Programs in countries around the world have begun quietly compensating people who have been injured by or died as a result of the COVID-19 vaccines.
Humans are biologically diverse, with respect to both genetic makeup and past environmental exposures. Because of this, explained neurologist Dr. Robert Lowry, people can react very differently to the same medication or vaccination. Whenever a new drug or biologic hits the market, some people will have bad reactions and others may even suffer serious adverse events as a result.
Even under the best testing conditions, rare reactions will be missed. This is especially true for any product which is fast-tracked or authorized for emergency use before all the phases of necessary testing are complete.
COVID-19 vaccines are no exception. Despite the fact that we are constantly and consistently assured that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, and that severe adverse reactions are “very rare,” the FDA and the CDC with its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, as well as the scientists and executives at each of the participating drug companies, know that some people will become permanently disabled or even die as a result of vaccination.
In fact, in 2011 the Supreme Court of the United States (pdf) reiterated the idea that vaccines, like other pharmaceutical products, are “unavoidably unsafe.”
In many countries around the world, consumers who are injured as a result of vaccines are covered by government compensation programs. In the United States there are two government-funded programs that are designed to compensate consumers for injuries, at the same time shielding vaccine manufacturers from liability for any serious injuries their products cause: The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) and the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).
Not a Single Claim Compensated in United States
As of July 1, 2022, not a single claim has been compensated by the CICP. However, 31 COVID-19 countermeasure claims have been denied, “because the standard of proof for causation was not met and/or a covered injury was not sustained,” according to the CICP website. “One COVID-19 countermeasure claim, a COVID-19 vaccine claim due to an anaphylactic reaction, has been determined eligible for compensation and is pending a review of eligible expenses.”
At the same time, countries around the world are quietly compensating families whose loved ones have been injured or have died as a result of COVID-19 vaccines.
Japan Pays Bereaved Family of 91-Year-Old
The Japan Times reported this week that a 91-year-old woman who died after suffering an allergic response and sudden heart attack is the first person in Japan to be compensated for a COVID vaccine injury.
A ministry of health panel ruled that a causal relationship “could not be denied” in her case. Her family will receive a lump sum worth approximately $325,000.
The panel reviewed another 11 cases ranging in age from 20s to 90s but did not reach any other ruling.
So far in Japan, according to the article, 3,680 people have applied for compensation, 820 have been approved and 62 denied, with decisions on another 16 being “postponed.”
Taiwan Compensates 10 Claimants
On June 24, 2022, Taiwan’s National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program held a meeting to review 65 cases, according to the Taipei Times. The Taiwanese program awarded compensation to 10 claimants. These awards included a lump sum worth $116,877 to the family of someone who died after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine.
This patient was hospitalized 10 days after receiving the vaccine due to a headache and vomiting. Testing revealed thrombocytopenia, a sometimes-lethal blood disorder that is characterized by low platelets.
However, the patient was discharged the next day, only to return that evening after losing consciousness. The patient died of intracerebral hemorrhage, a common cause of stroke.
When the vaccination program first rolled out in the United States, in December of 2020, an otherwise healthy obstetrician-gynecologist, Dr. Gregory Michael, 56, of Miami Beach, Florida, also died of thrombocytopenia.
Although his death occurred approximately two weeks after he got Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, and prompted an article exploring this side effect in the New York Times, the coroner deemed that there was no medical certainty that the complications from immune thrombocytopenia was vaccine-induced.
UK Pays Out for Vaccine Injuries
Vicki Spit was the first of a handful of people in the United Kingdom to be awarded compensation for injuries due to COVID vaccines, according to a June 24, 2022 article in the British Medical Journal.
Spit’s 48-year-old partner, Zion, became ill eight days after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine and died. The victims were awarded the maximum: $150,000. As of May 2022, 1,681 claims for vaccine injury following COVID-19 vaccinations had been filed.
As quoted in the BMJ, Sarah Moore, a spokeswoman for the law firm representing the victims or their families, pointed out that though the awards will not do much to alleviate the financial hardships caused by the injuries, they constitute “the clearest statement yet, by the government, that in some rare instances the COVID-19 vaccines have caused very significant injury or death.”
Moore believes most of the compensation awards were for vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) or cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.
At the same time, Yahoo News has reported that 444 cases of VITT have been recorded in the United Kingdom from 49 million doses of the vaccine, with 81 deaths.
Canada Received More Than 700 Claims, Approved 8
According to Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP), from June 1, 2021 to June 1, 2022, 774 claims have been received. Eight of these claims were “approved by the Medical Review Board,” meaning “these claims represent cases where it has been determined by the Medical Review Board that there is a probable link between the injury and the vaccine and that the injury is serious and permanent.”
According to the VISP website, “eligible individuals may receive income replacement indemnities; injury indemnities; death benefits; coverage for funeral expenses; reimbursement of eligible costs such as otherwise uncovered medical expenses.”
Post Shot Blood Clots
Thrombocytopenia can lead to blood clots as well as hemorrhaging. Thrombosis is another word for blood clots. Since it is very unusual for an otherwise healthy younger person to suffer from blood clots, the connection between the vaccines and this injury are difficult to refute.
Scandinavian countries have paid more attention to COVID-19 vaccine injuries than other countries. Norway compensated its first three victims in July of last year, a woman in her 40s who died, as well as a man and a woman in their 30s who both survived their vaccine injuries.
All three were healthcare workers who received the AstraZeneca vaccine, which Norway stopped administering on March 11, 2021, due to reports of serious blood clots, low platelet counts, and abnormal bleeding.
Denmark, too, has been quickly and quietly processing vaccine injury claims. The Danish government awarded compensation for their first case of VITT in May of 2021.
At the time, 158 people had filed claims for COVID-19 vaccine injuries. The director of the patient compensation board, Karen Inger-Bast, said, “Generally, we often see injuries from vaccination. We also see them from, for example, vaccination against influenza and children’s diseases. That’s also how it will be with COVID-19, with up to 5 million people being vaccinated.”
No Financial Assistance for Americans Harmed by Vaccines
Yet, while other countries are compensating people who have been injured by COVID-19 vaccines, America has yet to financially assist a single claimant. According to the Health Resources and Service Administration, as of July 1, 2022, the CICP had yet to award compensation to anyone for damages due to a COVID-19 vaccine.
Ivana Trump, the first wife of Donald Trump, was recently found dead in her Manhattan residence. She was 73.
Known throughout her life as a dynamo socialite and dealmaker in heels, her death from a blunt trauma from a fall down the stairs in her multi-story townhome, was a shock to residents who perceived her as vibrant and full of life. So, her passing got me thinking about Ivana Trump’s money lessons for older Americans.
Listen, it’s tough to age, but don’t let the process get you down. It’s too hard to get back up! Get it?
Seriously, a great challenge is an acceptance of growing older. Aging can be a tough pill to swallow. Especially for those who are known for the travails of their younger days. I have friends who explain as they age, they ‘disappear.’ I hate to hear this.
Personally, I’m living my best self and wouldn’t change a thing. However, Ageism is a real societal challenge. Based on numerous surveys, white papers, and reports from health organizations, those who are 60 and older are subject to negative stereotyping and discrimination in the workplace. Also, to younger generations, they do disappear in a manner of speaking.
But I have news for you. I think that’s about to change for you ‘seasoned’ folks.
During the pandemic, the Labor Force Participation Rate collapsed and has yet to recover. For those who need a reminder, the LFPR represents the people age 16 and older employed or seeking employment. Older Americans decided to accelerate retirement. Younger cohorts decided to go out on their own or sit back – satiated by government stimulus.
I think many older Americans will seek to unravel their retirement decision and return to the workforce. Also, I believe they’ll be welcomed with open arms by employers eager for a generation that is timely, responsible, and willing to work!
Let’s kick Ageism where it hurts. Right in the work ethic!
One money lesson I’ve learned from Ivana Trump about older Americans is that the entire world is wrinkling.
According to Peter Zeihan in his latest book – The End of The World is just the Beginning, population, and spending shrinkages are realities the entire globe must embrace. Demographics outline that mass-consumption-driven economies have already peaked.
By 2030, the world will be populated with twice as many retirees. Therefore, we all better internalize the fact that we’re getting older and financially and emotionally prepare accordingly. Long-term, poor demographics are deflationary.
In my opinion, Ivana Trump refused to accept aging. Thus, I consider Ivana Trump’s money lessons for older Americans applicable to all of us.
Regardless of her immense wealth, she must have encountered anguish when it comes to getting older. Sure having money doesn’t hurt. Suffering in luxury isn’t bad. However, aging doesn’t care about a net worth statement.
Denial of aging is real and one of Ivana Trump’s best money lessons for older Americans.
Who needs comprehensive studies to understand that denial of getting older is a reality? I see it in myself as I dramatically changed my diet and amped up my physical workouts years ago to fight or slow the inevitable.
Frankly, my graying hairline stresses me out.
I engage with people regularly who aren’t ready to deal with how someday they may move slower, forget things often and work through periodic illness or injury. Older clients and their adult children have a tough time facing that mom and dad are grayer, smaller, and frailer than they used to be.
Per a July 2022 analysis from the Center for Retirement Research, older Americans and retirees poorly assess the risks they face in retirement. Health and longevity risks (the risk of living longer than expected and exhausting financial resources) are underestimated.
Per the study: Perceived longevity risk and health risk rank lower because retirees are pessimistic about their survival probabilities and often underestimate their health costs in late life.
I cannot tell you how many clients inform me how sure they are about dying early. How do they know? So, I always ask the following question –
“What if you don’t?”
Ivana Trump’s friends were concerned about her home’s beautiful but dangerous staircase. They were worried about her falling. She had an elevator and rarely used it. The stairs at her home were steep, the carpet was worn. Although she had trouble walking, she regularly took the stairs. She had the money to remove or replace the carpet; the elevator would have been perfect, but she rarely used it.
In her halcyon days, Ivana was New York royalty. Young, vibrant. She could accomplish anything. How can someone like that stare into the mirror and face vincibility? How can you? Can I? Acceptance is the first step to a rich life as we age, to feel comfortable in different but richer skins.
That acceptance opens the door to preparation – eating right, exercising regularly, and preparing for the risks of aging through comprehensive planning and open communication with family and friends.
If I deny aging, then I’ll force everyone around me to deny it too. Or, at the least, family members and friends will discuss issues concerning me behind my back. Who wants that? Older Americans must be open to listening.
This leads to my next financial lesson for older Americans from Ivana Trump.
Communication. Another one of the money lessons Ivana Trump has for older Americans.
I wonder how many times Ivana was advised (perhaps delicately) by Ivanka and the other kids to update her place for aging, move to a one-story, or take the damn elevator. Whatever it is, would Ivana listen or just carry on like it was the 1980s? In her mind, it may have been decades ago, but her aging body lived in the here and now.
There’s a nuance and empathy to communicating with older loved ones.
Remember, they were young like you once. Listen to your special older Americans. Never be condescending. A good idea may be to bring in an objective third party such as your financial advisor to assist with the discussions. I’ve witnessed adult children infantilize their parents, and that never works. Imagine approaching Ivana with that tone! Not good!
Remember, even mild cognitive impairment can drive a communication wedge between you, and your aging loved one. However, don’t give up sparking conversation. I work with clients who consistently need to nuance their speech with their parents. They get their points across eventually. Impaired older relatives eventually take action, but the process is like chipping away at an iceberg with a butter knife.
Don’t give up!
Genworth, a leader in long-term care insurance and research, maintains an impactful Conversation Starters page with helpful tips about what to talk about and how to maintain a dialogue. Check it out.
Use your financial plan to motivate others.
How can you discuss long-term care issues with loved ones if you’re personally in denial about aging? A risk mitigation plan as part of a comprehensive financial strategy validates your commitment to preparation. Actions forge your conversations with credibility.
According to AARP’s most recent Home and Community Preference Survey, 77% of adults 50 and older want to remain in their homes or age in place. The number has been consistent for over a decade. Aging in place requires planning – whether it’s to eventually downsize to a one-story home, renovate kitchen and baths or install easy access ramps for items of mobility such as wheelchairs. It would be worth practicing financial openness and sharing this information with aging parents. In other words, if you’re preparing for these expenses, they should be too.
Don’t forget long-term care insurance as one of Ivana Trump’s money lessons for older Americans.
Ivana didn’t need long-term care insurance. You probably need to consider it.
Unfortunately, nearly half of individuals who apply for traditional long-term care insurance after age 70 have their applications declined by an insurer, according to Jesse Slome, director of the American Association for Long-Term Care Insurance. However, loved ones in good health in their 50s and 60s can still consider long-term care insurance. The sweet spot for looking into long-term care coverage is generally between ages 55 and 65, per Jesse Slome.
Three out of every five financial plans I create reflect deficiencies in meeting long-term care expenses. Medical insurance like Medicare does not cover long-term care expenses – a common misperception. Nearly 60% of people surveyed in various studies falsely believe that Medicare covers long-term care expenses.
Genworth’s results assume an annual 3% inflation rate. In today’s dollars, a home-health aide who assists with cleaning, cooking, and other responsibilities for those who seek to age in place or require temporary assistance with daily living activities can cost over $54,912 a year in the Houston area. We use a 4.25-4.5% inflation rate for financial planning purposes to reflect recent median annual costs for assisted living and nursing home care. Candidly, I fear that I’ll need to increase this inflation rate in 2023.
As I examine long-term care policies issued recently vs. those 10 years or later, it’s glaringly obvious that coverage isn’t as comprehensive, and costs are more prohibitive.
One option is to consider a reverse mortgage, specifically a home equity conversion mortgage. The horror stories about these products are overblown. The most astute planners and academics understand how incorporating the equity from a primary residence in a retirement income strategy can help with the burden of long-term care costs. Those who talk down these products are speaking out of lack of knowledge and falling easily for pervasive false narratives.
Reverse mortgages have several layers of costs (nothing like they were in the past), and it pays for consumers to shop around for the best deals. Also, to qualify for a reverse mortgage, the homeowner must be 62, the home must be a primary residence, and the debt limited to mortgage debt. There are several ways to receive payouts.
One of the smartest strategies is to establish a reverse mortgage line of credit at age 62, leave it untapped, and allow it to grow along with the home’s value.
The line may be tapped for long-term care expenses if needed or to mitigate the sequence of poor return risk in portfolios. Simply, in years where portfolios are down, the reverse mortgage line is used for income while portfolios recover. Once assets recover, rebalancing proceeds or gains may be used to repay the reverse mortgage loan, restoring the line of credit.
RIA’s approach to helping older Americans age comfortably in place.
Our planning software allows our team to consider a reverse mortgage in the analysis. Those plans have a high probability of success. We explain that income is as necessary as water regarding retirement. For many retirees, converting the glacier of a home into the water of income using a reverse mortgage will be required for retirement survival and especially long-term care expenses.
Ivana Trump’s money lessons for older Americans are lessons for us all, regardless of age.
Planning to age gracefully and healthfully will lead to a prosperous retirement attitude.
As George Burns said: You can’t help getting older, but you don’t have to get old.
The longer I live, the more I realize how true that quote is.
An analysis of millions of SARS-CoV-2 genomes finds that recombination of the virus is uncommon, but when it occurs, it is most often in the spike protein region, the area which allows the virus to attach to and infect host cells.
Credit: Centers for Disease Control and Protection
An analysis of millions of SARS-CoV-2 genomes finds that recombination of the virus is uncommon, but when it occurs, it is most often in the spike protein region, the area which allows the virus to attach to and infect host cells.
The study, led by scientists at UC Santa Cruz, was published August 11 in the journal Nature. It details a new software created by the researchers to search the COVID-19 phylogenetic tree, a diagram of the virus’s evolutionary history, for instances of recombination. This software is open source, allowing public health officials to use it to track instances of recombination within their communities.
Recombination occurs when two genetically distinct forms of the virus hybridize. This study focused on detectable recombination, when the hybridization results in a sequence that is genetically new, and not on instances where two sequences combine to form a sequence identical to an already existing one.
“It’s really important for reconstructing the virus’s evolutionary history,” said Russell Corbett-Detig, senior author on the study and an associate professor of biomolecular engineering at the Baskin School of Engineering. “When there’s recombination it’s not one tree, it’s many trees, and being able to trace that accurately is really crucial for understanding evolution of the virus.”
Findings on recombination
The researchers analyzed 1.6 million samples of COVID-19 and found 589 recombination events, which indicates that only about 2.7% of sequenced genomes result from recombination. These sequences were sourced from the UC Santa Cruz SARS-CoV-2 Browser, a repository for COVID-19 genomic data, which is now the largest collection of genomic sequences of a single species ever assembled, currently at nearly 12 million sequences.
While results show that recombination occurs more frequently in the spike protein region, it is not yet known why this is. This could potentially be the result of a mechanistic bias, indicating it is the natural tendency of all coronaviruses to recombine toward the three-prime region of the viral genome, which contains the spike protein, or that positive natural selection for COVID-19 is favoring recombinants that occur in this region.
While recombination does occur, there is no evidence that the resulting strains are more likely to be epidemiologically important. In fact, most recombinant variants die out, as do most of the thousands of mutated variants of COVID-19.
A new software, written primarily by UC San Diego Assistant Professor Yatish Turakhia during his postdoctoral training in Corbett-Detig’s lab, enabled the computational feat required for the analysis of millions of genomes. The software, called Recombination Inference using Phylogenetic PLacEmentS (RIPPLES), can efficiently search a massive phylogenetic tree of COVID-19 genomes to find instances where a new sequence appears to be a combination of two distinct sections of the tree. The COVID-19 phylogenetic tree, called UShER, was created by UCSC researchers and is the primary tool used by health officials worldwide to track the spread of variants in their community.
The researchers found recombination most often shows up on the COVID-19 phylogenetic tree in the form of “long branches,” making it appear that several mutations happened sequentially, which is quite rare.
“In a tree of millions of sequences, you find these long branches, which reduce the possible instances of detectable recombination down to only about 10’s of thousands of branches,” Turakhia said. “These long branches make recombination much easier to spot on the tree, which enables the efficient performance of the new software.”
Turakhia and his team aim to continue to improve RIPPLES’ speed and performance and to create visual tools to make it more accessible for a wider audience.
Use for public health
Knowing when recombination occurs is crucial for understanding the evolutionary lineage of a sequence of the virus. Recombination can complicate the process of tracing back the phylogenetic tree of a particular sequence because its genetic material is a result of two joining areas of the overall COVID-19 family tree.
This can help public officials understand when a lineage of COVID-19 which appears to be novel is truly an independent mutation introduced for the first time, or rather just a combination of two lineages that already existed in the community. Understanding when recombination occurs is also important from a public health perspective as it can potentially make the virus more adept at evading immunity.
Furthermore, the RIPPLES software’s availability and ease of use has positive implications for genomics experts and public health officials alike, who can efficiently search a set of COVID-19 genomic samples for recombination in just minutes.
This reflects a larger theme of the work of scalable translation of pathogen genomics data at Corbett-Detig’s lab and the UCSC Genomics Institute. Researchers are focused on creating tools that enable public health officials to automate and translate the questions they want to ask, and receive answers that are easy to act on and dependable.
“A big part of the success of our work has been that the software is extremely accessible and computationally cheap in the grand scheme of things,” Corbett-Detig said. “Anybody could take their hundred new SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences and figure out if there were potentially recombinant samples in just minutes on a basic laptop. Global public health needs to be democratized, to the point that anyone can do it, even if they’re not a super wealthy lab with giant servers.”
Pandemic-Scale Phylogenomics Reveals The SARS-CoV-2 Recombination Landscape
“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”
This is not the language of freedom. This is not even the language of law and order.
This is the language of force.
This is how the government at all levels—federal, state and local—now responds to those who speak out against government corruption, misconduct and abuse.
These overreaching, heavy-handed lessons in how to rule by force have become standard operating procedure for a government that communicates with its citizenry primarily through the language of brutality, intimidation and fear.
We didn’t know it then, but what happened five years ago in Charlottesville, Va., was a foretaste of what was to come.
At the time, Charlottesville was at the center of a growing struggle over how to reconcile the right to think and speak freely, especially about controversial ideas, with the push to sanitize the environment of anything—words and images—that might cause offense. That fear of offense prompted the Charlottesville City Council to get rid of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee that had graced one of its public parks for 82 years.
In attempting to err on the side of political correctness by placating one group while muzzling critics of the city’s actions, Charlottesville attracted the unwanted attention of the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and the alt-Right, all of whom descended on the little college town with the intention of exercising their First Amendment right to be disagreeable, to assemble, and to protest.
That’s when everything went haywire.
When put to the test, Charlottesville did not handle things well at all.
On August 12, 2017, government officials took what should have been a legitimate exercise in constitutional principles (free speech, assembly and protest) and turned it into a lesson in authoritarianism by manipulating warring factions and engineering events in such a way as to foment unrest, lockdown the city, and justify further power grabs.
On the day of scheduled protests, police deliberately engineered a situation in which two opposing camps of protesters would confront each other, tensions would bubble over, and things would turn just violent enough to justify allowing the government to shut everything down.
In fact, as the Washington Post reports, police “seemed to watch as groups beat each other with sticks and bludgeoned one another with shields… At one point, police appeared to retreat and then watch the beatings before eventually moving in to end the free-for-all, make arrests and tend to the injured.”
In other words, the government failed to uphold its constitutional mandates.
The police failed to carry out their duties as peace officers.
And the citizens found themselves unable to trust either the police or the government to do its job in respecting their rights and ensuring their safety.
This is not much different from what is happening on the present-day national scene.
Indeed, there’s a pattern emerging if you pay close enough attention.
Civil discontent leads to civil unrest, which leads to protests and counterprotests. Tensions rise, violence escalates, police stand down, and federal armies move in. Meanwhile, despite the protests and the outrage, the government’s abuses continue unabated.
It’s all part of an elaborate setup by the architects of the police state. The government wants a reason to crack down and lock down and bring in its biggest guns.
They want us divided. They want us to turn on one another.
They want us powerless in the face of their artillery and armed forces.
They want us silent, servile and compliant.
They certainly do not want us to remember that we have rights, let alone attempting to exercise those rights peaceably and lawfully, whether it’s protesting politically correct efforts to whitewash the past, challenging COVID-19 mandates, questioning election outcomes, or listening to alternate viewpoints—even conspiratorial ones—in order to form our own opinions about the true nature of government.
And they definitely do not want us to engage in First Amendment activities that challenge the government’s power, reveal the government’s corruption, expose the government’s lies, and encourage the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.
Why else do you think Wikileaks founder Julian Assange continues to molder in jail for daring to blow the whistle about the U.S. government’s war crimes, while government officials who rape, plunder and kill walk away with little more than a slap on the wrist?
This is how it begins.
We are moving fast down that slippery slope to an authoritarian society in which the only opinions, ideas and speech expressed are the ones permitted by the government and its corporate cohorts.
In the wake of the Jan. 6 riots at the Capitol, “domestic terrorism” has become the new poster child for expanding the government’s powers at the expense of civil liberties.
Of course, “domestic terrorist” is just the latest bull’s eye phrase, to be used interchangeably with “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist,” to describe anyone who might fall somewhere on a very broad spectrum of viewpoints that could be considered “dangerous.”
This unilateral power to muzzle free speech represents a far greater danger than any so-called right- or left-wing extremist might pose. The ramifications are so far-reaching as to render almost every American an extremist in word, deed, thought or by association.
Watch and see: we are all about to become enemies of the state.
For starters, we need to remember that we’ve all got rights, and we need to exercise them.
Most of all, we need to protect the rights of the people to speak truth to power, whatever that truth might be. Either “we the people” believe in free speech or we don’t.
Fifty years ago, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas asked:
“Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet… [A]t the constitutional level, speech need not be a sedative; it can be disruptive… [A] function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.”
In other words, the Constitution does not require Americans to be servile or even civil to government officials. Neither does the Constitution require obedience (although it does insist on nonviolence).
Somehow, the government keeps overlooking this important element in the equation.