Wednesday, January 31, 2024

Update on the Bump Stock Case at the Supreme Court

1-31-2024 Washington, D.C. — On Monday, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in Garland v. Cargill, a case challenging the ATF’s ban on bump stocks.

Gun Owners of America has been active in pushing back on the Trump-era Bump Stock Ban, which was an onerous attempt by the ATF to re-classify bump stocks as machineguns under federal law. GOA met with officials in the Trump Administration to oppose the ban, has lobbied Capitol Hill to prevent codifying the ban, and even filed a separate lawsuit challenging the ATF’s policy reversal, which was previously denied by the Supreme Court in 2022.

Many Americans are likely unaware that there are various ways to bump fire weapons, including with one’s own shoulder, and even with something as simple as a belt loop.

A summary of GOA’s argument in the amicus brief is below:

  • The ATF’s reversal of their long-held position on the legality of bump stocks is not the “best” interpretation of the underlying statute
  • A bump stock does not enable semi-automatic rifles to fire multiple rounds by a single trigger pull
  • Attaching a bump stock to a semi-automatic rifle does not make it a machinegun
  • The ATF’s new interpretation conflicts with the Second Amendment, because previous Supreme Court precedent has confirmed that the Second Amendment protects not just operable weapons but also the ancillary equipment carried on the person that is useful for their operation

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:  

“This is just one of the numerous examples of the ATF weaponizing their authority to arbitrarily harass and criminalize law-abiding gun owners.  

“Gun Owners of America is proud to stand with our friend Michael Cargill and all bump stock owners who have come under fire with this ban. We hope SCOTUS will recognize that this action by the ATF has no basis in fact and directly contradicts the Second Amendment.” 

Aidan Johnston, GOA’s Director of Federal Affairs and a former bump stock owner, added: 

“Especially as a former bump stock owner, I’m thrilled that SCOTUS may finally overturn this ban. For an agency to unilaterally implement a ban on a previously legal and government-approved product, without Congress even changing the law, is both unconstitutional and frankly just bad policy making.” 

Source: Gun Owners of America (GOA) press release dated 1-30-2024. 
AD:  Gun Safes on Amazon.
Various sizes and styles available. Great for guns, but also other valuables such as cash, gold, silver, and important documents. 

Tuesday, January 30, 2024

Statement on Resistance / Statement on Self-Defense

For the benefit of the federal agents assigned to monitor my websites, I thought it would be useful of me to occasionally post my official Statement on Resistance, and my official Statement on Self-Defense and the Use of Force, in order to prevent any potential misunderstandings. Note that I do not in any way call for civil war, armed revolution, or political violence of any type. 

Statement on Resistance

By Tim Gamble  (11-20-2022)

We the people have an inalienable right to resist, by all means peaceful and moral, any and all oppressive or tyrannical governments, corporations, and other authorities, including individuals who by their wealth, station, influence or other means, exercise or attempt to exercise power over others. 

This Statement on Resistance is short and simple, but for the sake of clarity in these troubling times, I will explicitly point out a few things. 

First, this is a statement of peaceful and moral resistance. It is not in any way a call for, or an endorsement of, armed revolution, civil war, or political violence of any type. 

Second, resistance is an inalienable right, meaning that this right cannot be taken or given away by any means. This right is not subject to governmental or legal authority, nor is it subject to any vote. It cannot be legislated by politicians, nor regulated by bureaucrats. It is not subject to corporate policies or terms-of-service agreements. 

Third, "oppressive or tyrannical" refers to any exercise of illegitimate authority, unconstitutional power, and immoral acts. It refers to any attempt to limit or restrict our God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It refers to any attempt to revoke or restrict our personal freedoms as outlined in the Bill of Rights. It refers to any attempt to change or invalidate the Constitution, or any portion thereof, through any means other than the prescribed legal and proper amendment process. It refers to any attempt to limit, restrict, or take our economic freedoms for any reason, including the right to personal property, the right to work, and the right to engage freely in commerce (the right to buy and sell). It includes any attempts to deny or limit the rights of parents to raise their children, including overseeing their children's education and healthcare. It includes any and all attempts to force people into any form of collectivism, including fascism, socialism, communism, marxism, and maoism. It includes any attempt to cancel individuals who hold traditional viewpoints, values, or beliefs, or to otherwise bully people into accepting or conforming to so-called "woke" ideology. 

Fourth, this statement does not preclude self-defense and the use of force as a last resort to protect oneself or others from the threat of imminent harm (see my Statement on Self-Defense and the Use of Force).

Statement on Self-Defense and the Use of Force

By Tim Gamble  (January 20, 2020)

This statement reflects my views on Self-Defense and the Use of Force, prayerfully developed over many years of consideration. I do not seek to prove these views to the reader, but rather hope the reader will investigate the many sources given in the footnotes, should they have questions about why I hold these views. 

For the purposes of the following statement, I define self-defense as "the use of force, including potentially deadly force, as a last resort to protect oneself or others from the threat of imminent harm." This definition therefore excludes the use of force solely for personal gain, or out of a desire for revenge or vengeance. Also notice some key words of that definition - "last resort", "protect", and "imminent harm" - that suggest there are limitations upon the use of force in self-defense. Self-defense is not an excuse for the unlimited use of violence.  

Statement on Self-Defense and the Use of Force:

I strongly believe in the unalienable right of self-defense, including the defense of others. It is a biblical concept, which can be proved with numerous passages from both the Old and New Testaments. (see footnotes 1, 2, 3, 4, 8)

I strongly support the Second Amendment. We have the right to possess the tools of self-defense, including guns and knives. (see footnotes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,)   

I reject retaliation, revenge, and vengeance, because God's Word makes it clear that such belongs to the Lord, not man. (see footnotes 1, 6)

I reject unwise and inappropriate use of force in self-defense. This includes being too quick to anger, and lacking self-control. Defensive force should only be used as a last resort. "Employing potentially lethal force out of anger, hatred, jealously, or revenge is always wrong and is condemned by Scripture." (see footnote 7)

I reject unprovoked aggression (the initiation of force without just cause). Aggression (force) is necessary, and ethical, in some circumstances to protect ourselves (or others) from actions or threats against our lives, freedoms, rights, or property. 

I reject the concept of absolute pacifism (the idea that force should never be used under any circumstances, even in self-defense or defense of others). I consider refusing to help defend those in legitimate need, when you have the ability to do so, to be a potentially immoral and cowardly act, because it suggests that life isn't worth defending.


1) See the website Biblical Self-Defense for a lengthy examination of dozens of Old and New Testament passages on self-defense.

2) See the article Self-Defense by Fr. John Whiteford on the Orthodox Christianity website. 
3) A book on the subject of biblical self-defense that may be of interest is Stand Your Ground: The Biblical Foundation For Self-Defense, by Steve Jones.

4) The article The Six Things Americans Should Know About the Second Amendment, by Richard W. Stevens, contains an examination of self-defense within a Judeo-Christian framework.

5) See The Bill of Rights, particularly the Second Amendment.

6) See the page Revenge and Retaliation on the Knowing Jesus website for 37 verses on retaliation, revenge, and vengeance belonging to God, not people.

7) Quote is from The Biblical View of Self-Defense, on the Biblical Self-Defense website.

8) Watch the five minute video, Do Not Murder, by Dennis Prager.  


Join the Resistance, Subscribe to Tim Gamble by clicking here and follow me on social media:

Tuesday, January 23, 2024

Alleged Conversations between CIA Employees Seeking to ‘Get Rid’ of then-President Trump

1-23-2024 (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Defense for reports submitted by a military officer to his superiors regarding an alleged conversation around January 2017 between CIA analysts Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko about trying to “get rid” of then-President Trump.

Judicial Watch sued after the Defense Department failed to respond to a January 14, 2022, FOIA request for:
  • Any and all reports submitted by a US military officer assigned to the National Security Council to his superiors relating to a conversation he overheard circa January 2017 at an “all-hands” NSC staff meeting between CIA analysts Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko regarding trying to “get rid” of then-President Trump, as discussed in a January 22, 2020 Real Clear Investigations article available at this link.
  • Any and all records relating to any investigations conducted by the Department of Defense and/or its sub-agencies and departments into the alleged conversation between Misko and Ciaramella referenced above, including but not limited to investigative reports and witness statements.
  • All emails and communications sent to and from members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff regarding the alleged conversation between Misko and Ciaramella and any related investigations.
The Real Clear Investigations article reported:

Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric Ciaramella – the CIA analyst whose name was recently linked in a tweet by the president and mentioned by lawmakers as the anonymous “whistleblower” who touched off Trump’s impeachment – was overheard in the White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from office, according to former colleagues.

Sources told RealClearInvestigations the staffer with whom Ciaramella was speaking was Sean Misko. Both were Obama administration holdovers working in the Trump White House on foreign policy and national security issues. And both expressed anger over Trump’s new “America First” foreign policy, a sea change from President Obama’s approach to international affairs.

At a meeting of National Security Council employees two weeks into the Trump administration, the unidentified military staffer, who was seated directly in front of Ciaramella and Misko, confirmed hearing them talk about toppling Trump.

“After Flynn briefed [the staff] about what ‘America First’ foreign policy means, Ciaramella turned to Misko and commented, ‘We need to take him out,’ ” the staffer recalled. “And Misko replied, ‘Yeah, we need to do everything we can to take out the president.’”

Added the military detailee, who spoke on condition of anonymity: “By ‘taking him out,’ they meant removing him from office by any means necessary. They were triggered by Trump’s and Flynn’s vision for the world. This was the first ‘all hands’ [staff meeting] where they got to see Trump’s national security team, and they were huffing and puffing throughout the briefing any time Flynn said something they didn’t like about ‘America First.’”

He said he also overheard Ciaramella telling Misko, referring to Trump, “We can’t let him enact this foreign policy.”

Alarmed by their conversation, the military staffer immediately reported what he heard to his superiors.
“It was so shocking that they were so blatant and outspoken about their opinion,” he recalled. “They weren’t shouting it, but they didn’t seem to feel the need to hide it.”

“The intelligence community targeted Trump for removal for daring to question Biden family corruption and election interference tied to Ukraine and Burisma,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The Biden Defense Department’s sitting for over a year on a simple FOIA request on the Deep State targeting of Trump is a cover-up plain and simple.”

Judicial Watch previously sued for information about Ciaramella.

In November 2019 Judicial Watch reported that among those visiting Ciaramella at the White House were several officers in leftist George Soros organizations.

In December 2019 Judicial Watch sued the DOJ and CIA for communications between Ciaramella and former FBI agent Peter Strzok, former FBI Attorney Lisa Page, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and/or the Special Counsel’s Office. In both cases the government refused to produce records, “refusing to confirm or deny the existence or non-existence of responsive records” because “confirming or denying the existence or non-existence of responsive records would reveal information protected by the CIA Act, namely the existence or non-existence of an employment relationship between the Agency and Mr. Ciaramella.” And, would constitute an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

Source: Judicial Watch press release dated 1-19-2024

By Senator Rand Paul, Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up

Monday, January 22, 2024

Study: Vast Majority of Urban Elites Favor Strict Rationing and Less Freedoms For Average Americans

By Tim Gamble

The Committee to Unleash Prosperity (TCUP) recently released a shocking study on the attitudes of urban elites regarding issues such a climate change and individual freedoms. In the study, urban elites are defined as people living in high density population areas, with at least one post-graduate degree, and making at least $150,000 a year.   

According to the study:
  • Over 67% favor strict rationing of energy, gas, meat, and other food resources to fight climate change.
  • Up to 67% favor banning SUVs, gas stoves, air conditioning, and non-essential air travel to protect the environment.
  • 67% say educational professionals, not parents, should decide what and how children are taught.
  • 60% say that that average Americans enjoy too much individual freedoms. 

Additionally, the study found that:
  • 84% of urban elites give Joe Biden a favorable job rating as President.
  • 70% trust government bureaucrats to “do the right thing."
  • A large majority trust and have a favorable opinion of lawyers (78%), politicians (67%), and mainstream journalists (79%).
The bottom line of this study really is the divide between those at the top of current system, who are personally doing very well, and the rest of America. 

Any coming civil war will not be state against state, or even region against region. It will the the urban elites vs the rest of America. Right now, the urban elites have the money, the power, and the influence. 

This website is affiliated with Refuge Medical and Refuge Training. All members of the Resistance (that's you!) will automatically receive 10% off at checkout when visiting their store from links on this website. Their first aid kits and medical supplies are high-quality, made-in-America products (no cheap China junk) that make great gifts for families, preppers, survivalists, hunters, hikers, campers, and all other living people. Helps keep blood in the body and breath in the lungs during life's emergencies.   

Click here to be sent to their webstore and receive 10% off. Remember, you will automatically receive the 10% off at checkout.

Monday, January 8, 2024

Rand Paul: Lessons From the Great Covid Cover-Up

Credit Line: "Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College."

This article is from the December 2023 issue of Imprimis. Get your FREE print subscription to Imprimis now! (click link to go to the Imprimis subscription webpage). 

Lessons From the Great Covid Cover-Up

Rand Paul
U.S. Senator from Kentucky

The following is adapted from a talk delivered on November 1, 2023, at the Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship on Hillsdale’s Washington, D.C., campus, as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.

The Covid cover-up began in China. But in a way we make too big a deal of that. No one should be surprised that a totalitarian government run by the Chinese Communist Party would seek to cover up its responsibility for a worldwide pandemic. What was mind-jarring—and what we should focus our attention on—is the cover-up in our own country spearheaded by Dr. Anthony Fauci and his fellow public health bureaucrats. And they might have gotten away with their deception if a federal judge hadn’t ordered their emails released.

In brief, these emails reveal that at the same time Dr. Fauci and other public health “experts” were publicly disavowing the idea that the Covid virus originated with a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, they were in general agreement among themselves that that was likely what had happened. So why hide the fact? 

In January 2020, Fauci was told that the Covid virus appeared “inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.” He and his fellow scientists were worried that it may have originated in the Wuhan lab because they knew that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), under Fauci’s direction, had been funding work at the lab for years. They also knew of a paper by Ralph Baric and Shi Zhengli describing gain-of-function research—which involves taking two viruses and combining their genetics to create something more dangerous, more lethal, or more contagious—on various coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab.

On February 1, just before 3:00 a.m., Fauci sent an email to Robert Kadlec, then-Secretary for Preparedness and Response at Health and Human Services. It read: “This just came out today. Gives a balanced view.” He attached an article published in Science arguing that Covid had jumped from bats to humans and seeking to discredit the lab-leak theory. When this email came to light, I was initially puzzled about its timing and urgency. But then I learned that one of Kadlec’s duties was to chair the committee responsible for screening gain-of-function proposals for safety purposes—and that the Wuhan coronavirus research proposal never came before his committee!

For a long time, even we in the U.S. Senate didn’t know that Kadlec headed the gain-of-function screening committee because of the pervasive secrecy throughout our government. The makeup of the committee is a secret, its deliberations are secret, and those on the committee do not like answering questions asked by the American people’s elected leaders in Congress. To this day, it is an open question how gain-of-function research was funded in Wuhan without committee review. It is not a stretch to think that someone with authority skirted the safety review process. If so, that person would have had a good reason to be very worried, even to the point of dishonesty, when the pandemic broke out.

Jeremy Farrar, the Anthony Fauci of the UK, told his brother that in the early stages of the pandemic, “a few scientists, including me, were beginning to suspect this might be a lab accident.” Farrar writes in his book Spike: “During that period, I would do things I had never done before: acquire a burner phone, hold clandestine meetings, keep difficult secrets.” Indeed, many Western bureaucrats, especially in the U.S., began using various forms of communication to shield their messages from future records requests. We have an email from one of Fauci’s assistants instructing other government employees to avoid using government email addresses. Which, by the way, is a crime.

Kristian G. Andersen, a professor of immunology and microbiology at Scripps Research, headed up a group of virologists who, by his own account, were “prompted by Jeremy Farrar, Tony Fauci, and [National Institutes of Health Director] Francis Collins” to research and publish a paper that would “provide agnostic and scientifically informed hypotheses around the origins of the virus.”  Andersen had written to Farrar a week earlier, alarmed by the fact that the virus appeared to be manmade. But now, under pressure, he and others were circling the wagons and changing their tune.

By mid-February, British zoologist Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance and a Fauci ally, organized a letter that was published in The Lancet stating that the authors stood together “to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” What the letter failed to mention is the fact that Daszak’s organization received many millions of taxpayer dollars from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the State Department—before and during the pandemic—and that millions were funneled through EcoHealth to the Wuhan lab, some of which went to coronavirus research.

In March, the Andersen group’s paper, arguing that Covid didn’t come from a lab, was published in Nature Medicine. By that time, corporate media and Big Tech had taken to labeling anyone who supported the lab-leak theory as a purveyor of misinformation and disinformation. An ABC News article that cited the Andersen paper is a case in point: “Sorry, conspiracy theorists. Study concludes COVID-19 ‘is not a laboratory construct.’”

As we now know—thanks to the release of the Twitter Files following Elon Musk’s purchase of the company—the mainstream media and Big Tech did not act alone. In fact, many of their efforts to censor speech about the lab-leak theory, lockdowns, masks, vaccines, school closures, and a host of pandemic-related topics were directed by the FBI and other intelligence agencies. In other words, the First Amendment was thrown out the window.


The moral debate over gain-of-function research has been going on for a long time. It came to prominence with the debate over avian flu research in the early 2010s. Avian flu is a very bad disease, but like most animal viruses, it is adapted for its host—in this case chickens or other birds. It does not often infect humans, but when it does, certain strains kill up to 50 percent of those infected.

During an outbreak in 2010, Dutch virologist Ron Fouchier wondered if it would be possible to make the avian flu contagious through the air to mammals, and his research became highly controversial. Proponents argued that it could provide valuable data for scientists to predict or combat future pandemics. Opponents argued that it could cause pandemics either through lab leaks or terrorism. Fauci was intimately familiar with this debate, because Fouchier’s research was funded by Fauci’s agency, and he argued at the time that the potential benefits outweighed the risks.

A growing number of virologists and other scientists worry that a lab leak will happen again, and with even more serious consequences. With Covid, the mortality rate was far less than one percent. Experiments are now being carried out with viruses that have the potential for mortality rates between 15 and 50 percent. In 2021, MIT biochemist Kevin Esvelt wrote:

Once we consider the possibility of misuse [of gain-of-function research], let alone creative misuse, such research looks like a gamble that civilization can’t afford to risk. . . . I implore every scientist, funder, and nation working in this field: Please stop. No more trying to discover or make pandemic-capable viruses, enhance their virulence, or assemble them more easily. No more attempting to learn which components allow viruses to efficiently infect or replicate within human cells, or to devise inheritable ways to evade immunity. No more experiments likely to disseminate blueprints for plagues.

The potential for disaster cannot be overstated. Right now, people can order synthetic DNA on the internet, and if they know what they’re doing, they can make the polio virus, among many others. And there are increasing numbers of individuals who have the knowhow: according to Esvelt, “The U.S. grants 125 doctoral degrees in virology each year, accounting for one-third of the total worldwide. At least four times as many individuals with degrees in related fields . . . possess similar skills.”

The required information is publicly available due to taxpayer-funded initiatives to identify all the viruses in the world. With the support of people like Peter Daszak and Bill Gates, the U.S. has been the top international funder of pandemic virus identification for decades. This should give us pause: these programs involve digging rare viruses out of caves where humans might never encounter them and transporting them to major metropolitan areas, manipulating viruses to make them more dangerous and transmissible, and publishing the resulting knowledge to the world.

Even if the goal is preventing future pandemics, the risk-benefit ratio doesn’t add up. While advocates for identifying the world’s viruses argue that the knowledge gained will aid in developing vaccines, decades of virus identification have been fruitless, as no human vaccine has been developed in advance of a human epidemic. If we continue down this path, Esvelt believes that “deliberate pandemics” will kill “many more people than identification could save.”

To think that we can prevent future pandemics, even as we continue to seek, catalog, and manipulate dangerous viruses, is the height of hubris. Over the last few years, public health “experts” were wrong about almost everything. If we are to avoid these kinds of catastrophes in the future, we must reform government and rein in out-of-control scientists and their enablers.


In December 2022, Congress passed a 4,155-page spending bill. It had a price tag of $1.7 trillion, including over a trillion dollars that had to be borrowed. It was appropriately called an “omni,” since everything but the kitchen sink was thrown in. On page 3,354, the Secretary of Health and Human Services was directed “not [to] fund research conducted by a foreign entity at a facility located in a country of concern . . . involving pathogens of pandemic potential or biological agents or toxins.”

This was a welcome attempt to stop the funding of dangerous research around the world, but Americans and their representatives must watch carefully to see whether our public health agencies attempt to sidestep it. The recent behavior of NIAID and NIH bureaucrats, as exemplified by their attempts to deceive Congress and the American people during the Covid pandemic, does not instill confidence.

A group of 34 prominent scientists recently presented a series of reforms to “strengthen the US government’s enhanced potential pandemic pathogen framework.” This Gain-of-Function Reform Group (GoF Group) recommended that gain-of-function experiments that confer “efficient human transmissibility” on a pathogen should be regulated. Adopting this standard would explicitly stop bureaucrats like Fauci from dancing around the gain-of-function definition and looking the other way as researchers create viruses that spread more easily in humans.

Current regulations allow gain-of-function research to occur if the research is said to be concerned with “developing and producing” vaccines. However, dangerous research should not be permitted or funded on the basis of a potential product. Rather, we should ban clearly dangerous research and highly scrutinize anything else that “could enhance the virulence or transmissibility of any pathogen,” as the GoF Group recommends.

We should treat this research as we do nuclear weapons—as the potential threat to human life is even greater. Ideally, as Rutgers University molecular biologist Richard Ebright recommends, “responsibility for US oversight of gain-of-function research of concern should be assigned to a single, independent federal agency that does not perform research and does not fund research. The oversight of research on fissionable materials by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission provides a precedent and a model.”

Another pervasive problem is conflict of interest. Under our current lax guidelines, researchers can essentially approve their own grants if they toe the official bureaucratic line. Consider the particularly egregious example of Kristian Andersen receiving a million-dollar grant mere months after abruptly switching his scientific opinion on Covid’s origin from a likely lab leak to “natural spillover.” We have always known that recipients of federal dollars might try to game the system. Conflict of interest regulations are littered throughout the federal code. One would think recusal for a conflict of interest would be the standard fallback procedure for all federal science funding. Yet when I questioned Fauci about whether any of the scientists on the vaccine-approval boards also received royalties from the drug companies that make vaccines, he responded that he did not have to inform Congress about royalty payments. In addition to the fact that he was the highest paid employee of the federal government, his own net worth is estimated to have doubled to more than $12.5 million during the pandemic. This is an insult to the American taxpayer and the American ideal. We should not allow this kind of obvious corruption.

The GoF Group calls for regulators to “recuse any individual whose agency is funding or participating in the proposed [gain-of-function research] from decision making in the [pandemic] review process.” Reviewers “should be subject to conflict of interest rules.” They also recommended including “representatives of civil society” in the review of potential pandemic pathogens.

For several years, I have proposed something similar for all grants funded by the federal government. Even before I became aware of the extent of Fauci’s abusive reign, I introduced the BASIC Research Act, which would add at least one scientist to each funding committee from a major field of research that has unanimity of support, such as heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and Alzheimer’s. The goal is to create more debate on the best use of limited government research funds. I would also add a taxpayer advocate to all funding committees. Perhaps then we would start to question absurd “scientific” research grants, such as the $2.3 million the NIH spent injecting beagle puppies with cocaine, or the $3 million NIH grant to put hamsters on steroids and watch them fight.

In addition, my legislation would prohibit grant applicants from requesting their own friends for funding review. We should also make all federal grant applications public.

To prevent what happened during the Covid pandemic from happening again, Congress must address the concentration of power over long periods of time in the hands of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. In particular, it should divide the power of the NIAID into three separate institutes overseeing allergic diseases, infectious diseases, and immunologic diseases. Each institute should be led by a director who is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate for a limited term of five years.

Anthony Fauci—who wielded tremendous power over many decades—funded dangerous research, lied to Congress and the American people, flip-flopped on many of his prognostications, issued edicts that defied science, and attacked and smeared his scientific critics. His reprehensible behavior reminded me of nothing so much as C.S. Lewis’s description of the moral busybody: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. . . . [T]hose who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

We the American people must not allow bureaucratic “experts” to endanger our lives, lie to us, or curtail our constitutional rights. Never again. 


Credit Line: "Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College." 

The above article is from the December 2023 issue of Imprimis. Get your FREE print subscription to Imprimis now! (click link to go to the Imprimis subscription webpage). 
Join the Resistance, Subscribe to Tim Gamble by clicking here and by following me on social media: