Throwing money at an inner city school never works.
Views: 51
When I first saw this, I thought it was Sacramento. Then I saw why it happened. Not One 8th Grade Student at the Lebron James Akron School Has Passed a State Math Test in 3 Years. Why has this been going on for three years? That’s right, Lebron James.
Well, the school board has said enough is enough. Despite receiving massive funding from the James Foundation along with local, state, and federal funding, the I Promise school’s “Black students and those with disabilities, are now testing in the bottom 5% in the state.”
So why did the Akron school board just now act shocked? The low test scores will now cause the Ohio Department of Education to intervene at the school in a last effort attempt to reverse the downtrend in test scores.
High-income earners are moving, and the data on where exactly they’re going provides eye-opening insights into the current lifestyle trends of the wealthy. In this analysis, we dive into the intriguing dynamics of wealth migration within the United States, shedding light on the states attracting high-income earners and witnessing an outflow of such wealth.
We’ve ranked U.S. states based on their net income migration, a critical economic indicator reflecting the movement of high-income earners. This measure culminates several factors, including tax laws, economic prospects, and lifestyle offerings, that collectively sway where high-income earners reside.
States With the Largest Net Positive Tax Income Migration
Here are the states with the most significant net positive inflow of wealth ranked.
Ranking
State
Net Income Migration
1
Florida
$12.4 billion
2
Texas
$10.7 billion
3
Arizona
$9.4 billion
4
Colorado
$8.6 billion
5
North Carolina
$7.8 billion
6
South Carolina
$7.2 billion
7
Tennessee
$6.9 billion
8
Utah
$6.7 billion
9
Georgia
$6.6 billion
Next, let’s look at wealth migration on a state-by-state level.
State-by-State Migration: The Top Three Net Earners
Many high-income earners have recently relocated to these three states.
#1 – Florida: A Surge in Net Income Migration
Over the past year, the economic spotlight has focused on Florida as it leads the nation in net income migration. High-income earners are increasingly choosing the Sunshine State, reflecting an age-old economic axiom: Money goes where it is treated best.
Florida’s appeal to high-income earners is increasingly palpable. It stands out even among low-tax states like Texas, underlining its compelling attributes. The state’s financial landscape, myriad growth prospects, and debtor protections present a lucrative proposition for individuals and families with substantial income and assets.
#2 – Texas: Not Far Behind
Texas emerges as a star player in tax income migration, securing the second position among states with the highest positive net income migration. With a whopping $10.7 billion net gain, Texas is a favored destination for high-income earners seeking financial prosperity and tax advantages.
Various unique benefits draw these high net-worth individuals to the Lone Star State. Texas, like Florida, also boasts the absence of personal income tax, a significant lure for those with hefty incomes.
#3 – Arizona: Almost Hits 10 Billion Net Positive Tax Migration
Occupying the third position in the list of states with the highest positive net income migration, Arizona boasts an impressive $9.4 billion net gain. The state’s unique combination of beneficial tax structures, thriving business environment, and appealing lifestyle make it an attractive destination for high-income earners.
These fiscal advantages, the state’s sun-bathed landscape, and burgeoning opportunities propel the real estate market and stimulate business expansion. As wealth continues to flow into Arizona, the state enjoys a complete cycle of growth and prosperity.
This trend showcases Arizona as a beacon for those seeking financial and lifestyle enhancements in a state offering a compelling blend of the two.
State-by-State Migration: The Top 3 Net Losers
Conversely, these three states are currently seeing the worst net negative tax income migration.
#1 – California
California ranks first among states experiencing the worst net negative tax income migration. With a staggering net loss of $343.2 million, the Golden State is witnessing an outflow of high-income earners.
Despite its numerous attractions, from the booming tech industry and world-class universities to beautiful landscapes and cultural richness, California’s high personal income tax rates seem discouraging for many high-wealth individuals. This, coupled with the state’s high cost of living, will likely fuel a wealth migration out of California.
These trends affect the state’s economy, especially the real estate and job markets. The departure of high-income earners can decrease demand for luxury real estate and potentially affect the commercial real estate sector. It also impacts job creation, as these high-income individuals often play a significant role in business expansion and entrepreneurial activities.
#2 – New York
In the landscape of tax income migration, New York finds itself challenging, ranking second among states with the highest net negative income migration. With a net loss of $299.6 million, New York is experiencing a significant outflow of high-income earners.
Despite being an economic powerhouse and cultural hub, New York’s high personal income tax rates and substantial cost of living are significant deterrents for wealthier residents. These factors push high-wealth individuals to seek more financially favorable environments.
#3 – Illinois
As the third state witnessing the worst net negative tax income migration, Illinois is undergoing a significant financial outflow. The state has experienced a net loss of $141.7 million, indicating a trend of high-income earners seeking more tax-favorable environments.
While Illinois is home to a rich cultural scene and a diversified economy, its high tax rates and substantial cost of living present challenges for wealth retention. This financial pressure prompts an exodus of high-wealth individuals seeking better economic landscapes.
This departure of wealth can impact various sectors of Illinois’s economy, notably the real estate and job markets. With high-income earners leaving the state, there could be decreased demand for luxury housing and commercial real estate. Furthermore, this outflow could hinder job creation since high-wealth individuals often drive business expansion and innovation.
For decades, much has been made of the “special relationship” between the United States and the United Kingdom. But in 2022, the national governments of both nations shared a somewhat less special accomplishment: earning the least confidence from their constituents of any G7 member country.
When Gallup first measured national confidence in governments around the world nearly two decades ago, both President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair were well into their terms in office. The governments they led retained extensive confidence domestically — far more so than for almost all the rest of the G7 (Canada, France, Germany, Japan and Italy).
Fast forward to 2022, and the tables have turned. Roughly one in three adults in the U.K. (33%) and U.S. (31%) say they have confidence in their national governments: putting them at the bottom of the G7 countries.
As governments on both sides of the Atlantic have struggled, other administrations in G7 nations have solidified their positions among their electorates. In Europe, confidence in Italy’s government has almost doubled since 2019 (from 22% to 41% in 2022). Similarly, confidence in the French government has increased steadily since French President Emmanuel Macron came to power: rising from 37% in 2017 to 46% in 2022. In Olaf Scholz’s first full year as chancellor of Germany, he has continued Angela Merkel’s trend of high German confidence (61%) in government — the highest confidence level in the G7.
Even though confidence in the Canadian government has slipped from its highs under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a majority (51%) nevertheless retain faith in it. In Japan, which ranked last among G7 countries between 2007 and 2012, confidence in government has since more than doubled to 43% in 2022.
Confidence in U.S. Government Continues Free Fall
The U.S. has seen a sharp decline in the public’s confidence in the national government over the past couple of years. In 2020, almost half (46%) of U.S. adults expressed faith in their government, likely boosted by the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic.
But after President Joe Biden took office, confidence in government slipped to 40% in 2021 and again to 31% in 2022. This is on par with the lowest rates of confidence measured in the U.S. government since Gallup started tracking it globally in 2006 — with the other lows measured in 2013, 2016 and 2018 under former Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump.
Declining domestic confidence in the U.S. government has occurred alongside declining approval ratings on the world stage. Median global approval of U.S. leadership slipped to 41% in 2022, down from 45% in 2021 during Biden’s first year in office.
Turmoil in Westminster May Be Blurring the Lines
Across the Atlantic, Britons’ confidence in their national government has been relatively low since 2019. But as is true for the U.S., confidence in the U.K. also reached a near-record low in 2022, on par with its level in 2008 during the financial crash (32%).
The U.K. political system has been rocked by several major events in recent years, including Brexit, the “Partygate” scandal and frequent turnover among its prime ministers. Since 2019, the U.K. has had four prime ministers in as many years.
For countries across the globe, leadership approval and confidence in government are highly related.
The same relationship is present in the U.K., where since 2006, confidence in the government has been far higher among those who approve of the U.K.’s leadership. But this changed dramatically in 2022, as the Partygate scandal intensified and numerous stories of alleged governmental wrongdoing dominated the headlines.
In 2022, confidence in the government collapsed, especially among Britons who approved of their country’s leadership (38%). This is the lowest level of confidence in the world among people who approve of their leadership — tied with Lebanon.
After years of clear distinction, the line between governmental confidence and leadership approval in the U.K. is now blurred. This may be a concern for the conservatives — in power since 2010 — ahead of the general election likely to be held at the end of next year.
Bottom Line
Much has changed since Gallup surveyed G7 countries in 2022, and recent events could have shifted these trends even further — including the political fallout from Trump’s legal troubles and former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s dramatic resignation from parliament in recent weeks.
The U.S. and the U.K. face crucial elections around the end of 2024. On both sides of the Atlantic, the election results will likely prove decisive in whether the public’s faith in their governments can be rebuilt in coming years or will erode yet further.
House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, released a Twitter Files-like thread Thursday, where he revealed what he called a Facebook censorship operation by President Joe Biden’s White House.
Jordan’s “Facebook Files Part 1” alleged the White House and administration officials pressured Facebook to censor Americans with “unconstitutional” force, including work to block “a meme” about vaccination, and a Tucker Carlson video.
THE FACEBOOK FILES, PART 1: SMOKING-GUN DOCS PROVE FACEBOOK CENSORED AMERICANS BECAUSE OF BIDEN WHITE HOUSE PRESSURE
During the first half of 2021, social media companies like Facebook faced tremendous pressure from the Biden White House—both publicly and privately—to crack down on alleged “misinformation."
In April 2021, a Facebook employee circulated an email for Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg, writing: “We are facing continued pressure from external stakeholders, including the [Biden] White House” to remove posts. pic.twitter.com/iDRV3Kk2oO
In another April 2021 email, Nick Clegg, Facebook’s president for global affairs, informed his team at Facebook that Andy Slavitt, a Senior Advisor to President Biden, was “outraged . . . that [Facebook] did not remove” a particular post. pic.twitter.com/5muflAQjcx
One of the more interesting footnotes to the Students for Fair Admissions case doesn’t involve what happened. It involves what didn’t happen. After the decision came down, liberals and the left voiced their dismay at the result. There was a little organized protesting, but it was nothing compared to the massive waves of mobilization that attended the Dobbs decision on abortion, despite the fact that the result was predictable in both cases.
Perhaps that’s to be expected. Dobbs is, in my view, the more consequential decision. It has the potential to directly affect far more people than Students for Fair Admissions. But I think there is another factor at play. Most people already suspected what the latter case demonstrated—that race-based affirmative action is a discriminatory practice. It was both unjust and unpopular, and now it’s been declared unconstitutional. The relatively muted response from some of the left could signal a tacit decision to relinquish the legerdemain and enforced silence and bad faith necessary to keep the policy going. I can’t help but think that, whatever attitude they present to the public, some affirmative action defenders are secretly relieved that they can now turn their attention elsewhere.
Of course, I’m only speculating. And the fight over racial preferences in college admissions is not nearly over. It’s too big a business to simply vanish; elite institutions have invested too much in it to just give it up. This week’s episode features Duke economist Peter Arcidiacono, the man who led the herculean effort to analyze the data that made Students for Fair Admissions’ case. As Peter says, that data is clear. Now that it’s out in the open, any of the “good liberals” who defended affirmative action as a matter of principle while privately harboring doubts as to its logical and moral coherence have an offramp. They can let it go. The questions is, will they?
GLENN LOURY: Peter was the main guy—correct me if I get anything wrong, Peter—in the data analysis marathon that had to be undertaken in order to parse through the information made available by Harvard University, quantitative information on its admissions policies, what exactly was going on. And he faced off against the estimable David Card—Nobel fame, UC-Berkeley—who was the lead witness for the defendant, Harvard University, in the litigation. And he prevailed.
PETER ARCIDIACONO: Not at first, but in the end, yes.
So what were the scientific questions, the academic questions, which you’ve been engaged with that were relevant to the litigation.
PETER ARCIDIACONO: Well, what was relevant to litigation was, was there a penalty against Asian Americans? And also how big the preferences were at these different schools.
JOHN MCWHORTER: There’s nothing sadder than the position of an individual Asian student today at these universities. They are so muzzled. You can often tell what they do think about all of this, but you can’t say that in their social circles. And so they don’t. I’ve seen a couple of them actually change color as they talk about it. It’s weird.
I told one of them, I’m sorry that you are in selective university at this time, because this must be a really tough thing to have any kind of constructive conversation about. Except, I imagine, among yourselves. And one of them kind of smiled. I mean, you can tell what’s going on. It’s hard, but this had to happen. It was time.
Peter, I’m glad that you did this. What in your gut got you onto this? Because, of course, some people are going to say, “Peter, it’s just racism,” and there’s a certain kind of crowd who will applaud. I know it’s not that, but what interested you about this?
PETER ARCIDIACONO: Well, I think that came about through my own experience as an undergraduate and seeing how much easier the economics classes were than the chemistry classes, so then studying higher education. And then back in 2011 when there was a protest over one of my papers on this, seeing universities not really willing to engage in dialogue about how best to improve the experiences here.
That probably set me on this path. What that paper showed was, it was really about a data fact. You look at white males, they come in, those who want to do STEM and economics, they switch out at a rate of eight percent. This is at Duke. Black males interested in STEM and economics switch out at a rate of over fifty percent.
And nothing happened after that. You know, we just sort of let the protests happen, everything sort of died away, nothing changes. And I think it relates, actually—I know you wrote about this—the Georgetown Law professor who got caught on video lamenting the poor performance of her black students.
Sandra Sellers.
SANDRA SELLERS: I hate to say this, I end up having this angst every semester that a lot of my lower ones are blacks. Happens almost every semester. And it’s like, oh, come on. You get some really good ones, but there are also usually some that are just plain at the bottom. It drives me crazy
PETER ARCIDIACONO: And she got torn to pieces.
And to me, that’s a feature not a bug for affirmative action. When you come in, you’re going to be behind your peers. That’s by definition, unless we’re screening on things that we shouldn’t be screening. So that idea, you’re going to come in behind, the performance relative to your peers is going to be worse. It could still be a good thing that you’re going to the better school and have a better outcome. But it’s a definite feature of the system that you will be further down on the last rank. So now you have a system where actually they come in with the university saying, “We want you so much. We’re willing to give you big preferences.” And they come out thinking the place is racist. That doesn’t seem so good.
JOHN MCWHORTER: It’s not so good. It makes no sense whatsoever. It’s one of the aspects of all of this that really is as peculiar as discussions medieval Europeans had about matters of religion and philosophy, where again, you have to be very careful to understand what the terminology is, what things you’re not supposed to look at and why. Truly peculiar that you have that kind of preference, and yet the stylish attitude by the time you’re finished is that you’ve just gone through some sort of racist hazing.
And it really will perplex people in say a hundred years, maybe even in fifty, to look back on the state of our discussion with this and to see something like what Sandra Sellers was lamenting. And for the good thinking idea to have been that there’s nothing wrong with that, that that’s not something that we need to try to fix, and it doesn’t matter.
Yes it does. And I think that everybody will understand why a few of us weird renegades back in the early twenty-first century thought it did. It does.
I think it’s going to happen a lot quicker than fifty years. I think it’s happening before our very eyes. I mean, Peter pointed out that this decision, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and the University of North Carolina, did not engender the same kind of backlash from the left of revulsion and political determination to do something about it that the Dobbs decision on the abortion question did, even though it is resolving in a “conservative” direction of one of the big questions of constitutional law of the last half-century. It is historic in representing a kind of transformation of the law in its way, as was the Dobbs decision. It didn’t engender the same kind of backlash.
And I think this house of cards which Peter described—I mean, the Sandra Sellers thing is a predictable consequence. As he says, it’s a feature, not a bug. It’s a predictable consequence. And then you’re going to have a witch hunt and you’re going to go around and cut people’s heads off if they observe that it’s true. And then everybody can see it. It’s not like it’s not common knowledge that there are these implications of preferences. It’s corrupt.
I think Justice Clarence Thomas deserves to be recognized here as, for decades, having made this argument about the affront to the dignity of the beneficiaries of preference, the fact that they’re not being taken seriously as persons of whom it is reasonable to expect performance like anybody else. You’re patting the beneficiaries on the head. You’re turning them into baubles to wear on a charm bracelet around your wrist, representing the various colors of the demographic universe. You’re not taking them seriously. That’s what I would say.
Hunter Biden’s lawyer, Chris Clark, admitted in court Wednesday the president’s son received $664,000 from CEFC China Energy Co. in 2017, contradicting President Joe Biden’s claim Hunter Biden never received money from a Chinese entity.
During a hearing before U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika, Clark revealed Hunter made over one million dollars in foreign business transactions, including $664,000 from CEFC, a company linked to the CCP and Chinese intelligence. Also got money from Romania and Ukraine.
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, “America’s Rabbi” whom the Washington Post calls “the most famous Rabbi in America,” is the author of “Judaism for Everyone” and “The Israel Warrior.”
When he was just fourteen years old, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. received a phone call at his Jesuit boarding school in Bethesda, Maryland, informing him that his father, who had just won the California Democratic primary, had been shot. He flew to Los Angeles aboard Vice President Hubert Humphrey’s plane and was with this father when he died.
Bobby served as a pallbearer at his father’s funeral, and later read portions of father’s speeches at a mass commemorating his father’s death. The man who murdered his father was a Palestinian domestic terrorist named Sirhan Sirhan. As if all that horror wasn’t sufficiently unimaginable, leaders of the Jewish community are now attacking Bobby Kennedy Jr. as an antisemite.
There is much Bobby and I disagree on, from the legacy of his grandfather Joseph Kennedy, to the Covid-19 vaccines (I’m quintuple-vaxed), to American support for Ukraine. But to call Kennedy an antisemite is an affront to decency and is a straight-out lie that demeans the term, encourages the Jewish community to “cry wolf,” and slanders a great friend of Israel. Indeed, the hordes swarming Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with allegations of antisemitism are working overtime to conceal the big picture.
Kennedy is a lifelong friend of the Jewish community who has walked in the footsteps of his great father. As of now, he is the only major Democrat to come out against the Iran nuclear deal pursued by both President Barack Obama and President Joe Biden. He praised the Israeli recent counter-terror raid in Jenin – which Biden and his ambassador compared to a terror attack – saying that Israel protected civilians in ways no army had ever done before.
In politics, context – or lack of it – matters most. Jack Schlossberg, JFK’s only grandson, released a blistering tirade against his cousin. He ignored not only his cousin’s strong Jewish ties, but failed to note the fact that President Biden appointed his mother, the excellent Caroline Kennedy, as U.S. Ambassador to Australia – which surely presents an inescapable conflict of interest.
The red meat with the highest irony-content came from my own Congressman Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), whom I’ve known for some 30 years, ever since our days together at Oxford. Josh called Kennedy a “disgrace to the Kennedy name,” as if he were not only the arbiter of antisemitism but Lord Marshall of Camelot, as well.
Meanwhile, when Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) was voted off the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Gottheimer rushed to defend her. He even cooked up a fraudulent pro-Israel statement for Omar to support.
All for naught. Just days later, Omar, a true antisemite, dropped the masquerade, vowing to “continue holding Israel accountable.” Right after that, Joe Rogan used Omar – famous for telling the world how much the Jews love their “Benjamins,” as an unfortunate pretext to launch a rant about how Jews love money as much as Italians love Pizza.
Apparently, Gottheimer only fights the antisemites running against Biden.
Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wassermann Schultz (D-FL), another tribune in Biden’s praetorian guard, made headlines for trying to silence and discredit Kennedy during his testimony at a U.S. House hearing on censorship last week.
But Wassermann Schultz leads the crusade against Kennedy as a transparent favor to President Biden, not for the Jewish community.
Like Gottheimer, Wassermann Schultz also fought to keep Omar on the House Foreign Relations Committee, saying, “There’s no reason to remove Congresswoman Omar from her committees except revenge.” Apparently, blaming Jewish “Benjamins” for controlling American policies and comparing Israel to the Taliban didn’t qualify.
Asked if she thought all Democrats would be united behind Omar, Wasserman Schultz replied, “Of course…”.
After all, as Biden panders to extremists and antisemites on the left while heaping insults on Israel’s elected leadership, it’s Wassermann Schultz who provides his problematic policies with a “Jewish” stamp of approval.
Biden’s National Strategy to Combat Antisemitism disappointed American Jews by refusing to adopt the Jewish community’s preferred definition of antisemitism, that of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).
In the past, Wassermann Schultz was an evangelist for the IHRA. She said the definition crucially “promotes a common understanding of the issue״ and sends “a strong message that governments understand the threat.” But when Biden decided to spurn the IHRA and sanction the Nexus knockoff, Wassermann-Schultz still praised the plan and its “fitting” release on Jewish Heritage Month – as if tokenism could atone for negating the Jewish consensus.
Wassermann Schultz is also complicit in the President’s mistreatment of Israel.
Biden repeatedly refused to invite Israel’s democratically-elected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in “gratuitous public fashion.” Even after Netanyahu told the press that Biden invited him to the U.S. over the phone, the White House went out of its way to omit the invitation from its readout of the call.
Even Morocco’s King Muhammed VI invited Netanyahu before Biden did. This is the same Biden who currently criticizes Israel’s government for being antidemocratic.
Perhaps for Israel’s next election, Biden ought to appoint whomever he believes should be in power, the Israeli electorate be damned.
Atop the protracted insult of not inviting Netanyahu, Biden passed a mafia don message to Israel’s Prime Minister through Bibi’s foremost English-language critic, the New York Times’ Tom Friedman. After a 75-minute meeting in the Oval Office – time the President could have given Netanyahu – Friedman produced a devastating hit piece against at Bibi, topped off with a threat: “You ignore [Biden’s] sincere concerns at your peril.”
Biden reportedly issued the warning to “correct” Netanyahu’s warm depiction of their phone call the previous day. The White House was seemingly concerned that Biden’s coldness was being overlooked.
That saga played out just a week after Biden dressed down Israel on CNN for having the “most extreme members of cabinet…since Golda Meir.” Biden used the same word – “extreme” – minutes later to describe terrorists murdering Jews in Judea and Samaria, drawing an outrageous equivalence between law-abiding Israeli leaders and heartless terrorist murderers.
Biden claims his toughness on Israel stems from love for Jews and democracy. Oh, if only these misguided Jews simply understood where there real interests lie!
But the mask melts off when, earlier this month, President Biden gingerly met with and flattered tyrants and white supremacists.
Turkey’s Erdogan compares Jews to Hitler, rigs elections, jails the press, and built himself a $615 million palace. Sitting on the sidelines of a NATO summit, Biden told the Turkish tyrant that “It’s a delight to be with you” and “I want to thank you for your leadership.”
On the same trip, Biden met with the leaders of Finland, governed by an extremist right-wing coalition whose ministers openly promoted antisemitism, racism, Islamophobia, and violence against immigrants. Far from the vitriol reserved for Israel, Biden declared Finland a “capable partner” and “committed democracy.”
But these examples pale when compared to what the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board noted, that Biden and his administration treat Israel “worse than they do the Mullahs in Iran,” to whom he’s already released billions of dollars.
Wassermann Schultz’s complicity in Biden’s appeasement of Iran goes back to his days as vice president in 2015.
Initially, Florida’s first Jewish congresswoman promised she was “never afraid to stand alone when necessary” and swore to use her Jewish heart. She assured her constituents that her decision would be based “not on politics, not on anything else.”
Three days later, she backed President Obama on live TV, giving a tearful description of how “gut-wrenching” it was for her as a “Jewish mother” to support Obama’s terror-funding Iran deal. She then declared that there was no better way to “ensure Israel’s survival throughout the generations” than by forking $150 billion dollars to a regime threatening a second Holocaust. Most ridiculous was her assertion that fiscally empowering Iran would somehow allow the United States to “more closely concentrate on their terrorist activities.”
To be fair, her support did not sway the ultimate outcome, since Obama by then had secured enough Democrats in the Senate. But as head of the DNC, Wasserman-Schultz’s endorsement endowed the deal with much-needed legitimacy, helping to keep the deal alive to this day. Enlisting the support of one of America’s top Jewish lawmakers was a parting shot from Obama to the Jewish community, which had openly defied him on Iran.
Wasserman-Schultz claims she caved after spending hours “grilling” Biden and Obama. Indeed. Good thing it had nothing to do with party or power.
On a visit to Florida to pitch the deal to Jewish constituents in her district, then Vice President Biden called Wassermann-Schultz the “face of the party” and even claimed it was he who was working for her. She returned the favor, calling Biden a “mensch” and “one of us” in “everything but blood.”
Meanwhile she cut off the mics for the question-and-answer period after told attendees not to record or discuss what was said, in order to maintain the “integrity” of the process. It was a tactic similar to the one she used against Robert F. Kennedy Jr. last week in Washington, attempting to move his testimony to an executive session where it wouldn’t be broadcast live. Yet another American lawmaker committed to openness and democracy.
By unmasking their waning support for Jews and Israel, Kennedy threatens Democrats Wassermann Schultz and Gottheimer as much as he does Joe Biden.
Imagine if liberals or the Dems had a nationwide messaging apparatus, an actual propaganda arm, which pumped out Jared Kushner’s name and alleged misdeeds daily, 100s of times. Then you start to understand the messaging imbalance in this country & how GOP gets away with so much. https://t.co/IZ9zlwre2a
TOPSHOT - An Aedes Aegypti mosquito is photographed on human skin in a lab of the International Training and Medical Research Training Center (CIDEIM) on January 25, 2016, in Cali, Colombia. CIDEIM scientists are studying the genetics and biology of Aedes Aegypti mosquito which transmits the Zika, Chikungunya, Dengue and Yellow Fever viruses, to control their reproduction and resistance to insecticides. The Zika virus, a mosquito-borne disease suspected of causing serious birth defects, is expected to spread to all countries in the Americas except Canada and Chile, the World Health Organization said. AFP PHOTO/LUIS ROBAYO / AFP / LUIS ROBAYO (Photo credit should read LUIS ROBAYO/AFP/Getty Images)
Views: 21
The WHO is at it again.
This transmission electron microscopic image depicts a number of round dengue virus particles that were revealed in this tissue specimen. (Frederick Murphy/U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned that cases of dengue fever could reach record highs this year.
Dengue rates are rising globally, with reported cases since 2000 up eight-fold to 4.2 million in 2022, a WHO official said on July 21.
In January, the WHO claimed that dengue is the world’s fastest-spreading tropical disease and alleged it could be a “pandemic threat.”
The disease was found in Sudan’s capital Khartoum for the first time on record, according to a health ministry report in March, while Europe has reported a surge in cases and Peru declared a state of emergency in most regions.
About half of the world’s population is now at risk, Raman Velayudhan, a specialist at the WHO’s control of neglected tropical diseases department, told journalists in Geneva on Friday.
Cases reported to the WHO hit an all-time high in 2019 with 5.2 million cases in 129 countries, said Mr. Velayudhan via video link.
This year the world is on track for “4 million plus” cases, depending mostly on the Asian monsoon season. Already, close to 3 million cases have been reported in the Americas, he said, adding there was concern about the southern spread to Bolivia, Paraguay, and Peru.
Argentina, which has faced one of its worst outbreaks of dengue in recent years, is sterilizing mosquitoes using radiation that alters their DNA before releasing them into the wild.
“The American region certainly shows it is bad and we hope the Asian region may be able to control it,” Mr. Velayudhan said.
Officials in the European Union said that as of June 8, 2023, some 2.1 million cases have been reported around the world, with 974 deaths.
“Dengue is occurring in urban areas where it did not exist before,” Coralith Garcia, associate professor at the School of Medicine at Cayetano Heredia University in Peru, told Fox News this week. The virus is on the rise in Peru because “it’s so crowded that anything can happen,” she added.
“But Peru had the highest COVID mortality rate [in] the world and now we have several patients dying of dengue, confirming that the Peruvian health system is very weak,” Ms. Garcia said.
What Is Dengue?
Dengue fever can be caused by the dengue virus 1, 2, 3, or 4, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The illness is transmitted primarily via the Aedes aegypti mosquito, which the CDC says is active during the day.
The most common symptom of dengue is a fever with nausea, vomiting, rash, aches, and pains, including eye pain, muscle pain, and bone pain. Symptoms generally last between two and seven days, the CDC says.
There is no specific medicine to treat dengue, which is sometimes called breakbone fever. The CDC notes that most cases of dengue reported in the United States occurred in people who traveled elsewhere, although the isolated spread of dengue has occurred in Arizona, Hawaii, Texas, and Florida.
Most patients who contract dengue fever recover without hospitalization, said Dr. David O. Freedman, a former professor with the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
“In a small proportion of patients, just as the fever is resolving, a second critical phase develops where fluid leaks out of the circulation and gets into body spaces, such as the chest and abdominal cavities,” he told Fox News. In that second phase, people should watch four abdominal tenderness or pain, vomiting, fluid in body spaces, bleeding from the mouth or elsewhere, and lethargy, he said.
Patients can also develop “a total body rash often develops during the critical or early recovery phase,” Dr. Freedman said, adding that “if the patient survives the critical phase usually with medical intervention, the third phase, recovery, occurs about three to four days after that.”
Vaccine?
Meanwhile, drugmaker Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. said earlier this month that it has voluntarily withdrawn its application for its dengue vaccine candidate, following discussions with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The Japan-based company cited data collection issues, which cannot be addressed within the current review cycle.
The future plan for the candidate, TAK-003, in the United States would be further evaluated, given the need for travelers and those living in dengue-endemic areas of the United States, such as Puerto Rico, the drugmaker announced.
Sanofi’s Dengvaxia, the world’s first dengue vaccine, was licensed in 2015. However, the use of the French company’s vaccine was scaled back considerably after it emerged that it increased the risk of severe disease in “seronegative” children, or those who had no prior dengue exposure when they got the shot.
Takeda’s vaccine, branded as QDENGA, was authorized in the European Union last year for use in those aged 4 and older to prevent any of the four so-called serotypes of dengue. It has also been approved in the UK, Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia, and Thailand, according to the company.
Having terrible so called Journalists doesn't help. MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images
Views: 24
Why CNN is failing. All you have to do is look at their so called Journalists that they have. Now of course you do have MSNBC wh most likely is worse, but they have NBC as a back up and has the finances to back MSNBC. CNN does not. Below are some of CNN gem stories. Or should we call it Hoax stories.
123
