Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for the ‘Opinion’ Category

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: The FDA is planning a therapeutic jihad on American children in June


Commentary by Daniel Horowitz | May 12, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-fda-therapeutic-children-2657308197.html/

Typically, a lack of efficacy and a cataclysmic level of hundreds of different side effects would be reason to take a therapeutic off the market. But in the post-Nuremberg Code era we find ourselves in, such outcomes serve as a resume enhancer for the product. The FDA is planning a blitz of increased approvals of the shots on the youngest of Americans, yet not a single national Republican has stood up and said “No.” Only one governor, Ron DeSantis, has recommended against their use in children. Which will be the first state to block implementation of the FDA’s new therapeutic jihad on behalf of Big Pharma?

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) has an ambitious schedule for this coming June. Here are its upcoming meetings.

June 7: Approval of Novavax first time for those over 18.

June 8: Approval of Moderna in teenagers.

June 21: Approval of Moderna in kids under 6.

June 22: Approval of Pfizer in kids under 5.

June 28: Exploring new shots for new variants.

Isn’t it interesting how they are meeting about the need for new shots for the current variants after already likely approving old shots on babies who don’t need the shots and for a variant that hasn’t existed for over a year?

Here we have many European countries banning the Moderna shot on those under 30 because of myocarditis, yet our government will likely expand its use to babies at a whopping dose of 25 micrograms! We now have over 1.2 million adverse events reported to VAERS, and CDC researchers admitted in a JAMA paper that the myocarditis numbers – just shy of 40,000 – are “likely” underreported. Also, we now know that Pfizer and the FDA knew about 1,223 deaths shortly after release. As for Moderna, we don’t have a single court-released document from the company yet, so who knows what they are hiding?

It would be one thing to approve something that worked amazingly for COVID despite terrible side effects. But the shot is a complete bust.

The expectation of negative efficacy from these shots has become so widely accepted that now the only question is who is the next famous politician or celebrity to get COVID multiple times after having gotten three or four shots. Take a look at this chart from the Walgreens COVID-19 index of all its testing this past week broken down by vaccination status:

Have you ever seen a vaccine of which the more doses you get, the more likely you are to test positive? Notice how the unvaccinated account for a lesser share of cases than either their share of the population or of Walgreens-administered COVID tests. The results are based on 81,818 tests administered nationwide in Walgreens stores from May 2 through May 8.

So now they want to take vaccines with such counterproductive outcomes and foist them upon children? Remember, the FDA has already demanded the manufacturers produce a study on subclinical myocarditis. In its Pharmacovigilance Plan Review Addendum for Comirnaty, the agency cited one study at the time of Pfizer’s approval noting that subclinical myocarditis might be 60 times as prevalent as clinical myocarditis. That would bring down the 1 in 1,000 rate among young males to as low as 1 in 17 for subclinical ticking time bombs!

Let’s not forget that in all the children’s trials, there were zero deaths and hospitalizations in the placebo groups. So, what exactly were we trying to protect against – even before we knew the shots weren’t effective and possibly negatively effective? Cold or flu-like symptoms? Well, here is the data of side effects from Moderna’s 5-11 trial:

“The most frequently reported adverse reactions were pain at the injection site (92%), fatigue (70%), headache (64.7%), myalgia (61.5%), arthralgia (46.4%), chills (45.4%), nausea/vomiting (23%), axillary swelling/tenderness (19.8%), fever (15.5%), injection site swelling (14.7%) and redness (10%).”

So even before we get to more serious side effects like heart inflammation, we have a massive percentage of children getting flu-like symptoms from the shots, which is what they would get anyway from the virus. How can this pass the threshold of any principle laid out in the Nuremberg Code or the Helsinki Declaration?

It’s gotten so bad that Pfizer and Moderna can no longer rely upon dubious trials showing a 90% reduction in COVID. Especially for young children, even for mild infection, they couldn’t even manipulate any data showing any degree of efficacy, so they had to rely on an arbitrary measure of antibody titers rather than clinical outcomes. In shocking statement before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, conceded they would approve the shots on young children even if the manufacturer’s own dubious data shows less than 50% efficacy (and even that is only for minor illness).

“If these vaccines seem to be mirroring efficacy in adults and just seem to be less effective against Omicron like they are for adults, we will probably still authorize” because they nonetheless reduce the risk of severe disease in the mildest COVID variant, Marks revealed during the May 9 briefing.

Just keep in mind that, according to the CDC, 74.2% of kids 0-11 already got natural immunity from prior infection. So not only will they fail to test kids for antibodies before injecting them, but even the remaining quarter who might be COVID-naive, they are trading risk of death and severe side effects (and pervasive mild side effects) for a possible tiny degree of very short-term efficacy against sniffles, but a long-term negative efficacy against those sniffles. A preprint study by the NY State Department of Health in February showed that the Pfizer shot was just 12% effective against the first Omicron variant for 5- to 11-year-olds, but drops to -41% after just 42 days!

How can any of these shots be administered until we understand why so many data points seem to show intensifying negative efficacy with time? It’s like investing in a stock that first goes up for a few weeks, but then you erase all the gains within a few days and then gradually lose all your principal investment. Every Republican claims to be pro-life, but distributing these shots to young children is not pro-life, even if they are not quite mandated. Would they sit idly by if the federal government distributed abortifacients throughout their states?

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Dems Speak Out on Roe! Release the COVID Variants!


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: May 11, 2022

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/05/11/dems-speak-out-on-roe-release-the-covid-variants—p–n2607103/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

Dems Speak Out on Roe! Release the COVID Variants!

Source: AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

I guess Democrats realized that having feminist harpies fan out across the airwaves to shriek about the vital importance of aborting babies wasn’t helping, because we all woke up Monday morning to …

A NEW SURGE OF CORONAVIRUS!

Maybe that will distract the dingbats. They probably all think they have “long-haul COVID.”

In response to the Supreme Court’s leaked draft opinion returning abortion to the states, Hillary Clinton said: “Any American who says, ‘Look, I’m not a woman, this doesn’t affect me. I’m not Black, that doesn’t affect me. I’m not gay, that doesn’t affect me’ — once you allow this kind of extreme power to take hold, you have no idea who they will come for next.”

On the other hand …

1) Women themselves don’t seem to view abortion as a “women’s rights” issue — in fact, a lot of polls show women more opposed to abortion than men. Nobody’s wondering, for example, how Justice Amy Coney Barrett voted.

2) The “extreme power” Hillary’s talking about is: Letting people vote.

3) Idea! Maybe wait for what comes next to talk about what comes next.

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., tweeted: “The Republicans won’t stop with banning abortion. They want to ban interracial marriage. Do you want to save that? Well, then you should probably vote.”

Yes — doubtless in an opinion written by Clarence Thomas.

Always on top of things, President Joe Biden’s response to the abortion opinion was to talk about … gay kids being thrown out of school. “What happens,” the advanced dementia patient asked, “if you have states change the law saying that children who are LGBTQ can’t be in classrooms with other children?”

Wha …?

Why does every liberal argument about allowing Americans to vote on abortion immediately veer off into apocalyptic warnings about something else entirely? I’m beginning to suspect abortion is not as beloved as liberals claim it is. As Biden wrote in his 2007 book, “Promises to Keep”: “If we tried to make this a referendum on abortion rights … we’d lose.”

And yet, we keep being hectored about the runaway popularity of Roe v. Wade. Apparently, poll respondents just don’t want feminists to yell at them. Yes, absolutely, Roe is great. I don’t hate women, please leave me alone.

According to The New York Times — and I don’t think they’re exaggerating the opposition to abortion — two-thirds of Americans oppose abortion after the first trimester. That’s 12 weeks. The Mississippi abortion law that’s going to turn women into birthing machines bans abortion after 15 weeks.

Also inadvertently admitted in the Times: What percentage of abortions do you think take place after the first trimester? Answer: 8%.

That’s what the termagants are shrieking about? The 8% of abortions opposed by a substantial majority of Americans? No wonder they keep changing the subject to black people.

The winner of the most clinically insane response to the draft opinion is Amanda Taub of The New York Times. She explained that opposition to abortion is a sneaky way of opposing … women in the workforce? Contraception? Secularists?

Nope. Desegregation!

Taub begins with the counterfactual proposition that evangelicals don’t really care about abortion. (Because, c’mon, who would care about that?)

Her evidence: “It is hard to imagine now, but at the time Roe v. Wade was decided, in 1973, abortion was not a major issue for the American right, or even for evangelical Christians. …”

Hmmm, why might that be? Maybe it’s because, until Roe, abortion was a crime in almost every state in the Union. Three-quarters of the states banned abortion at every stage of pregnancy. All this is admitted in the Roe opinion itself.

As Justice Samuel Alito’s draft puts it:

“Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. Zero. None. No state constitutional provision had recognized such a right. Until a few years before Roe was handed down, no federal or state court had recognized such a right.”

Hey, Amanda! It is hard to imagine, but matricide isn’t a major issue for the American right, either. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court suddenly discovers a “constitutional right” to kill your mother, I would expect that to change

But the sleuth Taub presses on:

“The shift [to pro-life] was not spurred by abortion itself, but by desegregation. After the Supreme Court ordered schools in the South to desegregate, many white parents pulled their children from public schools and sent them to all-white private schools … the I.R.S. revoked those schools’ tax-exempt status, provoking widespread anger among white evangelical Christians and catalyzing their new role as a powerful conservative force in American politics.”

I’m sure the creation of private religious academies had nothing to do with the court banning prayer in the public schools, then banning prohibitions on teaching Darwinism and sex ed. Why would Christians care about any of that?

By the way, where did this champion of desegregation go to high school? ANSWER: Amanda Taub went to a university “lab” school that is only 5% black in a town that is 18% black.

The gigantic hypocrite concludes: “Publicly opposing desegregation was not really socially acceptable or palatable to a broader coalition. But opposing abortion was.”

Whereas the Taubs relied on admissions testing and grades to ensure their daughter went to a segregated school.

Democratic Party: Get these lunatics away from the media!

But how? We don’t have anything —

Any new variants out there?

Guess what, America? CORONAVIRUS IS BACK!

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Alito Will Save Lives, Not Biden


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: May 04, 2022

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/05/04/alito-will-save-lives-not-biden—p–n2606784/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, WhatDidYouSay.org.

Alito Will Save Lives, Not Biden

Source: AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

When the draft Supreme Court opinion overruling “Roe v. Wade” leaked on Monday, my first thought was: WHY COULDN’T THEY WAIT UNTIL NEXT YEAR? (“Roe” is in quotes because Planned Parenthood v. Casey already overruled Roe, but “Roe” is still used to describe the nonexistent right to abortion.)

Yes, it’s human life we’re talking about. Millions of babies are killed in their mothers’ wombs each year — it’s a massacre. On the other hand, I thought, ending late-terms might end the midterms.

But then I read Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion and was intellectually offended all over again by the idea that one of our precious constitutional rights, enshrined in a founding document, is the right to kill an unborn baby. Anyone complaining about the decision should be required to cite the exact parts Alito got wrong. Be specific. And keep in mind, no important discussion of constitutional law has ever begun with the words, “My vagina …”

The Nation magazine’s Elie Mystal took a stab at it by completely misstating Alito’s argument, then saying, “the Founding Fathers were racist, misogynist jerkfaces.” (I was planning on writing a scholarly and nuanced treatise on the framers, but Mystal just stole my title!)

I also noticed that, outside of the media, no one seems especially bothered by the decision. Or to have noticed it. In groups of liberal women, apolitical women, black and Puerto Rican women, no one is talking about the case.

They’re probably right. The end of a court-managed “constitutional” right to abortion isn’t going to produce the Roemageddon Democrats are predicting.

More than half of the country already lives in states where abortion will always be legal, subsidized and sacralized. For those who don’t, Harvard should set up an abortion scholarship program. Instead of spending $100 million “investigating” slavery, the university could buy bus tickets for girls who need to go to another state for an abortion.

The Mississippi law being upheld in this case — contrary to everything I’ve heard on MSNBC — is shockingly reasonable.

It states:

“Except in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality, a person shall not intentionally or knowingly perform or induce an abortion of an unborn human being if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being has been determined to be greater than fifteen (15) weeks.”

The Mississippi legislature provided a series of factual findings:

  • at eight weeks gestational age the “unborn human being begins to move in the womb”;
  • at nine weeks “all basic physiological functions are present”;
  • at 10 weeks “vital organs begin to function,” and “hair, fingernails, and toenails begin to form”;
  • at 11 weeks “an unborn human being’s diaphragm is developing,” and he or she “may move about freely in the womb;” and
  • at 12 weeks the “unborn human being” has “taken on the human form in all relevant respects.”

After 15 weeks, the legislature found, most abortions involve crushing and tearing the fetus apart.

Laws should always err on the side against the decision-maker, and the decision-maker on the length of gestation is going to be the abortionist. (Which is also why “rape” and “incest” exceptions swallow the whole law. By the way, whatever happened to the morning-after pill?)

So we’re really talking about four to five months.

That’s not enough time? Give me a break, you freaks. I don’t think voters are going to say, Ukraine, inflation, the border, crime, transgenders in kindergarten — OH MY GOD, I CAN ONLY GET AN ABORTION FOR FOUR MONTHS???

Some states will surely roll back the right to abortion more than 15 weeks. Oh well. The abortion ladies will have to travel to other states the same way gunners do now to practice their marksmanship, shoppers do to get plastic bags, or breathers do to take off their masks.

With a patchwork of laws, we’ll be able to see which regulations do best at reducing abortion, illegitimacy (which soared in lockstep with the legalization of abortion), venereal diseases, suicides and false claims of rape when women are pressured into having sex, undeterred by the risk of pregnancy. We’ll call it “federalism.”

Watching MSNBC’s reaction also reminded me that everybody hates the feminists. The ladies couldn’t even keep the “#MeToo” movement going. How long did that last? Fifteen minutes? And a lot of the cases were egregious. But a month later, transgenders were canceling J.K. Rowling and women’s sports.

Now they’re hysterically babbling about the court banning contraceptioninterracial marriages and requiring forced sterilizations. I guess they don’t think their arguments about the abortion ruling are particularly strong, so they have to warn about scary rulings to come.

Finally, President Joe Biden has put Vice President Kamala Harris in charge of the response to this decision. Previously, she was put in charge of the border, and then Ukraine. Any day now, we’ll find out she was in charge of the Challenger space shuttle.

Maybe I’m just in a cheery mood, what with the imminent conclusion to this hideous chapter in U.S history. Who knows? Let’s wait nine months and see.

I have only two absolutely definite predictions flowing from the leak of the abortion opinion:

1) Liberals are about to start claiming that black people not only are incapable of getting IDs to vote, but are also incapable of knowing that they’ve been pregnant for four months. (And then: NIGHTMARE! THEY’LL HAVE TO GET A BUS TO NEW YORK OR CALIFORNIA!)

2) As for the leaker, if the perp turns out to be a conservative who was trying to pressure Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Neil Gorsuch, he will be ruined for life. If he turns out to be a clerk for one of the liberals, he will get a book contract and a regular spot on MSNBC.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: In Historic First, 5’5″, 130-lb Woman Confirmed to Supreme Court


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Apr 13, 2022

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/04/13/in-historic-first-55-130lb-woman-confirmed-to-supreme-court—p–n2605868/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

In Historic First, 5'5", 130-lb Woman Confirmed to Supreme Court

Source: AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

Weird that the media didn’t cite Ketanji Brown Jackson’s height and weight as her most important characteristics. When it came to THE FIRST BLACK WOMAN ON THE SUPREME COURT, it was all about her race. But after a guy shot up a New York City subway car this week, the last thing the media wanted to tell us was his race. For more than three hours after the attack, we got urgent alerts: Suspect at large! Police request public’s help! Be on the alert for a male, about 5’8″, 160 lbs.”

In this particular case, the media’s rule of never telling us the suspect’s race (unless he’s white) was more deranged than usual. This wasn’t a carjacking. It wasn’t a shooting at a block party. It wasn’t an attack on an Asian or Jew. This crime had all the earmarks of a terror attack — smoke bombs, fireworks, a gas mask, and about a dozen people shot while trapped in a subway car. The police desperately needed the public’s help, but most people were looking for a Middle Easterner.

At least we knew it wasn’t a white guy! If it had been, reporters would have worn out the “W” on their computer keyboards. There would have been rampant speculation that it was a Proud Boy, as top administration officials reminded us that “white supremacy is the most lethal threat to the homeland today. Not ISIS, not al-Qaida — white supremacists.” (President Joe Biden June 2, 2021)

We’re always told “wokeness” is just about being polite and that those who ridicule it are trying to “discredit the claims of traditionally marginalized groups for respect.” (Thomas Zimmer, history professor, Georgetown University) Or they are engaging in “white backlash.” (Seth Cotlar, history professor, Willamette University)

[SIDEBAR: Don’t go to college, kids!]

No, wokeness is real. And it can get us killed — when, for example, off the top of my head, a murderous psychopath is on the run and the media refuse to tell us what he looks like.

At the New York Police Department’s first press conference on the subway attack, Police Commissioner Keechant Sewell came up with an all-new circumlocution to convey the relevant information without saying “black male.” She said: “… we will describe him as an individual, he is being reported as a male black.”

“A male black”! That’s so much better than “black male” when identifying a criminal.

By the time of the evening press conference, Sewell had settled on an even dumber description, calling him “a dark-skinned male.” Great, so now we’re back to looking for a Middle Easterner. Or possibly Hispanic. Maybe South Asian or mixed race. Definitely NOT “black male” (or “male black”).

The NYPD must have spent all day crafting that new euphemism, because “dark-skinned male” was the exact phrase used minutes later by the chief of detectives, James Essig. “Black” is OUT. “Dark-skinned” is IN.

Biden Appoints First Dark-Skinned Woman (whatever the hell that is) to Supreme Court!

No, “black” is fine, provided we’re talking about THE FIRST BLACK FEMALE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, or THE FIRST BLACK FEMALE POLICE COMMISSIONER. Such as … Commissioner Sewell herself!

— “One of Mr. Adams’ first appointments was to name Keechant Sewell, chief of detectives in Nassau County, as the first Black woman to head the NYPD.” (The Christian Science Monitor)

— “New York’s incoming mayor just made history by appointing a Black woman to run the nation’s largest police department …” (New York Daily News)

— “This is truly historic. We heard that word a lot, but it’s 176 years of the NYPD. You’re the first woman, the first black woman to lead the force.” (CNN’s Jim Sciutto to Sewell)

A black person becoming a Supreme Court justice or police commissioner makes black people feel good about themselves! But a black man being identified as the perpetrator of a heinous crime makes black people feel bad about themselves. Therefore, you can’t say it.

As is well known, the sine qua non of a well-run society is factoring in people’s feelings when reporting important events. And if New York City is not running like a top, then I don’t know what your definition of “running like a top” is.

Instead of subway cameras capturing clear photos of the homicidal brute and being broadcast out within minutes of the attack, hours later, the police were climbing up ladders to physically inspect the cameras. They weren’t working.

New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority operates the cameras, but they’ve been VERY busy promoting diversity. Evidently, “Is our equipment working?” has not come up.

Julio Rosas

Here’s the MTA’s summary of the last meeting:

3rd Quarter 2021 Report:

“The Department of Diversity and Civil Rights will present 3rd quarter 2021 update on MTA Agency-wide EEO and M/W/DBE and SDVOB contract compliance activities.

“Status Report on MTA Inter-Agency M/W/DBE and SDVOB Task Force. The Department of Diversity and Civil Rights report will address progress made by the Task Force to improve M/W/DBE and SDVOB participation. Master Page # 6 of 108 — Diversity Committee Meeting 9/15/2021

“2022 Diversity Committee Work Plan. The Department of Diversity and Civil Rights will present an updated Diversity Committee Work Plan for 2022.”

Another confidence-inspiring development: The New York Times reports that immediately after the shooting, “Toward the front of the train, three victims were being attended to by bystanders. A uniformed police officer approached, asking passengers to call 911 because his radio was not working.” (Emphasis added.)

The officer’s radio didn’t work. But on the plus side, he’s been through six diversity training sessions.

To top things off, at the evening press conference, the top brass COULDN’T GET ZOOM TO WORK. Mayor Eric Adams was introduced, whereupon every TV in the land broadcast total silence for a solid 60 seconds, while city officials stood around waiting for the mayor to appear. They finally gave up and patched him in later.

At least the mayor is on top of things. Hours after even MSNBC had admitted the perp was a black male, Adams was on TV, vowing to catch the man — “or woman!” — who perpetrated this attack.

Gosh, that makes me feel validated.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Pro-Crime Party Nominates a Justice


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Mar 30, 2022

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/03/30/procrime-party-nominates-a-justice—p–n2605284/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, or WhatDidYouSay.org.

Pro-Crime Party Nominates a Justice

Source: AP Photo/Alex Brandon

CONTENT WARNING: This column contains graphic details of a criminal case involving a sex offender who possessed and distributed photos and videos of the sexual abuse of prepubescent boys. 

Presidents are entitled to nominate Supreme Court justices who represent their party and its values. Using that as our guide, President Joe Biden picked the Democrats’ perfect Supreme Court justice: Ketanji Brown Jackson.

If you’d given me a thousand bucks to come up with a question that would stump a Supreme Court nominee, I never would have thought of: What’s a woman?

Democratic values.

As Sens. Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham amply demonstrated at the nomination hearings last week, Judge Jackson really likes defendants in child pornography cases. She’s partial to all criminals, but the child porn cases make the point bracingly.

In seven out of seven child pornography cases that came before Judge Jackson, where the sentencing was up to the judge, she imposed sentences that were a fraction of those recommended under the sentencing guidelines. In all seven cases, her sentences were also far below those requested by the prosecutor.

Not 2 1/2 years, instead of three — more like three months instead of 10 years. In United States v. Hawkins, the defendant possessed and distributed multiple images of child abuse of kids, including photos of prepubescent boys engaging in oral and anal sex, a video of an 8-year-old boy masturbating, and one of an 11-year-old boy being anally penetrated by an adult man.

The federal sentencing guidelines recommended eight to 10 years. Judge Jackson sentenced the defendant to three months.

Yes, yes, he was only 18, and he was remorseful. Good for him!

But Judge Jackson also dramatically departed downward in sentencing a couple of ripe perverts — one who attempted to travel across state lines to molest a 9-year-old girl (when his thousands of child porn images weren’t enough); and another who’d distributed more than a hundred pornographic photos and videos of his own daughter.

On average, Judge Jackson gave child porn defendants sentences more than five years below the minimum under the guidelines.

In other words, Judge Jackson is the beau ideal Democratic Supreme Court justice.

In her favor, KBJ is at least a Generational African American (GAA), i.e. Descendant of American Slaves (DOAS) — unlike Barack Obama, Kamala Harris, Joy Ann Reid and approximately 90% of the “African Americans” in Harvard’s entering class this year, according to the Harvard Crimson.

Perhaps, there’s hope that, someday, the high court will acknowledge that affirmative action is intended to make up for the legacy of slavery and should be available exclusively to GAAs, as opposed to what it is now, which is affirmative action, set-asides, “plus” factors, and do-nothing diversity jobs for everyone except white Americans.

Apart from the Democrats finally promoting a legacy African American, rather than an immigrant trying to steal the experiences of Black Americans, nothing is unusual here. It’s the media’s response to the questioning of Judge Jackson that’s been hilarious.

The media take the position that it’s rude to ask Judge Jackson questions — at least any questions about her record. Republicans are welcome to ask her all the questions they like about her family or her travails.

She is the most qualified human being ever, EVER to be nominated to the Supreme Court! The bravest, the strongest, the most heroic — HOW DARE YOU ASK OUR LITTLE LAMB QUESTIONS!

The media have also issued reams of “context,” “fact checks” and “debunkings” … all to prove that KBJ is a virtual Eliot Ness on crime! Don’t believe your eyes! Forget everything you know about the Democrats! It’s all lies and conspiracy theories!

Guy Benson

We got the sneering:

No, Sen. Hawley, Ketanji Brown Jackson isn’t soft on child pornography. — NBC News

We got the hysterical warnings about right-wing conspiracy theorists:

Hawley’s attacks on Ketanji Brown Jackson fuel a surge in online conspiracy chatter. — NPR

And we got the sophistical “fact checks”:

Fact check: Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson child porn sentences “pretty mainstream” — ABC News

The New York Times’ “fact check” noted she was concerned about child porn fiends who were simply motivated by “the technological or social aspects” of child porn.

Totally run on that, Democrats.

What is the point of all these “FACT CHECKS”? For the past two years, liberals have been screaming, “Defund the Police!” “All Cops Are Bastards,” “F–k the Police!” — not to mention actually defunding the police and springing criminals in Democratic-run cities around the country. We got it: You like criminals and hate the police, Democrats. You’re not exactly flying below the radar.

Of note: Sen. Joe Manchin, your regular, old-time, American values Democrat, is just like the rest of his party when it comes to crime. Same with Arizona’s Sen. Mark Kelly and Montana’s Sen. Jon Tester. Kelly can boast about being an astronaut, and Tester can walk around with that buzz-cut and a piece of hay in his teeth — but give them a guy getting off on videos of 11-year-old boys being anally raped, and they say: Three months. Max.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Hunter Biden’s role in Ukrainian biolabs raises serious questions about gain of function and Ukraine policy


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | March 30, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-hunter-bidens-role-in-ukrainian-biolabs-raises-serious-questions-about-gain-of-function-and-ukraine-policy

Recent emails unearthed by the U.K. Daily Mail and the National Pulse reveal that during the last decade, Hunter Biden seemed to have a keen interest in pathogen research in Ukraine and using it as a tool for geopolitical affairs in that country. It just so happens to be that a pathogen connected to gain-of-function research destroyed the world, and then the next “big current thing” on the geopolitical stage was none other than Ukraine. Shouldn’t the American people get some answers as to why our government was so heavily involved – via the vice president’s son – in both pathogen research and Ukraine and to make sure Ukraine is not Wuhan 2.0?

Earlier this month, I detailed the known connections between biotech firm Metabiota Inc., responsible for the pathogen research in Ukraine, the DOD, and EcoHealth Alliance, along with the Wuhan lab most likely responsible for the leak of SARS-CoV-2. I also noted that Rosemont Seneca Technology Partners (RSTP), a subsidiary of the Hunter Biden and Christopher Heinz-founded Rosemont Capital, gave Metabiota, a company accused of dangerous lab protocols during the African Ebola pandemic, its first infusion of cash a decade ago. Now, new emails from Hunter’s laptop demonstrate that his involvement in Metabiota and pathogen research in Ukraine was much deeper than just an initial investment.

On April 4, 2014, Metabiota vice president Mary Guttieri wrote an email to the younger Biden outlining how they could “assert Ukraine’s cultural and economic independence from Russia’” with their joint venture, according to an email from Hunter’s laptop obtained by the U.K. Daily Mail. That is quite a curious goal for a company that supposedly does scientific research and analysis about emerging pandemics.

The outlet also posted another email dated April 8, 2014, from Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi referring to a “science project” Hunter had pitched to him involving Burisma and Metabiota in Ukraine. “Please find few initial points to be discussed for the purposes of analyzing the potential of this as you called, ‘Science Ukraine’ project,” Pozharskyi wrote. Hunter sits on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company owned by corrupt billionaire Mikolay Zlochevsky, who fled to Monaco after he was put under investigation.

Hunter’s dad, as vice president, was in charge of our foreign policy with Ukraine in 2014 when all of this was occurring and when the U.S. government was backing the color revolution that led to the ouster of the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych. It was at this time that the Defense Department began funding the Metabiota operations in Ukraine.

After receiving 18.4 million from the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) between February 2014 and November 2016, with $307,091 earmarked for “Ukraine research projects,” “Metabiota has worked in Ukraine for Black & Veatch, a US defense contractor with deep ties to military intelligence agencies, which built secure labs in Ukraine that analyzed killer diseases and bioweapons,” according to the Daily Mail.

“It raises the question, what is the real purpose of this venture? It’s very odd,” said former senior CIA officer Sam Faddis in an interview with the Daily Mail. “His father was the Vice President of the United States and in charge of relations with Ukraine. So why was Hunter not only on the board of a suspect Ukrainian gas firm, but also hooked them up with a company working on bioweapons research?”

Biden was so involved in Metabiota that one email written that same month in 2014 reveals that he and his business partner Eric Schwerin discussed subletting their office space to the San-Francisco-based biotech firm.

So, what exactly were they working on? Last week, the National Pulse reported that a feature in the Science and Technology Center in Ukraine’s 2016 Annual Report recounts an October 2016 meeting involving U.S. military officials and their Ukrainian counterparts together with Black & Veatch and Metabiota staff to discuss the lab work. The discussion centered around “existing frameworks, regulatory coordination, and ongoing cooperative projects in research, surveillance and diagnostics of a number of dangerous zoonotic diseases, such as avian influenza, leptospirosis, Crimea Congo hemorrhagic fever, and brucellosis.”

The National Pulse cites a 2019 paper authored by researchers from Metabiota and three Ukraine-based institutes and funded by the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency sharing how they isolated a form of African swine flu using a pig from Ukraine in 2016. They also detail their research on Anthrax in animals in Ukraine.

