided as a matter of cynical political posturing just months earlier.
No end in sight
Nine months into an increasingly mandatory mass vaccination program, the COVID-19 debacle is showing no signs of slowing down.
The matter of COVID-19 vaccination has moved from public derision by establishment media figures and politicians to public compulsion by the same powers, with the Biden administration now opting to use the full weight of the federal government to force private businesses to require their employees to get the jab or face weekly testing, a strong-arm tactic affecting tens of millions of Americans.
Meanwhile, although the World Health Organization has called for a slowing of approval for booster shots, COVID czar Dr. Anthony Fauci has signaled that a third shot is on the horizon.
And despite a lack of evidence that harsh and oppressive lockdowns, mask mandates, and cancelling of public events do anything whatsoever to stop the spread of the virus, the Australian state of Victoria has entered its sixth lockdown.
The unprecedented global totalitarian response to the COVID-19 pandemic has made the “fiasco” of the 1976 swine flu scare look insignificant by comparison.
Incredible as it may seem now, only a few years ago thoughtful articles published by left-leaning news outlets and medical journals examined what went wrong back in 1976 and took away lessons from the now-historical events.
“The American public can be notably skeptical of forceful government enterprises in public health, whether involving vaccine advocacy or limitations on the size of soft drinks sold in fast food chains or even information campaigns against emerging outbreaks,” Discover Magazine commented.
The magazine cited historian George Dehner, who in 2010 wrote that the swine flu debacle “triggered an enduring public backlash against flu vaccination, embarrassed the federal government and cost the director of the U.S. Center for Disease Control his job.”
“There was always the fear of doing too little,” observed Dr. Hattwick, hypothesizing that in future, “there’ll be more fear about doing too much and that may be a lesson we learned from ’76.”
“By December of ’76, it appeared the flu shot posed a bigger threat than the flu itself, and red-faced officials halted the vaccination program,” observed NPR’s Scott Horsley in 2009. “The ’76 flu scare is now taught as a case study in government and public health courses.”
But if the swine flu scare is a case study, what has it taught us? In 2021, have government officials stopped concealing side effects and risks, and done their due diligence before launching a mass immunization program?
More pressingly, what have citizens learned? If millions of Americans saw their trust in government authority betrayed in 1976, why should Americans in 2021 trust a government that has only become more corrupt over time?
If the deaths of a few people led to a nationwide halt of the influenza vaccine strategy back in 1976, how many will need to die before the federal government shuts down COVID-19 vaccinations, or at least mandates?
Unfortunately, there appears to be no limiting principle.
‘The chief feature of our time is the meekness of the mob and the madness of the government’
If the COVID-19 pandemic is ever to end, only the public has the power to stop it, meeting mass mandates with mass noncompliance.
As the great Catholic writer G.K. Chesterton noticed in his 1922 work entitled Eugenics and Other Evils, the “[g]overnment has become ungovernable; that is, it cannot leave off governing. Law has become lawless; that is, it cannot see where laws should stop.”
“The chief feature of our time is the meekness of the mob and the madness of the government.”
We must overcome our meekness in the face of a government that is either too foolish, or mad, or perhaps too corrupted and evil to govern properly.
If the 1976 swine flu scare taught the American people anything, it should have been this: We ought not take the government at its word, especially in matters of personal autonomy and physical health.
The same federal government that so badly bungled the alleged swine flu pandemic in 1976 — the same federal government, indeed, which has legalized and sanctified the mass slaughter of babies through abortion — has no business demanding trust and obedience when it seeks to impose medical treatments upon the populace. Only disaster can follow.
History has shown it, and history will show it again.
How will history remember those who failed to stop it?
Ashley Sadler is a Florida-based journalist for LifeSiteNews. She has a deep love of American history and the Traditional Latin Mass. In her free time she enjoys mountain-biking, taking road trips, and reading classic literature.
A California freeway display of 13 flags to honor the U.S. military members killed outside the Kabul airport last month was destroyed in an act of vandalism, according to the Riverside Police Department.
“Recently after the deaths of our 13 United States Service Members killed in Afghanistan, 13 American Flags and 1 Marine Corp flag were placed on the fence to the Ivy Street overpass to the 91 Freeway in Riverside as a memorial. Sometime yesterday, an observant citizen noticed the flags appeared to be damaged and it was reported to the police,” the department said in a Facebook post on Tuesday.
“At this point, we don’t have any suspect description but it’s obvious the flags were intentionally damaged.”
“Two citizens helped to take down the damaged flags, which were later turned over to local Boy Scout Troop 703 to be properly retired, police said,” Fox News reported.
“As of Tuesday, no arrests have been made and police said they did not have a suspect description.”
The story of the vandalized flags was not all negative. A later update noted the 13 destroyed American flags had been replaced.
The display was restored by the Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce Military Affairs Council.
“We felt inspired by the Riverside resident that hung American flags on the Ivy Street bridge and the family that replaced them when the initial ones were vandalized,” the organization posted on Facebook.
Should vandalism of U.S. flags be a felony?
Yes: 98% (3496 Votes)
No: 2% (87 Votes)
“Thanks to the Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce Military Affairs Council, we added 13 more American flags and the United States Marine Corps flag to the 14th Street bridge in honor of the service members who recently gave their lives during the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
“We are proud of all the men and women who have served our country in the armed forces, and especially those who gave the ultimate sacrifice. Thank you and welcome home,” the post added.
The flags honor the 13 U.S. military members who lost their lives in a suicide bombing outside the Kabul airport in Afghanistan last month as they assisted with evacuating Americans and Afghan allies trapped under the control of the Taliban.
The blast also killed about 170 people and wounded other U.S. military members.