Minnesota’s Financial Landscape

To understand the magnitude of this scandal, it’s essential to examine Minnesota’s financial ecosystem before the fraud was uncovered. The state, known for its robust public programmes and diversified economy, has long prided itself on transparency and prudent fiscal management. However, even the most stable environments can harbour systemic vulnerabilities. Let’s start with the History of the Minnesota Economy.

The $9 Billion Minnesota Fraud Scandal

Let’s fast forward to today. The timeline of the scandal stretches over several years, with the first red flags emerging in late 2024. Initial irregularities were detected by internal auditors, but it wasn’t until a whistleblower came forward that the full scale of the fraud—totalling $9 billion—came to light. Authorities launched a comprehensive investigation, revealing a pattern of deception and mismanagement.

Mechanics of the Minnesota Fraud

Let’s break down how the fraud was perpetrated. The scheme involved falsified grant applications, shell organisations, and fraudulent accounting entries. Funds were systematically siphoned from state programmes under the guise of legitimate expenditures, evading detection through a combination of document forgery and collusion among insiders.

Network Of Complicit Officials, Third-Party Contractors, And External Consultants

Several individuals and entities played pivotal roles in orchestrating this scheme. While investigations are ongoing, authorities have identified a network of complicit officials, third-party contractors, and external consultants. The lack of robust background checks and insufficient due diligence facilitated their access to state funds.

Financial Impact: $9 billion loss

Essential services faced cutbacks, and taxpayers are left shouldering the burden.

The financial fallout is staggering. The $9 billion loss represents not only a blow to Minnesota’s budget but also to public trust. Essential services faced cutbacks, and taxpayers are left shouldering the burden. The ripple effects extend to local businesses, state employees, and community initiatives, highlighting the interconnectedness of public finance.

Regulatory and Oversight Failures

How did such a massive fraud escape detection for so long? This segment scrutinises the failures in oversight and regulation. Lax auditing practices, outdated technology systems, and fragmented communication between agencies all contributed to a breakdown in accountability. As an analyst, I must emphasise the dangers of complacency in regulatory frameworks.

US Treasury Probes Banks & Money Firms in Massive Minnesota Fraud Scandal

The scandal underscores the necessity of stringent fiscal controls, transparency, and personal accountability. Government expansion without adequate checks can foster environments ripe for abuse. This case is a stark reminder that stewardship of public funds is not merely a bureaucratic function, but a moral imperative.

Vigilance, regular audits, and transparent reporting are non-negotiable. Investors must demand accountability, while policymakers should prioritise reforms that strengthen oversight and penalise malfeasance decisively. The Minnesota case is a cautionary tale for every jurisdiction.

The $9 billion Minnesota Fraud Scandal is a wake-up call for all stewards of public and private funds. At “Fiscal Integrity,” we advocate for responsible governance rooted in conservative principles—transparency, accountability, and prudent risk management. Stay informed, demand better, and remember: fiscal responsibility starts with each of us.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION KNEW THE VACCINES WERE FATAL TO CHILDREN

Our war on pharmaceutical evil, addressing child mortality from vaccines. To begin with, in late November 2025, FDA Commissioner Dr Marty Makary, appointed under the second Trump administration, publicly stated that data collected during the Biden-Harris administration indicated at least 10 children died “after and because of” receiving COVID-19 vaccines, likely linked to myocarditis (which is heart inflammation) and a known rare side effect of mRNA vaccines like those from Pfizer and Moderna.

Now, these remarks from Dr Marty Makary stemmed from an internal memo by Vinay Prasad, who is the FDA’s top vaccine regulator, who announced that a review of adverse event reports had identified these deaths between 2021 and 2024. Prasad called it a “profound revelation” and the first time that the FDA acknowledged COVID vaccines “have killed American children.” The memo, which was leaked and reported by outlets like The New York Times and NPR, prompted plans for stricter vaccine approval processes, including more rigorous testing for children, pregnant women, and annual flu shots. Additionally, Makary and Prasad, who were both critics of COVID policies before joining the FDA, credited a re-examination of data—initiated after Makary’s questions—for uncovering the cases. Reviews involved autopsies, family interviews, and physician assessments.

Now, to say that the memo from Prasad was poorly received by vaccine experts and physicians would be an understatement. Prasad’s claim provoked a rapid series of rebuttals. There was even a response from 12 former FDA commissioners, published in The New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday, which called Prasad’s memo “a threat to evidence-based vaccine policy and public health security”, which signals they might be impervious to irony. Yet there’s something troubling—and telling—in the fact that this memo has provoked people to deny even the possibility of COVID-vaccine-related deaths. The idea that mRNA-based shots have, tragically, killed a number of children should not be deemed far-fetched. Even the former director of the CDC, Rochelle Walensky, tried to skip over this fact, but could NOT categorically deny it.

But, overall, FDA Commissioner Dr Marty Makary’s statements accuse the Biden-era FDA of withholding safety signals on pediatric myocarditis deaths, framing it as a failure of openness. He states that (quote): “These were deaths, the data for which, accrued in the prior administration. It was not released to the public.

EVEN THE VAERS SYSTEM SHOWED COVID VACCINE RELATED FATALITIES

Senator Ron Johnson, who is a longtime critic of federal handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, delivered a serious rebuke of the corruption and suppression of information by federal health agencies, including the VAERS system. Now, for the purpose of our discussion, it is essential that we contextualise VAERS within the pandemic response. In essence, established in 1990, VAERS is a passive surveillance system co-managed by the CDC and FDA, designed to detect potential safety issues through voluntary reports from healthcare providers, patients, and manufacturers.