Well, where else have we heard of Metabiota partners working on gain-of-function research of pathogens that typically are in animals? Oh yes, EcoHealth Alliance in Wuhan. In the past, Metabiota has worked with EcoHealth and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The zoonotic projects being described in Ukraine sound awfully similar to the gain-of-function work EcoHealth was involved with in Wuhan. In Feb. 2016, EcoHealth’s founder, Peter Daszak, explained the company’s zoonotic pathogen work as follows:

So as an example, first of all, we are only looking at viral families that include those that have gone into people from animals. So, we narrow it down straight away. Then when you get a sequence of a virus and it looks like a relative of a known nasty pathogen, just like we did with SARS, we found other Corona viruses in bats, a whole host of them, some of them looked very similar to SARS. So, we sequenced the spike protein, the protein that attaches to cells. Then we, well, I didn’t do this work, but my colleagues in China did the work, you create the pseudo-particles, you insert the spike proteins from those viruses [to see if they] bind to human cells. And each step you move closer and closer to this virus could really become pathogenic in people. So, you narrow down the field, you reduce the cost and you end up with a small number of viruses that really do look like killers. (C-Span, 1:16:22.)

Sure sounds a lot like the coronavirus that actually broke out several years ago and destroyed the world as we know it. Less than a month later, Ralph Baric, the UNC Chapel Hill biologist who spearheaded the gain-of-function projects for Daszak, co-authored a paper warning with certitude of the emergence of this disease. “The results indicate that viruses using WIV1-CoV spike are poised to emerge in human populations due to efficient replication in primary human airway epithelial cell cultures,” concluded the authors.

How did they know? And doesn’t anyone have a concern that the same players were up to no good in Ukraine, especially given Hunter Biden’s ethical problems and the fact that his dad, the vice president and now the president, was overseeing Ukrainian affairs during that time?

Recently, the National Pulse found, based on EcoHealth’s 990 filings and analysis by ProPublica, that the company’s investment income surged by 342% in the year of the pandemic. EcoHealth received millions of dollars from Fauci’s NIAD to work on “killer” viruses with the Wuhan Institute, creating “chimeric” viruses that spread in humans at rates “equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV.”

Now consider the fact that Metabiota’s CEO, Nathan Wolfe, penned an article in Time on Aug. 1, 2014, detailing his opinion on the Ebola outbreak in Africa and then literally predicted coronavirus as the next outbreak:

While Ebola virus won’t be the next global Andromeda strain, there are viruses out there that could be. Coronaviruses (like SARS) and influenza viruses (like the H1N1 virus of 1918) for example, show that some viruses truly can spread around the world in ways that will blindside and impact our entire planet. It is notable that a novel coronavirus, the Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), and a novel influenzavirus, the H7N9 virus, receive very little attention from the international media. Perhaps as importantly, there are millions of still unidentified viruses in animal reservoirs, among which, almost certainly is a virus that we’d have no capacity to understand, or stop were it to suddenly emerge today.

If we didn’t have a pandemic likely created by similar research – possibly by the same players – killing millions globally and injuring tens of millions of others, I wouldn’t be too concerned with these research projects in Ukraine. But given what has occurred, why is there zero concern from the media or the politicians about what we have been doing in Ukraine and elsewhere? And how does it shape our entire geopolitical worldview on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Dem Nightmare: What if the War Ends Before November?


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Mar 16, 2022

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/03/16/dem-nightmare-what-if-the-war-ends-before-november—p–n2604665/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

Dem Nightmare: What if the War Ends Before November?

Source: AP Photo/Patrick Semansky

Great news for Joe Biden. After months of abysmal public approval numbers, President Biden’s favorability among registered voters has soared by 2 points to 45%! And all he had to do was bring us to the brink of World War III.

The media are thrilled with the possibility of nuclear war with Russia. Catastrophes are terrific for ratings, and flood-the-zone coverage of a war between two faraway countries that has almost zero effect on the lives of most Americans allows journalists to act like deep-think, geopolitical strategists (after having quickly looked up “Ukraine” on Wikipedia).

They dragged out the COVID panic porn for two straight years. By now, the only people still interested in pandemic updates are hysterical liberal women in Manhattan claiming to have “long-haul COVID.”

The national pastime has segued seamlessly from watching TV anchors cry on TV about the coronavirus to watching TV anchors cry on TV about the fate of Ukrainian children.

Of course, when American kids are murdered expressly as a result of our own government’s policies, the journalism protocol is: No crying, no coverage.

There will be no tears for the 5-year-old Florida girl killed in October when an illegal alien from Guatemala, Ernesto Lopez Morales, tanked up on six 32-ounce beers, then plowed into the little girl and her mother as he was driving to get more beer.

Nor for Texas teenager Adrienne Sophia Exum, killed instantly one Sunday afternoon in 2020 when Heriberto Fuerte-Padilla, an illegal alien from Mexico, smashed into the car she was driving, then fled the scene. There’s even some news: The Biden administration announced that Fuerte-Padilla will not be deported.

And there will be no weeping for the still-unidentified mother and daughter, aged 59 and 22, killed last December when a human smuggler (a “U.S. citizen,” aka “anchor baby”) carrying six illegals across the border into Texas, sped through a stop sign and T-boned the pair.

I’m sure it’s just a coincidence, but the media’s obsessive focus on Ukraine is terrific for the interests of the Democratic Party. Recall that, in his 2012 book, “Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind,” then-UCLA professor Tim Groseclose demonstrated that media bias alone costs Republicans about 8 to 10 percentage points in elections.

And that was 2012. One can only imagine what it is in post-Trump 2022. If only we could return to the junior varsity media bias of 2012!

Until the war in Ukraine, the Democrats were facing midterms after having spent the previous two years mandating masks and an endless series of vaccinations — even for the vaccinated or previously infected.

Democrats flung open the border to illegal alien murderers, drug dealers, gang members and welfare recipients.

Democratic district attorneys have turned city after city into feces-smeared murdertopias that make Charles Bronson’s “Death Wish” look like “The Sound of Music.”

These days, the left’s main casus belli is teaching little kids about anal sex, transgenders and the inherent evil of white people.

What could even Stalin’s media do with that record?

Option 1) Implement a collective mind wipe, perhaps through an electromagnetic pulse, to erase voters’ memory of everything that’s happened since Joe Biden was sworn in.

Option 2) WAR! (Someplace in the world that’s not here.)

What crisis at our border? We’re reporting on a WAR.

How can you talk about murder rates when CHILDREN ARE DYING IN UKRAINE?

What vaccine mandates? COVID is over. Now we’re talking about war!

Everything bad that’s happening is Putin’s fault! He’s like Hitler!

Talk about Russian collusion! Putin gave Trump Facebook ads; he’s giving Biden a military invasion.

By now, the media have whipped the public into such a frenzy over Ukraine that a majority of Americans want the U.S. to start shooting down Russian planes, starting World War III with nuclear armed power.

A small price to pay for Democratic dominance.

But much like American military interventions around the globe, things don’t always go as planned.

The Democrats’ media helpers might want to recall President George H.W. Bush’s 89% favorable rating in 1991 — the highest presidential job approval rating then on record, according to Gallup.

Those astronomical numbers came as a result of the conclusion of the Persian Gulf War, when we went to war with Saddam Hussein because he had invaded neighboring Kuwait — violating that nation’s sacred sovereignty! — and proceeded to commit unspeakable war crimes, including using poison gas. The first week of that war, Bush’s poll numbers shot from 64% to 82%.

Republicans had a lock on the next year’s presidential contest. No serious Democrats were willing to challenge him, and the party ended up with a horny hick from Arkansas as their nominee.

And then it all collapsed. By Election Day 1992, Bush’s public approval rating was down to a pathetic 34%. The h*rny hick won the election, and Bush became an embarrassing one-term president.

On the military side, at least the Middle East was finally at peace. We never heard a peep out of Hussein again. Wait — what happened?

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Do These Black Lives Matter to L.A.’s Idiot D.A.?


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Mar 09, 2022

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/03/09/do-these-black-lives-matter-to-las-idiot-da—p–n2604354/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.org.

Do These Black Lives Matter to L.A.'s Idiot D.A.?

Source: Bryan Chan/County of Los Angeles via AP

Hey, whatever happened to that story about Sandra Shells? She was the 70-year-old nurse killed by one of Los Angeles’ many “unhoused” individuals (drug-addicted psychopaths) while she waited for a bus at 5:15 in the morning in January, on her way to her job at the Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center.

A homeless guy, Kerry Bell, walked up to Shells and punched her in the face, knocking her to the ground and fracturing her skull. She died of her injuries three days later.

Her life mattered more even than, say, George Floyd’s — and I can prove it.

1) Shells was a hardworking nurse, remembered as “kind, compassionate and giving” and a favorite of patients.

2) There is no evidence that she’d ever committed a home invasion robbery on a woman in Texas, pistol-whipped the woman and put a gun to her abdomen.

3) She was not a meth addict.

4) She did not have a long rap sheet, including selling cocaine, selling crack and theft.

5) She was merely standing at a bus stop — not, for example, resisting arrest after passing a counterfeit bill and having the police called on her.

But no one even knows her name, much less runs around erecting sacramental altars to her. To the contrary, news about this vicious assault on a kindly nurse was purged from all media outlets approximately 10 minutes after it happened. The police haven’t even released her assailant’s mug shot. Only after extensive searching online can you find the arrest report for Bell. “Race: B.”

It doesn’t matter to me, but it does to some of you, so I’ll mention that the victim’s race was also “B.”

If you can’t remember Shells’ name, then please remember this name: George Gascon, the district attorney entirely responsible for the explosion of murders, stabbings and smash-and-grab robberies in Los Angeles. So many, in fact, that the sickening murder of an elderly nurse isn’t considered especially newsworthy.

There’s an effort underway to recall Gascon — a George Soros-sponsored D.A. Coincidentally, there’s also an effort to recall San Francisco’s Chesa Boudin, another George Soros-sponsored D.A. “George Soros-sponsored D.A.” is shorthand for “This man will empty the prisons of berserk savages to prey on you and your loved ones.”

Which happens to be the official policy of the Democratic Party. Pay no attention to the windbaggery of President Biden’s recent Oh My God, Midterms Are Coming speech — I mean, State of the Union address — where he said, “The answer is not to defund the police. The answer is to fund the police!” Has he met his vice president? Kamala Harris endorsed Gascon.

Gascon’s response to the bloodbath he’s unleashed on the City of Angels is to announce: “In many ways, we cannot prosecute our way out of social inequalities, income inequalities, the unhoused, the desperation that we have.”

What does the “in many ways” do in that sentence? I know English isn’t Gascon’s first language, but I can’t make heads or tails of the “in many ways.”

Nor, come to think of it, the rest of the sentence. Is it a prosecutor’s job to reduce “social” and “income” inequalities? How about inequalities in work ethic, mathematical skills, good looks, athletic ability, comedic talent and empathetic understanding?

While it’s nice that the Los Angeles D.A. has made the amazing discovery that people are different, if he thinks it’s his duty to make all people the same, he may have a misunderstood the job description of a D.A.

As for Gascon’s apparent goal of eliminating “the desperation that we have,” the main cause of “desperation” among Los Angelinos right now is George Gascon. If he really wants to do something about “the desperation,” he should resign.

Gascon is either very, very stupid or thinks the public is stupid, and his incomprehensible verbiage will persuade them that the last thing he should be doing is prosecuting criminals.

How’s this for desperation? The fabulously wealthy Clarence and Jacqueline Avant, a legendary music producer and his ex-model wife, felt they had to hire a private security guard for their $7 million Beverly Hills home. Late last year, they’d also voted with their neighbors to hire guards to patrol their pricey Trousdale Estates neighborhood.

Days before the neighborhood patrol began, Aariel Maynor, a felon on parole despite a long list of priors (assault, robbery and grand theft) snuck past the Avants’ private guard at the front door, smashed a sliding glass door in the back, and burst in on the very much awake Mrs. Avant, a night owl, as her husband slept in their bedroom.

Maynor promptly blew her away with an AR-15 rifle. Hearing the gunfire, the private guard rushed in and Maynor shot at him, too, missing. He fled, but was captured about an hour later, after accidentally shooting himself in the foot while burglarizing a house seven miles away.

Mrs. Avant’s life mattered — even more than some other celebrated lives you may have heard of.

My proof:

1) She was the “pillar of that family,” as a friend put it.

2) She was a generous donor to local causes, such as the Neighbors of Watts and the South Central Community Child Care Center.

3) She was not a meth addict or violent ex-con who’d put a gun to a woman’s stomach, or passed a counterfeit bill in Minneapolis, then resisted arrest.

4) For my liberal readers: Mrs. Avant was an African-American.

But far from a national rending of garments, as we saw in tribute to Saint George, the response to Mrs. Avant’s murder was this: The D.A. promptly sent out a fundraising letter, making a heartfelt plea on behalf of armed criminals like the sociopath who killed her.

Gascon’s letter urged the passage of a law that would end sentence enhancements for crimes committed with a firearm. Such “sentence enhancements,” Gascon claimed, “have never been shown to reduce the rate of crime, and excessive sentence enhancements can actually drive up re-offense.”

Really? Can I see the study? Pro-crime zealots just make this crap up. Studies show that imprisoning criminals actually INCREASES crime.

It’s bad enough to have dangerous psychos out on the street, threatening our lives because there’s something wrong with their brains. The least we can expect is that they aren’t D.A.s.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Stop Talking About Ukraine, Republicans!


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Feb 23, 2022

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/02/23/stop-talking-about-ukraine-republicans—p–n2603708/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

Stop Talking About Ukraine, Republicans!

Source: AP Photo/Andriy Dubchak

Amid the media’s 24/7 UKRAINE UPDATES, perhaps some enterprising journalist could write an article explaining how our esteem for that country’s borders benefits a single American — other than President Joe Biden.

Our own border has become a transmission belt for the third world, bringing in rapists, murderers, future welfare recipients and left-wing activists. The Democratic Party’s brilliant policy of defunding the police and emptying the prisons has, oddly enough, led to a breathtaking surge in violent crime. Our schools have been taken over by lunatics who teach white kids that they are evil — and probably transsexual. Inflation has hit a 40-year high.

U.S. media: Whither Ukraine?

Midterms must be coming!

In 2020, Democratic data scientist David Shor advised his party: “Talk about the issues [voters] are with us on, and try really hard not to talk about the issues where we disagree. Which, in practice, means not talking about immigration.” (Emphasis mine.) After the election, he said that the main way the media’s COVID hysteria hurt Donald Trump was by preventing anyone from “talking about Hunter Biden or immigration.”

Evidently, the only issue where voters don’t vehemently disagree with Democrats this year is the precise border of a country they’d never given a moment’s thought to until five minutes ago.

What Republicans should be doing: talking about the issues Democrats are trying to avoid.

What Republicans are doing: talking about Ukraine.

Whenever you see any media talking about Ukraine, your Pavlovian response should be, Oh, I see. They don’t want me to think about immigration or crime.

It’s not only the Democrats drawing benefits from the media’s sudden Ukraine obsession. There’s also the military-industrial complex.

President Dwight Eisenhower led Allied troops in World War II, but in his farewell address from the White House, he warned of the “unwarranted influence” on the government by “the military-industrial complex.” In the 60 years since, these bloodsuckers have been bleeding our country dry, solely to make themselves rich.

As Americans discovered to their dismay when the pandemic hit, we can’t make our own masks, pharmaceuticals or aspirin. We can’t make our own computer chips, razors, bicycles, toys, sneakers, Levi’s jeans and on and on and on. But boy, do we make weapons! In our ruling class’s ideal country, there will be nothing but defense contractors, Black Lives Matter activists and Latin American gardeners.

Just five companies receive the lion’s share of taxpayer money for “defense” weaponry. In 2020, the U.S taxpayer doled out $75 billion to Lockheed Martin, $28 billion to Raytheon, $22 billion to General Dynamics, $22 billion to Boeing and $20 billion to Northrop Grumman. Since 2001, these five companies alone have cost the taxpayer $2.1 trillion.

To put this in perspective, the annual budget of the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development is a little more than $50 billion. (And we should zero-out that whole budget, too.) During the COVID pandemic, when the government ordered people not to work, the entire supplemental food budget was about $70 billion.

Ronald Reagan’s victory in the Cold War should have been a sad day at Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Boeing. Instead, it was the beginning of endless paydays. Today, the American taxpayer spends more on “defense” than during the Reagan buildup that crushed the USSR; more than during the Vietnam War, more even than the War on Terror after 9/11.

Worse, we’ve added a “think-tank industrial complex” — an army of useless, camera-ready blowhards to explain why our incessant meddling around the globe is always in America’s “vital national security interest.”

Why does NATO still exist? This alliance was the West’s response to Soviet aggression during the Cold War. Once the USSR collapsed (thanks to Reagan) and the Warsaw Pact disbanded, that should have been the end of it. Instead, we keep adding countries to the alliance — with a requirement of admission being that they buy their weapons from American defense contractors.

Everyone acknowledges that Vladimir Putin’s main concern is that Ukraine will be asked to join NATO. How about, as a compromise, the U.S. will pull out of NATO? (Another of Trump’s broken promises.)

Nope! Can’t shut down this utterly anachronistic organization, requiring America to defend the likes of Latvia, should some other pipsqueak nation violate its precious borders. (Why isn’t Latvia down in Texas right now, defending our borders?)

Far from unwinding NATO, our country’s leaders are constantly trying to expand it, thus increasing the odds that Americans will be forced to go to war over some other country’s sacred sovereignty. Pointless wars are the lifeblood of defense contractors! We pay the price and defense contractors get the money.

(Ike should be on Mount Rushmore for his “military-industrial complex” speech.)

This year, the worshipful reverence for Ukraine’s borders has the added bonus of blocking Americans from thinking about immigration and crime. Republicans ought to be talking their heads off about the unprecedented crisis at our border, Afghan “refugees” raping little kids in our country, illegal aliens hauling meth and fentanyl into our country, rampant shoplifting, carjacking and assaults destroying neighborhoods in our country.

Luckily, the GOP is too smart to fall for the media’s latest subject-changer.

Oh, wait —

@newtgingrich: “The Biden Administration talks and Putin acts. This is such a clear replay of Chamberlain trying to deal with Hitler that it is more than a little frightening. Putin is pushing day by day and has no fear of NATO because he has no fear of the United States or its President.”

GOP 2022 Contract With America: “Putin’s like Hitler.”

Jerry Broussard Op-ed


Wednesday, March 2, 2022

I was watching the news this morning. FOX was reviewing last nights propaganda speech. The subject of the oil situation came up, especially about the so-called “oil reserve” Biden was releasing. It amounts to a three-day supply of oil in America.

Several thoughts came up regarding the situation between Putin and Biden. With all that the socialist put Trump through, (“Russia, Russia, Russia”) this geriatric dementia 80 something, is more in the pocket of Putin than the socialist accused Trump of being.

There is a meme going around of someone saying, “Instead of this Build Back Better businesses, how about just putting it all back the way you found it.” Indeed. We were oil independent, selling to other nations, and Putin was sitting on drilled oil. Our economy was robust, and we all could afford to drive our cars (there is a gas station a half block from us with prices of almost $6 a gallon). Do they really think we’re that stupid?

Everything these socialist’ have done is all designed around “control, control, control”. We all know now that this pandemic was more fear mongering than actual danger. Numbers inflated, bad advice, everything about it manipulated to grow fear in order for them to control almost every aspect of our lives.

After shutting down the Keystone Pipeline, and making us dependent on Russia for our oil (“Russia, Russia, Russia”), they shut down a robust economy buy shutting us up in our homes. Might as well have been house arrest. Supply lines cut off, making everything more expensive, and growing the fear that we might never have enough toilet paper.

Lie, after lie, after lie about face masks, numbers of deaths, and feeding more fear. Instead of a few weeks, or months, these manipulated lies have last two years. And miraculously, the China virus stopped it’s attack on the day of Biden State of the Union AS WE WANT YOU TO BELIEVE IT IS, BUT IN REALITY, WE HAVE DESTROYED IT FOR PUTIN AND XI.

Last night Biden threw up a speech someone else wrote, saying all the things he was expected to say, and meaning none of it, while stretching his dominion further. His greatest lies were those about Russia and Ukraine. We already have evidence of his manipulation of Ukraine leadership with his boast. Summed up, more Russian control of our economy by our dependence on Putin’s oil.

Now gasoline is over $5 a gallon, and climbing. Supply chains are growing, restaurants are so expensive, it’s prohibitive to eat out anymore. $9 for a Big Mac meal????? Heating our homes are down to multiple blankets, and electrical cost are criminal. And I think I have the reason all this has been engineered.

They locked us down to see if they could pull it off. Success. Once you give Socialist/Leftist power, THEY WILL NEVER GIVE IT BACK. So, make everything so expensive that Americans cannot afford to go out. Make gasoline so expensive that AMERICANS HAVE TO STAY HOME (LOCKDOWN). Add to that the Socialist/Leftist puts forth this geriatric dementia 80 something as a mock President, and you have a tyrannical government that is only interested in filling their own pockets, and those of the oligarchs that control them.

Angry enough America? Violence is not the answer, because that’s what they expect. Prayer? YES! Speak up, YES! Call them on their lies and manipulation? YES! Get out the vote and hold them accountable for their cheating? YES! Let’s start where we live and spread out nationally. I refuse to be controlled one more second. How about you?


Stop Talking About Ukraine, Republicans!

Ann Coulter | Posted: Feb 23, 2022

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/02/23/stop-talking-about-ukraine-republicans—p–n2603708/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

Stop Talking About Ukraine, Republicans!

Source: AP Photo/Andriy Dubchak

Amid the media’s 24/7 UKRAINE UPDATES, perhaps some enterprising journalist could write an article explaining how our esteem for that country’s borders benefits a single American — other than President Joe Biden.

Our own border has become a transmission belt for the third world, bringing in rapists, murderers, future welfare recipients and left-wing activists. The Democratic Party’s brilliant policy of defunding the police and emptying the prisons has, oddly enough, led to a breathtaking surge in violent crime. Our schools have been taken over by lunatics who teach white kids that they are evil — and probably transsexual. Inflation has hit a 40-year high.

U.S. media: Whither Ukraine?

Midterms must be coming!

In 2020, Democratic data scientist David Shor advised his party: “Talk about the issues [voters] are with us on, and try really hard not to talk about the issues where we disagree. Which, in practice, means not talking about immigration.” (Emphasis mine.) After the election, he said that the main way the media’s COVID hysteria hurt Donald Trump was by preventing anyone from “talking about Hunter Biden or immigration.”

Evidently, the only issue where voters don’t vehemently disagree with Democrats this year is the precise border of a country they’d never given a moment’s thought to until five minutes ago.

What Republicans should be doing: talking about the issues Democrats are trying to avoid.

What Republicans are doing: talking about Ukraine.

Whenever you see any media talking about Ukraine, your Pavlovian response should be, Oh, I see. They don’t want me to think about immigration or crime.

It’s not only the Democrats drawing benefits from the media’s sudden Ukraine obsession. There’s also the military-industrial complex.

President Dwight Eisenhower led Allied troops in World War II, but in his farewell address from the White House, he warned of the “unwarranted influence” on the government by “the military-industrial complex.” In the 60 years since, these bloodsuckers have been bleeding our country dry, solely to make themselves rich.

As Americans discovered to their dismay when the pandemic hit, we can’t make our own masks, pharmaceuticals or aspirin. We can’t make our own computer chips, razors, bicycles, toys, sneakers, Levi’s jeans and on and on and on. But boy, do we make weapons! In our ruling class’s ideal country, there will be nothing but defense contractors, Black Lives Matter activists and Latin American gardeners.

Just five companies receive the lion’s share of taxpayer money for “defense” weaponry. In 2020, the U.S taxpayer doled out $75 billion to Lockheed Martin, $28 billion to Raytheon, $22 billion to General Dynamics, $22 billion to Boeing and $20 billion to Northrop Grumman. Since 2001, these five companies alone have cost the taxpayer $2.1 trillion.

To put this in perspective, the annual budget of the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development is a little more than $50 billion. (And we should zero-out that whole budget, too.) During the COVID pandemic, when the government ordered people not to work, the entire supplemental food budget was about $70 billion.

Ronald Reagan’s victory in the Cold War should have been a sad day at Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Boeing. Instead, it was the beginning of endless paydays. Today, the American taxpayer spends more on “defense” than during the Reagan buildup that crushed the USSR; more than during the Vietnam War, more even than the War on Terror after 9/11.

Worse, we’ve added a “think-tank industrial complex” — an army of useless, camera-ready blowhards to explain why our incessant meddling around the globe is always in America’s “vital national security interest.”

Why does NATO still exist? This alliance was the West’s response to Soviet aggression during the Cold War. Once the USSR collapsed (thanks to Reagan) and the Warsaw Pact disbanded, that should have been the end of it. Instead, we keep adding countries to the alliance — with a requirement of admission being that they buy their weapons from American defense contractors.

Everyone acknowledges that Vladimir Putin’s main concern is that Ukraine will be asked to join NATO. How about, as a compromise, the U.S. will pull out of NATO? (Another of Trump’s broken promises.)

Nope! Can’t shut down this utterly anachronistic organization, requiring America to defend the likes of Latvia, should some other pipsqueak nation violate its precious borders. (Why isn’t Latvia down in Texas right now, defending our borders?)

Far from unwinding NATO, our country’s leaders are constantly trying to expand it, thus increasing the odds that Americans will be forced to go to war over some other country’s sacred sovereignty. Pointless wars are the lifeblood of defense contractors! We pay the price and defense contractors get the money.

(Ike should be on Mount Rushmore for his “military-industrial complex” speech.)

This year, the worshipful reverence for Ukraine’s borders has the added bonus of blocking Americans from thinking about immigration and crime. Republicans ought to be talking their heads off about the unprecedented crisis at our border, Afghan “refugees” raping little kids in our country, illegal aliens hauling meth and fentanyl into our country, rampant shoplifting, carjacking and assaults destroying neighborhoods in our country.

Luckily, the GOP is too smart to fall for the media’s latest subject-changer.

Oh, wait —

@newtgingrich: “The Biden Administration talks and Putin acts. This is such a clear replay of Chamberlain trying to deal with Hitler that it is more than a little frightening. Putin is pushing day by day and has no fear of NATO because he has no fear of the United States or its President.”

GOP 2022 Contract With America: “Putin’s like Hitler.”

Mike Rowe rails on Canadian officials for turning on truckers: They went from ‘hero to villain’ in the ‘course of 2 weeks’


Reported by PHIL SHIVER | February 22, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/mike-rowe-rails-on-canadian-officials-for-turning-on-truckers-they-went-from-hero-to-villain-in-the-course-of-2-weeks-2656771237.html/

Mike Rowe on Tuesday criticized Canadian government officials for their response to Freedom Convoy truckers amid a national protest over COVID-19 vaccine mandates. For weeks, thousands of demonstrators have camped in Canada’s capital city, Ottawa, and blocked border crossings with the U.S. in protest of the mandate and other coronavirus restrictions placed on truckers crossing the border.

In response to what the Canadian government deemed an “unlawful assembly,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act, a measure that grants authorities sweeping power to restrict travel, disperse crowds, arrest demonstrators, and freeze their bank accounts, among other actions considered necessary to stop assembly. Over the weekend, Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson even suggested selling off dozens of vehicles seized during the Freedom Convoy protests to cover the city’s costs incurred during the demonstrations.

During an interview with BlazeTV host Glenn Beck on Tuesday, Rowe pointed out how quickly the situation has changed now that some truckers find themselves on the bad end of state directives. Truckers, once considered essential to the economy during the pandemic, have in short order become enemies of the state, the “Dirty Jobs” star suggested.

“You know what strikes me about all of this?” Rowe asked, adding, “And maybe this is somewhat of a silver lining [because] I kind of feel like we’re about to close the loop.”

“When this started, truckers were right on the leading edge of heroes. They were the very definition of essentiality,” he said. “[But] in the course of two weeks, they literally went from hero to villain.”

That’s how fast things can change in today’s chaotic socio-political climate.

Beck noted that protesters have yet to be convicted of crimes or even appear in court. Nevertheless, the government is floating an auctioning off of property. The Canadian government responded quickly and harshly to continued protests in Ottawa over the weekend.

Police descended on the crowds, arresting at least 191 protesters and towing at least 76 vehicles since Friday. In one scene caught on video, police are seen charging on horseback into a crowd of demonstrators and knocking down at least two people, including an elderly woman on a mobility scooter.

One trucker recounted to Fox News host Tucker Carlson the moment that police repeatedly struck him while he was on the ground, complying to orders.

“They drag me in, they lie me down on my belly, and I don’t — I don’t recall how many were on top of me … I felt like I was beaten, but I took it like a man,” the trucker recalled.

“They broke my body a little bit, but not my spirit,” he added.

Jason Whitlock Op-ed: Michigan coach Juwan Howard feels ‘untouchable’ in racist world liberal elites constructed


Commentary by JASON WHITLOCK | February 21, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/whitlock-michigan-coach-juwan-howard-feels-untouchable-in-racist-world-liberal-elites-constructed/

Michigan basketball coach Juwan Howard believes he’s untouchable.

And why shouldn’t he? The rules imposed by our China-influenced institutions of government, education, sport, media (corporate and social), and art grant him a bigoted form of privilege.

Howard is black, elite, and a supporter of left-wing social justice. He checks all the boxes for the elimination of standards, accountability, and adult expectations. Our current culture immunizes Howard from real consequence. He took the blackcine, the alleged experimental cure for bigotry that injects people with the mindset that black people are inferior and can’t be held to the same standards as white, Asian, and Latino people.

Howard is fully blackcinated and boosted. He can’t be touched.

We saw that yesterday in the handshake line after the Wisconsin Badgers routed Howard’s Wolverines. Incensed that Wisconsin coach Greg Gard called a timeout with 15 seconds to play, Howard yelled at and attempted to walk past Gard without the customary handshake. Gard placed his hand on Howard’s elbow and tried to explain his use of a timeout. Howard responded by grabbing Gard’s shirt in the center of his chest and then pointing a finger in Gard’s face while repeatedly shouting, “Don’t f—ing touch me!”

Players and assistant coaches separated Howard and Gard. Moments later, Howard reached across several people and struck Wisconsin assistant coach Joe Krabbenhoft. Howard’s blow ignited a fracas among players from both teams.

Howard’s on-court, postgame behavior was embarrassing and justifies a season-ending suspension.

Howard’s postgame interview was troubling and justifies his firing.

“I didn’t like the timeout being called,” Howard told reporters, “and I’ll be totally honest, I thought it was not necessary in that moment, especially being a large lead. And then to have the timeout being called with 3, 4 seconds to go I thought that was – what I felt – wasn’t fair to our guys. So that’s what happened.”

There was no timeout called with 3 or 4 seconds to play. Howard is confused. Given time to collect his thoughts, Howard had no real idea what happened at the end of the game. With 48 seconds to play and leading by 19 points, Wisconsin emptied its bench and inserted its scrubs, including several walk-ons. Howard instructed his players to compete until the final second. The Wolverines pressed full court and caused a Badger turnover.

“It wasn’t a press,” Howard told reporters. “We were just five, pressure defense man to man. That’s what five is for us.”

So, it wasn’t a press. It was pressure defense man to man. Got it. Howard was in a total fog during his postgame media session. It’s like he blacked out. He lost a game and lost his mind.

“For someone to touch me, and I think that was very uncalled for him to touch me as we were verbalizing and communicating with one another,” Howard said. “That’s what ended up happening. That’s what escalated it.”

Getting touched in a handshake line is not unusual. It’s customary. Howard escalated the situation when he hit a Wisconsin assistant coach in the face.

“Oh yeah, it was more than that,” Howard responded when a reporter pointed out the point of a handshake line is to touch. “Yeah, he touched me unnecessary. There wasn’t cause for that when we were talking. At that point I thought it was time to protect myself.”

Five to 10 seconds after being touched by Gard, Howard protected himself by attacking Joe Krabbenhoft. It makes no sense. Howard sounded like a 12-year-old playground bully at best and a violent criminal with no emotional control at worst.

What he did not sound like was a leader, an adult capable of counseling young people not to be easily provoked. You can’t strike a man because someone touched your elbow or stepped on your favorite gym shoes. Striking the Wisconsin assistant was bad. The rationalization of the act was far worse.

How can Michigan have confidence in Howard’s ability to lead? Howard has less emotional control than his players.

Indiana University fired Bobby Knight 22 years ago, ending the era of out-of-control bully coaches. Twenty-years before Knight’s dismissal, Ohio State dumped its legendary football coach, Woody Hayes, for throwing a punch at a Clemson player.

Things we tolerated and/or overlooked decades ago, we no longer do. The Don Draper, Roger Sterling, Pete Campbell, and “Mad Men” era is gone. Juwan Howard can’t be retroactively grandfathered in. Replacing “Mad Men” with “Mad and Untouchable Black People” is a mistake and equally harmful and racist.

But that’s what we’re doing. We’re codifying cultural norms that lower or eliminate all standards of behavior and achievement for black people. You can see it in the education system, the criminal justice system, and the sports world. Leftists are defining black people as incapable of meeting traditional cultural norms. We’ve been defined as a special group worthy of a capital B that distinguishes us from the masses. The behavior of black people has been deemed irrelevant. Only the actions of white people matter. From the use of the N-word all the way to murder, we only care about the behavior of one group – white people. That’s why it’s forbidden to talk about the behavior George Floyd exhibited that contributed to his death. Discussing Colin Kaepernick’s career-destroying and illogical behavior is frowned upon. Criticizing LeBron James or Barack Obama is an unforgivable sin. Floyd, Kaepernick, James, and Obama are untouchable.

When people believe their actions are above scrutiny and irrelevant, their behavior typically becomes more erratic. That’s what we’re witnessing with Juwan Howard.

I first met Juwan when he was a 19-year-old sophomore at the University of Michigan and the most mature member of the famed Fab Five. I covered the team for the Ann Arbor News. Howard was an impressive young person. He was mature, respectful, and classy. He had a huge heart. He brought his best friend from childhood – a kid everyone called “Juice” – to Michigan. Juice was small and smart. He and Howard were inseparable. At the time, it seemed understood that Howard used his athletic gift to empower and educate his best friend from home.

I’ve always been impressed with Howard. I’m shocked to see Howard struggle with his emotions and behavior. A year ago, he had an over-the-top, on-court confrontation with Maryland coach Mark Turgeon. Turgeon says Howard threatened to kill him.

It was an ugly scene. Michigan took no disciplinary action against Howard. The team was nationally ranked and would eventually advance to the Elite Eight of the NCAA Tournament. Howard should’ve been disciplined a year ago.

But he’s untouchable and knows it.

That’s why he was so offended that Gard had the audacity to protect his bench players from Michigan’s endgame, full-court press. Gard’s walk-ons were getting overwhelmed and embarrassed. The final 48 seconds of a blowout are a walk-on’s reward for practicing every day. Upset by the loss, Howard decided to ruin the reward Gard gave his scrubs. When Gard countered with a timeout, Howard emoted and eventually erupted.

Joe Krabbenhoft is white. Had he struck Howard, Krabbenhoft would have been fired Sunday night. He would be portrayed as the second coming of Derek Chauvin.

Howard has somehow been cast as the victim. Calls for his removal as Michigan head coach are being framed as a racist overreaction. For white bigots and black supporters of black inferiority, holding Howard to the same standard as a white coach would be racist. Like Al Capone, Howard is untouchable. He will not be punished for his bad behavior. In a year or two, Michigan will fire Howard for NCAA Tournament evasion.

Phil Robertson Op-ed: Just loving America will never be enough


Commentary By Phil Robertson, Voices Contributor | Thursday, February 10, 2022

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/voices/just-loving-america-will-never-be-enough.html/

Christian flag
Christian flag and American flag flying together | GettyImages/ sdgamez

I love America, but my hope for the future isn’t wrapped up in the American flag. If our government imploded tomorrow and all of our freedoms were jerked from our grasp, I would mourn, but I would not throw in the towel.

Some in the Christian community discuss politics as if our future depended on the outcome of every election. They say, “Our Christian freedoms are being eroded.” Many post scandalous, hateful, degrading memes about the opposition. Some advocate for a violent overthrow of the government.

For me, I’m a free man who was bought and paid for by the mercy of God. And since He owns me, I am here only to obey Him and glorify His name. When He bought me, I surrendered my old passport and voluntarily became a citizen of his kingdom. My citizenship is in Heaven (Phil. 3:20).

Did Jesus or the apostles give a hint of obsession about worldly governments? I can’t find it. The only thing Jesus said about government was, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Matt. 22:21).

Wasn’t Caesar corrupt? Weren’t elections rigged? Weren’t babies killed and innocent people executed? Did the citizens of the Roman empire have a Bill of Rights? The United States can’t hold a candle to the corruption of first-century Rome, but Jesus seemed to have no obsession with the quality of a government.

This isn’t to say we shouldn’t get involved and do good when we can — we should. But we are given specific instructions about how to be a leavening influence on culture, including politics.

Paul wrote, “I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people — for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (1 Tim. 2:1–2).

He’s talking about ushering in a revolution by praying and petitioning the Almighty to bring about political change.

He wrote, “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves” (Romans 13:1–2).

In my opinion, there’s no ambiguity here. This passage says what it says. God is in charge.

Yes, work to change your culture, but if it becomes illegal to worship God again, should we just wait until we get the government’s approval before we can praise him? No, the advancing borders of God’s kingdom do not wait on worldly systems.

Sure, I openly speak about elections and social issues. I faithfully cast my vote. But all of my hope is in Jesus and His kingdom, not in any political system, including the United States of America.

Jesus said, “Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well” (Matt. 6:33).

I made the decision a long time ago to seek first God’s kingdom and His righteousness. Jesus promised that when I make his kingdom my number-one priority, God will supply all my needs, no matter how dire the political and social climate appears to be.

So far, Jesus hasn’t let me down.

The writer of Hebrews said about the persecuted saints, “They were foreigners and strangers on earth” (11:13).

Think about that. If I travel outside the United States, I don’t have the same rights as the citizens of the countries I visit. I can’t express my opinion about their government by voting in their elections. I can’t take up residence without getting permission to become a permanent resident. I am completely at the mercy of the systems that govern those countries. As a stranger in a foreign land, I often long for my humble abode on the banks of the Ouachita River.

Accepting that I’m a stranger here means I am liberated from the obligation to put my trust in anything that offers no hope beyond the here and now. It also sparks a desire to be with God in his kingdom where He wipes away every tear (Rev. 21:4).

There’s no more death, mourning, crying or pain. No corruption! No racism! No bigotry! No greed! And to top it off, our leader is a holy, righteous, perfect, all-powerful, and loving God. We will never see that in our worldly leaders. Never.

This realm in which we live is chock-full of disappointments. Sure, I experience joy and happiness here on earth, but when I look around, I can’t help but see pain and suffering: divorce, abuse, injustice, addictions, hatred, unrest, gossip, slander, discord, and other ugly sins. So, the promise to dwell with God where all that junk will be eradicated creates an intense longing to be there.

Peter wrote, “Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with His promise, we are looking forward to a new Heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells” (2 Pet. 3:11–13).

I love America. And yet, a better dwelling awaits.

When I tell people to act like a kingdom-driven follower of Christ, I am saying to be liberated from the disappointing rules of worldly systems. I’m saying not to let the temporary things of this world control your life.

You will never regret when you turn control of your life over to the one who is eternal, the one who is good. One day, you will dance with joy that you did not give your allegiance to the systems of this world.


Follow Phil on Twitter at @DuckCommanderPR and on Instagram at @officialphilrobertson.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Lockdowns Lose the Olympics


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Feb 09, 2022

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/02/09/lockdowns-lose-the-olympics—p–n2603086/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

Lockdowns Lose the Olympics

Source: AP Photo/Jae C. Hong 

Vincent Zhou, the world-class figure skater forced to pull out of the Olympics because of COVID, can thank Anthony Fauci and our COVID-crazed media for his withdrawal.

In an agonizing Instagram post, Zhou expressed shock at the positive test, saying:

“It seems pretty unreal that of all the people, it would happen to myself. … I have been doing everything in my power to stay free of COVID since the start of the pandemic. I’ve taken all the precautions I can. I’ve isolated myself so much that the loneliness I felt in the last month or two has been crushing at times.”

His story is heart-wrenching not only because of his compelled withdrawal from the individual competition — and the loneliness he endured — but because our “public health authorities” lied to Zhou, leading him to do exactly the opposite of what he should have been doing to build up his immune system before the Winter Games.

Maybe nothing could have protected him — he was, of course, fully vaccinated — but the safest course would have been to expose himself to everything in 2021, not be the Boy in the Bubble. If only he’d gotten omicron back in December, like everybody else, his immune system wouldn’t have been a sitting duck for the tiniest whiff of COVID once he got to Beijing.

As Dylan H. Morris, a postdoctoral RNA virus researcher at UCLA, put it: “If you want to stay out of the hospital, giving your immune system a preview of the virus is valuable, even if that preview isn’t perfectly accurate.”

A few months into the pandemic, two basic models emerged for responding to COVID:

1) Make it endemic. Also known as “herd immunity” or, pejoratively, “Let ‘er rip!” Georgia and Florida, among other states, cautiously followed that path, as did the nation of Sweden.

2) Lock down the populace in order to prevent a single COVID molecule from ever drifting within 10 yards of a human being. Remember “Fifteen days to stop the spread!”? In the blue states, two weeks became two years — finally being abandoned this week only because Democrats fear the coming elections.

RESULT: Places that pursued the endemic route did no worse, and often quite a bit better, than the fascist lockdown states. Apart from preventing hospitals from being overwhelmed when the virus first hit New York, no benefit was derived from strict COVID policies.

The reason the virus hit so hard in 2020 was that our immune systems had never encountered anything like COVID before. “[T]he population was immunologically naive,” explained statistician Philippe Lemoine, “which means that nobody had immunity against it.” It’s the same reason Native Americans were annihilated by viruses that Europeans had lived with for centuries. Now their immune systems recognize those viruses, too.

Training your immune system to recognize the virus, through vaccination or the real thing, reduces the severity and duration of future infections. Additional exposures give the body practice dealing with the various twists and turns of each new variant. Avoiding contact with viruses to protect your immune system is like avoiding weight-lifting to protect your muscles.

The Scientist magazine, among others, has pointed out that there’s little reason to believe that omicron is actually less dangerous than delta; it just seems so because our immune systems now recognize COVID and are able to quickly kill it.

Zhou might have known all this, but whenever epidemiologists tried to tell us that, our “public health authorities” and doomsday media buried the dissenters in scorn and calumny. Back on Oct. 4, 2020, Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University, Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University produced The Great Barrington Declaration, pushing the endemic solution. Soon, thousands of scientists had signed the paper. Today, nearly 1 million have.

Four days later, on Oct. 8, 2020, Francis Collins, President Trump’s director of the NIH, emailed “The Science” Fauci, frantically warning that the declaration was getting too much attention! He urged a rapid response to discredit the signatories — one a Nobel Prize-winner in chemistry — and “take down” the paper’s ideas.

“The Science” permits no debate! (Though I suppose we’re lucky Collins merely called the renowned epidemiologists “fringe,” and not “white supremacists.”)

Governors, like Ron DeSantis in Florida, who listened to the epidemiologists rather than “public health authorities” were reviled by our media, amid florid predictions of disaster.

In April 2020, when Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia began lifting COVID restrictions, the Atlantic magazine blasted him with the headline: “Georgia’s Experiment in Human Sacrifice.” Longtime reporter Ron Fournier wrote: “Mark this day. Because two and three weeks from now, the Georgia death toll is blood on his hands.” (Take note, deplorables: Trump jumped on the bandwagon and publicly criticized Gov. Kemp for opening up, too.)

About the same time, Gov. DeSantis also began easing restrictions. For this, the media dubbed him “Death-Santis.” The New Republic titled an article on April 10, 2020, “God Save the Florida Governor From His Stupidity.”

RESULTS: A month later, COVID cases in both states had declined, while cases continued to rise in the majority of other states.

Maybe that was a fluke. What’s the final score, two years later?

As of a week ago, among all 50 states, Georgia was ranked 15th in age-adjusted COVID deaths, well below communist-controlled New York and New Jersey. Florida was in the bottom half of all states, coming in at No. 31. Only 19 states did better.

As for Sweden, MSNBC and President Trump spoke as one in denouncing that country’s refusal to shut down. On April 20, 2020, Trump tweeted that Sweden was “paying heavily for its decision not to lock down.” A week ago, Sweden ranked 20th out of 31 nations in Europe in COVID deaths. Only 11 countries did better.

Even a tie score should go to the free states because their citizens didn’t have to stop living, learning, eating in restaurants, going to concerts, athletic events and on and on.

Not only did Armageddon not ensue in the free states, but their populations’ immune systems aren’t at risk of collapsing the next time a germ wafts their way. You know all those weird allergies to things like peanuts that didn’t exist 20 years ago? Wait until the kids who’ve spent their childhoods in masks encounter the Earth’s atmosphere again!

Naturally, there will be no consequences for our “public health authorities” who imposed cruel mandates and squelched opposing views: You can’t sue the government.

The rule should be that whenever our rulers claim emergency powers to impose draconian measures on the populace, they forfeit sovereign immunity. I know some epidemiologists who would be good expert witnesses for the lawsuits.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: The Pentagon’s RESPONSE to the explosive DOD medical data is an even bigger story than the data


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | February 07, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-the-pentagons-response-to-the-explosive-dod-medical-data-is-an-even-bigger-story-than-the-data/

One thing is clear about the revelation of the 2021 military epidemiological data and the military’s response to it: There is undoubtedly a public health and national security crisis in the military, and the Pentagon’s reaction only seems to be concerned with exonerating the vaccine, not fixing its own alleged problem.

It’s now certain that the military’s health surveillance system — DMED — showed a massive increase in sickness and injury diagnoses in 2021 over previous years, particularly in the neurological, cardiovascular, oncological, and reproductive health categories. The military, in a very terse and cryptic statement to PolitiFact last week, admitted as much, but claimed without any further explanation that the data in the system accessed by several military doctors working with attorney Thomas Renz was only a “fraction” of the true numbers that existed. In the words of the Pentagon spokesman, it was a “glitch in the database.” Where those true numbers existed, why they weren’t in the system for five years, what exactly was in the system, and why the 2021 numbers were accurate according to the DOD account remain a mystery.

However, one by one, the military public health officials have been adding back random numbers to the 2016 through 2020 codes. I’m told by Renz and two of the whistleblowers that throughout the past week, they have queried the same data again, and in most of the ICD categories, they have found that the numbers from 2016 through 2020 were “increased” exponentially to look as though 2021 was not an abnormal year. This has been done without any transparency, any press release, any statement of narrative, and sloppily in a way that makes the already unbelievable narrative simply impossible to believe.

In addition to believing that every epidemiological report for five years was somehow completely tainted with false data — including during the first year of the pandemic itself — we would have to believe that the minute they discovered this from Renz, they suddenly discovered the exact numbers. A five-year mistake fixed overnight!

Just take a look at the following statement given to the Epoch Times, the only other public comment delivered by an authorized Pentagon spokesman:

“Comparing the DMED database to the source data contained in DMSS, AFHSD discovered that the total number of medical diagnoses from 2016-2020 that were accessible in DMED represented only a small fraction of actual medical diagnoses for those years. In contrast, the 2021 total number of medical diagnoses were up to date in DMED. Comparison of 2021 to 2016-2020 resulted in the appearance of significant increased occurrence of all medical diagnoses in 2021 because of the under-reported data for 2016-2020. AFHSD has taken DMED offline to identify and correct the root-cause of the data corruption,” said Maj. Charlie Dietz.

That’s it! They are only concerned with downplaying any potential culpability of the vaccine, not explaining how they were flying blind, according to their official narrative, on such an important endeavor for so many years. Just consider the fact that at last week’s meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), officials revealed that they have been monitoring vaccine safety data from the DOD, among other places.

You know what that means? The CDC was looking at data for months that showed insane safety signals and did nothing about it, and somehow nobody in HHS or the DOD all along thought the data was a “glitch.”

Moreover, the DOD’s new data (as presented on Renz’s website) that was somehow updated so quickly is impossible to believe for a number of other reasons. Take a look at the top-line number of ICD codes in 2016-2020, as reflected in the data before the DOD tampered with it to input the new updated numbers.

Here is the original data of total annual outpatient diagnoses in DMED before the Pentagon changed it:

And here is the top-line tally for 2016-2020 based on the new numbers added:

This is a bar graph presentation from Thomas Renz contrasting the 2016-2020 total outpatient ICD diagnosis codes in the military before the DOD change and after the change. As you can see, during a typical year, there were about 2 million diagnosis codes, jumping almost tenfold in 2021. However, based on the changes made last week, 2021 is exactly in line with every other year (even though 2021 remains slightly lower; the data does not include numbers from December).

Here’s the problem with such an alleged presentation of the data. Putting the vaccines aside, the DOD’s “new” model would literally erase the existence of COVID off the face of the planet as if we never had the biggest pandemic of our lifetime. Even if the vaccine never caused a single doctor’s visit, COVID alone had to increase the codes. Yes, the military is generally very young, and deaths and hospitalizations were relatively low, but it’s impossible to believe that especially during the vicious Delta outbreak since the summer, there was no increase in COVID-related doctor’s visits. Just long COVID alone had to register a meaningful increase. Ironically, the Biden administration is forcing a vaccine mandate for a virus that, according to this alleged new data, didn’t cause even a 1% increase in baseline outpatient doctor’s visits this year!

The data originally reflected on DMED that was downloaded by the whistleblowers a few weeks ago makes much more sense because it accommodates both COVID and vaccine injury, which would explain the unprecedented increase. Now, obviously, COVID alone can’t explain all the increases, because some of the specific data points presented have already been associated with the vaccine injury, per VAERS and other studies, as opposed to the virus.

More fundamentally, it is simply ludicrous to suggest that there are this many diagnoses in the military in a given year. All active-duty soldiers have to be medically screened. Obesity, diabetes, and heart conditions are very rare, and the population is generally very young. If we really have over 20 million diagnoses every year in the military (consisting of about 1.4 million active-duty personnel), there is something seriously wrong, and that in itself is a huge story.

Let’s drill down to some specific ICD codes to drive home this point.

Take a look at the data for nervous system diagnoses before the numbers were altered:

Now look at the new numbers:

We are to believe that there was ZERO increase in the year of the Delta pandemic as well as what we already know from the civilian world about vertigo and migraines following the shots? We were all shocked by the percentage increase, but to say there was no increase whatsoever defies any expectation. Moreover, we are to believe that there are nearly 1 million nervous system diagnoses in the military every year in a fighting force of 1.4 million?

To further explore this point, let’s look at the number of pulmonary embolism diagnoses before and after the DOD “fixed” the data. Blood clotting in the longs is a clear consequence of the spike protein, which sticks to CD-147 receptors on blood vessels.

Here are the numbers before:

And here are the numbers after the DOD alteration:

While even the “revised” numbers do show some degree of increase, it is not enough to account for the unprecedented nature of both COVID and the COVID vaccines. But the more serious issue is how can a military of healthy young people have such a high baseline of pulmonary embolisms every year? One estimate of pulmonary embolism prevalence in the U.S. is between 60 and 70 per 100,000 per year. But that is almost exclusively in the elderly and sicker population. Soldiers 20 to 25 years old don’t exactly get pulmonary embolisms. So even accounting for the fact that these are diagnosis codes and not unique individuals (some might have had a few visits in a year), the numbers are way too high.

Finally, it’s important to note that the DOD is so overprotective of the vaccine that it revised numbers to show zero increase in ailments that are universally understood to have increased – at least to some extent – because of the vaccine. Although they were smart enough to still show a baseline increase in myocarditis (everyone knows that), the new numbers would indicate zero increase for pericarditis.

Here is the original data queried by the whistleblowers:

And here is the new data, which seem to indicate no unusual increase, even if we add in the missing month for 2021:

The silence both from the media and congressional members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees is astounding. One of two things is true: Either there was mass vaccine injury in the military, or our military has been very unhealthy and the Pentagon completely lost control over epidemiological surveillance of these health issues for years. Either way, this is the story of the year.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: GOP governors must ban shots for babies and toddlers


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | February 01, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-gop-governors-must-ban-shots-for-babies-and-toddlers-2656528942.html/

It’s utterly senseless. Pfizer is now asking to authorize a dangerous, outdated shot for babies and toddlers, for whom the virus does not pose a statistical risk and for a virus against which the shots have failed to show any benefit. Yet, just as taxes and death are a certainty in life, you can bank on the FDA never turning down any Pfizer request. This is where Republican governors must serve as the safety net for the people. They must actively oppose expanding the shots to the final control group against the greatest experiment on mankind.

In one of the most shocking and immoral moves since the beginning of the pandemic, Pfizer is submitting its request this week for emergency use authorization of its COVID shot for babies as young as 6 months old through 5 years old. They are quite literally pushing a shot with the hopes of ameliorating symptoms (not stopping transmission) of a virus that is a cold for young children and much less dangerous than RSV. But here’s the kicker: The trial they conducted showed that two doses failed to even produce positive results, and they are still working on a trial for a three-dose regimen. Plus, we have a new variant. So, what exactly are they seeking authorization for?

As other countries are already recommending against vaccinating those under 12, our government will likely approve this shot for babies and young children based on a failed trial. There was never any efficacy in the shot because no child in the trial got seriously ill to begin with. So, they chose a trial endpoint around levels of antibody titers. Putting aside for a moment the premise that higher antibody titers (as opposed to T cells) are necessarily a good thing and won’t cause original antigenic sin, their own trial failed to achieve these endpoints in 2- to 4-year-olds. Which is why Pfizer announced in December that it was beginning a trial on a three-dose regimen. So how can they seek authorization of the failed two-dose trial for what is essentially a new virus?

One of the precepts of the Nuremberg Code: “The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.” There is no way pursuit of an already flawed vaccine can be justified on young children, even if it still had a degree of efficacy and wasn’t outdated. A recent study from the U.K. showed that even immunocompromised children were not at an elevated risk for severe COVID. The study of 1,527 immunocompromised children and young adults found “no increased risk of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection.” None of those even more vulnerable children died.

While there likely have been a tiny number of severely ill children who have died of the virus, it’s extremely hard to tell how many of the recorded deaths were legitimately caused by the virus itself. A large COVID study conducted in Germany found just three pediatric COVID deaths out of a million. The same analyst found zero deaths occurred in children under 5.

Already among older children, no positive benefit was found in the vaccine, even when the vaccine was working better. An Israeli study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found ZERO deaths or severe illnesses BOTH in the vaccinated and in the control (unvaccinated) groups of 12- to 18-year-olds in a 29-day follow-up of their vaccination. Under what pretext could the government possibly justify COVID as an emergency in this age group, and based on what evidence does this vaccine address that “emergency?”

On the flip side, the CDC, in a study in published in JAMA just conceded that the VAERS data on myocarditis was indeed an accurate reflection of an increased risk of heart inflammation following the vaccines. “Based on passive surveillance reporting in the US, the risk of myocarditis after receiving mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines was increased across multiple age and sex strata and was highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males and young men,” concluded the CDC researchers. “This risk should be considered in the context of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination.”

More broadly, over 22,600 vaccine deaths and over 1 million injuries have been reported to VAERS. We already know from previous studies that VAERS only captures 1% of adverse events, and no other shot has come with such a stigma against reporting it for harm, often at the threat of the physician losing his job. Medicare data seems to hint at a much broader cohort of vaccine casualties. The military’s epidemiological database also seems to indicate a very disturbing trend of neurological and cardiological disorders rising in association with the take-up of the vaccine.

How can this be foisted upon the youngest children — with no apparent benefit — when they concede, “Long-term outcome data are not yet available for COVID-19 vaccine–associated myocarditis cases”?

There are no long-term cancer studies, there are no long-term studies on what this does to one’s immune system, and there are no long-term studies on autoimmune diseases, even though the VAERS data and the Pfizer surveillance data from early 2021 raises some concerns. Plus the vaccine is for a virus that is not a threat to children.

Think about it: Monoclonal antibodies can get their existing EUA pulled based on the arrival of a new variant, yet shots that have already proven to be outdated – and are associated with greater infection rates – can secure official full approval and then EUA for babies with a new variant that was never run through a clinical trial.

As such, for a governors to merely take a neutral stance while allowing this travesty to plague the children of their states is unacceptable. Governors have a responsibility to direct their respective health departments to conduct the proper oversight that the FDA has abdicated and demand a moratorium on shots for children until a proper cost-benefit analysis can be conducted. At a minimum, they should join together in a lawsuit to enjoin the EUA because Pfizer has failed to prove the shots meet the eligibility thresholds in the EUA statute.

Moreover, Republican governors and legislators have an obligation to treat Pfizer like Planned Parenthood and cut all political ties with the company’s lobbying groups. Bio-medical fascism and the breach of informed consent is a greater pro-life cause than opposition to abortion right now, because its practitioners are encouraging all children to get something with only a potential downside. It is the equivalent of forcing abortions upon us, not just permitting them.

The final precept of the Nuremberg Code reads as follows: “During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.” If after everything we have learned, they won’t even discontinue this experiment on babies, then we truly have learned nothing since that dark era of history.

As Country Prepares for Midterm Elections, Fake American Licenses from Hong Kong Flood United States


Reported By Christine Favocci  January 27, 2022

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/country-prepares-midterm-elections-fake-american-licenses-hong-kong-flood-united-states/

Democrats are quick to smear election integrity legislation as racist, but a recent discovery proves just how easy it is for people to commit fraud.

Last week, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents seized 1,200 counterfeit driver’s licenses from more than 20 states, according to the agency’s website. The fake IDs were part of three shipments from Hong Kong declared as $20 worth of “Game Card,” with one labeled for a Chicago destination and the other two headed for New York.

Many of the identification cards reused photos with different names and had dates of birth consistent with people of college age. They were knock-offs of licenses from states including Michigan, Pennsylvania, California, Texas, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Illinois and Ohio.

“Counterfeit driver’s licenses have historically been used by those under 21 years of age for the illegal consumption of alcohol, but fake IDs ……

YOU CAN READ THE REST OF THE REPORT AT https://www.westernjournal.com/country-prepares-midterm-elections-fake-american-licenses-hong-kong-flood-united-states/

Mark Levin: Jan. 6 committee wants to DESTROY Trump, his followers, the GOP — and they’re spending YOUR tax dollars to do it


BLAZETV STAFF | January 26, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/shows/levintv/mark-levin-jamie-raskin-jan-6?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1

On MSNBC, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) claimed that the January 6 committee is going to “blow the roof off the house” with its findings. He even managed to get every Marxist talking point into one outrageous sentence: “We`re looking at that mob riot which surrounded a violent insurrection of domestic violent extremist, white nationalist groups surrounding a presidential coup against the vice president and against the Congress.” It’s time to push back on their Marxist narrative with the truth, and BlazeTV’s Mark Levin is ready to take them on.

On a recent episode of “LevinTV,” Mark played a video clip in which Raskin told MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan that, unlike the Senate impeachment trial that was “about one guy, Donald Trump, and one crime, incitement to violent insurrection,” the mandate of the “select committee” is “much more sweeping.”

“We`re looking at all of the events of the day, all of the causes, and what needs to be done to fortify democratic institutions in the future,” Raskin said. “So, we’re looking at that mob riot which surrounded a violent insurrection of domestic violent extremist, white nationalist groups surrounding a presidential coup against the vice president and against the Congress. And we`re going to tell the story of each dimension of this attack on American democracy.”

“[Democrats] are going to destroy these people, Trump, his followers, the Republican Party, and they’re spending American tax dollars on this,” Mark exclaimed. “These guys are going out publicly saying what they’re going to do: ‘We want to get Trump indicted. We want to prevent him from being president of the United States’ … and this guy’s out there saying, ‘Yes, this is going to be a spectacular public hearing!’ Look at the smirks on their already smirk-like faces. It’s unbelievable. “

“God help us. I just hope this isn’t the narrative for the next 50 to 100 years in this country, because the Democrats are working very, very hard to make it the narrative,” he added.

Levin went on to unpack Raskin’s claims one by one, exposing the fallacies, hyperbole, and flat-out lies, before concluding, “[Democrats] can go after everybody and anybody for anything … and seek an indictment against them from our always objective and independent attorney general. The Department of Justice will go after them if they don’t submit. I am telling you, this is precisely what the framers of the Constitution rejected. This is a disgrace.”

Watch the video clip below or find more “LevinTV” here:

Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of “the Great One” — Mark Levin as you’ve never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: DeSantis Shocker: It’s Not OK to Hate Whites


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jan 26, 2022

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/01/26/desantis-shocker-its-not-ok-to-hate-whites—p–n2602426/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.com.

DeSantis Shocker: It's Not OK to Hate Whites

Source: AP Photo/Phelan M. Ebenhack

Gov. Ron DeSantis is pushing a bill through the Florida legislature to put a stop to the modern pedagogy of making little girls cry because they’re white. The bill, called “Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act (WOKE),” prohibits classroom instruction that contradicts these concepts:

“No race is inherently superior to another race”;

“An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, does not bear responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex”;

“An individual should not be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race.”

The left has been having a sneer-fest over the proposed law, howling that it protects “white people” from feeling “uncomfortable.” SNOWFLAKES!

E.g.:

“A bill pushed by Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis that would prohibit public schools and private businesses from making white people feel ‘discomfort’ when they teach students or train employees about discrimination in the nation’s past …” — The Associated Press (emphasis added)

“The right likes to talk so much about, you know, snowflakes. It seems like they may be raising snowflakes because if they think people are going to be uncomfortable by the actual facts — facts are uncomfortable.” — CNN’s Don Lemon

“Ron DeSantis and his GOP allies are pushing a bill … that would prohibit public schools [from making] white people squirm. Those poor, wittle babies.

“Their feelings are hurting. Some poor, wittle white people are uncomfortable about the hundreds of years of racism and hate that built this nation.” — Laura Washington, Chicago Sun-Times

(Saving the best for last …)

“[H]e’s trying to make it illegal, Governor Ron DeSantis, to teach history that would make white people uncomfortable. Does that law include saying you can’t make black people feel uncomfortable or indigenous people? The history of indigenous and African Americans could make one uncomfortable? Is that illegal too, or is it just white people?” — MSNBC’s Joy Ann Reid

To know the answer to Joy Ann’s question, you’d have to actually read the bill. Or an article about the bill. Or commentary on an article about the bill. Joy Ann Reid: highly literate and well-informed Harvard graduate. But, duh: A bill prohibiting the teaching of race hatred will primarily prevent the teaching of white hatred for the simple reason that it’s the only race we’re allowed to hate. Not merely allowed to hate, but taught to hate, encouraged to hate, paid to hate.

We’re now entering the sixth decade of open, widespread, official discrimination against white people on the basis of their race. Even the Asians suing Harvard dare not stress the humungous advantage given to blacks and Hispanics. No, their beef is about white applicants getting preferential treatment over Asians.

This is odd, to say the least. According to the plaintiffs’ own expert witness, an Asian with a 25% chance of admission to Harvard would increase his chances to 36% if he were white — but to 77% if Hispanic, and to 95% if black. Asians sure have assimilated to our culture!

Everybody’s copacetic with the idea that universities discriminate against white people — in abject defiance of the clear language of our civil rights laws. They have done so, loud and proud, at least since 1973, when Allan Bakke was rejected from the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, because he was white. In fact, no one under the age of 50 has ever lived in an America where universities and other elite institutions have not discriminated against whites. Three generations of hating whites are enough.

School districts around the country teach white children that they were born racist and assign books like, Not My Idea: A Book About Whiteness,” that portrays “whiteness” as a contract with Satan.

So yes, a race-neutral law that prohibits teaching race hatred will, in practice, prohibit teaching hatred of whites because that’s the only race-hate that’s taught.

Liberals jeer at whites who object to this constant disparagement, calling them “poor, wittle babies.” Does the left have any self-awareness at all?

6-year-old girl is a total pussy if she can’t take a little abuse for being white — at a school her parents are paying for. But our entire country has been turned upside down for the past half-century to prevent any other race from experiencing a fleeting moment of discomfort.

Historic Confederate statues are torn down and melted; newspapers refuse to identify the race of criminals — or even show photos of the arrestees; the Oscars will not consider a movie for Best Picture that does not have 30% non-whites. Otherwise, black people might feel uncomfortable.

Professor Amy Wax of the University of Pennsylvania Law School is routinely threatened with suspension or firing from her tenured position for stating facts about black students’ performance. Her remarks make black people feel uncomfortable.

Hey, where’s the rush to review Charles Murray’s recent book “Facing Reality” about black crime and I.Q.? Nope, might make black people uncomfortable.

A few years ago, Kansas City officials were advised not to impose a curfew in response to the violent mobs of black teenagers descending on a shopping plaza because, as the black mayor said, it would “make a lot of black kids angry.” His remark inspired the title of Colin Flaherty’s book about black crime, “Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry” — a book that is currently banned from Amazon. It might make black people uncomfortable.

Anti-whiteness books are flooding the grade schools, but you aren’t allowed to spend your own money to purchase books on Amazon that make some people “uncomfortable.” Not only Flaherty’s book, but:

— Ryan Anderson’s “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment” — might make transgenders uncomfortable.

— Jared Taylor’s “If We Do Nothing,” as well as two books he contributed to: “Race Against Time” and “Face to Face With Race” — might make black people uncomfortable.

— The Kindle edition of the widely praised 1973 dystopian novel by French author Jean Raspail, “Camp of the Saints” — might make third worlders uncomfortable.

— David Cole’s rollicking autobiography, “Republican Party Animal” — makes Debra Messing uncomfortable.

The FBI allowed the 9/11 attack to happen by blowing off an Arizona agent’s warning that a lot of Arabs were enrolled in flight school. Three thousand Americans had to die because noticing Arabs in flight school might make some people uncomfortable.

Last week, a Muslim terrorist, Malik Faisal Akram, seized a Texas synagogue and held four hostages for 10 hours. The media universally identified Akram as: “British man.” He didn’t even call himself “British”! A week later, the Anti-Defamation League’s Jonathan Greenblatt went on MSNBC and tried to suggest “Republicans” were responsible for the attack. The truth might make Muslims uncomfortable.

A virus that originated in China cannot be called anything with “China” in the name. That might make Asians uncomfortable.

Before we go, here’s another “actual fact,” as Don Lemon put it, and “facts are uncomfortable” (especially for the black Harvard grad on MSNBC who can’t read a bill): By Harvard’s own admission, nearly 60% of the black students it admits are there only because they are black.

It’s so great that liberals have finally turned against snowflakes so we can discuss “actual facts” again!

MORE FOOD FOR THOUGHT


January 25, 2022

Erica Caudill Op-ed: True feminism: An unpopular opinion


Commentary By Erica Caudill | Tuesday, January 25, 2022

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/voices/true-feminism-an-unpopular-opinion.html\

Women
Unsplash/Becca Tapert

In a seemingly never-ending sea of hot topics, gender equality is always near the forefront. Whether it’s called ‘women’s rights,’ ‘female empowerment,’ or ‘the feminist movement,’ it’s all pushing the same agenda.  According to society, if you’re not crying ‘I am woman, hear me roar,’ then you’re not supporting other women. Well, I respectfully disagree.

According to mainstream media, to be a woman who supports women, you must be: pro-choice, pro-LGBT, and celebrate all-female life choices. You must think Cardi B grinding on Megan Thee Stallion (ask yourself why that’s her stage name) on national television is sexual empowerment. You must watch your step as to not cut yourself on the remnants of the shattered ceiling of Kamala Harris becoming the first female Vice President. Meanwhile, don’t forget to cheer while Miranda Hobbs has a sexual awakening and leaves her husband for a non-binary comedian (a female named Che, formerly known as Cheryl) on the new Sex and the City reboot, And Just Like That…

To the overly aggressive agenda-pushing media and entertainment industry, I say no. No, I will not support abortion because it is murder. I will not perpetuate the LGBT movement because there are two genders and woman was made for man and vice versa. I’m never going to celebrate someone holding public office that I fundamentally disagree with regardless of their gender. I’m never going to cheer as a family is torn apart, regardless of the circumstances. (I’m aware there are valid reasons for divorce — I’m not referring to that here.)

I will not compromise my morals under the guise of women supporting women. This does not make an anti-feminist. It means that I am rooted in my beliefs and I’m not wrong for saying such.

Every religious stand in this country, great or small, is met with a deafening outcry denouncing the cause. So, where are the Christian women? Where are the fierce, Bible-believing wives and mothers? Why is it acceptable to tolerate the outcry of every opposing thought that hits the airwaves but the conservative, family-centered matriarch is expected to sit down and shut up? If the church is not influencing our nation, then conversely, one can assume the nation is influencing the church.

God created man in His image. Then from the ribs of the man, He created woman. Genesis 2:21-24 tells us how He brought the woman out of the man and now they are one flesh. This is the nucleus of the family unit. This was God’s design. When you step back and look at the many movements concurrently running through our society, you’ll discover they all seek to destroy the Biblical family unit. If you remove gender from society, then you remove the image of God. That is the ultimate goal after all — to remove Christ and His influence from the world.

Ephesians 2:2 tells us that Satan is the prince and the power of the air meaning that he rules on the earth. He has tremendous influence and reach on the earth but that doesn’t mean that Christians are expected to sit back and endure silently.  Matthew 5:13-16 tells us that we are salt and light, and we are to let our light shine before others so that they may see the Father through us. Salt retards corruption and light outshines the darkness. We have a purpose and it’s to spread the message of Jesus Christ to a fallen world.

Truthfully, a God-fearing woman is the ultimate feminist. There is nothing more feminine and empowering than finding your God-appointed mate and creating life out of that love. Proverbs 31:10-31 describes a Godly wife and mother. The world has this distorted view of Christian women as lowly, meek pushovers who are afraid of their powerful husbands. While this might be the case for some, I assure you that is not what God intended. There is no gender priority according to God. One can simply not exist without the other. We were created with a specific design in mind. We were created uniquely and with specific responsibilities for home and for the body of Christ.

Christian friends, we need to be strong advocates for Christ and His design. The world’s effort to derail Christianity will only increase so now is the time to be rooted in our dedication to the Lord.

Ladies, be proud of being a Christ-centered woman. Love your husband unapologetically. Raise your children to know and love Jesus. Men, love and respect your wives and guide your families according to His Word. It takes strong men and women to boldly speak the truth in a dark world. Rise up and be proud of exactly who Christ created you to be.

Erica Caudill is a lifelong Christian who runs a blog. She is a married mother of two children. She can be reached at mrscaudill@me.com.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: The Great Epstein Cover-Up, Part 2


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jan 12, 2022

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/01/12/the-great-epstein-coverup-part-2—p–n2601773/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, WhatDidYouSay.org.

The Great Epstein Cover-Up, Part 2

Source: AP Photo/Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office, File

Last week, we reviewed our ruling class’s strange lack of interest in Jeffrey Epstein’s child molestation ring, in which so many of them played a part. The media cover-up is second only to the government cover-up, with prosecutors delivering loss after loss in cases they’ve been forced to bring (by the police and the public) against the child molester.

This week, we’ll look at the government’s long record of zealously trying NOT to unravel the case.

Barry Krischer was the first prosecutor to let Epstein off for child molestation. The local police presented then-Palm Beach state attorney Krischer with bales of evidence. They had affidavits from dozens of witnesses: girls abused by the pederast, the women who recruited them, the butler who cleaned up sex toys after the “massages,” as well as records of Epstein’s molestation appointments, one delayed because of a victim’s “soccer practice.”

Pretty much everything we know today about Epstein’s sex ring was unearthed by the Palm Beach Police back in 2005 and handed to Krischer on a silver platter.

Five underage girls had given police sworn statements that Epstein had sexually abused them, backed by 17 other witnesses, but when Krischer brought the case to the grand jury, weirdly, he allowed only one of the girls to testify — and then attacked her on the stand! (Epstein’s attorneys had helpfully provided Krischer’s office with the girl’s posts on MySpace, where she talked about boys and drinking, the little harlot.)

According to an extensive review by The Palm Beach Post, most of Krischer’s 2,800-page investigative file on the case consists of dirt against the teens — and against the police — given to him by Epstein’s lawyers. (Thanks, Epstein attorneys! Do we owe you anything?)

The grand jurors, who’d been meticulously kept in the dark by Krischer, ended up voting only for a single charge of “solicitation of prostitution” against Epstein in 2006. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five years’ probation. No jail time, no record as a sex offender — no criminal record whatsoever.

According to Nexis, only one newspaper, The Palm Beach Post, reported at the time — or ever — that Palm Beach prosecutor Krischer gave Epstein probation for his years of child abuse.

Epstein’s friends claimed he was the victim of a crusade by Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter, whom they called a “born-again nutcase.” Apparently, anyone who thinks prison is appropriate for the mastermind of a massive child sex ring has gotta be “born-again.” (How does he feel about teenage girls talking about boys and drinking?) In fact, there’s no evidence that Reiter is even a Christian — other than the fact that he’s never won an award from the ADL.

(In 2018, the Anti-Defamation League gave a “Jurisprudence Award” to … Barry Krischer! The award praised him for “exemplifying the principles upon which the Anti-Defamation League was founded.” Hey, Jonathan Greenblatt, was Harvey Weinstein out of town?)

At that point, the enraged Palm Beach chief of police took his evidence to a completely separate law enforcement agency — the federal government, even though these were mostly state crimes. U.S. attorney Alex Acosta proceeded to make a deal with Epstein — with Krischer essentially operating as Epstein’s defense counsel — resulting in a plea only slightly tougher than Krischer’s pat on the head.

According to journalist Vicky Ward, Acosta later defended this sweetheart deal to the Trump transition team, explaining: “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence‘ and to leave it alone.”

Most recently, the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York brought a gentle prosecution against Epstein’s pimp and fellow child molester, Ghislaine Maxwell. Federal prosecutors called a mere four girls who claimed to have been recruited and/or abused by Maxwell. They could have put dozens of her victims on the stand.

Most notably, the Southern District did not call the star witness, Virginia Giuffre, who has openly named the rich and powerful men she says these creeps forced her to have sex with, including Prince Andrew, former Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, former New Mexico governor and presidential candidate Bill Richardson, former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, French model scout Jean-Luc Brunel, and the hedge fund billionaire Glenn Dubin, among others.

(Times of London, Jan. 9, 2022: “Alan Dershowitz asked Donald Trump to grant Ghislaine Maxwell a preemptive pardon.”)

Immediately after the Southern District accidentally won five guilty verdicts against Maxwell, the prosecutors quietly revealed that, weeks earlier, they’d dismissed all charges against the prison guards who failed to check on Epstein for more than eight hours the night he allegedly committed suicide — despite an explicit directive that they check on him every 30 minutes.

Not to brag but …

July 25, 2019, 1:05 a.m.: @AnnCoulter Dear Bureau of Prisons: Please get Jeffrey Epstein to a super Max prison pronto, or the people who want him dead will make sure we never know the truth. ACT NOW!

Aug. 10, 2019: Epstein found dead in his cell.

The feds not only did not move Epstein to a super-maximum security prison as some observers recommended, but they also did this:

— The day before Epstein died, he was taken off suicide watch.

— Against orders, his cellmate transferred elsewhere, leaving Epstein completely alone in his cell.

— All the cameras on Epstein’s floor were mysteriously broken.

— Even the footage of his earlier suicide attempt had been mistakenly erased and the backup footage destroyed “as a result of technical errors,” according to assistant U.S. attorneys Jason Swergold and Maurene Comey.

How many times can they use the “we’re completely incompetent” defense? (Hey, does anybody know if this case implicates rich people?)

Maxwell’s brother soon announced to the press — and to anyone else who might be interested! — that his sister was no snitch. She wouldn’t rat out any of Epstein’s fellow child molesters in exchange for a lighter sentence.

Maxwell is facing up to 65 years in prison, and her brother has just admitted she can name names. Hello? SDNY? Any thoughts about applying some pressure?

Unfortunately, these are the same prosecutors who just did everything in their power to blow the case against her. My prediction of their next conversation with Maxwell: This is our last offer: 30 hours of community service — and we’re not kidding! OK, 20 hours. Damn — you’re one tough negotiator.

Most strange, the ink wasn’t dry on the guilty verdicts before one of the jurors ran to the press and announced that he’d lied on his juror questionnaire. Although he’d denied ever having been sexually molested, he had been! Not only that, but — hoo boy — did his experience with sex abuse sway the jurors during deliberations!

The defense immediately moved for a mistrial and the chatty juror moved to a villa in the south of France he’s just inherited from an unknown relative. OK, the second part isn’t true (that I know of), but are you kidding me??

Are prosecutors even investigating any contact between Maxwell’s representatives and the jurors? Will he be tried for perjury?

However this ends, once it’s over, we’ll never hear about Epstein again — unlike, say, Jan. 6, which we will never stop hearing about. If America got to vote, which story do you think they would find more interesting?

Which story is more important? Doesn’t the public have a right to know how big Epstein’s sex/blackmail club was, who among America’s ruling elite were compromised, and to what end?

Arielle Del Turco Op-ed: Don’t let Biden off the hook for the disaster he left in Afghanistan


Commentary By Arielle Del Turco, Op-ed Contributor | Wednesday, January 12, 2022

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/voices/dont-let-biden-off-the-hook-for-the-disaster-left-in-afghanistan.html/

Joe Biden
President Joe Biden delivers remarks on ending the war in Afghanistan, August 31, 2021, in front of the Cross Hall of the White House. | White House/Adam Schultz

The media has largely moved on from the Afghanistan debacle, and many are all too eager to sweep the consequences of President Biden’s botched withdrawal under the rug. Yet, the repercussions will last lifetimes.

Currently, hundreds of parents and family members are seeking help for their starving children. Last year, the United Nations warned that one million Afghan children were at risk of starvation, and now many are struggling to make it through the winter.

On the best of days, Afghanistan has a near-universal poverty rate. Now, a famine and economic collapse are making it virtually impossible for many to meet their families’ basic needs. In sheer desperation, some parents are being driven to sell their young daughters into future marriages just so the family will have a few months’ worth of food. It’s an unthinkable choice — but one that some feel is their only chance to evade death by starvation when there is no work to be found.

One father’s decision has him in agony. He told CNN reporters that he could no longer sleep at night because he sold his nine-year-old daughter into marriage. The guilt and shame have “broken” him. Following unsuccessful attempts to find work, even traveling to the provincial capital, he said, “We are eight family members. I have to sell to keep other family members alive.” The money from the sale will feed the family for only a few months.

Sadly, the economic collapse in the wake of the Taliban’s rise was predicted and shouldn’t take Biden administration officials by surprise. The question now is how to respond.

The U.S. government is rightly being careful to avoid giving any financial aid to the Taliban. And although the United States donated funds through international humanitarian aid groups, Olivia Enos, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, has pointed out that current aid levels are expected to meet only 40% of the anticipated needs to get through the winter months. The Biden administration should seek effective solutions to get substantial help directly to suffering Afghans.

When it comes to promoting religious freedom in Afghanistan, the U.S. government has always fallen far short. The past 20 years of U.S. involvement in the country failed to produce a cultural acceptance of religious freedom or pluralism. The consequences continue. And for the Afghan Christians most endangered by the rise of the Taliban, the Biden administration’s actions (and inaction) were shameful.

Although certain groups of Afghan nationals were given Priority 2 (P-2) designation for the U.S. refugee program — which allows more direct access for individuals to apply when they are at immediate risk — religious minorities were not offered P-2 status. This is in spite of the Taliban openly threatening religious minorities and the number of minorities who would have utilized the program being small and manageable. The Biden administration should fix this error and extend P-2 status to Afghan religious minorities.

When private NGOs tried to help vulnerable Christians, women and others fleeing the Taliban, the State Department was accused of thwarting these rescue efforts. Josh Youssef, president of Help the Persecuted, helped organize refugee flights out of Afghanistan with endangered religious minorities. When he reached out to the State Department for help, he was told that he would have a better chance of the plane taking off if there were LGBT-identifying persons on board.

But religious minorities aren’t the only people with reason to fear. Amid the Taliban’s rollback of women’s rights, many women who had public professions are scrambling to hide their identities. Female athletes are on the run, changing locations every few weeks to avoid being caught and punished by the Taliban.

Women who served in the Afghan military or police are also hiding. Samima, who served in the Afghan Air Force, fled to a new location with her husband after she received phone calls from Taliban fighters and the Taliban began going door to door looking for former Afghan military members. She told The Wall Street Journal, “Thousands of girls like me are receiving threats, face an uncertain future and are being tracked by the Taliban.”

Countless Afghan girls and female university students have been kept at home and out of school since the Taliban’s return. For many, their dreams were put on hold in 2021, perhaps permanently.

Meanwhile, there are still Americans who remain stuck in Afghanistan. Not to mention the countless Afghan allies who worked for the U.S. military and were promised protection in just such a circumstance as a U.S. withdrawal.

The White House would be happy for us all to forget that the grossly mishandled U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan ever happened. But we must not. America spent 20 years involved in this country; the people of Afghanistan deserve better than to be abandoned and ignored in their hour of most dire need. Furthermore, the American people deserve far better leadership than President Biden has shown throughout this ordeal largely of his own making.

By electing Joe Biden, Americans entrusted him with our foreign policy. The resulting human suffering in Afghanistan ought to be remembered as a grave stain upon Biden’s presidency.


Originally published at the Family Research Council. 

Arielle Del Turco is Assistant Director of the Center for Religious Liberty at Family Research Council.

FOUND IN MY IN-BOX THIS MORNING


January 10, 2022

POLITICALLY INCORRECT SPEECH


January 7, 2022

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Jeffrey Epstein and the Mainstream Media Cover-Up, Part I


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jan 05, 2022

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/01/05/the-great-epstein-coverup-part-i—p–n2601468/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

Jeffrey Epstein and the Mainstream Media Cover-Up, Part I

Source: New York State Sex Offender Registry via AP

Question: Is our ruling class trying to make us to think they’re a bunch of pederasts? Our media could not be less interested in Jeffrey Epstein’s child molestation ring, and with the sole exception of the Palm Beach Police Department, every arm of government has bent over backward to bury the case. (Who says our media and government can’t work together?)

The jury’s courageous delivery last week of five “guilty” verdicts against Epstein’s pimp, Ghislaine Maxwell, was a sort of reverse jury nullification. The U.S. attorney’s office — the prosecution — did everything it could to get an acquittal, but the jurors defied them.

As for media coverage, did you even know that the FBI found Epstein’s cache of sex tapes labeled “(name of underage girl) + (name of VIP)” — and then lost them? Immediately after Epstein’s arrest at Teterboro Airport in July 2019, the FBI executed a search warrant on his New York mansion. Following a daylong search, agents discovered a hidden safe in the closet of a fifth-floor dressing room, used a saw to break into it, and found an enormous collection of photos of naked girls, and CDs of the girls apparently having sex with influential men. Then, the agents left — abandoning the photos and CDs, with Epstein’s employees free to wander about the place. As Kelly Maguire, FBI special agent in charge of the search, explained during Maxwell’s trial, they only had a warrant to search the house, but not to remove evidence — evidence at the heart of the entire sex trafficking scheme.

It didn’t occur to Maguire to leave a single agent behind to guard the CDs? How about the intern who just gets coffee?

You’ll never guess what happened next.

The CDs and photographs disappeared. By the time the FBI returned with a new warrant — four days later — to remove the CDs and photos, they were gone. Later, after a few phone calls, Epstein’s lawyer, Richard Kahn, “returned” the cache in two suitcases. I had no idea they were important! I was just tidying up!

Were the videos tampered with? Were all of the photos returned? Who knows!

This was testified to by Special Agent Maguire. That’s the last time I trust the lawyer of a pedophile! Boy, is my face red! Darn it! … Oh well, what are you going to do?

(Before moving on, let’s take a moment to honor the historic appointment of Kelly Maguire as FBI special agent. Another glass ceiling shattered!)

How could any search warrant for Epstein’s residence fail to specify videos? The reason the tapes are kind of important is that it was perfectly clear — certainly by 2019 — that Epstein had no legitimate source of income to fund his Caligula lifestyle, and further, that he was farming out underage girls for sex to the rich and powerful — with hidden cameras running everywhere. It sure looked like his underage sex ring was a blackmail/kompromat operation.

Obviously, the most important question is: On behalf of whom? The tapes of “(underage girl) + (important person)” would have gone a long way toward answering that. What did the search warrant specify, if not videos and photographs?

If I didn’t know better, I might think that those in power don’t want us to know anything about Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation.

As further evidence that there is ABSOLUTELY NO COVER-UP: The New York Times has never breathed a single word about the CDs lost in the FBI’s botched search. Nor has The Washington Post. Nor the Chicago Tribune. Nor the Los Angeles Times. Wait — I’ll make this easier: Here’s a list of all the major U.S. newspapers that did report on Maguire’s breathtaking revelation:

1) The Miami Herald

2) The New York Post

The end.

Oddly, media in the rest of the world seemed to find Maguire’s testimony about the vanishing CDs somewhat more newsworthy. The story of the missing tapes was covered — repeatedly — in The Daily Telegraph (London), The Independent (United Kingdom), The Daily Mail (Ireland), Economic News (Russia) and the Daily Mail (U.K.), among others.

The totally not-a-cover-up gets weirder and weirder.

Epstein had vast wealth, and we still don’t know where it came from. Normally, the IRS is extremely curious about unexplained flows of riches. Did the IRS decide in this case, Well, he may be a committed and energetic pedophile, but as far as we know, he’s a conscientious taxpayer!

Similarly, there are vague claims that he made his money from “investments.” The SEC wasn’t the least bit interested in finding out how he got this rich from secretive “investment” services?

And this: Epstein spent decades aggressively cultivating powerful, important men, quite a few from foreign countries — evidently taping all their activities. Why wasn’t the CIA concerned? Couldn’t he have sold dirt on U.S. politicians to foreign intel agencies?

Finally, it’s odd that our government wasn’t concerned about how much blackmail material Epstein had gathered on high-level U.S. officials. Doesn’t the FBI try to prevent that sort of situation? Or the Secret Service?

How was it that all these agencies let Epstein keep up his activities for so long?

There’s much more to this story. Stay tuned for next week!

Jason Whitlock Op-ed: Aaron ‘The Jerk’ Rodgers and COVID-19 might save America


Commentary by JASON WHITLOCK | January 05, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/whitlock-aaron-the-jerk-rodgers-and-covid-19-might-save-america/

COVID-19 isn’t all bad. It appears that one of its side effects is turning Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers into a combination of Muhammad Ali and Navin R. Johnson.

Of course, you remember Ali, the greatest boxer of all time. Ali fell under the spell of Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X and risked prison and invited national scorn by refusing induction into the military and participation in the Vietnam War.

But do you remember Navin Johnson, the jerk? He was the lead character in the 1979 movie classic “The Jerk.” Comedian Steve Martin played the role of Navin, the white adopted son of black Southern sharecroppers. Navin hilariously has no idea that his black parents adopted him.

Rodgers has fallen under the spell of podcasters Joe Rogan and Pat McAfee and has refused the COVID vaccine injection. The quarterback’s defiance apparently is going to jeopardize his chance to win the NFL’s MVP award and has invited national scorn.

One of the 50 voters for the Associated Press’ MVP award, Hub Arkush, labeled Rodgers the biggest jerk in the league and a bad guy and stated that he won’t vote Rodgers MVP for that reason.

Rodgers is the jerk. He had no idea that deciding what’s best for his body would provoke lunatics to treat him like a 1960s black man.

“I don’t think you can be the biggest jerk in the league and punish your team, and your organization and your fan base the way he did and be the most valuable player,” Arkush said during a radio interview. “Has he been the most valuable on the field? Yeah, you could make that argument, but I don’t think he is clearly that much more valuable than Jonathan Taylor or Cooper Kupp or maybe even Tom Brady. So, from where I sit, the rest of it is why he’s not gonna be my choice.”

This is the kind of utter lunacy COVID has sparked among the Branch Covidians, the mask-wearing leftists who believe “my body, my choice” only applies to killing children in the womb.

Arkush reminds me of David Susskind, the popular American TV host who trashed Ali on national television shortly after a jury disregarded Ali’s religious objection and convicted him of refusing the draft.

“I find nothing amusing or interesting or tolerable about this man,” Susskind said. “He’s a disgrace to his country, his race, and what he laughingly describes as his profession. He is a convicted felon in the United States. He has been found guilty. He is out on bail. He will inevitably go to prison, as well he should. He is a simplistic fool and pawn.”

I find nothing amusing or tolerable about the way Rodgers has been treated since it was discovered his COVID immunization didn’t include taking the experimental medical trial that is being hailed as the corona silver bullet. Arkush gave voice to a sentiment that could derail Rodgers’ MVP candidacy. Arkush was dumb for publicly admitting his bias, but he’s not remotely alone.

Many people within corporate media think it’s perfectly fine to discriminate against the unvaccinated. Rodgers could face additional discrimination because he appears to be flirting with the concept of publicly embracing conservative values.

During ESPN’s Monday Night Football broadcast, Rodgers yukked it up with Peyton and Eli Manning, bragged about reading Ayn Rand’s pro-capitalism manifesto “Atlas Shrugged,” and mentioned his Chuck Norris bobblehead. Norris, the action movie star, is a prominent, unashamed Hollywood Republican.

Back in October, I wrote a column about Rodgers cleverly supporting comedian Dave Chappelle by ripping cancel culture and the woke mob during a podcast interview with McAfee.

From way on the outside, it looks like someone slipped Rodgers the red pill.

Or maybe the No. 1 side effect of COVID is the red pill? The red pill is ivermectin?

COVID isn’t all bad. It’s forcing people to wake up and recognize the lies global elites, politicians, Hollywood, Big Tech, and corporate media are shoving into our brains and veins. The beauty of COVID is that it impacts all of us. Men, women, and children. Rich and poor. Old and young. Black, white, and brown. Believers and nonbelievers. Educated and uneducated. Famous and unfamous. It’s unifying in the same way that critical race theory has unified parents concerned about what is being taught inside our public schools. Teaching kids to view our country as a force for evil makes a rational person pause, ponder, and push back.

That’s what’s happening with Aaron Rodgers and people across the globe as it relates to COVID and the alleged vaccines. There are too many lies to be ignored or written off as honest mistakes, too many negative consequences to not raise your voice out of concern.

The lockdowns and isolation have sparked a rise in suicides and depression. The normal, healthy development of kids has been compromised. The experimental medical trials don’t seem to prevent COVID as advertised.

The COVID pandemic just might save freedom. It might make men stand up. It has certainly inspired Aaron Rodgers, the NFL’s most talented and interesting player. Rodgers is remaking “The Jerk” into a superhero movie.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: 6 important COVID data points that destroy the prevailing narrative


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | January 03, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-6-important-covid-data-points-that-destroy-the-prevailing-narrative/

When you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health, that of the family, but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community. And in other words, you become a dead end to the virus.” ~Dr. Fauci, Face the Nation, May 16, 2021

“Negative efficacy.” Get used to that term, because every day more data suggests we are already in the vaccination twilight zone of all pain and no gain – just as with the lockdowns.

It is tearing humanity apart. COVID fascism is the most serious human rights threat we’ve faced in our lifetimes, and the latest science and data demonstrate that it’s all built upon a false premise. While people tuned out the news over the holiday week, many have missed the growing incontrovertible evidence that not only is there risk and zero benefit to taking any of the COVID shots, but there is actually negative efficacy against the virus. In other words, not only does it put you on the hook for known and unknown short-term and long-term injury without stopping COVID, it now, actually, makes you more vulnerable to COVID.

As you read these latest points, just remember that this is the injection for which police in Europe are now using dogs and batons against those protesting it. All these human rights abuses for a shot that, especially with the new variant, has become moot.

1) 96% of all Omicron cases in Germany among vaccinated: The respected Robert Koch Institute reported last week that among the 4,206 Germans infected with Omicron for whom their vaccination status was known, 95.58% were fully vaccinated. More than a quarter of them had booster shots. Given that the overall background rate for vaccination in Germany is 70%, this means that the shots now have a -87% effectiveness rate against Omicron.

2) Omicron among vaccinated outpacing unvaccinated by 28% in Ontario: The government in Ontario posts continuous data on case rates by vaccination status. The fact that the vaccinated have rapidly overtaken the unvaccinated in new infections demonstrates a clear negative effect of the shots against Omicron.

3) In Denmark, 89.7% of all Omicron cases were among fully vaccinated: As of Dec. 31, just 8.5% of all cases in Denmark were unvaccinated, according to the Statens Serum Institut. Overall, 77.9% of Denmark is fully vaccinated, and Omicron seems to hit younger people for whom there is a greater unvaccinated pool, which indicates clear negative efficacy. Even for non-Omicron variants, the un-injected composed only 23.7% of the cases.

4) Just 25% of the Omicron hospitalizations in the U.K. are unvaccinated: Not only are the vaccinated more likely to contract Omicron, but they are likely more at risk to be hospitalized. While American hospitals put out unverifiable information about “nearly everyone seriously ill with COVID being unvaccinated,” the U.K. continues to put out quality continuous data that shows the opposite. According to the U.K.’s Health Security Agency’s latest “Omicron daily overview,” just 25% of those in the hospital with suspected Omicron cases are unvaccinated.

Although that is roughly in line with the percentage of unvaccinated overall in the U.K., we know that Omicron cases are overwhelmingly among younger people who have a greater share of the unvaccinated. Dr. Abdi Mahamud, the WHO’s incident manager for COVID, said last week that Omicron has not hit most of the elderly yet.

According to the latest U.K. vaccine surveillance report (p. 21), between 32% and 40% of the age groups under 40 are unvaccinated. Which means that, with a 25% hospitalization rate, the unvaccinated are very possibly underrepresented in the Omicron hospitalized population, which again indicates negative efficacy to the shots.

5) 33 of 34 hospitalizations in Delhi hospital were vaccinated: The Indian Express reported that 33 of the 34 people hospitalized for Omicron in Delhi’s Lok Nayak hospital were fully vaccinated. Two of them received the booster shot. While some of them were international travelers, it’s important to remember that India has a much lower vaccination rate than the West. This is another small indication that not only might one be more likely to get Omicron after having gotten the shots, but possibly could be more vulnerable to hospitalizations, very likely due to some form of antibody dependent disease enhancement (ADE).

6) Vaccinated exponentially more likely to get re-infected with COVID: new preprint study from Bangladesh found that among 404 people re-infected with COVID, having been vaccinated made someone 2.45 times more likely to get re-infected with a mild infection, 16.1 times more likely to get a moderate infection, and 3.9 times more likely to be re-infected severely, relative to someone with prior infection who was not vaccinated. Although overall re-infections were rare, vaccination was a greater risk factor of re-infection that co-morbidities!

Hence, the findings of this first-in-its-kind study harmonize with what a Public Health England survey found in October; namely, that the vaccines seem to erase a degree of N (nucleocapsid) antibodies generated by prior infection in favor of narrower S (spike) antibodies. “Recent observations from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data that N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination,” stated the week 42 report from the U.K. (p. 23).

This finding also correlates with what researchers from Mount Sinai in New York and Hospital La Paz in Madrid found last year – that the second dose of the vaccine “determines a contraction of the spike-specific T cell response.” In that report, researchers already observed that other research has shown “the second vaccination dose appears to exert a detrimental effect in the overall magnitude of the spike-specific humoral response in COVID-19 recovered individuals.”

At this point, how is there any benefit, much less a net benefit, from the shots? There are currently 21,000 deaths reported to VAERS, along with 110,000 hospitalizations and over 1 million total adverse events. Most deaths and injuries are never reported to VAERS. Now that the efficacy is, at best, a wash and at worst negative, why are we not discussing the short-term and long-term liabilities of the shots?

Remember, the VAERS numbers don’t even begin to quantify the long-term concerns, such as cancer and auto-immune diseases. A heavily redacted analysis of the Pfizer shot (p. 16) from the Australian Therapeutic Goods Agency (TGA) flatly conceded, “Neither genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity studies were performed.”

Consider the fact that the CEO of Indiana-based life insurance company OneAmerica, which has been around since 1877, revealed last week that the death rate among 18- to 64-year-old Hoosiers is up 40% from pre-pandemic levels. That is four times above what risk assessors consider catastrophic. Yes, some of this has been due to the virus, but given the age group, OneAmerica CEO Scott Davidson said that most of the claims for deaths being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths. Brian Tabor, the president of the Indiana Hospital Association, who spoke at the same news conference as Davidson, said that Indiana hospitals are flooded with patients “with many different conditions.” Any wonder what those ailments are if not COVID itself? Indeed, those who say the injections are a “medical miracle” are correct, just not in the way they meant it.

Jason Whitlock Op-ed: Mass Formation Psychosis explains Antonio Brown’s meltdown far more than CTE


Commentary by JASON WHITLOCK | January 03, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/whitlock-mass-formation-psychosis-explains-antonio-browns-meltdown-far-more-than-cte/

Professional sports are no longer a force for good. They do not unify us. They do not inspire us to seek our better selves. They do not provoke participants to take bold and courageous stances. For the first time in my lifetime, I believe professional sports do more harm to American society than good.

This is what ran across my mind yesterday as I watched Tampa Bay wide receiver Antonio Brown strip off his uniform mid-game, toss his equipment to the ground, wave to the crowd, and run off the field.

Professionalized football – collegiate and the NFL – exacerbated the emotional problems that have plagued Brown since childhood. Because of his immense talent, football afforded Brown the opportunity to ignore the mental scars a dysfunctional upbringing in South Florida wrought. Worse, the new social media demands of professional sports sank Brown further into the mental abyss.

Over the next few days, you will hear plenty of analysts and Twitter pundits speculate that Brown is suffering from chronic traumatic encephalopathy – CTE. CTE and white supremacy are the popular and corporate-media-approved explanations given any time a professional football player, particularly a black one, behaves poorly. They’re bogus excuses that ignore the fact that bigotry and head trauma in sports have been around since gladiators fought lions for the entertainment of the masses. If CTE is real and the cause of unstable behavior, then Spartacus, Bronko Nagurski, Rocky Marciano, Muhammad Ali, Walter Payton, and Joe Montana should all have melted down.

No, what’s new and what explains both Antonio Brown’s plunge into bizarro world and the rapid decay of professional sports as a force for good is the importance of social media brand-building. Brown has no more or less CTE than Troy Aikman, Jim Brown, Joe Montana, Dick Butkus, or any prizefighter.

Brown is suffering from mass formation psychosis. Yep, the psychological disorder Dr. Robert Malone discussed in his infamous Joe Rogan interview. Malone, of course, was talking about our exaggerated fear of COVID-19. Malone compared modern America to Germany in the 1920s and 1930s.

“A very intelligent, highly educated population, and they went barking mad,” he said. “When you have a society that has become decoupled from each other and has free-floating anxiety in a sense that things don’t make sense, we can’t understand it, and then their attention gets focused by a leader or series of events on one small point just like hypnosis, they literally become hypnotized and can be led anywhere.”

Here’s how I translate Malone’s explanation: America, the land of individualism and independent thought, is suffering from social and corporate media-induced groupthink. It’s made us choose group fear over individual freedom. It’s made us crazy. Antonio Brown is nuts, and his addiction to Instagram and Twitter is making him crazier. He turned a rather routine sideline dispute between himself and Bruce Arians into a career-ending confrontation and walk-off. It’s not all that surprising if you have been following Brown’s descent. In 2018, ESPN’s Jesse Washington wrote a prescient piece on Brown and his love affair with the social media matrix. The article perfectly captures the negative impact social media was having on Brown’s reality and worldview.

Brown is the micro. Professional sports are the macro. Social media has eroded the value and integrity of professional sports. It’s done the same thing to corporate media and public discourse. It’s at the root of American division. Social media is a cancer. Mass formation psychosis is just a strand of social media cancer.

For today, I don’t want to stray too far from sports.

Let’s look beyond Antonio Brown. Let’s look at a football player with an impeccable reputation and the damage social media is doing to him: Tom Brady. He suffers from mass formation psychosis, too. You will never convince me Brady believes in the experimental COVID vaccines. Never. The man is meticulous about what he puts into his body. But he has a social media brand he must protect, so he pretends to be on board with the experimental medical trials being forced on the American public.

Pro athletes are cowards. They’re tools of major corporations. They’ve completely sold out for money. They live in fear of the social media mob. Combined, Brady and his wife, Giselle Bundchen, are worth close to a billion dollars. Brady has the money and the accomplishments to say and do whatever he wants. He could use his voice and his platform to speak against the vaccine mandates and the stupid and divisive NFL COVID protocols. He remains silent.

The same goes for LeBron James. He’s a slave to his social media following. Pretending that cops are on a murderous rampage against American black men pleases social media and the Chinese Communist Party. The point of view is detached from reality and a symptom of mass formation psychosis.

Professional sports used to reveal and sharpen a man’s character. We’re all flawed. Participation in sports used to shave some of our flaws. Now the games solely reward talent and men willing to swallow and promote whatever agenda Big Tech and global corporations dictate.

Antonio Brown won the talent lottery. That’s why the Steelers, Raiders, Patriots, Buccaneers, and Tom Brady kept bending their standards to make room for Brown. For me, the Great Reset is turning into my personal Great Awakening. Professional sports and their participants solely serve the dollar. The difference between Antonio Brown and Tom Brady isn’t as significant as you might think.

Robin Schumacher Op-ed: The No. 1 worldview today is Woody Allen’s


Commentary by Robin Schumacher, Exclusive Columnist | Monday, December 27, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/the-number-1-worldview-today-is-woody-allens.html/

Desires and needs
[PHOTO:UNSPLASH/ALEXISFAUVET]

When filmmaker Woody Allen was publicly exposed in 1992 as having an affair with the adopted daughter of his partner Mia Farrow (Soon-Yi Previn, 34 years his junior), his defense was simply, “The heart wants what it wants.”  

In quoting a statement made in an 1862 Emily Dickinson letter, Allen perfectly sums up the rationale underpinning today’s prevailing secular worldview, which is a deadly combination of post-truth and pragmatism, and driven solely by the adherent’s heart wanting what it wants.

And so what ends up happening?

The heart wants what it wants so it elevates itself above everyone else, putting others last, thus becoming the quintessential, prideful Captain You-Planet.

The heart wants what it wants so it commits smash-and-grab, follow-home, and brazen what-are-you-going-to-do-about-it robberies, taking from others what it hasn’t earned.

The heart wants what it wants so it goes to a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic to end the life of a person it finds currently inconvenient.

The heart wants what it wants so it breaks its marriage vows and destroys its family all for nothing more than a muscle spasm.  

The heart wants what it wants so it refuses to work and lives off of others because it bizarrely believes it is entitled to do so.

The heart wants what it wants so it suppresses truth and rewrites history to fit a lying narrative that furthers its agenda and enriches itself.

The heart wants what it wants so it cancels disagreement and slanders others because they threaten its echo chamber’s false peace.

The heart wants what it wants so it misuses religion in order to murder, suppress, oppress, and exploit people in hopes of getting the power, position, and wealth it desires.  

The heart wants what it wants so it deliberately thinks with its feelings instead of using the mind and facts to arrive at conclusions that may be distasteful at first, but saving in the end.  

In his article for The Blaze, Jason Whitlock writes, “My problem [with today’s culture] is its aspiration to redefine every form of sin as a natural desire we should not tame. “Do what thou wilt” is the unstated overarching theme of progressive politics. “Do what thou wilt” is the primary tenet of the Thelema occult practice established by English writer Aleister Crowley, a Satanist.”

This dovetails exactly with how the Bible describes the natural, sinful heart. Scripture says that “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5), that the heart is “more deceitful than all else and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9); that we are “brought forth in iniquity” (Ps. 51:5) and “he who trusts in his own heart is a fool” (Prov. 28:26); that “the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil and insanity is in their hearts throughout their lives” (Ecc. 9:3) and “out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders” (Matt. 15:19).

Needless to say, it’s a terrible thing when that kind of heart gets what it wants.

What God’s heart wants

God knows the sinful heart wants what it wants and so He’s provided a cure that’s announced throughout Scripture. His Law acts as a tutor (Gal. 3:24) to bring us what we really need because, says Tim Keller, a sinful heart is one where “law only restrains the heart; it doesn’t change it.”

That being true, we find early in the Old Testament God said, “[I] will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul” (Deut. 30:6). In the pages of the prophets, God says: “I will take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances and do them” (Ez. 11:19-20), and “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it” (Jer. 31:33).

The awesome end result is a person where “the law of his God is in his heart; his steps do not slip” (Ps. 37:30-31) and they say, “I delight to do Your will, O my God; your Law is within my heart” (Ps. 40:8).  

The miraculous change is perfectly captured in a verse from John Newton’s hymn, “We Were Once as You Are”: “Our pleasure and our duty, though opposite before; since we have seen His beauty, are joined to part no more.”

And so what ends up happening?

The heart wants what God wants so it elevates others above itself and washes others’ feet.

The heart wants what God wants so it doesn’t rob others and steal what it hasn’t earned.

The heart wants what God wants so it values the life of everyone, including the unborn.

The heart wants what God wants so it is loyal to its spouse and keeps its marriage vows.  

The heart wants what God wants so it works with its hands to support itself and is generous to others.

The heart wants what God wants so it upholds and speaks the truth in love, following the narrative of Scripture.

The heart wants what God wants so it respectfully engages dissenting voices and is in no way threatened by different opinions (Phil. 1:28).

The heart wants what God wants so it engages in pure and undefiled religion (James 1:27), serving those around it with no self-centered agenda.  

The heart wants what God wants so it is deliberately mature in its thinking (1 Cor. 14:20) and is Holy Spirit led vs. emotions driven.

Needless to say, it’s a fantastic thing when that kind of heart gets what it wants.

In truth, Woody Allen’s explanation for his actions is correct. However, the effect of “the heart wants what it wants” on culture is dependent on whether the heart in question is one that gives itself over to its natural, sinful desires or one that is born again (John 3:3) and acts under the direction of God.

Needless to say, what the world desperately needs today is the latter where everywhere society turns, it sees people who are, “a letter of Christ … written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts” (2 Cor. 3:3).

Robin Schumacher is an accomplished software executive and Christian apologist who has written many articles, authored and contributed to several Christian books, appeared on nationally syndicated radio programs, and presented at apologetic events. He holds a BS in Business, Master’s in Christian apologetics and a Ph.D. in New Testament. His latest book is, A Confident Faith: Winning people to Christ with the apologetics of the Apostle Paul.

Carlos Garcia Op-ed: The ‘reason for the season’ is to be grateful for all the sacrifices made for us


Commentary by CARLOS GARCIA | December 25, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/christmas-reason-season-sacrifice/

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

“Remember the reason for the season!” is the sign we see all over once the holidays start popping up. What is that exactly?

It’s funny, when I was growing up, everyone knew what the reason was. Not everyone recognized or believed in the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made for the sins of the world. But we lived in a culture and a country that at least knew what it was, even if some rejected it.

It’s different now.

Our culture, our nation, has splintered. There are many many reasons for this, but one of those is that we just don’t celebrate Christianity in as unified a way as we used to. People in the Western World simply don’t have as much space for any faith, much less Christianity, as we used to.

But the central reason for Christmas is still one that all people can recognize, despite their faith, or lack thereof. The reason for the season is that no man is an island, and we all have people that came before us that sacrificed in order for us to be where we are, to have what we have and be what we are. And it is good for us to stop and think about those sacrifices made for us, and be thankful, and grateful.

And this is true in every spheres of our lives.

As an American, a central part of my identity is to be grateful for all the people who sacrificed so much for this incredible nation to be created and maintained for decades until I was lucky enough to participate in it. Part of my identity is to continue that work, in whatever way I can, to preserve and maintain the institutions upon which this country is founded, and those that made it great.

Part of my identity is to recognize the sacrifices my father and my mother made to make me who I am, and to be grateful to them and respect those sacrifices by living a life they would be proud of. That extends to my own family now, I have to repay the sacrifices made for me by sacrificing for them.

Even as simply a person who was born at a time where the world has advanced to such an incredible age, I have to force myself to stop sometimes, quit taking things for granted, and look around and marvel at the awesome miracles that technology and our human inventiveness have produced for us to share and flourish. Even those are gifts from a God who planted that inventiveness into the human soul and provided the elements in creation for us to invent with.

Part of the reason I believe in Christianity is that I have so much to be grateful for. The central story, the incredible narrative at the center of the Bible is that a holy and perfect God came down to save humanity and made an unfathomable sacrifice for us, to redeem us from our sins, and draw us to Him in a way we could never do on our own. It is the highest most perfect sacrifice that encompasses all others.

As I look around at every miraculous good that God has provided to me, to all of us, I am reminded at the reason for this holy season.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: The Daunte Wright NYT Readers Don’t Know


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Dec 22, 2021

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/12/22/the-daunte-wright-nyt-readers-dont-know—p–n2600991/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

The Daunte Wright NYT Readers Don't Know

Source: AP Photo/Mary Altaffer

They’re doing it again. The New York Times is aggressively hiding relevant facts on a matter of public interest simply in order to promote the narrative of black victimhood.

OK, we didn’t get away with it last time, but we probably will this time. Let’s try!

Daunte Wright is the half-black man fatally shot by a police officer in Minnesota earlier this year. According to Nexis, he has appeared in well over 100 articles in the Times. But one thing Times readers will never be told is that Wright was facing criminal charges for trying to choke a woman to death while robbing her at gunpoint. They will also never hear about the lawsuit accusing Wright and an accomplice of shooting a guy during a carjacking.

In a bold departure from customary practice, the Times did make two passing references to another lawsuit claiming Wright shot a guy in the head, permanently disabling him, but in both cases, quickly added: “The lawsuit offers no direct evidence tying Mr. Wright to the shooting.”

And those are just the crimes he’s accused of committing lately, during the brief year and a half since he turned 18 and was no longer treated as a juvenile.

When it comes to Wright’s legal problems, the Times didn’t even pull its usual trick of putting all the interesting information in paragraph 20. These grisly allegations, as set forth in police reports and lawsuits, have been completely, 100% censored from the Newspaper of Record.

This isn’t a genteel refusal to “put the victim on trial.” Wright’s short but exciting criminal record is highly relevant to the convulsions this country has been going through since George Floyd’s death at the hands of the police in 2020 — convulsions painstakingly fostered by the Times.

Contrary to the media’s black victimhood narrative, there’s a very good reason Wright was in a position to be confronted by the police and in a way that most people are not.

In addition to allegedly committing a slew of gun crimes before the age of 20 (based on only one year and six months of public records), Wright was stopped for driving with expired license plate tags. He didn’t have car insurance. He also didn’t have a driver’s license. (And yes, white people are busted for these infractions all the time.)

When the officers ran his name, they discovered that Wright was driving on a suspended license, there was a restraining order against him, and a bench warrant for his arrest on a weapons charge. They had no choice: They had to arrest him. But as one officer began to handcuff him, Wright resisted, jumped back in his car and was about to flee — along with an officer trapped in the passenger window, trying to get control of the gears.

That’s when Wright got shot.

In other words, this case isn’t exactly a primo example of “Driving While Black.” That’s why The New York Times hides all the pertinent facts.

For example, last week, the Times finally — glancingly — mentioned Wright’s lack of a driver’s license and insurance. (That’s if you don’t count a recent article about how Minnesota laws adversely affect minorities — “even regulations about driver’s licenses and renewal of tags.”)

On the other hand, the Times has run 16 articles about Wright’s … air freshener! (E.g.: “How a Common Air Freshener Can Result in a High-Stakes Traffic Stop”). That 16 more than all its articles on Hunter Biden’s laptop!

What is the Times talking about? It seems that, immediately after the shooting, Wright’s mother told the media that he’d been stopped merely for having an air freshener hanging from his rearview mirror — AND NOW HE WAS DEAD!

That’s completely untrue, but it’s the story the Times is going with. No new information will be allowed to penetrate the paper’s BLM cocoon.

Times reporters must have heard about the armed robbery/choking incident, because they’ve repeatedly quoted Wright’s accomplice in the crime, Emajay Driver. On April 13Nov. 30Dec. 8 and Dec. 17 the Times ran some version of this quote:

“‘He loved to make people laugh,’ said Emajay Driver, a friend of Mr. Wright. ‘He was just great to be around. There was never a dull moment.'”

And that’s all we get from Mr. Driver.

New York Times: Say, we saw that police report about you and Daunte nearly choking a woman to death while committing an armed robbery. So naturally, we have to ask: Do you by any chance have any heartwarming stories about him?

Somewhat more important than Daunte’s love of laughter are the details of that incident, given at length in America’s Greatest Newspaper, the U.K.’s Daily Mail.

On Dec. 1, 2019, Wright and Driver crashed at the apartment of a 20-year-old woman they’d been partying with. The next morning, the woman’s roommate went out to get $820 in rent money, handed it to her, then left for work.

Just before the attack, Wright locked himself in the victim’s bathroom for a noticeably long time in order to make videos of himself with a gun, and to empty a bottle of hand sanitizer onto his gun. (Daunte, with his simple, trusting nature, apparently believed an urban legend that sanitizer “blocks” fingerprints.)

Minutes later, as the three of them were exiting the apartment, Wright suddenly blocked the door, pointed the gun at the woman’s head, saying, “Give me the f-ing money. I know you have it.” (Me to The New York Times: Give us the f-ing facts. We know you have them.)

She refused, asking “Are you serious?” Wright barked, “We’re not playing around,” and grabbed her by the neck, choking her, as she dropped to her knees, with the gun in his other hand still pointed at her head. “You look into his eyes,” the victim later said, “and it’s so evil.”

Next, he tried ripping her shirt open to get the money, perhaps having seen her hiding it in her bra earlier. She screamed, and Wright began choking her again. (As Wright’s accomplice so poignantly said, there was never a dull moment with this guy.)

Finally, Wright and Driver ran off, hopping into a white Cadillac that was waiting for them.

They were arrested five days later. Driver pleaded guilty to first-degree aggravated robbery, his second felony conviction. He was facing 20 years in prison, but only got probation, leading some to speculate that he’d made a deal to testify against Wright.

Again: The Times hasn’t printed a single detail of Wright’s give-me-the-f-ing-money robbery attempt. Or the lawsuit about the carjacking. In one of more than 100 articles, there were two brief mentions of his shooting a guy in the head.

As for the trial of Kim Potter, the officer who shot Wright, neither the prosecution nor defense disputes that it was a mistake, that she thought she was holding her Taser. Several officers, and the defense’s use-of-force expert, testified that Potter would have been fully justified in shooting Wright in order to protect the other officer from being dragged by the car.

But Wright “loved to make people laugh.” That’s all the Times wants you to know.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: The vaccines are working … exactly as they were designed


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | December 16, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-the-vaccines-are-working-exactly-as-they-were-designed

“Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” —George Orwell

There is nowhere to run or hide from the growing observations that the closer we come to universal vaccination rates in many countries, the worse the pandemic has become. We have always known that leaky vaccines have the potential to create viral enhancement, but the recent data is unmistakable. At the same time, the COVID cultists are panicking over an emerging variant that actually might be the mildest of all while mainly affecting the vaccinated — a perfect refutation to the mass vaccination push. All signs point to the need to suspend the shots and focus exclusively on monoclonal antibodies and other early treatment. Or is there an ulterior motive?

At this point, we better pray that Omicron becomes dominant in the U.S. as quickly as possible. The most devastating observation of 2021 is that more people have died from COVID under the mass vaccination regime during the existing variant than before there was a single jab. According to the CDC’s “Data Table for Daily Death Trends,” there have been 127,184 COVID deaths from September 1 through November 30 this year, which is 45% greater than the 87,829 recorded deaths over the same period in 2020. And some of the deaths from this year are still lagging and likely to be updated.

Typically, viruses mutate down and become less virulent. Last year, there was much less built up immunity, we had fewer treatment options, and we had zero vaccines. It is nearly impossible to ignore the fact that the narrow-spectrum leaky vaccine has made the virus much worse.

During the peak of the winter wave in January, there were 19 recorded deaths for 15- to 17-year-olds. In August, when the vaccines began to leak and we likely experienced vaccine-mediated viral enhancement, kids noticeably got sicker. Although deaths were still very rare, there were 63 recorded deaths among that age cohort, and the numbers have generally remained higher.

Imagine if we had put all the funds for the leaky shots into the monoclonal antibodies and an outpatient treatment regime built on the latest research of dozens of therapeutics that have shown promise in combatting the virus. Yet rather than focus on alternatives and investigate what went wrong with the injections, our establishment leaders are doubling down, even as the failure is undeniably in plain sight. As such, it’s hard to escape the sinister conclusion that they intended this all along.

Consider the fact that Cornell University has an ironclad vaccine and mask mandate, yet 3.5% of the entire campus tested positive last week alone. The school has now switched to online learning.

Consider the fact that before the NFL season started, 52 of 53 players on the L.A. Rams’ roster were vaccinated. Now they lead the league with 11 players on the COVID list.

Consider the fact that Newton, Massachusetts, has one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, with 97% of the entire population vaccinated, including 99% of 12- to 15-year-olds and 87% of 5- to 11-year-olds. Yet, despite this and indoor mask mandates, the town has more cases than this time last year and is likely headed toward a record.

Consider the fact that a country like South Korea barely recorded deaths during the entire pandemic, but now has many more cases and deaths, with nearly all adults vaccinated and one of the highest vaccination rates for a country that large (over 50 million).

Consider the fact that England and France, both with very high vaccination rates and large prior COVID waves, have recently set case records.

Likewise, Portugal, with the highest double-vaxxed rate in Europe, now has more cases than during the winter peak.

Several months ago, a Harvard study published in the European Journal of Epidemiology, the only one to look at thousands of U.S. counties and different countries to study correlation between vaccination rates and case rates, found zero correlation. “In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people,” concluded the author.

The establishment suggests that the shots at least provide some with temporary protection from critical illness. But what good is that if the shots actually make the virus more virulent for everyone and then offer a degree of preventive protection for its consumers while screwing everyone else?

Let’s not forget that Dr. Fauci warned from day one that you need a perfect vaccine because a half-baked one runs the risk of making the virus worse. In an interview with Mark Zuckerberg last March, Fauci said in response to those who wanted rushed vaccines, “If you vaccinate someone, and they make an antibody response, and then they get exposed and infected, does the response that you induce actually enhance the infection and make it worse? The only way you’ll know that is if you do an extended study [not on volunteers, but on the public].”

“This would not be the first time, if it happened, that a vaccine that looked good in initial safety actually made people worse,” he continued when the Facebook CEO pressed him on rushing forward with a vaccine.

A month later, Fauci warned at a press conference that “the worst possible thing you could do” is vaccinate someone and create enhancement.

Well, a year and a half later, isn’t that exactly what we are seeing? Remember, the FDA warned during the initial emergency approval period that “risk of vaccine-enhanced disease over time, potentially associated with waning immunity, remains unknown.” And that’s at a time when the FDA didn’t know just how badly these shots would wane … or did it? Is it perhaps the intent to create the need for endless shots to fix the immune suppression and viral enhancement created by the first round – just like a heroin addict who constantly needs more poison to temporarily assuage the latest withdrawal symptoms, until he descends into a death spiral?

It is now universally accepted that the vaccine first suppresses your immune system, possibly for six weeks following the first shot, before it provides any protection for a few months thereafter. To encourage people to vaccinate even more while the numbers are high is the surest way of enabling more people to get the virus. This will create an endless feedback loop, driving a vicious cycle of suppressed immune systems, vaccine-mediated viral enhancement, and excess mortality from both the side effects and from COVID, which in turn generates fear to pressure more boosters in the hardest-hit areas. The German state of North Rhine-Westphalia is making boosters available for people to take every four weeks. Thus, the more the shots fail, the more the makers succeed. It’s no longer enough to oppose mandates. It’s time to stand athwart history and yell “STOP” to this entire vicious cycle.

Elle Reynolds Op-ed: Bad News In The World Reminds Us We Still Await A Second Advent


Commentary By Elle Reynolds | DECEMBER 10, 2021

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2021/12/10/bad-news-in-the-world-reminds-us-we-still-await-a-second-advent/

Inflation. COVID-19. Ballooning federal debt made worse by irresponsible spending in Congress. Lost jobs from medically coercive mandates. A supply chain crisis. Racist and sexually explicit narratives flooding public schools while concerned parents are targeted as terrorists. A heartbreakingly botched withdrawal from Afghanistan. An aggressive dictatorship in China that perpetuates horrific human rights abuses. A border crisis.

Conservatives pride ourselves on our ability to see the world without the rose-tinted lenses of progressives. If men were angels, we would need no government (or government accountability), we say — but men are no angels and thus we must be skeptics.

That candid recognition of our world’s imperfection often leaves us discouraged. We are frustrated that so many naively buy the blatant lies of the corporate press and corrupt politicians, and that even basic truths like “don’t kill babies” and “boys and girls are different” meet vicious opposition.

Yet, unlike the utopian dreams of the globalist left, our goal is not and has never been the perfection of the system. Conservatives should not hope to “fix” the world — nor be despondent when it proves unfixable. While we should seek to cultivate and steward our culture and our communities, our inability to shut off the fire hose of foolishness, evil, and sin in our world today should remind us we await another one.

We Are Made to Long for the Eternal

The Advent season is a time to recall the ancient posture of a world awaiting its savior. We recall the longing of a people who had waited 400 years for the voice of God and millennia for his promised salvation.

But there is another Advent, or arrival, to which we look. We long for the day in which we will surrender our earthly failures and enjoy the presence of a heavenly God. Far from discouraging us, the shortcomings of Earth should embolden our hope. If men were angels, neither heaven nor salvation would be necessary.

For this reason, Christians should take heart at worldly turmoil. “Rejoice that such fruitful times are in store for you, for in them you will be weaned from earth and made meet for heaven,” said the great Baptist theologian Charles Haddon Spurgeon, in an evening devotional based on Job 1:9.

“You will be delivered from clinging to the present, and made to long for those eternal things which are so soon to be revealed to you,” he continues. “When you feel that as regards the present you do serve God for nought, you will then rejoice in the infinite reward of the future.”

Meanwhile, rather than withdraw from a hopeless world, Spurgeon threw himself into practical ministries as well as evangelical ones, founding an orphanage in 1867 and speaking out against the injustice of slavery. Evil in the world should not send Christians into resigned indifference — we are called to “do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.”

We Engage the Present Because of Our Future Hope

In today’s America, that calling might mean fighting to keep schoolchildren from being vulnerable to political agendas that push sexually explicit material in the classroom and allow rapists access to girls. It can mean speaking up for people like Jack Phillips and Barronelle Stutzman whose livelihoods are targeted for their religious convictions, or fighting for the safety of women in prisons and shelters. It certainly means pleading the cause of the unborn.

Not all of the means by which we as Christians should seek justice, love mercy, and walk humbly are political, of course. But our hope of heaven itself should not dissuade us from stewardship of our communities. We are not of the world, but we are in it.

As we anticipate Advent, our posture is one of hope. But — although church traditions vary — in one common symbolism, hope is only one of four virtues signified by the four candles lit each Sunday of the Advent season. Peace, love, and joy mark the other three, and we are called to live these out in the present even as we look with anticipation to heaven.

Because we have hope, we are to love those around us in a way that demands no return. Because we have hope, we may have peace with even dismal circumstances. Because we have hope, we can look upon a fallen world and know the fullness of joy.

God “wants [men] to attend chiefly to two things, to eternity itself, and to that point of time which they call the Present,” C.S. Lewis said through his character Screwtape. “For the Present is the point at which time touches eternity. Of the present moment, and of it only, humans have an experience analogous to the experience which [God] has of reality as a whole; in it alone freedom and actuality are offered to them.”

Because of the future Advent we long for, we are not just free but emboldened with confidence, even commanded, to engage the present. We run a race, but we do not run aimlessly, or box as one beating the air. Neither need we grieve as those who have no hope.

Elle Reynolds is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: The country that ‘succeeded’ against COVID with masks has the highest case rate in the world


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | December 07, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-the-country-that-succeeded-against-covid-with-masks-has-the-highest-case-rate-in-the-world-theblaze-2655944084.html/

Those who believe in the freedom of bodily autonomy are celebrating a slew of recent court rulings enjoining the Biden administration’s injection mandate. However, no GOP state attorney general has bothered to fight the equally immoral, illogical, and inhumane mask mandates that are still in place. Despite nearly two years of evidence that strict mask-wearing has zero effectiveness in stopping the spread, the mandates on 2-year-olds on planes and in many schools still continue. Slovakia is a perfect case study of the mask mendacity.

On May 13, 2020, the Atlantic published an article lauding Slovakia for, at the time, having the lowest per-capita COVID death rate in Europe. The article’s prediction should now be the laughingstock of the world:

When this pandemic ends, and when the reckoning over how the world responded invariably begins, Slovakia will likely be among those highlighted as a success story, whereas the United States—which was supposed to be the country best prepared for such a crisis—will be remembered as among those that suffered the worst. How Slovakia was able to flatten its curve comes down to more than just quick decision making and the widespread adoption of face masks. Perhaps the greatest lesson to be learned from Slovakia is of the value of leading from the front.

Slovakia was so worried about masks that the country even got Taiwan to donate hundreds of thousands of these useless cloths as part of a bilateral trade agreement.

Well, that was before Slovakia’s first winter wave. One can excuse people for mistaking low spread at the time for mask efficacy rather than the fact that the country just didn’t get its turn yet. But for countries to continue this inhumane mandate despite what we now know demonstrates that masks are not a means to public health but an end in themselves of tyranny.

At over 2,000 new cases per million per day, according to Our World in Data, Slovakia now has more cases per capita than any country in the world. To put this in perspective, that is almost three times the level of the winter peak in the U.S., a country that has not exactly performed well in the pandemic!

It’s true that some individual states closer to the size of Slovakia have had more severe waves. However, even the worst counties in the upper Midwest are tracking about 1,200 new cases per million per day.

And here is the epidemiological curve presented by the inimitable Ian Miller, juxtaposed to policy solutions:

It’s not just Slovakia. Wherever you turn in Europe, both masks and vaccine mandates have failed miserably, and the spread is now worse than ever. Belgium is now six weeks into the new mask mandate, and it has more cases than ever before, even though the Belgians already suffered one of the deadliest waves in all of Europe. Oh, and 87.4% of adults are vaccinated.

To begin with, the CDC, as late as May 2020, was citing the 10 randomized controlled trials that showed “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.” The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford also summarized six international studies that “showed that masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.”

The only randomized controlled trial studying mask efficacy against COVID published last year was the now famous Danish study that failed to show any meaningful reduction in spread from mask-wearing. Then, several months ago, the media trumpeted a large study done in Bangladesh that seemed to show efficacy. Well, now that the authors have released the actual data, we see that indeed no such claim can be made from the study. It turns out that out of over 340,000 individuals over a span of eight weeks, there were only 20 fewer cases of COVID detected in the mask group over the control group – 1,106 symptomatic individuals confirmed seropositive in the control group and 1,086 such individuals in the treatment group.

Even these results are hard to interpret because of numerous confounding factors. University of California Berkeley professor Ben Recht critiqued the study as follows:

This study was not blinded, as it’s impossible to blind a study on masks. The intervention was highly complex and included a mask promotion campaign and education about other mitigation measures including social distancing. Moreover, individuals were only added to the study if they consented to allow the researchers to visit and survey their households. There was a large differential between the control and treatment groups here, with 95% consenting in the treatment group but only 92% consenting in control. This differential alone could wash away the difference in observed cases. Finally, symptomatic seropositivity is a crude measure of covid as the individuals could have been infected before the trial began.

Given the numerous caveats and confounders, the study still only found a tiny effect size. My takeaway is that a complex intervention including an educational program, free masks, encouraged mask wearing, and surveillance in a poor country with low population immunity and no vaccination showed at best modest reduction in infection.

In other words, you can now add this to a list of 400 studies compiled by the Brownstone Institute that fail to find any correlation between public policy interventions and better pandemic outcomes.

It’s not OK for Republican-controlled states to continue to ignore the facts that masks are inhumane and they simply don’t work. Consider the fact that Head Start has now mandated masks on 2-year-olds, many of whom have special needs. Oregon has moved to make its mask mandate permanent. Why are no red state governments at least suing against the federal mandates, and why are so few red states even banning mask mandates within the states?

The courts are all political. They only responded to the lawsuits against the vaccine mandate when they saw robust political opposition within the political branches of the red states. They see no such opposition regarding the mask mandates. Thus, absent a unified effort from state attorneys general, they are unlikely to respond to a handful of individual lawsuits. The same legal rationale denying the feds the power to force vaccines also denies them the power to cover our breathing holes. But the courts only respond to political momentum.If nearly two years of masking failing to work anywhere is still not enough to end the most invasive human mandate of all time, then we truly are no longer a free people.

Jason Whitlock Op-ed: Jussie Smollett is a victim of the systemic racism maintained by white liberals


Commentary by JASON WHITLOCK | December 08, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/whitlock-jussie-smollett-is-a-victim-of-the-systemic-racism-maintained-by-white-liberals/

Jussie Smollett destroyed his career and reputation trying to live up to a racist expectation of “blackness.” It’s the same mistake former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick made. Popular culture’s puppet masters — academia, Big Tech’s social media apps, the executives running the TV, movie, music, and sports industries, and the political left — have established victimhood as the highest form of blackness. Attaining victim status is the primary expectation placed on American black men. Meeting this expectation is especially important for mixed-race, wealthy celebrities. In the culture created by the left, victimhood is their rite of passage into the fraternity of blackness.

As much as I despise Smollett for the 2019 racial hoax he staged in Chicago, the alleged crime that currently has him on trial, my disdain for the culture that baited him into the act far exceeds my disgust for Smollett.

Smollett, the child of a black woman and a white Jewish man, did what the culture told him to do and what the culture puts enormous pressure on half-black, half-white kids to do: prove their blackness. In modern American culture, there’s nothing blacker than being worthy of a white man’s aggression. Smollett isn’t worthy. So, he allegedly paid two black men to pose as white and attack him.

The whole scenario is funny until you consider the sadness of the mental state that would devise such a scheme and a culture that would entice it.

Smollett and Kaepernick, the self-made national anthem martyr, are victims. They’re victims of the racist expectations imposed on them by a sick, secular culture. At different levels, all American black people are victims of this culture. Human beings respond to expectations. Expectations can be and should be the greatest gift imposed on human beings. Expectations inspire behavior and shape mindsets.

Tuesday night, I had dinner with two friends. We engaged in a debate about white privilege. What is it? Does it exist? Can it be fixed? I argued that white privilege certainly exists in America and that the greatest white privilege is expectations that align with success. White people are expected to achieve academically. They’re expected to master the English language. They’re expected to have good credit. They’re expected to show up on time. They’re expected not to use the N-word. They’re expected to make an effort to avoid racist thoughts and actions. They’re expected to wed the mothers or fathers of their children. Do all white people meet these expectations? Absolutely not. But being born into a world that expects you to adopt principles and behaviors that lead to success is a privilege that puts you far ahead of people who don’t have those expectations on them.

Black people, as a collective, don’t have those expectations on them. Popular culture, as controlled by liberals, removes virtually all expectations from black people, particularly black men. We’re expected to excel at football and basketball. And we’re expected to meet the liberal standard of blackness. Anything we do or achieve beyond that is considered a bonus.

The lack of expectations imposed on black people is the most racist act in America. It’s far more racist than Derek Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd’s neck and back. Had George Floyd entered a world that expected him to achieve beyond the athletic field, he would have been much less likely to find himself needing to be restrained by police.

The lack of expectations placed on black people is systemic racism. Victimhood being the highest level of blackness is systemic racism. Jussie Smollett is a victim of the systemic racism maintained by white liberals.

On Tuesday, while being cross-examined by the prosecution, Smollett complained that the white prosecutor was offending the black people in the courtroom by reading aloud Smollett’s direct messages to one of his black attackers. Smollett repeatedly used the N-word in the direct messages. The prosecutor apologized and asked Smollett to read the direct messages. Smollett obliged. We expect black people to call each other derogatory names. It’s acceptable and appropriate. We’ve been programmed to hate ourselves and express our self-hatred in writing, music, and acts of violence. We expect it.

Our expectations for white people are much different. We’re shocked and outraged when they mimic our anti-black behavior. We don’t expect that from them. We’re determined to rid them of the negative behavior. Our expectations for ourselves are much lower and/or nonexistent. That’s why it’s easy for us to ignore thousands of gang murders in black neighborhoods and hold summer-long protests over a tiny handful of police-involved shootings. That’s why Jussie Smollett has no problem saying the N-word repeatedly, but is mortified when a white man reads his words inside a courtroom. We’re victims of the racist expectations we’ve adopted.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: The Fauci Who Cried Wolf


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Dec 08, 2021

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/12/08/the-fauci-who-cried-wolf—p–n2600336/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org

Wow, the opposition press isn’t what it used to be!

In a Sunday interview with “The Sexiest Man Alive,” Anthony Fauci, CNN’s Jake Tapper played a clip of Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., criticizing Fauci for keeping the public in a state of raw panic over COVID.

Johnson: “Fauci did the exact same thing with AIDS. He overhyped it. He created all kinds of fear, saying it could affect the entire population, when it couldn’t. And he’s doing — he’s using the exact same playbook for COVID.”

At that point, the anchor is supposed to say something like, “Dr. Fauci?” and let him respond. But CNN apparently thinks Fauci is too delicate a flower to answer an attack all by his lonesome.

So, before turning it over to the interviewee, Tapper blathered: “Obviously, that’s a bizarre and false assertion. President George W. Bush gave you the Presidential Medal of Freedom because of your leadership in the AIDS crisis. But I did want to give you an opportunity to respond.” (I guess this is how you apply for Chris Cuomo’s job at CNN.)

At that point, Fauci merely had to join Tapper in sneering at the senator: “Jake, how do you respond to something as preposterous as that?”

Thank you, Dr. Fauci for that penetrating response. Next up on CNN …

Actually, Fauci then went on to use the Hillary Benghazi defense: HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ME WHEN PEOPLE DIED!!!

He said: “Overhyping AIDS? It’s killed over 750,000 Americans and 36 million people worldwide. How do you overhype that? Overhyping COVID? It’s already killed 780,000 Americans and over 5 million people worldwide. So, I don’t have any clue of what he’s talking about.”

That would have been a fantastic answer if Sen. Johnson had questioned whether anyone had ever died from AIDS or COVID. Unfortunately, he didn’t do that. Rather, he accused Fauci of overhyping the risk of COVID, terrifying everyone — as he did with AIDS — instead of concentrating protections on high-risk groups.

Overhyping car accidents? Cars have killed over 3.6 million Americans and multiple millions of people worldwide. How do you overhype that?

Yes, but you recommended that people drive blindfolded.

Long after it was clear that COVID was dangerous nearly exclusively for older people and the obese, Fauci lied, just as he once lied about AIDS being a risk for heterosexuals long after it became clear that it was almost entirely a problem for gay men and intravenous drug users.

Instead of devoting massive resources to shutting down bathhouses and shooting galleries to stop the spread of AIDS, and blanketing older Americans with protections in the case of COVID, Fauci repeatedly claimed that everyone was at risk.

This isn’t a matter of It’s a new virus! No one knew anything! I knew the high-risk groups back in March 2020. (bit.ly/3oBu8Et)

It seems that Fauci believes in “science” — except when he needs to terrify heterosexuals in the cause of destigmatizing gays, or frighten the entire population so as not to stigmatize the elderly and obese.

AIDS first appeared in 1981 in gay communities in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Two years later, 72% of cases involved gay men, and 90% of the non-homosexual AIDS victims were intravenous drug users. Most of the rest were children born to AIDS-infected mothers or victims of AIDS-tainted blood transfusions.

This wasn’t a big secret. According to CDC, by June 1983, out of 1,552 AIDS victims, only 37 were not gay men, drug users, hemophiliacs or Haitians. Frontline doctors actually dealing with AIDS patients were assuring the public, “The average person has nothing to be concerned about,” as a New York cardiologist told The Associated Press. (Then, as now, you can trust your doctor; you can’t trust “public health authorities.”)

But Fauci was out there, alarming the entire population about the odds of contracting AIDS. In April 1983, he said: “As the months go by, we see more and more groups … AIDS is creeping out of well-defined epidemiological confines.”

A month later, he wrote: “The finding of AIDS in infants and children who are household contacts of patients with AIDS … has enormous implications with regard to ultimate transmissibility of this syndrome.” (This was based on a study of eight infants in Newark, New Jersey — who may or may not have had AIDS, in households with people who also may or may not have had AIDS. So it was a solid study.)

By 1985 — four years after AIDS first appeared — 73% of the cases were in gay men, 17% in intravenous drug users, 3% in Haitians, 2.2% in those who’d received blood, and 1% in sexual partners of AIDS patients. Less than 4% didn’t fit into one of these categories.

With zero cases of proven heterosexual transmission, in February 1985, Fauci said, “Am I worried about [heterosexual transmission]? Yes.”

By 1987, only 4% of AIDS cases could possibly be attributed to heterosexual contact — and half of those were in Africans and Haitians.

And yet, here was Fauci in March 1987, still babbling about the risk of AIDS to heterosexuals. Asked if AIDS could be transmitted to men by vaginal intercourse, he answered, “Absolutely.” He actually warned the public about French kissing: “[H]ealth officials have to presume that it is possible to transmit the virus by exchange of saliva in deep kissing.”

If some of these quotes sound familiar, I cited a few of them in that March 2020 column, at a time when “public health authorities,” cable news hosts and the president were demanding nationwide lockdowns.

Today, Fauci is doing the exact same thing with COVID, treating teenagers as if they face as much danger as people in their 70s, despite the latter having a 300 times greater chance of dying from COVID than those under 20. For young people who contract COVID, the chances of dying are less than the risk of dying from sunstroke over the course of their entire lives. Even for those in their 30s, the odds are about the same as their lifetime risk of dying by choking on food.

If he’s ever interviewed by a serious journalist, perhaps Fauci could explain why his idea of “science” is about avoiding stigmatizing certain groups, and not about saving lives.

Victor Davis Hanson Op-ed: The third worldizing of America


Commentary By Victor Davis Hanson, Op-ed contributor | Monday, December 06, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/voices/the-third-worldizing-of-america.html/

carjack theft burglary
Getty Images/dardespot

In a recent online exchange, the YouTuber Casey Neistat posted his fury after his car was broken into and the contents stolen. Los Angeles, he railed, was turning into a “3rd-world s—hole of a city.”

The multimillionaire actor Seth Rogen chastised Neistat for his anger.

Rogen claimed that a car’s contents were minor things to lose. He added that while living in West Hollywood, he had his own car broken into 15 times, but thought little of it. Online bloggers ridiculed Rogen. No wonder: The actor lives in multimillion-dollar homes in the Los Angeles area, guarded by sophisticated security systems and fencing. Yet both Neistat and Rogen accurately defined Third Worldization: the utter breakdown of the law and the ability of the rich within such a feudal society to find ways to avoid the violent chaos.

After traveling the last 45 years in the Middle East, southern Europe, Mexico, and Asia Minor, I observed some common characteristics of a so-called “Third World society.” And all of them might feel increasingly familiar to contemporary Americans. Whether in Cairo or Naples, theft was commonplace. Yet property crimes were almost never seriously prosecuted. In a medieval-type society of two rather than three classes, the rich in walled estates rarely worry that much about thievery. Crime is written off as an intramural problem of the poor, especially when the middle class is in decline or nonexistent.

Violent crime is now soaring in America. But two things are different about America’s new criminality. One is the virtual impunity of it. Thieves now brazenly swarm a store, ransack, steal and flee with the merchandise without worry of arrest.

Second, the left often justifies crime as a sort of righteous payback against a supposedly exploitative system. So, the architect of the so-called “1619 Project,” Nikole Hannah-Jones, preened of the riotous destruction of property during the summer of 2020: “Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.”

Third Worldization reflects the asymmetry of law enforcement. Ideology and money, not the law, adjudicate who gets arrested and tried, and who does not.

There were 120 days of continuous looting, arson and lethal violence during the summer of 2020. Rioters burned courthouses, police precincts and an iconic church. And there was also a frightening riot on Jan. 6, when a mob entered Washington, D.C.’s Capitol and damaged federal property. Of those arrested during the violence, many have been held in solitary confinement or under harsh jail conditions. That one-day riot is currently the subject of a congressional investigation. Some of those arrested are still — 10 months later — awaiting trial. The convicted are facing long prison sentences.

In contrast, some 14,000 were arrested in the longer and more violent rioting of 2020. Most were released without bail. The majority had their charges dropped. Very few are still being held awaiting capital charges.

A common denominator to recent controversies at the Justice Department, CIA, FBI, and the Pentagon is that all these agencies under dubious pretexts have investigated American citizens with little or no justification — after demonizing their targets as “treasonous,” “domestic terrorists,” “white supremacists,” or “racists.”

In the Third World, basic services like power, fuel, transportation and water are characteristically unreliable. In other words, much like a frequent California brownout.

I’ve been on five flights in my life where it was announced there was not enough fuel to continue to the scheduled destination. The plane was required either to turn around or land somewhere on the way. One such aborted flight took off from Cairo, another from southern Mexico. The other three were this spring and summer inside the United States.

One of the most memorable scenes that I remember of Ankara, Old Cairo, or Algiers of the early 1970s were legions of beggars and the impoverished sleeping on sidewalks. But such impoverishment pales in comparison to the encampments of present-day Fresno, Los Angeles, Sacramento, or San Francisco. Tens of thousands live on sidewalks and in open view use them to defecate, urinate, inject drugs, and dispose of refuse.

In the old Third World, extreme wealth and poverty existed in close proximity. It was common to see peasants on horse-drawn wagons a few miles from coastal villas. But there is now far more contiguous wealth and poverty in Silicon Valley. In Redwood City and East Palo Alto, multiple families cram into tiny bungalows and garages, often a few blocks from tony Atherton. On the main streets outside of Stanford University and the Google campus, the helot classes sleep in decrepit trailers and buses parked on the streets.

Neistat was right in identifying a pandemic of crime in Los Angeles as Third Worldization. But so was Rogen, though unknowingly so. The actor played the predictable role of the smug, indifferent Third World rich who master ignoring — and navigating around — the misery of others in their midst.


Originally published at The Daily Signal

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and author of the book The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won. You can reach him by e-mailing authorvdh@gmail.com.

Richard D. Land Op-ed: Is communist China the new Third Reich?


Commentary By Richard D. Land, Christian Post Executive Editor| Friday, December 03, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/is-communist-china-the-new-third-reich.html/

Uyghurs
Ethnic Uyghur members of the Communist Party of China carry a flag as they take part in an organized tour on June 30, 2017, in the old town of Kashgar, in the far western Xinjiang province, China. Kashgar has long been considered the cultural heart of Xinjiang for the province’s nearly 10 million Muslim Uyghurs. At an historic crossroads linking China to Asia, the Middle East, and Europe, the city has changed under Chinese rule with government development, unofficial Han Chinese settlement to the western province, and restrictions imposed by the Communist Party. Beijing says it regards Kashgar’s development as an improvement to the local economy, but many Uyghurs consider it a threat that is eroding their language, traditions, and cultural identity. | Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

Being a self-confessed history buff, I admit that I have often found myself wondering, “What must it have been like to live through some past era?”

Usually, these musings are motivated by curiosity about, for instance, “how could America have been so blind about the monstrous evil that was metastasizing in Hitler’s Third Reich?”

How could so many American corporations have continued to do business with the Nazis? How could America have failed to recognize the systemic squelching of all human rights and the brutal anti-Semitism directed toward the Jewish population?

My curiosity about this particular historical phenomenon began when I was assigned to read both Mein Kampf (1925) and The Communist Manifesto (1848) in an accelerated honors Civics class in my public high school. As I was reading Hitler’s Mein Kampf, I distinctly remember going out to the kitchen and asking my mother incredulously, “Didn’t anybody read this book before the war? The horrible things Hitler wanted to do are all right here in the book.”

My mother said, “Well, people just thought he was crazy.” He may have been insane, but he did gain control of one of the most powerful countries in the world (and it wasn’t even his own country, since he was Austrian by birth).

Frankly, up until now, I was incredulous as to how America could have been so blasé or ignorant about the evils of the Nazis that they would send their athletes to the obviously propagandized 1936 Berlin Olympic Games where our own American Olympic Committee agreed to discriminate against our Jewish athletes.

Frankly, it bewildered me, until now. As I have watched the widespread collaboration of American corporations with the Chinese Communist (CCP) regime in China, I now see how it could have happened, because it happening again.

The closest analogy to the Nazi regime in Germany from 1933 to 1945 that the world has seen since is the current Chinese Communist (CCP) government in China.

They are practicing full-fledged genocide against the Uyghur Muslims, including concentration camps and slave labor. In fact, we know more about the genocide of the Uyghurs at this point than we did about the Holocaust until midway through the Second World War.

The CCP regime is imposed on a country that is 92% ethnically Han Chinese, and they reportedly have at least as much confidence in their ethnic superiority as the Germans assumed for themselves in the 1930s and 1940s.

The Gestapo could only dream of having the amount of social and thought control the CCP is exercising over its population through the latest in technology (much of it either stolen from or supplied by, American technology companies).

Many Americans have been shocked at the abject “kowtowing” of so many segments of American business, which routinely passively surrender to CCP demands which violate basic human rights and American values.

For example, Apple has self-censored and removed a popular Bible app as well as a Quran app at the direct insistence of the CCP.

China has an estimated Christian population of approximately 97 million people, the majority of whom worship in “unregistered” churches. Reports continue to surface that the CCP is aggressively pursuing “Sinicization,” an official state campaign to “Chinasize” religious groups within the country. For example, the CCP’s Administration of Religious Affairs has “ordered Christians to study President Xi’s book and memorize his speeches.”

It is reported that the Chinese CCP has an official policy of what they call “decapitation.” In this strategy, the CCP consciously seeks to coop a country’s elites, entangling them in lucrative business deals which then keeps them from criticizing the CCP.  When one looks at the extensive business ventures of American political families with the Chinese (the Bidens, the Kerrys, the Pelosis, the Boxers, the Feinsteins, the McConnells, etc.), it is not difficult to conclude that they have attempted to apply this strategy to the U.S., and have done so with considerable success.

Perhaps no segment of American business has been more spineless and abjectly servile in acquiescing to the CCP’s demands than the American Entertainment industry. At CCP demand, they have self-censored themselves on numerous occasions. For example, when the remake of Red Dawn was undertaken, the North Koreans were substituted for the Chinese at CCP demand. Paradoxically, currently, the most popular movie in China depicts the Chinese military routing U.S. forces. And, if anyone speaks up for the Dalai Lama and the Tibetans, they are reportedly blacklisted by the demand of the CCP.

In the sports world, the one bright sport of moral courage in standing up to the bullies of Beijing, the Women’s Tennis Federation (WTA), has stated that it will halt all of its tournaments in China until it is satisfied that Chinese tennis star Peng Shuai is safe. Ms. Shuai had made an accusation of sexual assault against a senior government official and was promptly “disappeared.”

Even though this decision could cost women’s tennis millions and millions of dollars, the WTA’s chief executive Steve Simon declared they will boycott China until they know Ms. Shuai is safe.

In stern but fair language, Mr. Simon stated,

“Chinese officials have been provided the opportunity to cease this censorship, verifiably prove that Peng is free and able to speak without interference or intimidation, and investigate the allegations of sexual assault in a full, fair and transparent manner….Unfortunately, the leadership in China has not addressed this very serious issue in any credible way.”

We should all be grateful for this sterling example of moral leadership provided by Mr. Simon and the WTA. The contrast with the graveling response of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is both revelatory and instructive.

And yes, I believe we should lead an international boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympic Games in Beijing and host alternative international games in a country that respects human rights. Do not give President Xi and the CCP their Olympic “Berlin Moment.” The CCP is not part of the civilized family of nations and it should be treated as the pariah that it is.

In the realm of athletics, no segment of our society has been more scandalously servile in its interactions with the CCP than the National Basketball Association. The CCP has been very successful in intimidating and silencing any NBA criticism of their frightfully repressive regime and their oppression of the Tibetans, the Uyghurs, and the people of Hong Kong.

Enes Kanter, an immigrant from Turkey, is a 13-year veteran center for the Boston Celtics and a brand new American citizen. In honor of the event, he officially changed his name to Enes Kanter Freedom. Like many immigrants to our country, he truly appreciates the freedoms we enjoy as Americans and too often take for granted.

He has used his platform as a professional athlete to denounce political repression in his native Turkey and he has had the courage to wear shoes in NBA games that declare “Free Tibet,” “Modern Day Slavery,” and “No More Excuses” despite the fact that NBA officials “tried to force him to remove his ‘Free Tibet’ shoes before a recent game at Madison Square Garden.” 

I thank God for new Americans like Mr. Freedom. All of us as Americans should draw inspiration from new citizens like him to remind us of what a wonderful heritage is our birthright.

We need to draw on that heritage and birthright to denounce the dehumanizing CCP and its desire for world dominance which also mimics Nazi Germany.

We stood astride the Nazi’s path, foiling their dreams of world domination. May we be used again to thwart the CCP’s plan for world domination and the subsequent trampling of human rights on a global scale.

The stakes are enormous. A world dominated by the CCP would be a world where human freedom and human rights would be trampled in favor of Chinese hegemony and totalitarian state power. Every freedom-loving human being of whatever nationality or ethnicity has a tremendous state in thwarting the CCP’s dark vision for humanity’s future.

May God give every freedom-loving human being the wisdom to see the looming danger and to rise up to meet it before it is too late. The Third Reich is back, masquerading as the CCP.

Dr. Richard Land, BA (Princeton, magna cum laude); D.Phil. (Oxford); Th.M (New Orleans Seminary). Dr. Land served as President of Southern Evangelical Seminary from July 2013 until July 2021. Upon his retirement, he was honored as President Emeritus and he continues to serve as an Adjunct Professor of Theology & Ethics. Dr. Land previously served as President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (1988-2013) where he was also honored as President Emeritus upon his retirement. Dr. Land has also served as an Executive Editor and columnist for The Christian Post since 2011.

Dr. Land explores many timely and critical topics in his daily radio feature, “Bringing Every Thought Captive,” and in his weekly column for CP.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: North Dakota legislature essentially greenlights Biden’s immoral mandate


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | November 12, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-north-dakota-legislature-essentially-greenlights-bidens-immoral-mandate-theblaze-2655551334.html/

Imagine having an 80-14 majority in a red-state legislature a week after Democrats were defeated in a blue state, and you are considering legislation on Biden’s unprecedented injection mandate at a time when he likely has a 20% approval rating in the state. One would expect the GOP legislators to easily take “yes” for an answer from their constituents and categorically ban all COVID fascism. Instead, they listened to the special interests that are in cahoots with the federal government, rejected a popular bill that would have tackled the problem, and instead passed a bill that explicitly greenlights the mandate.

Last night, the North Dakota House passed HB 1511, a bill that essentially does nothing to protect North Dakotans. Sure, it bans state government mandates, but those were never really a threat. The issue at hand is that the federal government is threatening businesses that they must require injection passports for their workers. The only way to combat that mandate, and yes, restore the pre-COVID free market, is to ban (with the threat of legal action and/or fines) the imposition of such a mandate on employees.

So, what is in HB 1511? It never even attempts to ban the vaccine mandates, but only stipulates that employers must allow for exemptions, which include religious/philosophical objections, medical concerns, prior infection, and a testing opt-out. That might sound like a reasonable compromise that is worth passing, as other states have done, and if written properly, it would effectively protect anyone who wants out of the needle rape. The problem is that the final section of the bill voids even the religious exemptions to the extent that they conflict with the federal regulations. Thus, just like the Wyoming House did (with overwhelming GOP majorities), the North Dakota GOP opposed the federal mandate, unless the feds actually enforce it!

Even the rest of the bill is weak, and worse, it downright greenlights discrimination. The bill does bar any denial of service to customers based on vaccination status, but then places an exception for health care. Thus, at a time when we need a bill doing just the opposite – to ban hospitals from mistreating or denying surgeries and organ transplants to those without the unsafe and ineffective injections (as another draft bill that was rejected purported to do) – this bill explicitly blesses such immoral and illogical discrimination. This bill makes current law worse by explicitly blessing the requirement that someone gets a shot in order to obtain medical care, something that cannot be done under current state and federal anti-discrimination law.

Also, even the ban on vaccine mandates among state institutions was given a carve-out for all state colleges, which are now allowed to deny admission or employment based on someone’s injection status. The bill supporters hang their hats on the fact that the bill bans vaccine passports, but the issue is not a specific piece of paper. Students and others will still be required to show some proof of the shot.

There was a better bill that would have categorically banned most vaccine mandates and confronted the feds directly. HB 1510 was drafted similarly to the Montana bill, which was the first in the country to bar mandates. Even that bill had a compromise carve-out for health care. Shockingly, only 38 Republicans out of 80 voted for it!

Here is the target list for the upcoming elections:

Adams; Anderson, B.; Anderson, D.; Anderson, P.; Beltz; Boe; Boschee; Brandenburg; Buffalo; Cory; Damschen; Devlin; Dobervich; Dockter; Guggisberg; Hager; Hagert; Hanson; Hatlestad; Heinert; Ista; Johnson, D.; Johnson, M.; Karls; Kiefert; Klemin; Kreidt; Louser; Martinson; Mitskog; Mock; Monson; Nathe; Nelson, J.; Nelson, M.; O’Brien; Ostlie; Pollert; Porter; Pyle; Richter; Roers Jones; Sanford; Schauer; Schmidt; Schneider; Schobinger; Schreiber-Beck; Stemen; Strinden; Vigesaa; Weisz; Westlind; Zubke.

The watered-down bill that did pass the House passed the Senate 33-14 on Friday. Ironically, even this bill, which in many ways makes current law worse, was too conservative for a handful of Republicans (there are only seven Democrats in the chamber).

The seven Republicans who thought somehow that even this bill was too compassionate for their constituents were:

  • Howard Anderson, District 8
  • Randy Burckhard, District 5
  • Karen Krebsbach, District 40
  • Judy Lee, District 13
  • Dave Oehlke, District 15
  • Nicole Poolman, District 7
  • Jim Roers, District 46

Watching the Senate debate this morning, I heard one Republican after another suggest, “There’s still people dying in the hospital,” “We’re all in this together,” and “We have responsibilities, not just rights.” Ironically, these are all arguments against the failed status quo that has gotten us to a point where things are worse than they were before the injections, yet North Dakota Republicans are now to the left of even what Bill Gates and others are now conceding about the failures of the shots.

Why is it that conservatives have to be made to feel like we are asking from our legislatures a trip to the moon? We are not asking to reform our entire government and end the Great Society. We are simply asking them to completely erase the now-discredited approach to COVID that has killed so many people without saving a single life. What is so hard? These are the types of bills you would pass when you have divided government, not when you have supermajorities at a time when Democrats are on the ropes and lives are on the line.

On a positive note, the House did pass HB 1514, a bill that bans the medical board from taking action against doctors or nurse practitioners who prescribe ivermectin and against pharmacists who fill the prescriptions. But the original proposal also stopped pharmacists from denying prescriptions, which is the bigger problem on the street. It also had a provision to allow patients in the hospitals the right to try ivermectin and barred any discrimination of care against those without the shots.

“Well, take what you can get, Daniel.”

But why should any of these provisions be removed from the bill? How could anyone – Republican or Democrat – be opposed to these ideas? Again, all these tactics are evil, are unscientific, and reek of medical fascism. The GOP’s reluctance to take a categorical stand is incomprehensible from a policy standpoint, as well as from a moral and even electoral standpoint.

And remember, at least North Dakota was willing to go this far. We have numerous other deep red states that won’t even get into session and haven’t passed a single meaningful bill in 19 months to push back against the greatest threats against our liberties, bodies, and well-being. The science is now 100% clear that all these measures are causing harm, making the virus worse, and blocking our ability to properly treat people. Ideally, if states would actually follow the law, science, and the Nuremberg Code, they would ban the administration of these shots altogether and completely reorient our approach to this virus. So what we are asking for, to begin with, is a compromise.

There’s a time to compromise on the will of the people, and there is a time to fully embrace the will of the people. When it comes to countering “Faucism” in red states, it is the wrong time, the wrong place, and the wrong issue to embrace compromise – especially one that actually makes current law worse.

Expressing the sentiments of RINO legislators across the country, Ohio Speaker Bob Cupp recently suggested it’s time for us to move on from fighting COVID fascism. “They are reflecting what they hear in their district, but it’s, it’s clearly time to move on,” Cupp recently said of efforts from his rank-and-file Republican members to fight for medical freedom. Well, if Democrat districts can get representation for their tyrannical views, why can’t our districts get representation for liberty and medical freedom? We will move on from fighting COVID fascism when the RINOs and Democrats move on from imposing it upon us.

Randy DeSoto Op-ed: Adam Schiff Gets Verbally KO-ed on Air When Fed-Up Interviewer Finally Nails Him


Commentary By Randy DeSoto | November 9, 2021

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/adam-schiff-gets-verbally-ko-ed-air-fed-interviewer-finally-nails/

Former Trump administration State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus clearly made House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff uncomfortable when she pressed him on Tuesday about his promotion of the debunked Steele dossier.

Last week, special counsel John Durham charged Igor Danchenko with five counts of lying to the FBI. Danchenko is a Russian national who worked at the liberal Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., and is believed to be a primary source of information contained in the infamous anti-Trump dossier compiled by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele. That document was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee and was used to help launch the Russia probe in search of ties between the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign and Russia.

Ortagus, who was a guest-hosting ABC’s “The View” on Tuesday, questioned Schiff about his promotion of the Steele dossier and the false narrative underlying it.

“You’ve been really prolific over the past few years being the head of the Intel Committee. You defended, promoted, you even read into the Congressional Record the Steele dossier,” Ortagus said.

“And we know last week the main source of the dossier was indicted by the FBI for lying about most of the key claims in that dossier. Do you have any reflections on your role in promoting this to the American people?” she asked.

Schiff first responded in a reasonable fashion, saying any who lied to the FBI should be prosecuted.

He then defended his conduct.

“We couldn’t have known, for example, people were lying to Christopher Steele. So it was proper to investigate them,” Schiff said.

The congressman added that one benefit of the investigation was learning that Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort had given polling data to Russian intelligence. Schiff was playing pretty fast and loose with the facts. According to The Associated Press, Manafort gave polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian and Ukrainian political consultant, who allegedly passed it along to Russian intelligence.

“But Mueller’s team said it couldn’t ‘reliably determine’ Manafort’s purpose in sharing it, nor assess what Kilimnik may have done with it,” the AP reported.

That sort of exaggeration by Schiff was typical throughout the Russia probe.

Ortagus reminded Schiff that Manafort was removed from the campaign in the summer of 2016 when questions arose regarding his past lobbying work for pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarchs. Further, it should be noted that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team, though filled with Democratic investigators, “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated” with Russia, according to the Justice Department’s Mueller report.

Ortagus then brought the conversation back to Schiff’s role in promoting the whole collusion false narrative and the dossier.

“You may have helped spread Russian disinformation yourself for years by promoting this. I think that’s what Republicans and what people who entrusted you as the Intel Committee chair are so confused about your culpability in all of this,” Ortagus said.

“Well, I completely disagree with your premise,” Schiff responded. “It’s one thing to say allegations should be investigated, and they were. It’s another to say that we should have foreseen in advance that some people were lying to Christopher Steele, which is impossible of course to do.”

The Californian sells himself short. He was constantly out in front of the cameras claiming he was privy to intelligence that he could not share with the public validating the collusion charge. For example in March 2017, NBC “Meet The Press” host Chuck Todd asked Schiff if there was anything beyond circumstantial evidence suggesting the Trump campaign’s connection to Russia.

“I can tell you that the case is more than that and I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now,” Schiff said.

Further questioned whether he had seen direct evidence, the representative responded, “I don’t want to get into specifics but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial and is very much worthy of an investigation.”

Despite making claims like that for many months, Schiff never came forward with such evidence, even after Mueller issued his report.

On Tuesday’s showing of “The View,” the Democrat pivoted away from discussing the dossier to raising the issue of the 2019 House Democratic impeachment of Trump and the Capitol incursion to prove investigating him was justified.

You’ll recall it was during the impeachment hearing that Schiff famously made up his own fanciful version of Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to build his case that the American leader conducted a shakedown to secure an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden’s shady dealings in Ukraine. This performance was even after Zelensky himself said he felt no pressure from Trump’s call and his country launched no investigation into the Bidens.

Schiff told Ortagus, “None of that is undercut. None of that serious misconduct is in any way diminished by the fact that people lied to Christopher Steele.”

“No. I think just your credibility is,” Ortagus shot back.

Schiff then opted for the verbal attack of a schoolboy, saying, “I think the credibility of your question is in doubt.”

Having boasted about so much with so little pushback from the media, it was refreshing to see his feet actually held to the fire for once.

Randy DeSoto, Senior Staff Writer

Randy DeSoto has written more than 2,000 articles for The Western Journal since he joined the company in 2015. He is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book “We Hold These Truths” and screenwriter of the political documentary “I Want Your Money.”@RandyDeSoto

Ann Coulter Op-ed: I Read Biden’s Build Back Better Plan And… Oh, My God


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Nov 10, 2021

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/11/10/i-read-bidens-build-back-better-plan-and–oh-my-god—p–n2598909/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

I Read Biden's Build Back Better Plan And... Oh, My God

Source: AP Photo/Alex Brandon

The White House’s official press release announcing the Build Back Better Act (BBB) pitches it as a “PLAN TO REBUILD THE MIDDLE CLASS.” It rhapsodizes about “working families” squeezed by the economy, and reminds voters that “Biden promised to rebuild the backbone of the country — the middle class.”

A cartoon illustrates the sort of person who would benefit from Biden’s Build Back Better programs: “Linda,” a white woman, who works at a manufacturing plant but struggles to raise her son, “Leo.”

One thing the White House’s official press release did not mention is that almost all of the $2 trillion doled out under BBB is expressly designated for Black, Latino, Native American, Asian American, Pacific Islander and non-English speaking individuals. White Americans will get nothing and like it.

Over and over again, the bill is written expressly NOT to help the hardworking Linda, apparently because she is white. Here are just a few examples:

— $1 billion to Native American, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian communities for housing “needs.”

— $500 million for minority-serving schools of medicine.

— $112 million for teacher preparation programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs).

— $75 million for culturally appropriate care management and services for older individuals who are racial and ethnic minorities or are underserved due to sexual orientation or gender identity.

— $75 million to study maternal health for pregnant and postpartum minority individuals.

— $50 million study maternal mortality among minorities.

— $50 million to improve behavioral health outcomes for communities of color with substance abuse.

— $75 million to increase research capacity at minority-serving institutions.

And on and on and on.

The very first item in Title II of the bill, titled “ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION,” is a program to distribute more than $100 million in grants to address “low diversity within the teacher and school leader workforce.” To be eligible for a grant, the recipient must have a plan “to increase the diversity of qualified individuals entering into the teacher, principal, or other school leader workforce.”

Similarly, the first provision of BBB’s “ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT” section is: “Minority Business Development Agency.”

But wait — here’s a plot twist! This part also includes something for rural America! (So Democrats have heard of Appalachia.) Twenty-one percent of the country is rural. Twenty-four percent is non-white. Guess how the money is divvied up?

One billion dollars for minorities and $200 million for “rural business centers.”

Even provisions that don’t explicitly exclude whites, turn out, on closer examination, to exclude whites. I’ve never seen so many synonyms for “non-white,” such as “persistent poverty communities,” “historically economically distressed,” “historical injustice” and “underserved communities.”

Hang on, Ann — what makes you think “underserved” means “non-white”?

I refer you to page 111 of the bill:

“This section also defines an ‘underserved community’ as a group of people who have been systematically denied the full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life. Underserved communities include Black, Latino, Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian American and Pacific Islanders, other persons of color, [etc.].”

How about changes to our environmental laws? White people love the environment! Sorry, out of luck, again, white boy.

BBB allocates almost $7 billion for “national service programs to carry out projects related to climate resilience and mitigation.” Unfortunately, however, all those billions have to go to “entities that serve and have representation from low-income communities …; utilize culturally competent and multilingual strategies; … implemented by diverse participants from communities being served.”

One billion dollars of the “Climate Resilience and Mitigation” loot is specifically directed to “individuals who were formally incarcerated.” [Sic.] Sure, climate change is important — but not as important as giving money to convicted felons!

What the hell happened to Linda?

Linda is wearing a hardhat, so her job has probably been outsourced. Maybe she’ll be helped by BBB’s humongous expansion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program (TAA). That’s the law passed in the 1960s to compensate American workers whose jobs have been shipped abroad by globalist swine who couldn’t care less about their fellow Americans and don’t mind that every single thing we need, including masks and medicine, is made in China.

Surely, some white people will qualify for that — steelworkers, autoworkers, glass, plastic and paper manufacturing employees.

In fact, the BBB hijacks the whole idea of compensating globalism’s losers and turns the TAA into just another massive welfare scheme. Both the eligibility requirements and payment amounts are expanded beyond all reason, entitling “workers” to years and years of payouts, with no minimum employment period required, and no stipulation that trade has anything to do with the loss of their jobs.

Thus, for example, a program that is — again — meant to remunerate workers whose jobs were shipped abroad will now offer assistance to public sector employees. How does a government employee lose a job at all — much less to trade? (I only wish we had Chinese people running our grade schools.)

Naturally, states will be required to work with “training providers” that have a proven track record serving “Black, Latino, Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian American and Pacific Islanders, other persons of color, members of other minority communities” and so on.

Republicans seem to think that if they just talk about how much Biden’s BBB plan costs, their job is done. They ought to read the bill. It might prompt them to finally say something about the Democrats’ clear animus against white Americans.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: FDA’s own Pfizer approval document suggests myocarditis from shot might be bigger threat than COVID


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | November 09, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-fdas-own-pfizer-approval-document-suggests-myocarditis-from-shot-might-be-bigger-threat-than-covid/

They are not even trying to convince us any more. They are now using brute force to coerce us into COVID fascism, including forced injections, so they have no need to even hide their false information.

In Pfizer’s FDA briefing document prepared for the Oct. 25 meeting was an admission that even according to the company’s own unverified and misleading math, there is a scenario where there would be more hospitalizations among children for myocarditis — just one side effect — than from COVID. “Under Scenario 3 (lowest incidence), the model predicts more excess hospitalizations due to vaccine-related myocarditis/pericarditis compared to prevented hospitalizations due to COVID-19 in males and in both sexes combined,” states Pfizer in page 33 of the document.

How in the world could there be any universe where we would approve a shot, much less promote and force it in many settings, when there is a possibility of greater harm than benefit, when the harm is man-made and the virus is left to chance? They know quite well that this approval will eventually lead to soft and hard mandates, which have already begun in California schools.

The document concludes by expressing the same callous attitude toward those raising concerns as toward all their interventions from day one. “However, in consideration of the different clinical implications of hospitalization for COVID-19 versus hospitalization for vaccine-associated myocarditis/pericarditis, and benefits related to prevention of non-hospitalized cases of COVID-19 with significant morbidity, the overall benefits of the vaccine may still outweigh the risks under this lowest incidence scenario.” In other words, sure, we have no clue what’s going to happen, but it’s always better to err on the side of shoving this on children who have a 99.9% recovery rate.

Moreover, there are a couple of obvious factors that demonstrate clearly, by their own admission, the shots pose more risk than benefit:

  • Already in March, 42% of children 5-17 have had the virus, according to the CDC, and that number is likely much higher following the prolific spread of the Delta variant. So the benefit in terms of lives saved is much less than they predict, because the majority of children likely already have protection even from mild illness. We are not beginning with a clean slate with 100% of children vulnerable to getting the virus. Plus, studies have shown among adults that those who already had the virus not only don’t need a vaccine, but these shots pose a greater risk to them than to those without prior infection.
  • Even the infinitesimal risk of serious illness among young children is clearly limited to a very defined pool of very sick and severely obese children. It would be one thing to just make it available for those children. But if you isolate healthy children, it’s quite evident that so many more lives would be lost than saved because healthy children essentially do not get seriously ill from this virus.
  • COVID hospitalizations among children are grossly exaggerated in the data and conflated with those admitted for other ailments who just had COVID incidentally. A study published in the Journal of American Academy of Pediatrics found, “Nearly one-half of the infected children had coinfection with other common respiratory pathogens.” Scientists from University College London and the Universities of York, Bristol, and Liverpool studied the data from all pediatric COVID-19 infections in the U.K. and found that 61% of the reported pediatric COVID deaths were overstated.
  • This analysis still assumes that the vaccines are over 90% effective. In reality, Sweden’s extremely large study has shown that the efficacy wears off to zero after seven months, and the U.K data demonstrate that thereafter the vaccinated are more likely to get COVID than unvaccinated people. Thus, if the entire benefit of injecting children, as suggested by Pfizer, is to prevent mild non-hospitalized cases, the vaccines actually contribute to the risk incurred, not the benefits reaped from the shots.
  • This analysis ignores the fact that there are numerous other treatment options for children and adults alike that will reduce chances of death without causing side effects like myocarditis. We need not be faced with the false dichotomy between poisonous shots and not treating the virus. Why are these shots getting approval for children’s use before the monoclonal antibodies, which are much safer and have been shown to work even pre-emptively up to eight months later?
  • Are we really going to trust Pfizer’s numbers? In reality, independent studies have found the risk of myocarditis to be much worse. A preprint from University of California Davis found that “for boys 12-15 without medical comorbidities receiving their second mRNA vaccination dose, the rate of CAE [cardiac adverse event ] is 3.7 to 6.1 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk as of August 21, 2021.” A recent study of the Danish population published in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal found that “the incidence of myopericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination among males appears higher than reports from the United States.” Have you ever wondered why it always seems that the negative information on the vaccines is downplayed and the supposed positive benefits are exaggerated in the U.S. more than elsewhere? Clearly, the signals regarding cardiovascular side effects are greater than U.S. authorities are willing to admit. In September, the U.K. Telegraph reported, “Data from Public Health England (PHE) shows that during that period there were 2,103 extra death registrations with ischemic heart disease, 1,552 with heart failure, as well as an extra 760 deaths with cerebrovascular diseases such as stroke and aneurysm and 3,915 with other circulatory diseases.”

The question everyone should be asking is, “What is the Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNTV) to prevent a single COVID-19 fatality in this age group, and how many people will we kill, maim, and weaken their immune systems on the way to achieving that number?” Dr. Toby Rogers, an economist and statistician, laid out the numbers in simple arithmetic last week. He concludes that if you give Pfizer 80% effectiveness against the 57 reported fatalities over this six-month period, it would work out to saving 45 lives after vaccinating 28 million children. So, the NNTV to prevent a single COVID death would be 630,775 (28,384,878 / 45), but because it’s a two-dose regimen, you would need 1,261,550 total injections.

Now what about the risk? If you take the 128 reported vaccine deaths among those ages 12-24 as a baseline, then utilize Kirsch, Rose, and Crawford’s estimate that VAERS undercounts fatal reactions by a factor of 41, that would amount to 5,248 fatal side effects during the same period of time. Thus, in order to save 45 children, we’d kill 5,248 — for a ratio of one kid saved for 117 killed. And again, this analysis doesn’t account for the fact that for healthy children, there are essentially zero COVID deaths, more than half the children likely already had COVID, there are other treatments available, and on the risk side, we don’t know if there are long-term side effects that will create excess deaths well beyond the shot’s six-month window of efficacy.

Additionally, we don’t even know if those getting the shot now will enjoy anywhere near this degree of efficacy given that the virus is rapidly changing. What we do know, however, from the adult vaccinations, is that adults are more vulnerable to the virus for the first month, then again as the vaccine wanes after six months. Plus, Pfizer’s trial shows that more than half the children experienced cold or flu-like symptoms from the shots. So they admit that there were no cases of serious illness in the control group and are thus using the shot to merely prevent a flu, yet it will likely give them flu-like symptoms up front and make it more likely they will get the virus after six months.

Indeed, there has never been such a lopsided risk-benefit ratio to any medical device approved by our government, even on a limited basis, much less used to bribe and shame children into injecting. As Dr. Eric Rubin, member of the FDA’s advisory committee on vaccines and editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, said during the Oct. 26 meeting: “We’re never going to learn about how safe the vaccine is unless we start giving it, and that’s just the way it goes.”

Editor’s note: This article has been corrected to note that Dr. Rubin is a member of the FDA’s advisory committee on vaccines, rather than the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Wallace B. Henley Op-ed: Who is the real ‘enemy of the people’?


Commentary By Wallace B. Henley, Exclusive Columnist| Wednesday, October 27, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/who-is-the-real-enemy-of-the-people.html/

Scott Smith
Scott Smith, whose daughter was raped by a male wearing a skirt in a girls’ bathroom at her high school in Loudoun County, Virginia, appears on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle,” Oct. 12, 2021. | Screenshot: Fox News

When the Quisha Kings and Scott Smiths in a nation are considered by the regime in power to be the enemy, it says more about the danger of the regime than those the rulers consider as threats.

Quisha King is a Florida mother and a leader of Moms for Liberty, a group seeking to inform and inspire mothers and fathers to assert their parental rights in the face of a ravenous government and its allies, lackeys, parasites, and sycophants.  

The regime now consists of the elite establishments of Big Entertainment, Big Information, Big Academia, Big Government, Big Corporations. The leviathan is bloated with the muscle of all those entities and seems to grow steadily in its capacities of repression. Together, they become the consensus establishment, the regime that determines what is permissible and what is not so a compliant culture can cash in its liberty and acquiesce to the demands of the regime.

Within that cluster is the National School Boards Association (NSBA).

Moms for Liberty, among other things, resists the mandated teaching of critical race theory (CRT), forced mask-wearing and other incursions against parental rights in the public schools their children attend. NSBA sent a letter to President Biden suggesting that, in accord with the Patriot Act, such people and their ilk should be handled like domestic terrorists because they demand their school boards be accountable to parents.

Scott Smith’s daughter was assaulted in a school bathroom by a transgender boy, and was also labeled a “domestic terrorist” because he rushed into a school board meeting and demanded that the board take responsibility for what had happened to his daughter.

As Smith was being pulled down to the floor and arrested his wife cried out, “My child was raped at school, and this is what happens!”

Apparently, all citizens so concerned about the direction of public education in America that they challenge the authority of their school boards, suddenly become, in the eyes of the leviathan government and elitist establishments, enemies of the state—itself increasingly the enemy of the freedoms established in the constitutional system.

The Biden White House sent the NSBA letter to the Department of Justice. Attorney General Merrick Garland instructed the FBI to get involved, exacerbating, and strengthening the resolve of the parents whose response shook the political barometers at the White House.

The outcome was an apology from NSBA, regretting their letter, and acknowledging that “there was no justification for some of the language included in the letter.”[1]

Quisha King believed that if NSBA’s apology was genuine, instead of “calling us domestic terrorists, they would have investigated and questioned these school boards to see if there was any validity to any of what the parents are actually saying.”

There is something chilling here: NSBA’s suggestion that people like King are domestic terrorists who need to be reeled in under the Patriots Act calls to mind other regimes that have regarded the people of their nation as the enemy of the state.

For example, the Soviet Union under Stalin.

In 1956, Nikita Khrushchev (who would later prove himself as a totalitarian), then new leader of the Communist regime in the Soviet Union, shocked his fellow Marxists with a speech that revealed the monstrous nature of Stalinism. In doing so he exposed characteristics of any regime that sees its own people as the enemy.

“Stalin originated the concept ‘enemy of the people,’” said Khrushchev. Actually, the wording could have been, “the people are the enemy.” That term, Khrushchev continued in the Communist Party Congress speech, “made possible the usage of the most cruel repression, violating all norms of revolutionary legality, against anyone who in any way disagreed with Stalin, against those who were only suspected of hostile intent, against those who had bad reputations…”

Khrushchev went on to say that “this concept, enemy of the people, actually eliminated the possibility of any kind of ideological fight.” Thus, the bottom line is that anyone labeled an enemy of the people or of the state were judged as guilty and pushed out of the public square where they might have defended their views.

Today’s regime in the United States has also pushed those considered as public enemies out of the public square, and, as much as possible, cut off their voice. Consider, for example censorship by Big Tech sites of groups deemed not worthy of public exposure because of their religious, political, or social views.

Silencing the enemies of the regimes is also the aim of the Cancel culture and Wokeism. Men and women who violate the value system and worldview specified by the high priests of Wokeism are ridiculed and banished. The regime cluster even turns on its own, like JK Rowling, who once helped build the Woke culture. She was cancelled for giving public support to Maya Forstater who said, “men cannot change into women.”

In an eyeblink, Rowling became the enemy in the eyes of the cultural regime.

However, when the regime considers the people as the enemy, then it is the regime that is itself the enemy of the people. That means action must be taken.

Throughout the history of civilization, the “public square” has been the locus of revolutionary resistance. So, the public square has to be the place of resistance in this current battle. Presently, however, that “square” has come under the censorship of authoritarian regimes. Under this repression the church and the home must be the primary places of resistance… forming worldview that will awaken a slumbering mass who at times seem not to want to be disturbed.

Churches must wake up to what is happening and recover the prophetic voice. Discipleship ministries must teach the biblical revelation concerning nations and cultures, and dare address the spiritual foundations of the nation. Parents must make their homes centers of worldview teaching and formation for their children.

Without this, we face a Stalinized future with the elite consensus establishment imposing its will upon us and our posterity.


[1] Florida mother says she does not accept NSBA’s apology for letter that likened parents to domestic terrorists | Fox News

Wallace B. Henley, a former White House and Congressional aide, is the author or co-author of more than 20 books. His latest is Who Will Rule the Coming ‘Gods’: The Looming Spiritual Crisis of Artificial Intelligencejust released by Vide Press.

For media inquiries, contact:  ChristianPost@pinkston.co

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Irish county with 99.7% vaccination rate has highest COVID case rate


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | October 28, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-irish-county-with-99-7-vaccination-rate-has-highest-covid-case-rate/

With 99.7% of adults in the Irish county of Waterford having received the COVID shots, they have the highest per-capita case rate of COVID anywhere in the country. Are they now going to suggest it’s the fault of the 0.3%?!

The Irish Times reported last week that with one Waterford city district at a 14-day incidence rate of 1,486 cases per 100,000 of the population, Waterford has the highest incidence rate of anywhere in Ireland. The COVID case rate is three times the national average, which in itself has been increasing steadily in recent weeks, despite 91% of Irish adults being vaccinated. However, Waterford takes the cake.

“Waterford has the highest rate of vaccination in the country with 99.7 per cent of adults over the age of 18 (as registered in the last census) fully vaccinated,” reports the Irish Times. “The county has gone from having one of the lowest rates of Covid-19 infection in Ireland to one of the highest.”

How can a vaccine that is this leaky, and apparently even counterproductive, continue to be pushed on a population even if it had zero side effects? How many more examples of this do we need to see?

According to Our World in Data, most Irish began to get vaccinated in April/May, which is exactly when we saw a reversal of fortunes, with more cases than we’ve seen in months.about:blank

What else have we seen rise at the same time? You got it. COVID cases.

about:blank

And no, it’s not just mild cases. Ireland has the highest number of people in the hospital with COVID since March, and the trajectory is getting worse. This is with the highest vaccination rate in the EU – over 90% of those over 16 – and it’s particularly bad in the most vaccinated county of Ireland. The state’s chief medical officer, Dr. Tony Holohan, said he was “increasingly worried about the rising incidence of the disease nationwide” and that the primary focus “must be to protect the most vulnerable from Covid-19.” He then proceeded to blame the unvaccinated! Gee, if just 9% of those over 16 in the country are unvaccinated and just 0.3% in the worst area, what percentage of the vulnerable do you think are not vaccinated?! And wasn’t the vaccine designed to protect “the most vulnerable?”

At some point, there is nowhere to run or hide from the botched vaccine that not only fails to stop transmission, but causes viral immune escape and makes more virulent variants. A recent analysis of the emergent A.30 strain published in Nature shows that “the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 variant A.30 is heavily mutated and evades vaccine-induced antibodies with high efficiency.” This is what happens when you “shoot at the king and miss,” so to speak, by fighting a virus with weak, narrow-spectrum, and waning antibodies. We’ve gone backward. U.K. data already shows that the vaccinated are infected at a greater rate per capita – in some cohorts twice the rate – for every age group over 30.

It’s becoming clear that not only does this vaccine create greater transmission, but it also fails to protect against critical illness, especially for those who need the protection the most. Even the studies that continue to rely on old data – before the vaccines fully waned – show that the protection against critical illness doesn’t really work for the immunocompromised.

new study from Sweden published as a preprint in the Lancet claims that the vaccine efficacy against serious illness is still holding up. There’s just one catch. “The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months, although not for men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities,” conclude the authors. Well, isn’t that why we needed a vaccine in the first place? Even the Swedish study shows that after 210 days, there is zero efficacy against symptomatic infection, after which there seems to be negative efficacy. Researchers found just 52% efficacy against severe illness in all men after six months, which means you can no longer count on it for protection.

It’s also important to remember that many people in Sweden – more than most other countries – already had the infection, possibly asymptomatically. So, it’s possible that the efficacy of the shots is being overstated because some of those people benefited from natural immunity.

Thus, where are we nine to 12 months after the shot? Negative efficacy against symptomatic infection for all, as witnessed by the hard data in places like the U.K. and Ireland, and very low and spotty efficacy for serious illness, going down to zero for those who need it the most. But this is not cost-free. Who is to say that the effectiveness against severe illness won’t go negative as well, following some sort of pattern of antibody dependent disease enhancement? Moreover, who’s to say more mass vaccination of children and boosters for adults won’t create even more viral immune escape that will strengthen the virus and subject people to the risks of the shots without even protecting them for another month against these new self-perpetuated mutations?

This week, the Irish parliament was issued a “stark” warning from health officials about the growing threat of the virus. During sane times, policy leaders would reject the definition of insanity by engaging in introspection and changing course from existing failed policies. Yet in their warped minds, no matter how much the vaccines make the virus worse, you can always vaccinate more! So long as there is a single human being who didn’t receive the latest number shot, there’s always a way to project the viral enhancement on those who didn’t create it.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Media Gone Wild (Over Trump!)


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Oct 20, 2021

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/10/20/media-gone-wild-over-trump—p–n2597771/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

Media Gone Wild (Over Trump!)

Source: AP Photo/Ben Gray

If you really, really miss Donald Trump, MSNBC may just be for you! Biden is cratering, fuel prices are skyrocketing (hey, anybody seen Greta Thunberg?), hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens are pouring across our border, and the murder rate keeps hitting historic highs. But the establishment media can’t stop talking about TRUMP.

So for my friends in the media, here are a few thoughts on your Trump obsession.

Rep. Liz Cheney, daughter of Dr. Evil, has become an unlikely hero among the Can’t-Get-Enough-Trump media — because she can’t stop talking about Trump either.

Cheney says:

— Jan. 6 was dumb (true: As David Cole says, “What was supposed to happen?”);

— Trump is hurting the GOP (true: He endorsed Stacey Abrams and says his voters won’t come out in 2022 and ’24 if Republicans don’t make the “Presidential Election Fraud of 2020” their No. 1 issue); and

— Trump is lying about the Arizona recount (also true).

But then she had to add: Oh, and now I’m for gay marriage! Isn’t Bush the greatest?

Is there a political party for people who think Jan. 6 was dumb, notice that we don’t have a wall, and can read an election report, but still say Bush is a male bimbo and pretty much everything liberals said about him was true?

“Trumpism Without Trump” is the winning formula. We’re keeping the policies, but getting rid of the 8-year-old.

The main lesson out of the Arizona election hand recount a few weeks ago isn’t about the election at all. It’s that media misinformation is a serious problem in a democracy.

We got some very confusing messaging on the results of the recount. First, there were headlines all over saying it resulted in Biden winning again. I didn’t really care one way or another, except then Trump started going around claiming that the hand recount clearly showed … HE WON!

It’s a simple yes-or-no question: Did Trump win Arizona or didn’t he?

This turned out to be an epistemological puzzle. You see, both sides are gigantic liars, so whom to believe?

In this instance, the media were telling the truth, because the truth favored them, and Trump was lying, because it didn’t favor him.

But thanks, media, for so debasing yourselves with idiotic lies over the past five years — e.g., Russian collusion, the “Access Hollywood” tape, Trump’s remarks on Charlottesville — that I had to look up a basic fact question for myself because I simply couldn’t trust you.

Trump lost Arizona. The hand recount was conducted by a hardcore conservative Christian, Doug Logan, famed for his integrity, and who was, therefore, viciously attacked by liberals. The recount was ordered up by Trump Republicans in the Arizona legislature. It was paid for by Trump supporters.

If you don’t believe Logan, right-wingers, you won’t believe anyone, except the guy who promised to build a wall; bring manufacturing home; and end anchor babies, the carried interest loophole and the war in Afghanistan — but didn’t do any of those things.

Logan’s hand recount of the ballots resulted in Biden receiving 99 more votes and Trump receiving 261 fewer votes. The report is here in black and white.

When Trump says, We have conclusively proven that we won, he’s just doing the salesman thing he always does, telling you that a used car is a fantastic deal, an amazing car, runs like a top!

But the transmission just fell out.

I’m telling you, it’s a humdinger!

Yeah, and we have a big, beautiful wall. Thousands and thousands of miles.

File this under: At Least He Was Thinking of Us, Briefly.

The New York Times reported this week:

Trump’s Pentagon Chief Quashed Idea to Send 250,000 Troops to the Border

“Top national security aides to former President Trump also talked him out of launching military raids against drug cartels inside Mexico.”

Typical Trump. He talks a good game, then one person raises an objection and he says, OK, I’ll just tell my supporters I wanted to do it.

Of course, the Times’ take is: Isn’t he awful? Yes, New York Times, because he didn’t do it. Not because he said he would.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Horowitz: The $cience of remdesivir vs. ivermectin: A tale of two drugs


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | October 18, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-the-cience-of-remdesivir-vs-ivermectin-a-tale-of-two-drugs-theblaze-2655321861.html/

A tale of two drugs. One has become the standard of care at an astronomical cost despite studies showing negative efficacy, despite causing severe renal failure and liver damage, and despite zero use outpatient. The other has been safely administered to billions for river blindness and now hundreds of millions for COVID throughout the world and has turned around people at death’s doorstep for pennies on the dollar. Yet the former – remdesivir – is the standard of care forced upon every patient, while the latter – ivermectin – is scorned and banned in the hospitals and de facto banned in most outpatient settings. But according to the NIH, a doctor has the same right to use ivermectin as to use remdesivir. And it’s time people know the truth.

Although the NIH and the FDA didn’t officially approve ivermectin as standard of care for COVID, it is listed on NIH’s website right under remdesivir as “Antiviral Agents That Are Approved or Under Evaluation for the Treatment of COVID-19.” It is accorded the same status, the same sourcing for dosage recommendations, and the same monitoring advice as remdesivir … except according to NIH’s own guidance, remdesivir has a much greater potential for severe reactions in the very organs at stake in a bout with acute COVID.

Now, let’s take a closer look at the details.

As you can see, they admit that remdesivir causes renal and liver failure! One of the symptoms is “ALT and AST elevations,” which are indications of liver damage. Is that really the drug you want when someone is at risk for a cytokine storm and thrombosis? They even have a monitoring requirement for these side effects. Also, it does have some drug interactions as well.

Now, let’s move on to the ivermectin side effects.

Notice how the NIH is essentially saying it has no side effects by the fact that it prefaces the section by noting the drug is “generally well tolerated,” a distinction not accorded to remdesivir. Then it proceeds to list the same boilerplate GI and nausea warnings on every drug under the sun. There are almost no drug interactions and ZERO specific guidance for monitoring!

Just looking at the NIH’s own table, why in the world would remdesivir be the expensive mandatory standard of care and ivermectin, buttressed by 64 studies, be relegated to hemlock status even for patients about to die and with no other options?

Yes, we get the message – every one of those studies is supposedly low-powered, a fraud, and all the thousands of doctors turning people around on ivermectin are some how frauds even though they have nothing to gain and everything to lose from pushing it. But if that is our standard for ivermectin, it raises the obvious question about remdesivir. How could remdesivir not only be approved but made the standard of care when it has negative efficacy in trials, has a negative recommendation from the WHO, and, by the NIH’s own admission, causes liver and kidney failure?

Even if the medical establishment dismisses the preponderance of evidence and reality of the past 18 months, with ivermectin saving so many people, just from a safety standpoint, why would they not allow people to at least try something this safe while forcing on them a dangerous drug like remdesivir? In addition, these are the same hospitals that administer Olumiant, which has a rare FDA black box warning for blood clots, even though these very patients are at high risk for a pulmonary embolism and other clotting disorders?

In other words, there is no way anyone can justify the war on ivermectin (and every other cheap treatment that has been and will be proposed) as being rooted in anything related to medicine and science. If that were the case, the medical establishment would be dead set against remdesivir and Olumiant. Moreover, to the extent remdesivir has any efficacy that is worth its risk, it would be outpatient during the viral stage. There is quite literally no scientific way remdesivir can work in the pulmonary inflammation stage. Unlike ivermectin, which tones down inflammatory cytokines such as IL-1beta and IL-10 as well as tumor necrosis factor alpha, remdesivir has no anti-inflammatory qualities.

However, remdesivir does have a lot of political science behind it. Aside from having the weight of Big Pharma pushing it (and it was concocted by UNC-Chapel Hill, curiously the same institution at the center of the coronavirus gain-of-function research), hospitals get a 20% bonus for using it!

Gee, is there any wonder hospitals will fight patients in court – including those whom they already recommend to remove from life support – to not even try ivermectin as a last resort?! So much for the desire to flatten the curve of hospitalizations. They want people in the hospital! If they really cared about the run on hospitals, they’d promote treatments that work early and outpatient so that nobody would need to come to the hospital.

For more information, watch this devastating contrast of ivermectin vs. remdesivir.

Here’s one other strong piece of evidence that this is not about any shortcoming of ivermectin, but stems from unrelenting war on anything off patent that might work, in order to run interference for expensive, dangerous, and ineffective tools of big pharma. Let’s go back to that NIH chart of potential antiviral drugs for COVID. There is actually a third one on that list aside from remdesivir and ivermectin.

Nitazoxanide, much like ivermectin, is a (potentially) cheap off-patent anti-parasitic that has been praised for years as a very safe, broad-spectrum anti-parasitic mechanism and is written about glowingly in studies. And it actually has an even longer and more direct precedent of research and clinical use against viruses than even ivermectin. It is the standard of care for norovirus and rotavirus in Brazil and has shown promise against not just flus and hepatitis, but coronavirus colds, SARS, and MERS. This research has been known even in the media for well over a year! Gee, we have an antiviral that is so safe it’s given to young kids for viral diarrhea and has been known to work against coronaviruses. Yet our government has refused to pursue any meaningful research for 18 months!

Originally, it was as cheap as ivermectin, but one company seems to have bought it up, and now it is prohibitively expensive in the U.S. However, were the government to promote it, this off-patent drug could easily be mass-produced for pennies on the dollar and costs just a few dollars for a full regimen in Mexico and Brazil.https://playlist.megaphone.fm/?e=BMDC5574376707

Notice that, just like with ivermectin, the NIH prefaces the side effects section on nitazoxanide by saying it is “generally well tolerated” and then proceeds to list the boilerplate of typical minor side effects that are disclosed for every drug under the sun. Anyone merely looking at this NIH page alone can see how the government and medical establishment’s treatment of remdesivir vs. every other therapeutic that has been tried is built upon control, greed, and something much darker than that. Now, just remember, these are the same people who will look you in the eye and say the shots are 100% effective and carry zero risk. It’s all in the $cience.
What is self-evident from the NIH’s disclosure, which was updated as late as July 2021, is that ivermectin and nitazoxanide work for a lot more than just parasites. It’s primarily the political parasites that fear that those drugs.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Iowa conservatives introduce gold standard bill to fight the dangerous COVID mandate


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | October 15, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-iowa-conservatives-introduce-gold-standard-bill-to-fight-the-dangerous-covid-mandate-theblaze-2655316302.html/

There is nothing free-market about “private” businesses joining in the violation of the Nuremberg Code. In fact, the entire concept of a rushed therapeutic that wanes quickly and causes a shocking number of known and unknown injuries never would have gotten off the ground under the free market. Socialism, subsidization, monopolization, government using taxpayer funding to create, market, coerce, censor, and reshape society with the shot — all the while being exempt from legal liability — are the only reasons why any business even under 100 employees, much less a larger business, would be mandating it at this point. The only effective, prudent, fair, and free-market position is to use equal and opposing force to restore the balance of the free market. It’s show time for the state legislatures.

Legislative bodies throughout the country are meeting over the next few weeks to debate measures that would counter the mandates being illegally promulgated by the Biden administration. Most GOP-controlled states are going to take some form of action, but the question is whether they will take the right action or be intimidated by the visceral response of the big business and health care cartel that has become a giant arm of government tyranny. Several Iowa lawmakers have put together a bill that is the gold standard of what other red states should adopt this coming week.

The crux of the bill, Iowa SF 193, sponsored by Sens. Guth, Johnson, Schultz, Whiting, and Carlin, categorically bans all human rights violations in relation to “Pfizer” government mandates. It prohibits an employer from failing or refusing to hire, discharge, penalize, or otherwise discriminate against an employee with respect to compensation or the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment based on the employee’s vaccination history or the refusal of the employee to receive a vaccine or provide proof of immunity. It provides a cause of action in court to anyone discriminated against, along with a prescribed remedy of back pay plus 10% from the employer.

This is what we do in the context of every other form of discrimination, including when employers legitimately terminate problematic workers. So, until we get rid of all those laws and the EEOC at the federal level, we don’t need to hear about “the free market.”

Next, rather than providing an exception to this rule for hospitals and health care settings, this bill specifically bans any discrimination against health care workers or discrimination on the treatment side for patients in a health care setting. It spells out every form of medical professional, including medical students and residents. Importantly, this bill bars any health care provider licensing authority from denying or revoking a license to any applicant because they decline the shot.

At this point, it is abundantly clear that the shots provide no more protection against transmission than not having the shots, which makes any form of any mandate unjustified, even if we are to believe one can govern another’s body. For example, in health care settings, where health organizations are arguing that they must protect cancer patients who didn’t get the shot, those patients are at least as likely to get the virus from a supposed vaccinated person as from an unvaccinated person, especially if the latter individual already had the virus. Moreover, research has consistently shown that people within 14 days of the first or second shot are the most vulnerable to catching COVID because of the suboptimal levels of antibodies. Having thousands of health care workers suddenly get the shots within a period of a few weeks would expose those patients to the most risk in health care settings.

Another important provision of the Iowa bill is that it bars all insurance companies from discriminating against those who don’t get the shot. This means they cannot reject; deny; limit; cancel; refuse to renew; increase the premiums for; limit the amount, extent, or kind of coverage available to; or otherwise adversely affect eligibility or coverage for the group health policy, contract, or plan for health insurance.

We’d all love to live with a market in which any providers can offer any insurance plan they wish. But that ship sailed with Obamacare. The only things worse than full socialist mandates are half-manipulated mandates, which induce totalitarianism in addition to socialism. Thanks to Obamacare, we cannot start our own insurance companies because of the actuarily insolvent mandates. Yet the same government that pushed universal coverage now gets to manipulate the government-sponsored “private” monopoly companies to bar coverage for large groups of people based on zero scientific evidence. Repeal Obamacare, and then we will remove this provision. Until then, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Next, the bill bars any owner or manager of a public accommodation from discriminating in services against someone who has not taken the shot. Again, this virus has been used as an excuse to prohibit all landowners from evicting anyone, including those who are disruptive, destructive, and late on rent. We will not allow the socialists to use their control over the “private” sector to suddenly encourage them to discriminate against people with no cause. I’m fine with ending most discrimination laws. But if we are going to have them, the worst outcome is for government to manipulate a perfectly perverse standard of who is subject to them and who is exempt from them. When businesses can deny services or employment to those with HIV or with certain sexual behaviors, or thwart Obamacare, Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank, OSHA, and ADA regulations, then come back to me about “the private sector can do what they want.”

More provisions of SF 193 include the following:

  • A prohibition on including someone’s immunization status on their driver’s license.
  • Expansion of the exemption process for vaccine requirements in schools related to existing vaccines.
  • Anyone administering the vaccine must obtain written consent from the patient prior to reporting the administration of the vaccine or immunization to the statewide immunization registry.

At present, all private businesses over 100 employees are on the hook for a looming federal mandate to require a shot that the government has essentially created and manipulated with taxpayer funding that the free market never would have sustained. Both government and the pharmaceutical companies are exempt from liability. This is not free market; this is fascism. As such, for any state to merely pass a neutral law without providing equal and opposing force to prohibit (rather than exempt from) the federal mandate is not an exercise in free market ethos but in submission to totalitarianism.

How come none of these business and health organizations cried bloody murder about “rights of the private sector” when governors placed the ultimate regulation on them – a crippling shutdown or cumbersome capacity mandates? In this case, they are not regulating affirmative expensive compliance measures – just simply a dictate to apply existing discrimination and health privacy law to where it’s needed most in order to counter Nuremberg violations by the federal government. Private business owners don’t need to lift a finger and spend any time or money on this. Just don’t harass your workers. “Well, we’re scared of COVID,” they are saying. In that case, you have the shot, so what do you care about someone else not getting it?https://playlist.megaphone.fm/?e=BMDC5574376707

The private sector or free market did not conjure up the riskiest and leakiest shot in history or mask-wearing; it was all induced by the federal government through fear, intimidation, misinformation, threats, and censorship. In the case of big business and health care, there has been downright collaboration with the federal government at every stage – a violation of the ultimate antitrust principles. Therefore, every state has an obligation to interpose between the federal coercion and the safety of the people. Allowing every business in every state to remain a conduit for that federal tyranny is not respect for private rights. It’s collaboration with a very dark tunnel of tyranny. We don’t want to discover what’s on the other side.

Richard D. Land Op-ed: How badly have we lost our way?


Commentary By Richard D. Land, Christian Post Executive Editor | Friday, October 15, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/how-badly-have-we-lost-our-way.html/

lost
Unsplash/ Mário Krav?ák

How badly have we lost our way? It is an important question that many Americans, including this one, can no longer avoid asking just because we intuitively know we are going to be profoundly depressed with the answer.

Yes, we have lost our way as a nation in foundational ways. It will be difficult to find our way again without divine intervention. The moral compass of a significant number of our fellow citizens has been desensitized and demagnetized. Is it a plurality, a majority, or just a significant minority?

Does that really make much of a difference? I don’t think it does, really, because whatever the percentage is, it is enough to vitiate and blunt the basic Judeo-Christian morality upon which this nation was founded, and to which a majority of its citizens aspired to achieve. Eventually, even many of the blind spots resulting from their human frailty were confronted by the foundational ethos embedded in the founding document, their sine qua non as a nation, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”

That is indeed a revolutionary credo that has impelled the nation to an evermore expansive understanding of the depth and breadth of that truth.

Tragically, somewhere along the way, America veered seriously off course and we are now confronted with a collapse into full-blown paganism.

What triggered this lugubrious conclusion? I have seldom been both as shocked and saddened as I was after reading the Rev. Rebecca Todd Peters’ op-ed in USA Today, “Faith Guided Our Decision on 2 Abortions.” Rev. Peters identifies herself as a Presbyterian minister (John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and Peter Marshall, among others, would find that statement astounding considering the op-ed’s content.)

The Rev. Peters also states that she is “a wife and a mother of two” and that she has “also had two abortions.”

She immediately follows this by asserting, “I did not make my abortion decision despite my Christian identity and faith, but rather because of it.”

As my heart sank and my spirit was distraught, my mind immediately went to the first chapter of the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. There Paul describes the ever-downward spiral of human sin where one of the most distinguishable things about sin is its ability to generate ever greater sin and depravity (Rom. 1:18-32).

After all, the Apostle Paul confronted a Roman society that was as depraved, if not more so, than our own era. Even the pagans noticed and were offended. Seneca observed that it was an age “stricken with the agitations of a soul no longer master of itself.” Tacitus opined that “the greater the infamy, the wilder the delight.”

As the masterful New Testament scholar William Barclay so discerningly observed of the people of that time, “He has so erected an altar to himself in the center of things that he worships himself to the exclusion of God and man.”

Before we go any further, let us be clear — “Waterford crystal clear.” The Reverend Peters does not represent any historic form of the genuine Christian faith — Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.

The Roman civilization into which the Christian faith was birthed out of Judaism was one in which the life of the child was discounted and devalued perhaps more than ever before or since until the modern pro-abortion era in the West. Abortion was common, as was infanticide.

Will and Ariel Durant in their multi-volume The Story of Civilization report that when a child was born it was placed in front of the father. If the father picked up the child and acknowledged it, the baby lived. If the father turned away, the child was literally abandoned. This abandonment was commonplace.

The only real difference between then and now in the extreme pro-abortion regime in America is that in Rome it was the father who had absolute power of life and death over their child, and in modern America, it is the mother who wields such absolute power. By the way, the Durants reported that after the first girl was safely delivered in a family, 99 out of every 100 subsequent girl babies were discarded to die.

The Jewish civilization was the only ancient civilization in the Mediterranean Basin which did not routinely practice infanticide and abortion.

It was into this pro-death, anti-child milieu that Christianity burst forth in the first century AD with a courageous and uncompromising pro-life message. As Michael J. Gorman has pointed out in Abortion and the Early Church: “Writers of the first three centuries laid the theological and literary foundation for all subsequent early Christian writing on abortion…three important themes emerged during these centuries: the fetus is the creation of God; abortion is murder; and the judgment of God falls on those guilty of abortion.”

In fact, the Didache, the first widely acknowledged post-Apostolic teaching of the early church (circa 134 AD) vehemently condemned abortion and declared that it was beyond the pale for those identifying themselves as followers of Jesus Christ.

For the Reverend Peters to assert that “without a doubt…the two decisions we made to have children were far more morally significant than the decision to end two pregnancies” is quite literally blasphemous. Morally significant for whom? The two babies she killed would undoubtedly have pleaded with their mother to let them live.

We are talking about two babies, her babies, and she says killing them can be “a moral good.” Every abortion stops a beating human heart. In this case — two of her babies’ beating hearts.

In Paul’s analysis of the moral degeneracy of Roman civilization, he declares the downward spiritual spiral of degradational sin produces people “without natural affection” (Rom 1:31). The Greek root of that phrase is Storgē(astorgos), a special word in the Greek language, standing for “mother love” or “family love.”

In first-century Rome, as in 21st century America, the natural love a parent has for a child was in serious decline — a decline evidenced by Reverend Peters’ proud declaration of her “moral” decision-making. The Christian church, in all its historic traditions, until the last half of the 20th century, would rightly have declared the Rev. Peters’ theology “apostasy.” 

In another part of the New Testament, the Apostle Paul warned of those bearing at least the name “Christian” and the consequence of teaching false doctrine leading to their consciences being “seared” or cauterized as if by “a hot iron” (I Tim 4:2).

I fear that the Rev. Peters is emblematic of far too many Americans who have had their consciences seared and deadened by the child sacrifice of at least 65 million of our unborn citizens.

The contrast with those who still have a sensitive and accurate moral compass was illustrated for me in a particularly dramatic way just a few days ago. Fox newscaster Ben Domenech was reporting on the resurgent pro-life movement while noting that America has one of the most radically extreme pro-abortion legal regimes in the world, keeping gruesome company with Communist China and North Korea.

In the course of his report, he began to relate an episode recounted by the remarkable Whittaker Chambers in his even more remarkable memoir, Witness. Chambers and his wife were Soviet Communist spies operating in the U.S. Chambers later became a Christian, turned away from Communism, exposed Alger Hiss as a Soviet spy, and authored a memoir, Witness, which had a huge influence on a large number of people, including Ronald Reagan.

Chambers records that in 1933 he and his wife discovered that they were pregnant. Realizing that this would be very different considering they were both Communist spies in America, Mrs. Chambers went to make arrangements to abort the child. When she came home a few hours later she was very subdued and quiet.

Chambers explained, “My wife came over to me, took my hands, and burst into tears.’

“‘Dear heart,’ she said in a pleading voice, “we couldn’t do that awful thing to a little baby, not to a little baby, dear heart.’”

As Domenech’s voice broke and he teared up, he quoted Chambers’ response: “A wild joy swept me. Reason, the agony of my family, the Communist Party and its theories, the wars and revolutions of the 20th century, crumbled at the touch of the child.”

Whittaker Chambers and his wife, while then atheists, had not had their consciences seared and neither has Mr. Domenech. The current struggle over killing our unborn babies at horrific rates will reveal just how cauterized and desensitized many Americans’ consciences have become as a consequence of having been submerged in the ever-burgeoning culture of death.

I pray to God that we have not been so fatally, morally impressed as a people that we cannot be convicted and moved “at the touch of the child.”

Aldous Huxley once observed, “The propagandist’s purpose is to make one set of people forget that the other set of people are human.” Our unborn babies are human beings and God has a plan and purpose for each one of them and I tremble for my country when I think of the massive child sacrifice of our children which we have already allowed to be perpetrated.

Dr. Richard Land, BA (Princeton, magna cum laude); D.Phil. (Oxford); Th.M (New Orleans Seminary). Dr. Land served as President of Southern Evangelical Seminary from July 2013 until July 2021. Upon his retirement, he was honored as President Emeritus and he continues to serve as an Adjunct Professor of Theology & Ethics. Dr. Land previously served as President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (1988-2013) where he was also honored as President Emeritus upon his retirement. Dr. Land has also served as an Executive Editor and columnist for The Christian Post since 2011.

Dr. Land explores many timely and critical topics in his daily radio feature, “Bringing Every Thought Captive,” and in his weekly column for CP.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: