We often discuss government efforts to control the behavior of the governed. We talk about censorship of the media (including social media and platforms like Amazon) to control the information available. We speak about lawfare weaponizing the judicial system against those who believe differently than the political agenda of the regime in charge. But we often overlook what is perhaps the most insidious form of crowd control, "the Nudge."

   I first started talking about the psychological attempt to control people's behavior back in August of 2013 when the Obama White House accidentally publicly admitted to forming a "Nudge Squad" when Maya Shankar, a White House senior adviser on social and behavioral sciences at the time, sent out recruitment e-mails to fill positions on their "Behavioral Insights Team." The goal of the group being to subtly influence people's behavior and "experiment" with various techniques to "tweak" behavior so the general public will do the things that the powers-that-be determine to be acceptable. (And just as an FYI, the group was modeled on a similar nudge group in the U.K. that was already in operation. Most developed nations now have publicly acknowledged Behavioral Insights Teams.)

   The World Economic Forum is an organization that is no stranger to controversy. The WEF has a political slant toward globalism with zero concern for individual liberty. This is why so many conservatives take issue with many of their "recommendations," and so many so-called progressives stand ready to champion their policy agendas. Many on the left, including legacy media, are ever-prepared to defend the WEF by calling anyone who points out the explicit threats to freedom that the WEF pushes... (wait for it) a conspiracy theorist. The WEF started an initiative named The Great Reset; Klaus Schwab writes books titled The Fourth Industrial Revolution, COVID-19: The Great Reset, The Great Narrative (The Great Reset), and Stakeholder Capitalism: A Global Economy that Works for Progress, People and Planet, each pushing the ideas of changing (using technological advancements and any excuses that present themselves) all of the economic systems that allow for class mobility and recognize individual human rights; and it is the people who point out the stated goals of the global elites (in the own words) who are "spreading disinformation" and engaging in trafficking of conspiracy theories. 

   The WEF has for some time been promoting the "man-caused" climate change narrative and, as an off-chute of that narrative, made claims that how we eat in the world's developed nations "must" change. One of the "recommended" changes is how we consume protein. They say that cattle ranching is especially hazardous to our environment due to the land and water requirements and the expelling of methane gas from the cattle. But don't worry, they have the solution to your protein needs after they put an end (that is one of their stated goals) to farmers raising animals for meat... bugs. 

   The WEF, along with other globalist organizations, has talked about substituting insects for more traditional meat sources for some time now, but they really caught the attention of a lot of people in July of 2021 when they published an article titled Why we need to give insects the role they deserve in our food systems, on their own website. They estimated worldwide population growth by 2050 and insisted that insect farming as a food source for people and animals is "environmentally friendly." Since the time "the nudge" has been on.

   The effort has been a two-pronged approach, with energy being spent trying to convince the consumer and various forms of pressure (often in the form of ESG scoring and "cancel campaigns") on food suppliers and manufacturers. Recently, the effort to change the manufacturing practices of food companies to include insects as ingredients has been stepped up via media like magazines and newsletters (both physical and digital) directed at the chief officers of food companies and quality and safety control officers. The idea being that if the companies start using insects, the end consumer only has two choices; eat the product or don't. And if enough food companies use insects, the choice for many becomes to eat or starve. By successfully nudging those who bring food to market, they no longer need to nudge the public; you are rich enough to go around the typical supply chain channels or settle for what's available.

   Much of the focus is on trying to convince manufacturers that the public will see insects as "normal food" soon, so the current customer's reluctance to consume insect protein will be overcome by introducing more products featuring those proteins. Food companies are also being told that other organizations (Universities, behavioral scientists, NGOs, and governmental "Behavioral Insights Teams" in Europe and North America) are working on nudging the consumers' attitudes toward insects as a food source. The overall message is to start making small changes now that most consumers won't notice, and before long, insect proteins will be more widely accepted than plant-based proteins. On that day, food companies can go full "bug burgers," save tons of money, and they will have helped the WEF save the world. (At least, that's what the WEF wants everyone to believe.)

   Look, insects are a significant part of the diets of large numbers of people around the world. But that is primarily due to a lack of options. If you want to eat bugs and worms, enjoy them as long as you follow safety standards. If you are a food company that wants to accommodate that niche market, then figure out how to make a profit and go for it. Just don't let the WEF, or anyone else, "nudge" you into it. As for me, a scorpion will never replace a nice thick steak. But you do you.

   The real issue here isn't what you eat or climate change; it's control. The WEF has told us that we will own nothing and that we will like it. (What they meant is "like it or not.") They are the elites, and we are just using up their resources. We must stand for individual liberty and against the "Tyranny of the Minority" (HT to Ed Brodow for using his phrasing but not the way he used it.) that the global elites represent.

   P.S. If you were to read Gregory Wrightstone's (Executive Director of the CO2 Coalition) books Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn't Want You to Know and A Very Convenient Warming: How modest warming and more CO2 are benefiting humanity, you might not be as easily nudged when they try to scare you with climate change.

  In 2009, then-President Barack Obama chose to ignore the pleas for support from the Iranian people as they were protesting in the streets against the Human-Rights violating, theocratic, despotic Iranian regime. Obama's excuse for not offering even some level of verbal support to people who were quickly "dealt with" by order of the Ayatollah was his concern that American intervention of any kind would serve as a rallying cause for the regime. This was, of course, accepted by left-leaning geopolitical "experts" as reasonable and heavily criticized by more conservative voices operating in the realm of foreign affairs policy. 

   The decision by the Obama administration not to speak up on behalf of the Iranian people who wished to see a return of freedom to their nation led to a swift ending of the protests. The regime did not need any other motivation to squash the movement than the visible challenge to their authority. At the time, many deemed this to be an error on the part of the administration or an inherent "softness" on the international stage. However, later actions brought that assessment into question.

   While not supporting "democracy" for Iran, Obama was personally very verbally supportive of the Arab Spring throughout 2010 and 2011 and, especially, the Muslim Brotherhood's short-term take-over of Eygpt in 2012 (as well as expressing disappointment at the quick ousting of the Muslim Brotherhood shortly after that). At that point, Obama was not concerned about the perception of American intervention in the region. Nor was he concerned about the will of Arabs or Persians and their "right to self-determination." It looked very much like he wished to promote the "right kind" of Muslim, not Islam in general, but a specific Islamic ideology. Still, many refused to make that connection, and the stage was set for the so-called Iran Nuclear Deal.

   The Iran Nuclear Deal was touted as a significant diplomatic victory for the Obama administration. It was officially announced on July 15th, 2015, and was sold as a way to stop Iran's nuclear weapon ambitions. It allowed Iran to continue to work on their "nuclear energy" program, plus sent a minimum of $400 million in cash (and a release of frozen assets estimated on the low end to be worth $150 billion) to Tehran along with the promise of relief of sanctions leveled against the regime, individuals in the government, and high ranking members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. Many conservatives pointed out at the time that Iran's nuclear energy program was little more than a front for their weapons program, so even if you could trust the Iranian government's promises (given their open ambitions, not a wise thing to do), all that had been accomplished was slowing down the development of weapons. It was also pointed out at the time that money is fungible. Sending millions of dollars to the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism certainly did not seem to be in America's best interest or, the interest of our allies, or even just stability in the region.

   Those on the political left would have you believe that it is merely a coincidence that after the arrival of the "pallets of cash" from the Bank of Obama, the sophistication of weaponry in the hands of Hezbollah and the Houthis (who first rose to prominence in Yemen during the aforementioned Arab Spring) improved exponentially from what they had before; and that the Hamas terror tunnels morphed into a marvel of modern engineering. But the rest of us were saying a collective, unhappy, "We told you so." It was an easily predictable outcome.

   During the Trump administration, Iran continued to foster influence in the region by fighting a proxy war against Saudi Arabia through the Houthis, who currently control North Yemen, by supporting Hezbollah in their frequent attacks on Israel's northern towns and financing the development and planning of what culminated in the October 7th attack of Hamas on Israel. Iran also continued to hold sway in Syria as well, but Russia had a much more significant direct role in Syria going back into the late Obama administration, so it is rarely mentioned by commentators these days. Iran went about their business as low-key as possible during Trump's presidency. They still had to project power in the region, but other than a bit of saber-rattling after Iranian General Qasem Soleimani was killed in Iraq during a meeting with local militants that were targeting Americans, Iran went about the spreading of terrorism through their proxies. Iran was not as overt, out of respect, fear, or just the perceived unpredictability of Donald Trump.

   The Trump administration withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal, worked on re-establishing U.S. and international sanctions against the Mullahs, and in a move that would have won a Nobel Peace Prize for anyone else on the planet, they worked behind the scenes to join Arab nations and Israel together in what is known as the Abraham Accords. (The timing of the Hamas attack on Israel is widely believed to have been an effort to prevent Saudi Arabia from joining the Abraham Accords.)

   All of this is the past. A pattern of American acquiescence to the will of the Ayatollah emerged during the Obama years, including a "kissing of the ring" when two United States Navy riverine command boats were seized by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard. The projection of American strength returned under Trump, and the normalization of relations between Israel and Arab nations like the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco, Egypt, and Jordan brought the first realistic chance of peace in the Middle East. Now is the present, and we have the Biden Administration, a.k.a. Obama's third term.

   Since January 20th, 2021, Joe Biden has been on a mission to undo everything Donald Trump did. That includes getting Iran to enter an agreement similar to Obama's deal with them. Tehran, however, sensing Biden's politically motivated desperation, refused to even meet with representatives of the U.S. directly. After two meetings on the topic, where other nations negotiated on behalf of the Biden administration, it became clear that Iran had no intention of ever giving Biden anything. (Biden did manage to give Iran $6 billion to secure the release of 5 Americans who were being held by the Islamic theocracy during this timeframe. A move that had even some Democrats angered as it sent the message that this government is willing to pay if citizens are taken prisoner.)    

   On September 16th, 2022, a 22-year-old woman, Mahsa Amini, died in the detention of Iran's Morality Police. They had beaten and detained for an alleged transgression of the women's dress codes before her death (failure to wear her hijab correctly). This event set off widespread pro-women's rights and pro-democracy protests within Iran. These protests, in many cases, were also calling for the end of Iran's theocratic regime. Things are different this time; the Islamic Revolutionary Guard has engaged in their customary brutal tactics but, to this point, has been unable to end the protests. The harder they push, the stronger the resolve of the Iranian people has become. The Biden administration has barely commented on the situation, and the mainstream legacy media has stopped reporting on it. The newsroom editors act as if this is not a worthy story to share. Still, it seems far more likely that if the American people were to know the full extent to which the Ayatollah has gone to crush his people, they would be outraged at the continued Barbery and would, at the very least, demand the Biden administration do something in support of the oppressed people of Iran.     

   On October 7th, 2023, the most brutal attack on the Jewish people since the holocaust was carried out by Hamas. Israel had withdrawn from Gaza back in 2005. The people of Gaza elected Hamas to be their elected government in 2006. A ceasefire between the people of Gaza and Israel had been in effect since that 2005 withdrawal, with some skirmishes along the border fence that Hamas had orchestrated. After the inhuman actions of the Hamas terrorists on October 7th, Israel declared war on Hamas. At first, Biden said all the right things. Unquestioned support for our alley Israel, which looked suspiciously like Biden thought it would be a great excuse to divert more tax dollars to Ukraine while we were sending aid to Israel, but Biden's support quickly started to wane after both the Republicans refused to sign a blank check for Biden's pet projects tied to aid for Israel and the far-left activists started chanting, "from the river to the sea" in American cities, on college campuses and even in front of the White House.

   Naturally, no one was surprised when multiple members of "The Squad" came out in support of Hamas. Rashida Tlaib calls herself a Palestinian American; Ilhan Omar has, on numerous occasions, made antisemitic comments publicly; and don't get me started on the things that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is willing to say. (This matters in the context of my question because Hamas is a proxy for Iran against Israel. Support of these terrorists is support of Iran in the region.) But others in the Democratic party have been protective of Iran and their proxies in ways that work against American interests and often against the platforms that the Democratic party claims to represent.

   Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sen. Cardin has recently made it clear that his committee will not be moving forward with the MAHSA Act, named after the aforementioned victim of Iranian violence against women, Mahsa Amini. The MAHSA Act was passed in the House overwhelmingly back in September 2023. It would impose sanctions on the Supreme Leader of Iran and the President of Iran and their respective offices for human rights abuses and support for terrorism. It calls out the actions of the Iranian security forces during their violent crackdown. Actions named specifically include mass arrests, well-documented beating of protestors, throttling of the internet and telecommunications services, and shooting protestors with live ammunition. Iranian security forces have reportedly killed hundreds of protestors and other civilians, including women and children. Why kill the bill?

   This may seem like a lot of different, barely - if at all - related events. But when seen together, it shows a long-running pattern by members of America's political left elevating Iran's status in the Middle East at the expense of the U.S. and our allies. I have heard some on the left suggest that this is an effort to get the U.S. out of politics in the region altogether. The idea being that a stronger Iran would serve as a counterbalance to Saudi Arabia and Israel, negating the need for U.S. influence in that part of the world. If true, that plan completely ignores the intentions of the Iranian regime and the hopes of Russia and China to further extend their influence in the natural resource-rich region. It is, at best, an incredibly naive and short-sighted idea. However, suppose the "counterbalance" idea is not the motivation. In that case, we really need to get to the bottom of why so many Democrats, since Obama was first in the White House, are working harder for the Ayatollah than for the American people.

   This question becomes even more critical now, with three recent events. Iran has moved a warship into the Red Sea, seemingly as a response to the U.S. military destroying three boats belonging to the Iran-backed Houthis. An Iranian with jihad terrorist ties was caught after he had illegally entered the U.S. near Niagara Falls, New York. And a pair of explosions killed nearly 100 people at a ceremony in Iran to commemorate the fourth anniversary of the death of General Qassem Soleimani, where the Iranian government has called it terrorism, blamed both Israel and the U.S. and promised "swift justice" for the perpetrators. If not handled properly, America and its allies may find themselves in a situation that never had to be. So, I'll ask again. Is there more to Democrat support of Iranian Theocracy than bad policy? 

By Tim Tapp 

If the government wants you to buy something, it will try to bribe you into getting it using the tax system. These days, Washington bureaucrats desperately want you to buy an electric vehicle, and so they offer up to $7,500 in tax credits. State governments may pile on even more tax breaks (in California, it is another $7,500) to get you to do what they want. Buy a product you don't want to purchase for whatever reason (the cost, the lack of benefits, etc.). 

On the other hand, when the government doesn't want you to have something (for your own good, of course), it increases taxes on that product to dissuade you from buying it. That's why a pack of cigarettes costs so much. The District of Columbia's government recently calculated that taxes comprise 80 percent of the total wholesale cost of a pack of cigarettes.

That may make sense to you when it comes to cigarettes. Giving up smoking is better for your health, and you really should consider it if you are a smoker. (But that really should be your choice.) But now imagine that the government applied the same approach to important products like automobiles. It could place a tax that would effectively double the cost of a gasoline-powered car. The cost for a simple Honda Civic could change from about $25,000 to $50,000 overnight. Drivers wouldn't sit still for it. 

So why is the government considering jacking up prices on another crucial product, one that is vital to so many people's health: prescription drugs? Ironically, Washington may increase prices while lawmakers and the administration are claiming they want to make prescription drugs more affordable. The plan to make prescription drugs "more affordable" is a story that is so mixed up that it could only have been written in Washington, D.C. 

When the Biden administration enacted the ridiculously mistitled "Inflation Reduction Act'' in 2022, it actually ended up increasing inflation, as anyone who has shopped for anything in the last two years knows. It also included a provision that would impose a 95% excise tax on prescription drugs sold by companies that refuse to allow the government to set the price of that drug.

The bureaucrats call this "price negotiation," and they are careful to avoid more accurate terms like "price-fixing." But, of course, the federal government has all the power in this exchange. In the event that a drug manufacturer decides to charge more than the federal government is willing to pay for a drug, the IRS (and remember that the Biden administration is adding thousands of IRS agents to help it enforce its will) would collect the new tax. The additional cost would, as always, be passed along to consumers.

The problem is that this wouldn't make drugs more affordable. It would make them more scarce. (Scarcity equals higher prices.) It would also reduce future development, so the medicines of tomorrow might never be formulated. The tax would also limit the drugs available to seniors in Medicare Part D since the taxed drugs would only be available through the manufacturer – with the 95% tax added.

This taxing plan is taking us far away from effective health care policy. Instead of setting prices, the federal government should empower consumers through free market competition. Free markets are working, and over the decades, they have encouraged companies to develop and deliver effective new medications that help patients.

"Thirty-six percent of all NMEs (that is, 'new molecular entities' or 'new drugs') were developed in the United States," a federal report a few years ago found. "The United Kingdom was the next largest source of NME development (10.4%). Examination of drugs with patents (n = 288) revealed that 126 (43.7%) of the NMEs had their earliest patent filed by inventors in the United States." So roughly three times as many new drugs were developed in the U.S. as in England, the next largest country. 

That is largely because the U.S. does not fix prices, and price signals encourage drug makers to experiment and invent. This is precisely the sort of inventiveness that would dry up if free markets went away. 

The federal government tells us it wants to make drugs affordable and available to seniors. However, Biden's IRA is doing the opposite. We simply can't afford it.

Tim Tapp is the host of the syndicated, conservative talk show "Tapp" into the Truth. He calls East Tennessee home, where he broadcasts and writes. He also still works in Quality Assurance for a food manufacturing company as he takes up the cause of defending our republic. Find out more at www.tappintothetruth.com