In October 2020, as Operation Warp Speed accelerated vaccine development, officials like Anthony Fauci hailed it as a cornerstone of post-authorization monitoring. However, by early 2021, as vaccination rates soared amid mandates, reports of adverse events spiked. Critics like Senator Ron Johnson argued this was NOT coincidence but correlation demanding investigation—especially given the system’s underreporting factor (estimated at 1-10% capture rate in 2010). 

Additionally, VAERS is crucial to note because of the myocarditis “signal”. This emerged in Israel’s Ministry of Health data by April 2021, showing elevated risks post-Pfizer vaccination. US agencies then confirmed it by June but framed it as “rare and mild,” issuing fact sheets without halting distribution. Meanwhile, officials hid this information, as internal emails (part of the 8 million pages) revealed in FOIA requests, where officials were seen debating public messaging to avoid “vaccine hesitancy.” This also ties into larger lawsuits, such as Missouri v. Biden (2023), where courts found evidence of government-social media collusion.

Ultimately, the VAERS system shows 38,472 deaths reported…and 9252 of those deaths occurred on the day of vaccination, or within 1 or 2 days.” And so, the question is why were government agencies ignoring data even from their own systems like VAERS.

This brings us to a crucial question, which is: Why do governments lie about vaccine injuries? And upon investigation, it appears that the motive is not just ideological but profoundly financial. For instance, Dr Paul Offit, who is a pediatrician and co-inventor of the rotavirus vaccine, has long defended the vaccine industry. Now, in a recent discussion, he warned that acknowledging any connection between vaccines and autism could “break” the system, opening the floodgates to lawsuits and compensation claims that would overwhelm the legal and healthcare frameworks. 

This admission reveals the high stakes involved—stakes so enormous that they could topple the pharmaceutical industry. To understand this, we could look at the year 2000, which was a pivotal moment in the history of vaccine litigation. Outside the chambers of the United States Court of Federal Claims—commonly known as the Vaccine Court—thousands of families stood in line, seeking justice for children they believed had been harmed by vaccines. This special court, established under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, handles claims of vaccine-related injuries without the need for traditional civil trials. It’s designed to protect vaccine manufacturers from bankruptcy while providing no-fault compensation to victims. By that time, over 5,000 cases specifically alleging autism as a vaccine injury had been filed. 

Each of those families was poised to receive up to $5 million in compensation if their claims were validated—a figure that accounts for lifetime medical care, lost wages, and other expenses associated with severe disabilities. But these 5,000 cases were just the tip of the iceberg. Fast forward to today, December 2025, and the scale of the autism epidemic in America is staggering. According to the latest data from the CDC itself, approximately 1 in 31 children is identified with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).  Additionally, with the US population hovering around 340 million and children under 18 making up about 22% of that (which is roughly 75 million), extrapolating the prevalence suggests millions affected across all ages, as autism is a lifelong condition.

Now, imagine this: once the irrefutable evidence proving that vaccines can indeed cause autism becomes mainstream, well, then the Vaccine Court, which is already burdened, would face an avalanche of claims. And so, if we are answering the question of why governments lie about vaccine injuries, like autism, well… it is because admitting the truth would unleash civil litigation beyond the Vaccine Court’s shield, exposing pharmaceutical corporations to trillions in damages. Companies like Merck and Pfizer, with vaccine revenues in the billions annually, could face existential threats. More alarmingly, the ripple effects would extend to the US’s fiscal health: with concerns like skyrocketing insurance premiums, strained social services, and potential tax hikes to fund compensations. It might even undermine faith in government institutions, leading to broader societal unrest. It is this financial motive that (in part) explains the dismissive attitude toward autism families, which is why Dr Paul Offit and similar so-called experts have repeatedly claimed that exhaustive studies—over a dozen major ones—show no vaccine-autism link, when it is too obvious to ignore.

MISSISSIPPI DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY OVER RISING INFANT MORTALITY RATES

And now look at infant mortality rates, in particular; and well, the first thing to acknowledge is that the trends and observations for children (aged 0-14 years) that have been reviewed over various literature confirm that the health of the young population is deteriorating. And unfortunately, until now, the sharp decline in children’s immune systems was not capturing the attention of the so-called experts and public health authorities. 

Therefore, many are now proffering that, to rescue children’s health, this issue needs to be viewed as an emergency. In light of this declared emergency, then policies for any poorly investigated drugs or vaccines with serious risks for harmful side effects could be halted until safety and effectiveness are demonstrated (or disproved) through analysis by independent parties. Thankfully, this mentality is being implemented in the status quo, as recently Mississippi state officials have declared a public health emergency due to the highest infant mortality rate in the past decade. Newborns in the state of Mississippi are experiencing congen-ital malformations, low birth weight, and sudden infant death syndrome, as well as premature births in their mothers.

THERE IS A NEED TO INVESTIGATE DRUGS AND VACCINES IN DEALING WITH INFANT MORTALITY

Now, I just alluded to the fact that part of what is plausible about declaring a state of emergency regarding increasing infant mortality rates is that a declared emergency, could well necessitate the implementation of policies that require any poorly investigated drugs or vaccines with serious risks for harmful side effects to be halted until safety and effectiveness are demonstrated (or disproved) through analysis by independent parties.

Well, let’s then address where the communicated need to focus on drugs and vaccines comes from in light of the infant mortality rate. For many years, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has added more and more shots to the childhood immunization schedule. In the 1980s, children received around two dozen doses; today, the official schedule calls for approximately 72 doses by age 18 (when counting each dose of multi-dose vaccines and annual flu shots). This aggressive schedule is the most extensive in the world.

However, neither the CDC nor the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has ever conducted studies on the safety of giving all these vaccines in combination according to the schedule. Each vaccine is tested in isolation in short-term trials for licensure, but the cumulative impact of administering all CDC-recommended vaccines to a child has never been studied.

This gap in safety research has been flagged by experts for decades. The prestigious Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) urged the CDC to investigate the cumulative effects of the childhood vaccine schedule in reports published in 2002, 2005, and 2013. In those reports, panels of scientists raised concerns that simultaneous or back-to-back vaccinations might pose risks that wouldn’t be apparent in single-vaccine trials. Yet the CDC ignored these recommendations, undertaking none of the comprehensive safety studies requested by its own advisors. The lawsuit calls this pattern “deliberate ignorance,” noting that the agency offers no explanation for disregarding its most prestigious scientific adviser for over 20 years.

However, while all of this is happening, American children have been getting sicker: chronic health conditions such as asthma, allergies, autoimmune disorders, developmental delays, and autism have surged in the past several decades. As such, seeing that the ballooning of the vaccine schedule from 24 to 72+ doses has occurred parallel with the increase in notable group of illnesses, such as autism diagnoses exploding from 1 in 150 children to 1 in 31, and over half of American kids now suffering from some form of chronic illness, this has thus been the most notable correlation, as far as environmental factors as concerned.

Now, of course, some will be quick to point out that correlation does not equal causation (although I believe the numbers contradict that logic at this point) — HOWEVER, the core issue remains that no one in authority (such as the CDC leadership) has rigorously investigated whether this massive increase in pharmaceutical interventions in early childhood could be contributing to these poor health outcomes, and especially rising infant mortality rate. INSTEAD, any concern about “too many, too soon” has been met with the refrain that vaccines are safe and that questions are unwarranted. As far back as 1984, federal policy was explicitly oriented to “not allow” safety doubts about vaccines to persist, lest vaccination uptake decline. In essence, the public was told to provide proof of harm — even though the very agency in charge refused to actively look for that harm.

And so, a declared emergency now puts the onus on the state to view and investigate drugs and pharmaceuticals as one of the sources of the problem, and this is an incredibly necessary paradigm shift in how pharmaceuticals have been viewed in American society. And perhaps to emphasise this need for a paradigm shift even further, I would like to show you this jarring excerpt from CBS News, where (in trying to make sense of the rising infant mortality rates in Mississippi), their medical contributor – instead of pointing to the obvious, being the many vaccines and other pharmaceutical interventions infants have been taking without tests on their cumulative impact – well she says the problem resides with a combination of health care access as well as social challenges. 

I’d like to point out that women were giving birth to healthy babies in their homes years before the advances we see in medicine or even the availability of many hospitals – and this includes in rural places as well. And so, while access to state of the art hospitals is a reasonable expectation in the modern context, I do not think the lack of such access suffices as a root cause of rising infant mortality rates – and is thus a driver of the problem at best.

But, another issue to consider in light of the mortality of infants from COVID jabs is that infants do not even have to be inoculated themselves to deal with the adverse effects of vaccines. More specifically, the CDC’s own data shows babies born are now dying at a 77% excess rate — years after mass vaccination of childbearing women. The 30-year decline in infant mortality collapsed in 2021, immediately following the mRNA injection campaign. The excess infant death causes mirror those observed in vaccinated adults, thus suggesting a transfer of mRNA “vaccine” genetic material to offspring! In other words, the mRNA vaccines created a transgenerational crisis, where children are dying who were never injected, but whose mothers were.

LESSONS WE OUGHT NOT TO FORGET FROM THE COVID ERA

Now, for many of us, the fact that ramifications of the COVID jab on children are being discussed seems less like breaking news. We have long been aware of the issues with the COVID jabs, and protested the claimed urgency of giving them to ANYONE, let alone children. However, I believe we ought to appreciate the cloud in the sky the size of a man’s hand before the rain. Additionally, to us who know the truth is given the responsibility of making it known and believed by others. As such, this is not necessarily the time to ostracise those who did not know better, or who were only enlightened at a later time. Rather, I believe it is incumbent upon us to promulgate the truth above the COVID hoax, by communicating these facts at the level of understanding of those who are yet to fully understand them.

And I sincerely believe that this is worth considering because it is the irony of deception that those who are deceived often do not know that they are. Surely, if they knew better they would be empowered to act better. MEANWHILE, there are forces contending for the minds and spirits of men! For instance, it was (more than anything) deeply sad and disturbing to watch pregnant mothers gobble up tylenol pills (that were the subject of much scientific scrutiny for their harms on babies), and yet some mothers took to social media and posted videos of them taking handfuls of tylenol in a misguided protest against the Trump administration’s announced investigation of the link between tylenol and autism.

You cannot really see such things and think these people deserve to be left to their misguidedness – especially when it is the lives of children that are being risked. They OBVIOUSLY are deceived, even to the point of self harm or the harm of their loved ones. Therefore, reaching them and making the transition from the left to the right a conceivable and compelling option is quite important. You’d even recall that we made a similar point with fitness trainer and media personality Jilian Michaels, who did not always take to RFK Jr’s promulgated information about health, food and vaccines, and yet arrived at a similar conclusion as him when she did her own research about, for instance, how vaccines are “tested for safety”.

And so, there are lessons we ought to haul from the COVID era that must be implemented in the present as many gradually begin to ask the right questions, or take up the right stories on the news – even as we now see the subject of the harms of COVID jabs on children has come to the fore.

The first lesson is that we ought to always demand accurate and timely information. During the COVID era, we saw a great deal of censorship and the suppression of information. Even from bodies like the FDA, I think you’d recall that very jarring movement in September 2021 when a group of scientists and medical professionals part of the “Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency,” filed a FOIA request for all data the FDA relied on to license Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine (with a similar request made in the Senate), and the FDA proposed a 55-year timeline to process the Freedom of Information Act request, and yet that was information they allegedly used to license the Prizer COVID jab, and should have been able to release in a week, at best. Therefore, understanding that people make value judgements and form opinions based on information available to them, we ought to ensure that this information is not only available, but incredibly comprehensive. This is in part how we empower those who have not yet come to an understanding of the facts around COVID and vaccines to form better opinions.

Secondly, in winning those who are gradually beginning to question what happened during COVID and even vaccines at large, we must not imitate the ills of the left – especially their use of cancel culture and ostracisement. There has been a concerning development even among conservatives of assuming a monopoly on truth, and rejecting the inclusion of those who recently came to a similar understanding, which is basically what the left did with cancel culture and ostracisement. A notable example earlier this year was the comedian Whitney Cummings – she has a very liberal history; she was once reported as saying she would not allow people who are not vaccinated into her comedy special venues – that’s how intense it was. And yet, her reasoning changed, and one of the notable manifestations of this was her year roast on CNN, in which she reflected a perspective that many associated with conservatives about the lack of a Democrat primary, Biden’s health concerns, and vaccine mandates  – to the extent that she even asked if she was still on air.

Now, while many celebrated this shift in reasoning and perspective from someone who used to be incredibly leftist, other conservatives detested the possibility of Whitney Cummings entering conservative politics. They wanted her punished for her views when she did not know better. But, Whitney Cummings is not a policy maker who curated the COVID response, and was also (herself) a product of the information she received. Therefore, it was concerning that now that she progressively knew better, some felt entitled to gatekeep the truth or conservative views for those who held them long before Whitney Cummings did. 

This is obviously an error. The point of being privileged to know the truth is to be a custodian and protagonist of the truth – in other words, to make it known to many others. It is why we do not keep the Gospel to ourselves. It is why LN24 International serves as an extension of the Man of God Rev Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc DSc DD, and disseminators of his teachings. Additionally, this is a principle from the Scriptures. In Romans 10:14 it reads “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?”

Written by Lindokuhle Mabaso

Decade after decade, a new wave of moral panic sweeps the nation, often accompanied by so-called “solutions” that blatantly erode our civil liberties. The roots of today’s surveillance state can be traced back to the fear that gripped the country on September 11, 2001, when the government seized on that fear to push through unconstitutional measures like The PATRIOT Act, real-time crime centres, and the TSA. By doing so, the government successfully imposed security measures that would have otherwise been met with fierce resistance. As the public grew increasingly comfortable with surveillance, it became remarkably easy to expand these measures from airports to city streets, fuelled by sensationalized stories of gang violence and other societal issues. Moreover, the divisive rhetoric surrounding illegal immigration has further accelerated the growth of surveillance, normalizing egregious privacy violations and touting technologies as solutions for non-violent offenses like littering and traffic infractions. Government programs are also utilizing surveillance to micromanage travellers’ behaviour under the guise of protecting the environment from climate change. The average citizen is being gradually conditioned to view the surveillance state as a necessary evil, with some even embracing it as a means to feel safer. However, this acceptance comes at a steep cost to our civil liberties, making it imperative to recognize the dangers associated with this expanding surveillance apparatus. Authorities are deliberately manipulating fear and misinformation to justify the growth of surveillance, and it is essential for citizens to stay informed about these tactics and demand greater transparency and accountability from their governments. The future of our civil liberties hangs in the balance, and addressing these issues is crucial before it’s too late.

The rapid expansion of the surveillance state is a complex issue, driven by a multitude of factors. One primary motivator is the age-old tactic of exploiting fear to consolidate power, a strategy that governments and institutions have long employed. By magnifying narratives surrounding crime, terrorism, and other threats, authorities can rationalize the enforcement of security measures that would typically face intense public backlash. Technologies like surveillance-enabled streetlights and Automatic License Plate Reader cameras are being promoted as solutions, but they pose serious risks to our civil liberties. As the surveillance state continues to grow, it is vital to expose the ways in which authorities are manipulating fear and misinformation to justify this growth. By doing so, we can demand greater transparency and accountability from our governments and work towards a future where our civil liberties are protected. The time to act is now, before the surveillance state becomes an irreversible reality. Citizens must take an active role in staying informed and pushing back against the erosion of their rights, or risk losing them forever. The government must be held accountable for its actions, and the true cost of the surveillance state must be laid bare. Only then can we hope to reclaim our civil liberties and build a future where freedom and security coexist.

The normalization of privacy violations

The surveillance state is actively eroding civil liberties, and its growth is being fueled by the normalization of privacy violations, which is a key factor in this alarming trend. As the government and other institutions increasingly use surveillance to control citizens’ behavior, they are severely impacting individual freedom and autonomy. By enforcing laws and regulations through surveillance, authorities are generating significant revenue, which is then being reinvested into further enhancing surveillance capabilities, creating a self-perpetuating cycle where the growth of surveillance leads to increased revenue, and subsequently fuels additional surveillance initiatives. The implications of the surveillance state on civil liberties are profound, and as citizens become more accustomed to being monitored, they are becoming less inclined to assert their rights and freedoms. Furthermore, the use of surveillance to generate revenue is raising additional concerns, as it creates a troubling incentive for governments to continue expanding surveillance measures.

Advanced technologies are being actively used by governments to jeopardize the privacy and safety of citizens, and this is a threat that requires immediate attention. The media is frequently overlooking this unprecedented risk, which echoes historical patterns seen around the world, and ignoring this issue could lead to severe repercussions for society. The technologies currently being used in our communities are mirroring those that oppress citizens in countries like China, where systems like social credit and ethnic cleansing are prevalent. Journalists and political dissidents who expose government corruption are suffering harsh penalties, including being denied basic resources, suitable housing, and the freedom to travel. Governments are using facial recognition technology to hunt down and execute political opponents, and entrusting such significant power to even small governments can be dangerous.

Advanced Technologies can Seriously Jeopardize the Privacy and Safety of its Citizens

Historical abuses, such as civil asset forfeiture, are revealing how easily a surveillance state can be misused, often under the guise of judicial protection. Artificial intelligence is identifying real crimes, but the evidence it provides is often unreliable, and another major threat is arising from the widespread collection of data without proper consent or oversight. The everyday activities of average Americans are being closely monitored and analyzed with minimal regulation, creating vulnerabilities not just from state agents but also from corporations that handle this data. Individuals are risking having their personal information exposed due to security breaches, often without ever having shared that information willingly. If someone becomes a target, state actors are compiling extensive details about their life while pursuing a crime to charge them with. It’s crucial to have an open conversation about surveillance, and focusing too much on certain fears has eroded personal freedoms, while other valid concerns—especially those related to government intrusion into citizens’ private lives—have largely gone unaddressed. The government must be actively held accountable for its actions, and citizens must be actively protected from the dangers of the surveillance state.

Authorities are actively building an all-encompassing digital surveillance system, with Digital Identity and Central Bank Digital Currencies serving as the core components that trap individuals in this framework. This system is being designed to replace traditional government-issued IDs with Digital IDs deeply rooted in unchangeable biometric data, including fingerprints, facial structures, and iris patterns, effectively creating an unbreakable link between individuals’ physical bodies and their digital identity credentials. By utilizing this biometric data, governments and financial institutions are rendering individuals’ bodies as passwords, establishing a total linkage between physical characteristics and digital identity. The United Nations and the Bank for International Settlements are openly acknowledging the integration of Digital IDs and Central Bank Digital Currencies to form the backbone of a new financial system, which requires the identification and verification of every participant through Know Your Customer protocols. Digital wallets are being tied to Digital IDs, which are mapped to individuals’ biometrics, creating a direct connection between financial transactions and biological data. Initiatives like Sam Altman’s WorldCoin are already rolling out prototypes of this system, encouraging people to scan their irises to obtain a unique identifier and a digital wallet.

Similarly, the UN’s Building Blocks program is forcing refugees to scan their irises to receive food rations, with the value being deducted from a wallet linked to their biometric ID. Under the guise of addressing the identity gap, authorities claim that digital IDs are necessary for the world’s poor to access essential services like banking and healthcare. However, the reality is that this system is being designed to exert total control over individuals, with their access to society and their own money being permissioned and revocable based on their compliance. This digital surveillance system is not about convenience; it’s about control, with the new global financial system being built on the foundation of total surveillance, where individuals’ every move is monitored and regulated. The implementation of Digital IDs and Central Bank Digital Currencies is a deliberate attempt to create a framework of control, where authorities can dictate who can participate in the financial system and who cannot, effectively rendering individuals’ autonomy and freedom obsolete.

Citizens are witnessing a dramatic expansion of the surveillance state, driven by the ruthless exploitation of fear, the gradual normalization of egregious privacy invasions, and the lucrative monetization of surveillance. This alarming trend poses a significant threat to civil liberties, with far-reaching consequences that imperil the very foundations of democracy. Governments must be held accountable for their actions, and citizens are demanding greater transparency and robust safeguards to protect their rights and freedoms. As the surveillance state continues to grow in power and scope, it is crucial that citizens remain vigilant and proactive, confronting these challenges head-on to prevent the erosion of their liberties. The clock is ticking, and the future of civil liberties hangs in the balance, making it imperative for citizens to take a stand against this insidious threat before it’s too late.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

Developments at the Robert F. Kennedy Jr hearing; and we ought to start at the beginning with the opening remarks that were given by the Secretary himself. In his opening remarks at the Senate Finance Committee hearing, Robert Kennedy Jr addressed the key focuses under the department of HHS, across various agencies including the FDA. In more detail, he stated that under President Trump’s leadership, the HHS is enacting a once in a generation shift from a sick care system to a true health care system that tackles the root causes of chronic disease. This is considering that chronic disease has reached crisis proportions in America.

He further highlighted that, in just half a year, the Department of HHS in this second Trump administration has taken on food dies, baby formula contamination, the GRAS loophole, fluoride in drinking water, gas station heroin, electronic cigarettes, drug prices, prior authorization, information blocking, and health care intero-perability. He added that the Department of HHS is also ending gain of function research, child mutilation, and reducing animal testing. They are also addressing issues such as cell phone use in schools, excessive screen time for youth, the lack of nutrition education in medical schools, sickle cell anemia, hepatitis C, the East Palestine chemical spill, and many, many others.

Then, as alluded to, also highlighted by Secretary Kennedy is his opening are the finances of the department. In particular, he stated that the Department of HHS under President Trump is doing more with less, adding that they have taken measures to fight waste, fraud, and abuse. And by eliminating duplicative enrollments in CMS, they are saving taxpayers $14 billion a year. Meanwhile, they are also expanding access for people who need it. This is to say that they are ending races, diversity, equity, and inclusion practices and instead focusing on aiding low income and vulnerable families regardless of their race. The Department is also pouring a billion dollars into Head Start and the administration for children and families.

Now the department of HHS is also doing its part to fulfill the president’s commitment to stop human trafficking, especially of children. Secretary Kennedy articulated that the second Trump administration  inherited a terrible humanitarian crisis from the previous administration with its open border policies, which allowed the appalling loss of 476,000 unaccompanied children. In light of this, the Department has implemented policies to ensure that that appalling tragedy can never happen again; and has even knocked on 82,000 doors and located 22,000 of those children.

Then, finally, Secretary Kennedy proceeded to defend his actions in light of the recent shake ups at the CDC. He stated that the CDC failed miserably during covid… as a result of these failures, America literally did worse than any country in the world, and the people at CDC who oversaw that process are the people that will be leaving; and this is why there is a need for bold, confident, and new leadership at the CDC!

THE RECENT LEADERSHIP CHANGE AT THE CDC WAS AT THE CENTRE OF THE RFK JR HEARING

So, that was an excerpt of the opening remarks, let’s now proceed to the discussions that followed. So, as expected, at the center of the hearing was Kennedy’s decision to fire CDC Director Susan Monarez, just a month after she took the job. As you’d recall, this move also then prompted several senior officials to resign. Now, part of the discussions surrounding the firing of Susan Monarez pertained to Secretary Kennedy accusing Monarez of lying in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published the same morning, in which she claimed she was removed for refusing to “rubber stamp” vaccine recommendations from Kennedy’s advisory committee. In a direct rebuttal to the op-ed remarks from Monarez, Kennedy remarked that America is the sickest country in the world, thus necessitating holding the people at the CDC accountable.

But, also, we’ve discussed that Monarez – while nominated by Trump – was not a fit for the mandate that this Trump administration had received from voters; hence she was the second option to be nominated after the first option was stifled by political opposition. We’ve highlighted that Susan Monarez was hamstringing the mandate given to the Trump administration by voters to Make America Healthy Again, especially in light of the fundamentalist actions deemed necessary to reform institutions and policies that had allowed diabolical and exploitative actors like food and pharmaceutical companies to get away with making the public sicker. Her record and present interests were also contradictory to the mandate given to the Trump administration.

In particular, she worked with the US military’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (or DARPA); and wants to expand the use of wearables to see who is vaccinated or unvaccinated; largely working with the Biden-Harris Administration. In addition, Monarez was previously deputy director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (or ARPA-H), which is an agency within the US Department of Health and Human Services; and ARPA-H was created by the Biden-Harris administration to accelerate what they called “high-risk, high reward” biomedical research.

Then, Monarez was also a Science and Technology Policy Fellow with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. She also held roles in the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the US National Security Council, where her work included initiatives to combat anti-microbial resistance, expand the use of wearable technology for health monitoring, and improve pandemic preparedness efforts.

SEC. KENNEDY ALSO DEFENDED HIS JUNE PURGE OF 17 MEMBERS OF THE CDC’S ACIP

Then, in the course of Senate Finance Committee hearing, Secretary Kennedy also defended his June purge of 17 members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel, known as ACIP, framing the move as an effort to “depoliticise” the committee. Now, I am inclined to agree with Secretary Kennedy, and here’s why.

First, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (or ACIP) has faced ongoing criticism for pervasive conflicts of interest, undermining its credibility. And this is because, rather than serving as an impartial evaluator, it often acts as a passive approver, endorsing every vaccine presented without rigorous scrutiny. Notably, the committee has never opposed a vaccine, even those later recalled due to safety concerns, raising questions about its objectivity. This lack of critical oversight is particularly alarming for vaccines administered to vulnerable populations, such as infants and pregnant women, where safety is paramount – in fact, you’d recall the horrific outcome in light of the committee’s vote on the rotavirus vaccine. In particular, the vaccine the committee approved (which he voted for) was so dangerous it had to be withdrawn from the market within a year, as we have just alluded to. And this was because it was causing intussus-ception in babies, which is a lethal condition where the intestines telescope, causing agonizing pain.

Then the second reason I am inclined to agree with secretary Kennedy regarding the ACIP is that the processes informing ACIP’s decisions lack transparency. The groups advising the committee convene in private, shielding their deliberations from public view. This secrecy violates both legal and ethical standards, which demand openness to foster trust in public health institutions. Transparent decision-making is essential for ensuring accountability and maintaining confidence in vaccination programs, yet ACIP’s closed-door practices erode this foundation.

Then finally, the committee’s failure to critically assess vaccine safety and efficacy, combined with its opaque operations, fuels skepticism about its recommendations. Public trust hinges on the assurance that health authorities prioritize safety over external pressures, yet ACIP’s track record suggests otherwise. Reforming the committee to eliminate conflicts of interest and enforce transparent, evidence-based evaluations is critical to restoring its integrity. Without such changes, ACIP risks further undermining confidence in vaccination policies, potentially jeopardising public health efforts. Addressing these systemic flaws is essential to ensure that vaccine recommendations are grounded in rigorous science and open dialogue, fostering a system that truly prioritises the well-being of all, especially the most vulnerable – which is incredibly necessary because the ACIP and the broader CDC had already lost credibility.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS, AND THE CORRUPTION OF MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS

Now, another notable moment in the Senate Finance Committee hearing was when Secretary Kennedy also said that the so-called leading medical organisations or associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, were compromised because they accept pharmaceutical industry funding. This remark prompted an exasperated retort from Senator Bernie Sanders, who (now) famously stated to Secretary Kennedy that (quote) “In your eyes, everybody but you is corrupt.”

But now, hidden behind this ad hominem from Senator Bernie Sanders are plain fact and a documented money trail. Just recently we addressed the fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics is the major professional association of North American pediatricians, and has overseen the rising rates of chronic illness and medicating of American children over recent decades. And the reason for this is no mystery when you learn that this association is funded by sources including Moderna, Merck, Sanofi, GSK, Eli Lilly, and other pharmaceutical companies, thus making the AAP’s members the cornerstone of the rapidly increasing pediatric pharma market in North America – by far greater than any other region! Therefore, of course, the AAP will lament the decision to end vaccine mandates because its funders are pharmaceutical companies!

In addition, the AAP weirdly (and dangerously) considers that bodily autonomy is subservient to State-imposed requirements and also that the post-World War II human rights of non-coercion and informed consent are subservient to the opinion of someone receiving money to perform an injection. Its approach quite literally coincides with the pre-War technocracy movement or medical fascism (in which a declared ‘expert’ decides on imposing healthcare measures rather than the patient themselves choosing it).

Similarly, the American Medical Association also opposed the plan, with trustee Dr Sandra Adamson Fryhofer warning it “would undermine decades of public health progress” and increase risks of diseases like measles and polio. But, in actual fact, the American Medical Association is a lobbying organisation funded by pharmaceutical companies, to advance their interests. This is evidenced by the fact that it has received over $1M from Pfizer, between $500K – $999K from Merck, AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly, between $250K – $499K from Novo Nordisk and GSK, and also hundreds of thousands more from other pharmaceutical companies.

CONCERNINGLY, SENATORS RECEIVE A LOT OF MONEY FROM PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES

Not only this but Senators in general receive a lot of money from pharmaceutical companies, and this reflects in the positions they take. In fact, what is perhaps another alarming realisation, is that the defence of vaccines and vaccine manufacturers is not just about ignorance to the impact of vaccines, rather it is about financial incentive. For instance, it came up in the Senate Finance Committee hearing that people like Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren have received financial contributions for the pharmaceutical industry. In particular, Secretary Kennedy stated that Elizabeth Warren has taken $855K from pharmaceutical companies.

A similar critique arose for Democrat Senator Patty Murray, who was calling to block the confirmation of Robert F Kennedy Jr as Secretary of HHS earlier in January. Well, it is worth noting that Senator Murray received campaign amounts amounting to $513,635 from pharmaceuticals; over $666,970 from health professionals; $311,844 from insurance companies, and $198,376 from Health Maintenance Organizations (or HMOs).

Now, one of the exchanges that stood out both for its crucial revelation and comical effect was that between Secretary Kennedy and Senator Ron Wyden, in which Senator Ron Wyden had concluded his remarks with a statement loaded with a misplaced accusation, stating (quote): “I hope you tell the American people how many preventable child deaths are an acceptable sacrifice.” Here’s what happened after, and why I think it is a crucial reflection point in light of this discussion.

THE HEALTH ISSUES IN AMERICA DID NOT BEGIN IN THE SECOND TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

So, here is the reflection point from this exchange: many of the observable health problems in the US did not begin the moment Trump entered the White House for his second term as president – these issues were long in the making. A significant reason for this, is institutional rot and corruption when it comes to food, chemical and pharmaceutical companies – as well as the regulators that are supposed to hold them accountable.

For example, we’ve spoken about the GRAS approval system. Many food additives are “generally recognised as safe” (or GRAS), and what this actually means is that they are widely used but WITHOUT REGULATION! Now, GRAS food products present two fundamental issues: being food industry counterfeiting and harmful additives. More specifically, the food industry often fakes products to cut costs; for instance honey is often faked by adding cheap syrups or other ingredients to mimic its appearance and taste; while polluted waters are also added to enlarge oysters.

Then, despite evidence of harm, the food industry claimed these additives were essential for production, even though competitors showed higher-quality (and ultimately more profitable) products could be made without them. However, there were warnings that chronic exposure to additives could cause long-term health issues, such as organ damage; and these warnings were ignored – especially as the influence of industry lobbyists grew – which is why these harmful additives and faked foods were eventually reclassified as “generally recognized as safe.” But of course, these so-called “safe” additives have contributed to widespread chronic illness in society. But here’s the kicker: the GRAS concept and its resultant harms did not begin with the second (or first) Trump administration; rather, it was established with the Food Additives Amendment of 1958 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Proving that chronic illnesses resulting from what people eat are systemic issues predating this Trump administration – IN FACT, it was this Trump administration that ended the GRAS system.

What we’ve articulated about GRAS applies with all the industries referenced: including both the pharmaceutical and chemical indictries. The 1986 Vaccine Injury act that gave pharmaceutical companies immunity from liability predates the Trump administration. Genetically modified and agrochemical enhanced foods from Bayer and Monsanto also predate the Trump administration. Therefore, it is rather audacious for Senators like Ron Wyden to insinuate that the recent health issues (especially those affecting children) began in January 2025. It just does not make sense, and that is why Kennedy’s response was quite apt in asking, what have the Democrats been doing all these 20 plus years, when chronic illnesses were growing parallel to the immunisation schedule becoming more and more bloated. Democrats and their co-conspirators should know by now that many Americans know too much to be moved by their attempts at shifting accountability for the problems they created or oversaw.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

Bill Pulte, the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, broke the silence. He stepped up as a whistleblower, exposing a major cover-up with solid evidence that contradicts Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell’s sworn testimony. Now, the entire institution is under scrutiny, revealing not just its physical structure but also the deceitful culture that supports it. This scandal goes beyond Powell; it shows the Federal Reserve’s true colors as a government-like cartel. Lying to Congress isn’t just a mistake; it’s a serious federal crime. If an average citizen lied to a Senate committee, they’d face jail time. But Powell seems to escape unscathed, living in luxury while others would be punished. This glaring double standard is what former President Trump has just taken aim at.

The Federal Reserve has never really been a public entity; it operates as a private organization led by unelected individuals who lack accountability to the people. Powell’s exposure marks the beginning of a long-overdue reckoning. Trump’s message is straightforward: resign, face criminal charges, or get removed. This isn’t just for show; it’s a firm stance. The era of bankers getting away with everything is coming to an end. The economy won’t be ruled by global financiers anymore. The President is holding the Federal Reserve accountable—not out of spite, but to seek justice. For every worker burdened by inflation, every small business ruined by rising interest rates, and every citizen misled—justice is on the way.

The Fed’s $2.5 Billion Taj Mahal: A Case Study in Why We Must Abolish the Federal Reserve

We’re talking rooftop gardens, private dining rooms, governors’ elevators, and even Italian beehives. Italian beehives! While ordinary people are scraping by under crushing inflation and sky-high interest rates, the Fed’s building itself a palace on the National Mall, and they’re doing it in near secrecy. This isn’t just a renovation; it’s a monument to arrogance and a screaming case for why they must abolish the Federal Reserve once and for all. G. Edward Griffin, author of The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve, lists seven solid reasons to abolish the Federal Reserve.

The $2.5 Billion Boondoggle: A Breakdown

Let’s start with the numbers. In 2019, the Fed pegged the cost of renovating its Marriner S. Eccles and FRB-East buildings at $1.9 billion. By 2025, that figure has skyrocketed to $2.5 billion—a 30% jump. Inflation, they say. Rising steel and cement costs, they claim. But let’s cut through the fog: $2.5 billion for two buildings that house 2,500 employees works out to $1 million per employee. Compare that to the Department of Homeland Security’s $250 million renovation of 450,000 square feet for the same number of staff at the Ronald Reagan Building just down the road. The Fed’s project is ten times more expensive. For what? A “critical backlog of upgrades”? Or a gilded headquarters for an institution that’s been fleecing the American people for decades? The Eccles Building, built in 1937 for $3.4 million (about $77 million in 2025 dollars), has served the Fed for nearly 90 years. Suddenly, it’s not good enough? The Fed claims outdated systems, modern building codes, and security needs justify the cost. But planning documents from 2021, reviewed by the Senate Banking Committee, tell a different story: private dining rooms, rooftop terraces for “urban wildlife and pollinators,” ornate water features, and those infamous Italian beehives. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell testified in June 2025 that there are “no VIP dining rooms, no special elevators, no water features, no beehives.” Yet the documents say otherwise. Either Powell’s misled Congress, or the Fed’s planning a bait-and-switch. Either way, the secrecy reeks of an institution that thinks it’s above accountability.

The Fed’s Financial Failure: Bleeding Red Ink

Here’s the kicker: the Fed isn’t even solvent right now. For decades, it raked in profits, sending billions to the U.S. Treasury—$97.7 billion in 2015 alone. But since 2022, it’s been hemorrhaging money: $114.6 billion in losses in 2023, $77.5 billion in 2024, and a cumulative $233 billion over three years. Why? Because Powell’s rate hikes to fight the inflation the Fed helped create have spiked the interest it pays on bank reserves, outpacing its bond earnings. The Fed’s securities portfolio is underwater to the tune of $220 billion since mid-2022, with projections of $1.5 trillion in losses over the coming years. Now, the Fed will tell you it’s not “taxpayer-funded” because it lives off its investments and bank fees. Don’t fall for it. When the Fed loses money, it stops sending profits to the Treasury, which means less revenue for public programs. That shortfall hits taxpayers indirectly. So, while in the US you’re paying 6% on your mortgage and $4 for a loaf of bread, the Fed’s burning $2.5 billion on a headquarters it can’t afford. If this isn’t a case for dismantling an institution that’s lost its way, I don’t know what is.

The Fed’s Arrogance: A Symptom of a Broken System

This $2.5 billion renovation isn’t just a bad budget decision: it’s a symptom of the Fed’s fundamental flaws. Since its creation in 1913, the Federal Reserve has operated as a quasi-private fiefdom, answerable to neither Congress nor the American people. It manipulates interest rates, prints money out of thin air, and fuels inflation that erodes your savings. Now, it’s building a $2.5 billion monument to itself while the economy groans under its policies. Senator Cynthia Lummis nailed it: “The Federal Reserve hasn’t earned a dime in years but somehow found $2.5 billion to build a modern-day Palace of Versailles. No accountability. Just arrogance.” Senator Tim Scott has called for Powell’s censure over misleading testimony, and this is taxpayer-funded excess at its worst.

Why Abolish the Fed? This $2.5 billion debacle is just the latest reason to abolish the Federal Reserve. Let’s be clear: the Fed isn’t a neutral referee; it’s a central planner that distorts markets, punishes savers, and rewards Wall Street. Its easy-money policies fueled the 2008 financial crisis and the post-COVID inflation surge. Its independence shields it from accountability, letting it spend billions on luxury headquarters while Main Street struggles. And its very existence undermines the free market principles. Abolishing the Fed would mean returning to sound money—perhaps a gold-backed currency or a ascended competition. It would force Congress to take responsibility for monetary policy, not unelected bankers. It would end the cycle of boom-and-bust economics driven by artificial interest rates. And it would stop unelected elites from building $2.5 billion palaces while the rest of us pay the price.

The Path Forward: End the Fed

This $2.5 billion travesty demands action. Abolish the Federal Reserve. It’s time to end this century-old experiment in central banking. Return to sound money and let markets, not bureaucrats, set interest rates. If the Fed won’t go quietly, Congress must force open its books. Every penny of this $2.5 billion must be accounted for. The Fed’s independence has gone too far. Congress must rein it in with audits and budget controls. Scrap the beehives, terraces, and private elevators. Build a functional office, not a palace. The Federal Reserve’s $2.5 billion headquarters rebuild is more than a waste of money; it’s a symbol of everything wrong with centralized power. While Americans struggle under the Fed’s inflation and rate hikes, it’s splurging on a Taj Mahal for unelected elites. This isn’t just bad policy—it’s a betrayal of the American people. The Fed’s time is up. It’s time to abolish this relic of 1913, restore sound money, and put economic power back in the hands of the people. Let’s demand transparency, accountability, and an end to the Federal Reserve’s reign. The future of our economy depends on it.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe