A shadowy left-wing foundation that is PAYING police departments to keep “minorities” out of jail also paid Mecklenburg County over $3 MILLION to “reduce the jail population,” documents show. That is where Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska was stabbed to death by a criminal released from jail over a dozen times.The news about the link between these “grants” and the horrific murder last month was first broken by journalist Megan Basham. It has caused outrage nationwide as the story went viral on social media.But police chiefs and sheriffs were warned about this EXACT PROGRAM by investigative journalist Alex Newman in an explosive <a href="https://lecf-inc.org/undermining-police/" id="">2021 report</a> for the Law Enforcement Intelligence Brief. Most did nothing.Now, Zarutska, a 23-year-old Ukrainian immigrant who came to America seeking safety, is dead. She was viciously murdered by a criminal released from jail—one of countless individuals who, but for these “grants,” would have probably been safely behind bars.In communities across America where this foundation money is corrupting the justice system, crime is rising or even surging. Criminals who would normally be off the streets are roaming free, terrorizing neighborhoods as innocent citizens pay the price.<figure id="" class="w-richtext-figure-type-image " data-rt-type="image" data-rt-align=""><div id=""><img src="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/66450044188dfe741d77c31e/68c6d79f3f93645a34e3e12e_https%253A%252F%252Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%252Fpublic%252Fimages%252F4c481717-6ff7-4cfa-9f42-2fc1f5ee9cee_718x707.jpeg" alt="Image" width="auto" height="auto" loading="auto" id=""></div></figure>Dubious racial quotas are used to determine who goes to jail and who stays free. And the decisions making it possible are happening behind closed doors, funded by big bucks from a left-wing organization in Chicago with leaders tied to radical movements—including one key official tied to a movement aimed openly at abolishing police.Read the warning we sent to every single police chief and sheriff in America about this dangerous program, headlined “<a href="https://libertysentinel.org/undermining-police-with-grants-from-left-wing-foundation/" id="">Undermining Police With Grants From Left-wing Foundation</a>,” at the <a href="https://lecf-inc.org/undermining-police/" id="">Law Enforcement Intelligence Brief</a>. Then share it with your sheriff or police chief again.This intelligence product is produced by the Law Enforcement Charitable Foundation. With the FBI having gone off the rails in recent years, the Intelligence Brief is designed to keep local, county and state law-enforcement executives informed about critical threats.<a href="https://libertysentinel.org/author/admin/" id="">Alex Newman</a> is an award-winning international journalist, educator, author, and consultant who co-wrote the book “Crimes of the Educators: How Utopians Are Using Government Schools to Destroy America’s Children.” He writes for diverse publications in the United States and abroad. Originally published at <a href="https://libertysentinel.org/left-paid-nc-county-where-iryna-was-murdered-to-release-criminals/">Liberty Sentinel</a>.

Left Paid NC County Where Iryna Was Murdered to Release Criminals

Dubious racial quotas are used to determine who goes to jail and who stays free

By Bill Rice, Brownstone Institute As I write, the Internet is abuzz because President Trump just made one of the most eye-opening posts he’s ever sent out to the world on Truth Social, a post that suggests he might have been duped by Big Pharma when he authorized Operation Warp Speed.This story motivated me to develop a point that’s increasingly been in my thoughts and made me wonder if the cost-benefit analysis for our all-important politicians might have now changed significantly.The question I’ve recently been asking myself is, why do good people blindly believe what should be viewed as obvious (or at least possible) – Mega Lies?More specifically, why would so many people believe all the Covid lies and, more importantly, comply with the mandates and dictates of “leaders” who might be speaking with a forked tongue?<h3 id="">The Cost-Benefit Analysis of “We the People”</h3>THE answer is not difficult to discern. People do this because they simply think complying will benefit them.With Covid, the simplest cost-benefit analysis the masses made was that they (or their children, or grandmothers) could die if they didn’t do everything the public health and government experts told them they had to do.The calculation that resonated in the minds of billions of global citizens: It will benefit me (and our nation) if I stay home from work, wear a mask, socially distance, and then get two (to eight) annual vaccines and boosters.According to the early Covid narrative, about 3 percent of people who contracted this “novel” virus were going to die. Even as the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) was later reduced, the new percentage was still said to be 1 percent, meaning 1-in-100 people who contracted this virus might die. Covid, we were all assured, was at least 10 times more deadly than the regular flu.These probabilities – which came from the experts (who should know) – were terrifying enough to produce mass compliance.Thus, the proverbial Man and Woman on the Street said to themselves: I’ll benefit, and so will my family and hometown, because if I take these steps, this mortality probability might be reduced to 1-in-100,000 or, once I get my all-important shots, even zero percent.Significantly, very few people questioned the validity of these horrifying probabilities (as these “life-saving” interventions were issued by the experts and everyone who mattered was saying the exact same thing.)<h3 id="">But What if the Experts’ Death Probabilities Were Wrong all Along?</h3>First (and strangely), it’s obvious that this possibility never entered the minds of 85 percent of the population.While America may have been dubbed the “land of the free,” the greatest nation in the history of the world was not necessarily a nation where many people felt confident enough (or free enough) to “challenge the experts” or their designated political “leaders.”Which brings me to the overriding point of today’s dispatch.Long ago, the masses reached the conclusion that, true or not, they would personally benefit if they went along with the majority or consensus view on any topic – especially a subject dealing with “life and death.”That is, even if all the experts were dead wrong, everyday citizens would derive a variety of benefits if they simply went along with their august leaders, even if they were spectacularly wrong.Or, perhaps more specifically, most people concluded, I’ll experience far fewer negative consequences if I simply go along with the herd.Beginning in March 2020, the overwhelming percentage of global citizens made just one “risk-benefit” calculation. Whether they realize it or not, the question almost all citizens asked themselves was: what course of action is going to benefit me the most (or harm me the least)?The almost-universal answer: I should just comply. I should do what the experts tell me I should do (and not do the things I’m told I’m not supposed to do).<h3 id="">This Was a Fair Conclusion (Carrots vs. Sticks Analysis)</h3>Nor did “the people” reach this conclusion for erroneous or false reasons. Weeks or months into the Covid pandemic, most people had observed the treatment and consequences dished out to those who didn’t necessarily believe the pronouncements of the experts.These people were maligned as “science deniers” or selfish “kooks,” were banned from social media, even lost their jobs and were labeled “disinformation super-spreaders.” (Almost overnight, the spread of disinformation or misinformation was deemed more deadly than any virus).Also, those who went along with the experts’ proclamations received positive psychological feedback and were viewed as patriotic team players in an existential war against the greatest plague in centuries.Those who exhibited superior virtue were recognized and rewarded. Most importantly, no one in the enlightened herd risked being castigated or targeted by the State.It took about two weeks for almost everyone to realize “I’ll benefit if I go along with the crowd; there’s safety in the herd.”<h3 id="">Our Leaders Had Even More Incentive to Comply</h3>While the above describes the response of the mass population, a somewhat different cost-benefit analysis was playing out among “leaders” and managers in every important organization in the world.People in the country’s leadership classes had spent many years or decades working to rise to the top of their organization’s leadership pyramid.Key Question: How many people in these positions of higher incomes and prestige would want to risk losing their status and job perks by expressing skepticism of the Authorized Narrative?This is no longer a rhetorical question. One can actually answer this question by counting the number of prominent leaders who went against conventional wisdom.In every important organization – from government, politics, science, medicine, education, academia, law, business, and media – the answer is the same: Rounded off to three decimal points, 0.000 percent of these organizational leaders made the decision to publicly criticize any element of the government’s Covid response.Millions of executives and key leaders all decided their careers and lifestyles would benefit if they…said and did nothing that would rock the boat, an extremely risky course of action that would no doubt jeopardize their cushy position as one of society’s elite leaders.The key psychological takeaway is that 99.99% of those in leadership positions will end up doing that which they believe benefits themselves or doesn’t increase the probability they’ll suffer negative consequences by, say, being a “contrarian” or a “science denier.”<h3 id="">Politicians Do Matter</h3>I recently read a thought-provoking post from a reader who simply pointed out that politicians don’t really work for their constituents or “the people.” Yes, all politicians want to be reelected and stay in power and continue to enjoy the perks and status of being a “political leader.”But what most politicians value the most is campaign donations that allow them to win reelections (or feather their nests and allow them to join the massive group of “public servants” who somehow become millionaires)…and/or move up the ladder in the political arena.The real bosses of politicians are thus the companies that lobby Congress, governors, or legislators.Since politicians directly benefit when they receive campaign donations and important committee assignments by doing the bidding of their largest donors, they are disinclined to do anything that might jeopardize these benefits.Politicians are important because they set or approve important policies. (Although with Covid most of the important mandates were decreed by emergency orders or bureaucratic orders, not democratic votes.)Politicians have also obviously realized they will continue to remain in power – and thus benefit – if they refrain from upsetting important donors like, say Big Pharma.Furthermore, politicians would not benefit if more voters realized their favorite legislator was really working for “The Man” and not the lowly citizens.The change that could or would flip these omnipresent risk-benefit calculations is if a corpus of politicians, who are primarily interested only in remaining in office and not having to get a real job, decided it would be to their benefit to challenge the Deep State or the real Powers that Be.For the first five-plus years of the Covid response, every politician reached the conclusion that it would be to their detriment, not benefit, to challenge the “safe-and-effective” vaccine mantra.In fact, stepping out and actually acting as a “leader” must have been viewed as political suicide as only a handful of 535 US legislators (and no president) ever questioned the safety of the Covid “vaccines.”<h3 id="">Aside</h3>To me, at least, this minute percentage of elected representatives is exceedingly odd. If five senators and representatives (out of about 700 who have served in office since early 2020) now summoned the courage to (partially) question the safety of the vaccines, this would be just 0.71 percent of the legislators who have served since a pandemic was declared almost six years ago.In contrast to the less-than-one-percent of elected leaders who have consistently and vociferously made comments questioning the safety and efficacy of Covid vaccines, the percentage of the national population who believes these shots are very dangerous and even lethal to hundreds of millions of vaccinated citizens must now be at least 20 percent (if not more).This comparison reveals a striking dichotomy – a sharp line of demarcation – between the views of the political class and the governed classes (aka “We the People.”)IMO, such a striking difference is not perpetually sustainable or tenable.Put simply, more people now realize the shots have and will continue to kill and injure vast numbers of people.As many pundits have noted, it’s probably impossible to find one citizen who passed on the vaccine who now regrets this decision.Furthermore, while the official line continues to be that the Covid shots “saved millions of lives,” smaller and smaller percentages of the population have voted with their arms by … taking a pass on getting subsequent rounds of “booster” shots.(While the government says 15 to 20 percent of the population is still getting Covid mRNA shots, this is almost certainly another massive government lie.)Which leads me to this point and another <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/de479be1-d71b-433f-9ee3-e26117c930f7?j=eyJ1IjoiajA1bSJ9.6kr7jYdiLqcY0D0JBBMWtZRhO6eVfZ-LM8WKu5SxySM" target="_blank" id="">bold Bill Rice, Jr. prediction</a>:At some point, perhaps soon, enough politicians are going to realize it’s to their benefit to publicly call for the banning of all Covid shots.For several years, this was no doubt viewed as political suicide, but this position won’t be viewed as shocking in the months and years to come.The verdict of historians – five and 50 years from today – is going to be that these shots were the worst public health measure ever conceived and executed on the mass population.Instead of being punished, the first politicians to come out forcefully and say this (and then prove this through calling for Congressional hearings) are going to be held in high regard by large numbers and percentages of citizens.If their goal is to be reelected and maybe increase their chances of being a more significant political voice/leader, politicians who take this position have a much better chance of enjoying these benefits than the politicians who continue to clamor for more mRNA shots for babies and expectant mothers.That is, in my opinion … The Script will be flipped. The politicians who benefit will be those, albeit belatedly, who were not afraid of admitting the truth and who pivoted to the “right side of history.”The politicians who are disgraced, shamed, and voted out of office will be those who continue to insist that, say, the shots <a href="https://substack.com/redirect/0590eb9c-d080-4f59-95f6-c123935d3a19?j=eyJ1IjoiajA1bSJ9.6kr7jYdiLqcY0D0JBBMWtZRhO6eVfZ-LM8WKu5SxySM" target="_blank" id="">don’t cause embalmers’ clots</a> (or that spikes in excess deaths and cancer diagnoses have nothing to do with billions of people getting a rushed mRNA shot with no real medium or long-term safety trials).<h3 id="">Public Opinion Can Change Faster Than Some Think</h3>Anyone who’s studied how fast public opinion can change knows that it takes only about 10 to 15 percent of one influential group to suddenly change their views, and – much faster than most people think is possible – 50 and then 70 percent will come on board.While it’s too soon to know for sure, President Trump might have just greenlit vaccine skepticism among many more politicians. And, as they say, there is strength in numbers.On Labor Day, President Trump might have made his most important Truth Social Post yet when he suggested he was fooled by his Big Pharma advisors.In reading the responses to this significant post, I haven’t read anyone who supports the President who replied, “How dare you say this, Mr. President?!”Nobody who supports the president has exclaimed, “Whatever you do, Mr. President, please don’t take our Covid shots away from us.”If this were a post designed to gauge public sentiment, the results seem clear – 50 percent of the population who voted for Mr. Trump wants him to ban these shots. (Or, calling for the banning of these shots will NOT in any way hurt his popularity, meaning there is no real political “risk.”)True, almost 100 percent of Democrats – or Democratic “leaders” – think banning the shots would be a disaster akin to banning crops and thus producing mass starvation.However, the great unreported secret is that, deep down where the truth resides, 85 percent of Democrats know the shots aren’t safe and they’ll personally never get another one even if these non-vaccines aren’t banned.If every member of the Democratic Party thinks they will benefit politically by clamoring for a never-ending series of mRNA “vaccines” for a respiratory virus that never posed any health risk to 99.9 percent of the population, these politicians may end up presiding over a party as extinct as the Whigs.President Trump – per his usual mechanism – might have just sent out a major policy change via a Truth Social post.If 10 to 20 percent of Republicans in Congress now start echoing this vaccine skepticism – plus more governors and state legislatures – that might tell us these politicians no longer fear Big Pharma and they now believe they’ll actually benefit by sharing a POV that 50 million voters also share.When the cost-benefit analysis of even 15 percent of influential politicians changes, everything can change.Mainly, every global citizen will benefit when these disastrous shots are finally banned – so sayeth The Truth.Republished from the author’s <a href="https://billricejr.substack.com/p/has-the-political-risk-benefit-analysis" id="">Substack</a><a href="https://brownstone.org/author/bill-rice/" id=""> Bill Rice</a>Bill Rice, Jr. is a freelance journalist in Troy, Alabama.<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" id="">Published under a</a><a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" id=""> Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</a>. For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the <a href="https://brownstone.org/articles/has-the-political-risk-benefit-analysis-on-vaccines-changed/">original Brownstone Institute Article </a>and Author.‍

Has the Political Risk-Benefit Analysis on Vaccines Changed?

For almost 6 years, politicians concluded the risk of questioning the “vaccines” was greater than any benefit

Democrats are more likely to celebrate the deaths of public figures they oppose, according to a new <a href="https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/52960-charlie-kirk-americans-political-violence-poll" id="">YouGov poll</a>.While 77% of Republicans said it is always unacceptable to be happy about a political opponent’s death, just 38% of Democrats said the same. Thirty-three percent of Democrats said it is “usually unacceptable,” and 11% said it is either always acceptable (4%) or usually acceptable (7%). Eighteen percent of Democrats said they were not sure whether it is acceptable to celebrate the death of a public figure they oppose, while just 5% of Republicans said the same.Overall, 56% of respondents—just over half—said it is always unacceptable to be happy about the death of a public figure they oppose.<figure id="" class="w-richtext-figure-type-image w-richtext-align-center" data-rt-type="image" data-rt-align="center"><div id=""><img src="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/66450044188dfe741d77c31e/68c70bf9796d1e6939e8c73c_53f07800.png" width="auto" height="auto" alt="" loading="auto" id=""></div></figure>Leftists are also more likely to justify domestic terrorism. Asked whether “it is ever justified for citizens to resort to violence in order to achieve political goals,” 25% of those who identified as “very liberal” said it is sometimes justified, and 17% of those who identified as “liberal” agreed. Just 6% of conservatives and 3% of those who identify as “very conservative” say it is sometimes justified.But while Leftists may justify violence for political ends, they are not more likely to justify violence for self-defense.<h2 id="">Left-wing assassination culture</h2>The poll was conducted after Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA and father of two, was murdered on Wednesday in a political assassination, the latest victim of what researchers call the Left’s “assassination culture.”Kirk, 31, was shot in the neck while peacefully debating college students at Utah Valley University. The suspected killer, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, was “deeply indoctrinated with leftist ideology,” Utah Governor Spencer Cox confirmed.Immediately following the murder, social media was awash with Leftists celebrating Kirk’s death. MSNBC contributor Matthew Dowd said Kirk had it coming because he voiced “awful” opinions. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) blamed the assassination on President Trump’s “rhetoric.”The reaction shocked and angered the Right, but some shared an April tweet from Kirk himself warning about the Left’s assassination culture.“Assassination culture is spreading on the left,” Kirk wrote. “Forty-eight percent of liberals say it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Elon Musk. Fifty-five percent said the same about Donald Trump.“In California, activists are naming ballot measures after Luigi Mangione.“The left is being whipped into a violent frenzy. Any setback, whether losing an election or losing a court case, justifies a maximally violent response.“This is the natural outgrowth of left-wing protest culture tolerating violence and mayhem for years on end. The cowardice of local prosecutors and school officials have turned the left into a ticking time bomb.”Kirk was referring to a survey <a href="https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/most-leftists-support-assassination-culture-says-survey" id="">reported</a> by The Gold Report in April, which found that as much as 55% of those who self-identify as Leftists said it would at least be somewhat justified to assassinate President Donald Trump or billionaire Elon Musk. These findings correlate with the Left’s celebration of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson’s assassination in December by Luigi Mangione, as well as the attempt on Trump’s life on July 13, 2024.Respondents were also asked whether violent attacks on Tesla dealerships are justified to protest Elon Musk. Forty percent said such attacks are at least somewhat acceptable.“These attitudes are not fringe — they reflect an emergent assassination culture, grounded in far-left authoritarianism and increasingly normalized in digital discourse,” said the report. “The reports found widespread justification for lethal violence — including assassination — among younger, highly online, and ideologically left-aligned users,” the report added.‍

Poll: Leftists more likely to celebrate death, justify domestic terrorism

Charlie Kirk, who was recently murdered for being conservative, warned about the Left's 'assassination culture'

The European Parliament dissolved into chaos on Thursday after the session’s Left-wing chairwoman, Katarina Barley, refused to allow a moment of silence for slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The Parliament had opened its plenary session in June 2020 with a moment of silence for George Floyd.Kirk, 31, was shot in the neck on September 10th while peacefully debating college students at Utah Valley University. The suspected killer, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, was “deeply indoctrinated with leftist ideology,” Utah Governor Spencer Cox confirmed. Leftists worldwide have been openly celebrating Kirk’s death.Following the murder, conservative Swedish MEP Charlie Weimers emailed European Parliament President Roberta Metsola to propose a moment of silence in Kirk’s honor. Metsola’s office denied the request, claiming that a moment of silence is only allowed at the opening of a plenary session, which had already taken place on Monday.Instead, Weimers was allowed to make a point of order before the session on Thursday, during which he urged Parliament to “strongly condemn political violence and rhetoric that incites violence” and asked his colleagues to “please stand with me in a reflection of prayer in his honor.” Weimers yielded the remaining minute of his time for a silent tribute to Kirk.But as he and the other conservative MEPs stood for a moment of silence, Barley, who belongs to the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, immediately shut it down.“We have discussed this, and you know the president said no to a minute of silence,” she said, according to a translation provided by <a href="https://rmx.news/article/a-minute-silence-for-george-floyd-but-not-for-charlie-kirk-european-parliament-leaders-reject-request-to-honor-murdered-us-conservative-much-to-the-joy-of-left-wing-meps/" id="">Remix News</a>.The Right-wing parliamentarians began banging on their desks and shouting, drowning Barley out. “Have some respect!” a man shouted, while several cries of “shame on you!” were heard. In one video of the incident, a man could be heard shouting, “F*cking Leftist!”<div data-rt-embed-type='true'><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Patriots and conservatives demanded a minute of silence in the European Parliament today for Charlie Kirk. As it was expected that the socialist chair wouldn&#39;t allow it, <a href="https://twitter.com/weimers?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@weimers</a> parliamentarian said he&#39;ll yield his time for silence. The socialist chair deliberately started… <a href="https://t.co/kfyyDhytOX">pic.twitter.com/kfyyDhytOX</a>&mdash; András LÁSZLÓ MEP 🇭🇺 (@laszloan) <a href="https://twitter.com/laszloan/status/1966091329227858328?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 11, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div data-rt-embed-type='true'><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">RIP Charlie Kirk Unfortunately, the lefty Chair did not allow us to honor his memory. <a href="https://twitter.com/Europarl_EN?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Europarl_EN</a> <a href="https://t.co/rGQHO0xcDs">pic.twitter.com/rGQHO0xcDs</a>&mdash; Charlie Weimers MEP 🇸🇪 (@weimers) <a href="https://twitter.com/weimers/status/1966095797566448100?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 11, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><h2 id="">‘Incapable of showing human compassion’</h2>Weimers later wrote on X: “How does holding a minute of silence for George Floyd but denying one for Charlie Kirk make sense?”Polish MEP Dominik Tarczyński also lashed out, writing: “As conservatives, we requested a minute of silence in the European Parliament to honor Charlie Kirk. The left, calling themselves democrats, naturally refused. They are the same everywhere… Even in the face of death, they are incapable of showing human compassion. Therefore, I will organize an exhibition in the European Parliament commemorating Charlie Kirk. His legacy will bear fruit.”‍

Protecting your
Medical Freedom
and Civil Liberties

Stream What is a Doctor? Today!

The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - A Good Doctor Speaks with Dr. Gold

Latest Work

Left Paid NC County Where Iryna Was Murdered to Release Criminals

Has the Political Risk-Benefit Analysis on Vaccines Changed?

Poll: Leftists more likely to celebrate death, justify domestic terrorism

European Parliament erupts after chair refuses moment of silence for Charlie Kirk

Latest Videos

How Much IsYour Freedom Worth?