If you find it hard to shake the feeling that Trump might not win? Check out Jason’s analysis. It just might cheer you up. Here’s The Simple Truth.
This is the first hour, truncated a bit. I am sure the ntire show will be viewable soon on HUGH’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL:
I start out with Hugh Hewitt, then Larry Elder is sandwiched in the middle of the two Hewitt parts, and I add the Saturday speech by Trump that CNN and MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, NYT, WaPO, and others missed. The First Amendment is discussed, as well as Trump’s walk to the church. Elder slam-dunks the statistics as usual. A good Mix-n-Match. A few callers to boot.
Does Andrew “predict” Trump?
RED EYE give a tribute to him:
I ended up pausing the first video below and went to FLECCAS TALKS to watch the second video below that BLUE COLLAR LOGIC played. But here are both of them:
This might be the most important episode of Fleccas Talks: This week Kez and I spoke with Dr. Jeff Barke (30 year board certified MD). He blows a hole in the MSM’s fake Corona Virus narrative and explains why it’s so important to get the country open as quickly and safely as possible. Dr. Barke receives a lot of flack for coming out and saying these things. His patriotism is greatly appreciated!
This Doctor, Ivette. C Lozano, shares her experience with Covid-19 and she is upset at what is happening in our nation. Seek truth, freedom, and justice.
A friend – in response to a challenge, posted multiple stories about Trump’s response to the Coronavirus to my single post detailing the timeline of the Trump admins response here: “Trump Acted Quickley On Coronavirus (TIMELINES)“
This was his firing away as if to make a point:
(The italicized articles are completely debunked by information below – the others are highly questionable, the ones that have unnamed sources that is, and other portions of them are called into question by the timeline below.)
Besides the obvious question of, “which Western leader do you look to as a shining example of reacting in January to the crisis?” I could have easily responded to these papers who spread stories from a single anonymous source as if they are all different stories based on different [again, unnamed] sources, which, their practice of has undone almost all their stories [one example, another, and another] on the Russian Collusion Hoax, like this,
However, this does nothing to prove or disprove a point. So, I merely went to the first point made in his first linked article at AXIOS, quoting the NYTs:
Now, much like the Left’s favorite thing to do, they take Trump out of context and use this false context to create a straw man and then bludgeon it. Why did Trump say it was going to be fine? Because, according to the WALL STREET JOURNAL, Alex Azar “oversold his agency’s progress in the early days and didn’t coordinate effectively across the health-care divisions under his purview.” Trump could only report what Alex told him on the 18th.
But this January 18th discussion is not proven to have even taken place, all we have again are unnamed sources: Azar told several associates that Trump thought his warnings were ‘alarmist’, according to The Washington Post” (DAILY MAIL). And again, NEWSMAX discusses that WALL STREET JOURNAL article, saying:
But that isn’t the only story to the story. I do not think this even reported by anonymous sources actually happened. The same people that wrongly reported using anonymous sources are now the same people using anonymous sources.
And the LEGAL INSURRECTION does a bang-up job on the same subject:
Mollie Hemingway says it best:
THE FEDERALIST has a printing of the HHS timeline for January that shows that the propositions made by these Leftist newspapers are not revealing the whole timeline to their readers: Yes, Trump acted as soon as the news of the virus was available. And as we know from the results, stringency of lockdowns did not translate into how many deadly infections there were:
THE FEDERALIST has a printing of the HHS timeline for January that shows that the propositions made by these Leftist newspapers are not revealing the whole timeline to their readers:
Yes, Trump acted as soon as the news of the virus was available. And as we know from the results, stringency of lockdowns did not translate into how many deadly infections there were:
I added a conversation to this post that was started due to my posting this on my sites FACEBOOK. I have a VERY LONG introduction to the actual conversation. So if you plan to read it be ready to “dig-in.”
It really worries me that people think that Trump mentioned ingesting or injecting in any way or form — over the counter disinfectants. But this is the state of affairs in our country, unfortunately. Granted, Trump is not the best orator, but CONTEXT IS KING. I understand that due-diligence is required to discover Trump’s context, but, too many people wait for far-Left comedians to do it for them (or far-Left pundits). Invariably, these sources hide the context to make their far-Left audience laugh in order to make the corporations they are paid by, money.
The information below is married to my Facebook video (a 1-minute and 50-seconds long video – I will post my YouTube video below)… it is important because this is the part where Trump mentioned patients getting medical expertise for any such procedure, as well as the *UV light cleaning the lungs (part of the CONTEXT missing from late-night comedians and MSNBC, CNN, NPR, the New York Times, The Washington Post, etc):
The HEALIGHT (which has been banned from the internet because “Orange Man Bad” — NOQ REPORT) was mentioned by President Trump… You see, the President and his people probably got inundated with companies contacting them with technology they have been working on to combat such viruses. If you take this into account, the portion where Trump said Dr. Birx and others would look into that — makes more sense in context. The President’s people have probably been brainstorming on all this stuff.
Here are two posts of mine discussing these issues:
- Disinfecting the Media’s Narrative With Light!
- Trump Then Clarified His Remarks | Clorox Bleach Injections
Moments after the President mentioned disinfectants, ABC News’ Jonathan Karl asked Bryan, “The president mentioned the idea of a cleaner, bleach and isopropyl alcohol emerging. There’s no scenario where that could be injected into a person, is there?”
He responded: “No, I’m here to talk about the finds that we had in the study. We don’t do that within that lab at our labs.”
The president then added:
“It wouldn’t be through injections,
you’re talking about almost a
cleaning and sterilization of an area.
Maybe it works,
maybe it doesn’t work,
but it certainly has a big effect
if it’s on a stationary object.”
QUESTION: Have you seen ANY mainstream media company or late-night comedian mention this portion of the same speech?
People prefer to be told what to think… I am convinced of this more and more everyday.
One of my favorite cousins (by marriage) opined well about his frustrations regarding the whole issue – after posting the earlier version of this on my site’s FACEBOOK:
Yep . . . .
Not only this, but the media even spread another malicious lie about a spike of calls to Poison Control because of Trump’s remarks. No. I have been trying to find Clorox, Lysol, Handi Wipes, and other disinfectants in the store for almost 2-months. They have been completely out (I am sure most Americans share my frustration). And since this so-called “spike” happened before Trump’s remarks, it just makes sense that because of increased usage comes increased fears of misuse. Dumb. But people believed it (or still do). Here are two articles/posts on the issue I recommend to the brain dead:
- The media is lying about increased emergency calls about drinking bleach in order to blame Trump (RIGHT SCOOP)
- No, Poison Control Calls Aren’t Suddenly Spiking After Trump’s Disinfectant Comments: Calls to U.S. poison control centers are up. They have been since March (REASON.COM)
I will end with Larry Elder spending almost 14-minutes playing related audio and discussing the issue.
INTRODUCTION TO CONVO
The below is a conversation at the Facebook version of the above. It is with a guy I love and dig very much. But as you can see, he allows — maybe… just maybe — a visceral dislike for Trump to guide his thinking. You will see that I note that it takes digging to at times to see what Trump is saying, but to just say he is saying “a” [accusing someone] when in fact he said “b” is not the best road for him, or anyone. I sympathize with how Trump may be thinking one thing and then put to words a less than full picture of what he has in his mind. Any married couple can sympathize with this disease. And I wish we had a good communicator in office… but we don’t. And this has allowed those who dislike him have an easy time with taking him out of context and using this for political hit jobs. The Leftist media, the Leftist voter, the #NeverTrumper.
BTW, a lot of people may not know but up until a month-and-a-half before the 2016 election, I was a #NeverTrump guy. I was — at the time — hoping David French would hop in. I wrote two pieces regarding Trump and my decision to vote for him, and close down my “anti-Trump” site: The Constitutional Federalists of America (CFA). One was this:
I start out thus:
An open letter to friends and those I respect… depravity vs. permanence.
I feel I have to write this as an open letter to my Christian friends who do not want to vote for Trump based on a sense of loyalty to their Christian convictions. I wish to thank a friend (Shane H.) for aligning this last piece of the puzzle for me. I wish to thank as well Dennis Prager for challenging my position on this as well.
We have – essentially – a choice between two candidates. I would have considered voting for the Libertarian party if their candidate was not wanting to use the state to jail and fine people for not baking cakes or taking photographs of same-sex weddings. He even said on stage that he would use the power of the state to force a Jewish baker to bake a cake for a Nazi type celebration. He is an open borders guy – just publicly, not secretly like Hillary, and he has more in common with Bernie Sanders than any of the other candidates. In other words, an anti-Libertarian is leading the Libertarian Party to a record win for them in this election. Nightmare!
Hindsight of-course is 20/20. No other candidate could have won the “Rust-Belt,” nor taken the heat from the Left which has been solidifying the media since Goldwater; nor would we have judges of the caliber we have had put into offices across this nation.
My second post reminded me of all the attacks against “Dubya” and Cheney: war for oil, racist, liar, evil, making profits for old companies, drunk, AWOL, murderer, etc., etc.
So, because I can tell the difference between dumb and evil, I can succinctly distinguish between a politicians ego claim (biggest inaugural crowd in the history of our country) and an evil compliance (“Iran might have been given as much as $33.6 billion in cash, gold, and other valuable metals,” Mark Dubowitz, the executive director for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, testified before Congress according to the Free Beacon – AMERICAN LIBERTY REPORT). The lies given to the American public leading to the fallacious Iran deal pales-in-comparison to Trump’s classical political fairy tales that most politicians tell. And so I deal with what were the three biggest hurdles people mentioned were their reasoning for rejecting Trump as a bigot, racist, xenophobe, and the like.
The three are:
- Is Mexico Allowing Rapists Across the Border?
- Did Donald Trump Mock a Disabled Man?
- Are Racists Voting for Republicans?
Here is the introduction to that post. Sorry, I chose to include the entire opener — it is long:
Okay, we are a few days AFTER this contentious election for ALL involved… both sides went with horrible choices for their nominee and caused not only contentious attitudes with the opposing nominee but an internal struggle as well. That is, the Democrat base did not like Hillary Clinton, and the Republican base did not like Donald Trump. In fact, in the hopes this will give me some credibility for at least what is to follow, I even started a website to defeat Trump and his rise to be the GOP nominee. Trump is not a conservative? He is a Blue-Dog Democrat.
In conversation with a person I respect highly, he said [partially in jest], that, “You can still love Trump. It’s okay with me….” Not realizing that I do not love Trump and started a site to defeat him. I even made it clear out of the 16-other candidates, Trump was my 18th choice. (Get it?)
So, we are a few days after the election and I read posts like:
- I’m in mourning, again. I’m sad and disgusted that sexism and racism are still alive and kicking in this country. Color, not qualifications were voted into the White House last night.
- I could sit here and sob about how devastating and pathetic this is. I’m just too pissed. Disappointed. Shocked. Fucking livid. Years of progress diminished in one night. This is not the country I thought I lived in.
- Everyone better order their tamales now. There won’t be any by Christmas.
- Another person I know posted the graphic to the right:
These are just a few of examples of raw emotion that should be sympathized with. But like in many-a-Facebook post this idea that if people do not agree with my position, they are one of the SIXHIRBs: sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted.
One of the best turnarounds I saw from a family member is this:
- So in class today I finally cried. This presidential unveiling has caused such a stir of emotions for the past 48 hours and it has all been bottled up until this point. We keep playing the blame game and it’s time to stop. Right now I blame myself because I was ignorant to the rest of the country. I didn’t think that everyone didn’t think like me. I lived in a bubble and now I feel like the different one. Because of this huge division right now the last thing we need to do divide it even further….
Wow! What a mature statement. THAT made my heart glad. She even went on to state she wished she had expressed this as clearly in an earlier class as she did on her FB. I agreed, hindsight is 20/20 and we all have said stuff that upon further reflection we could have said better.
All of us. (Especially Bush, and now Trump… NIGHTMARE!)
So, how do I explain some positions my friends and family probably think about a man they seem to fear, and I heard one psychotherapist yesterday say that the reaction of many millennials is like that of a loved one dying. In other words, this is deeply emotional to some. And while I love posting videos of people sobbing like the next dude, this gets us nowhere. So I decided to discuss three main points about Trump and this election to get people to think about what they say. Because it can be misunderstood as calling a friend or family one of those SIXHIRB labels, wounding both our Republic (because who would want to learn or discuss political matters with a racist?), as well as causing misunderstandings between friends.
It makes our political life too easy. A healthy Republic should be tough. Those labels are a cop-out for doing heavy liftin’. One very progressive leaning professor makes the same point about how this thinking harms his students:
Here, for example, is my sister noting her election day experience… and take note, she will never make her vote public:
- In my 32 years as a registered voter, I have never left the polls feeling so disgusted and embarrassed by my choice. Not that my other option would have made me feel ANY different. I need a shower!
The point here is that people are more complicated than these few labels society has chosen to use. Another example (a few years back) of a dear friends mom smearing people like me is in a post discussing Judge Judy. I know, it’s a pop-culture Baby Boomer thing. Here is what she said with my response:
People need to understand what they are saying. I make mistakes all the time. It’s in our nature. You apologize, grow, learn, and move on trying to keep friendships and family close to you. The friend’s mom unfriended me. So in response to my family member I noted something we all do, and it is this:
The conservative has no choice but to encounter leftist ideals. For instance, out of the top twenty most influential sources of news in our country, only two lean right (Fox News and the Washington Times). All the others lean left in their journalism and view of the world. In fact, Rachel Maddow noted her politics are to the left of Mao Zedong. She is more of a commentator though, and the study I am referring to only included straight news sources. …Continuing. So if a person is surprised at the outcome, maybe they should engage friends or family and ask questions. The key to doing this is the following, if it is not face-to-face,.and this is something I will at times start out a conversation with: Again, we all put into other people’s typed words our own emotional state at that time. The trick is to step away from this tendency… and this can be hard. Again, people are complicated and to label them as sexist or racist without really knowing is a travesty to our Republic. OKAY… I will now post three responses to items of discussion that my guess is those who are very distraught over Trump’s win and view either him or a large segment of the population who voted for him as racist or bigoted, or mean to disabled persons, is more complicated than these labels.
The conservative has no choice but to encounter leftist ideals. For instance, out of the top twenty most influential sources of news in our country, only two lean right (Fox News and the Washington Times). All the others lean left in their journalism and view of the world. In fact, Rachel Maddow noted her politics are to the left of Mao Zedong. She is more of a commentator though, and the study I am referring to only included straight news sources.
So if a person is surprised at the outcome, maybe they should engage friends or family and ask questions. The key to doing this is the following, if it is not face-to-face,.and this is something I will at times start out a conversation with:
Again, we all put into other people’s typed words our own emotional state at that time. The trick is to step away from this tendency… and this can be hard.
Again, people are complicated and to label them as sexist or racist without really knowing is a travesty to our Republic.
OKAY… I will now post three responses to items of discussion that my guess is those who are very distraught over Trump’s win and view either him or a large segment of the population who voted for him as racist or bigoted, or mean to disabled persons, is more complicated than these labels.
Wow, so with that set-up and how I came to slowly evolve into a defender of Trump (as I was for Dubya against the lies of the Left), here is the conversation I had with my friend/family member. And keep in mind my ability to go back and comment on the conversation and add media to expand my context may seem unfair… but I am not trying to make the person I dig look bad. And I will note what I correct or add.
TS, my friend, linked an article from the The Chicago Tribune that made my point that I had already laid out, which was,
- Have you seen ANY mainstream media company or late-night comedian mention this portion of the same speech?
I have already noted Trump does not communicate well, and his response to a challenge is just another example of this, nor is the proper context from the original FULL briefing considered. In fact, when you come across sites that say full transcript/video of Trump, it is only the minute clip of Trump. Not the real, FULL briefing that has William Bryan’s full remarks so people can hear the words he used and that Trump took to sound like he knew what he was talking about.
Again, I do not fully endorse President Trump’s demeanor at times, but all in context… his saying people should inject themselves was based off of the guy who just preceded him.
OKAY, right after the article was posted this was said, and I will post the back-n-forth::
So let’s be clear, you are suggesting that his context meant that we should research injecting UV light into our lungs?
So then yes you are saying we should agree with him that researching putting UV light inside the body is a good idea. Below the largest organ of the body that is there to protect our insides from those UV rays. I’m definitely not a scientist or a doctor and am a product of the public school system, but that sounds just as dumb as putting a man made chemical like bleach into my veins.
I continue on with a challenge of sorts, keeping my thoughts organized and TS on track.
The context of every one of his “speeches” that I’ve heard is to iterate one idea multiple times, then say maybe it wont/it’s not a good idea/I’m not a doctor or some antithesis of what he just said, but right after that he reiterates it again to emphasize that it is what he thinks. So he doesn’t really have a good context. It would be like me saying there will be an earthquake tomorrow for sure… definitely an earthquake tomorrow…I guarantee [an] earthquake tomorrow…we’ll see the earth shake tomorrow… but who know I’m not a seismologist so it might not shake tomorrow… but I’m pretty sure it will. How do you contextualize what I just said? Those that choose to believe in what he says and knows it’s not a good idea sees that he said he’s not a doctor but hey maybe there’s a good idea in there somewhere. Those that don’t hang on his every word hear let’s research injecting UV light into our lungs, why because that is what he was reiterating over and over. In any form of learning or conveying a message if you reiterate something that is the main point that is trying to get across, not the disclaimer. His poor attempts at back-peddling by putting in his tiny disclaimer isn’t a free pass to say stupid things.
The context is that he has no idea what he is saying, but it sure looks and sounds like he just said we need to research UV light into the lungs because light outside the body kills bad things. This is where the divide is between those that hear what he says and those that interpret what he says. There is no common ground, because neither side will admit that they are wrong. So there will always be this he said/he said. This also translates to most political/religious/ethical/emotional/intellectual ideas. There will always be at least two sides and neither the two shall meet.
Why would someone say that?
No not why would he say he’s not a doctor. Why would he say maybe you can, maybe you can’t.
Because they have looked at all the new possibilities many companies are probably contacting his Coronavirus team with.
I’m not a doctor is a disclaimer, his waffling is what I’m asking about. Why do you think he waffles back and forth? So if I was able to get a scientist…maybe even a holistic healer to contact his team and say inhaling sage into the lungs has been proven to help cure viruses, then maybe he’ll say that on TV. Is that what being well informed is all about?
I agree he didn’t specifically say inject bleach into your veins, but his overlying context is that maybe we should look into getting things that shouldn’t be under our skins, under our skins.
Right, UV light. Remember, he had just heard William Bryan speak about injecting light as a disinfectant of sorts. He was trying to sound smart while expressing ideas about what his team was probably already discussing.
Exactly. I don’t want that under my skin. Heck I hardly want on my skin. You went the correct way of getting rid of UV damage on your skin by using the cream, I don’t think the UV light treatment I got was a good idea.
Dr. Deborah Birx corrects a Yahoo reporters claim that the U.S. is lagging behind South Korea in coronavirus testing. (RIGHT SCOOP hat-tip):
Larry Elder Discusses the whole “Bleach” incident that the media blew up and took WAAAY out of context. And how dumb the Left must be to interpret any part of what the President said as ingesting or injecting caustic material – like Ross. (I include some video of differing modern day units that process blood with UV light at the 3:05 mark.)
BEFORE getting to some of the fun stuff, my post on the Bleach incident: “Trump Then Clarified His Remarks | Clorox Bleach Injections“. Here is a cataloging of the UV Light technology that is a hundred years old, and, the entire point here is not to promote anything below as a cure, it is merely to point out as usual Trump is ahead of the MSM with actual technology to support his randomized statements.
But as you will see from the videos, this is “disinfecting light” brought into the body to fight the Coronavirus, something the AP wrote recently about:
- Cedars-Sinai-Developed ‘Healight’ Medical Device Platform Technology Being Studied as a Potential First-in-Class COVID-19 Treatment (ASSOCIATED PRESS)
LOU DOBBS discussing it:
The President and his people probably got inundated with companies contacting them with technology they have been working on. If you take this into account, the portion where Trump said Dr. Birx and others would look into that makes more sense in context. The Presidents people have probably been brainstorming on all this.
I first heard (read) about this via RUSH LIMBAUGH, to which I excerpt from his transcript:
I also — a day earlier — posted on other UV Light technology as an example of possibilities of what Trump was clumbaly trying to get out of his mind to his words. AGAIN, just because I am posting this does not mean I am endorsing this… AND, in fact, I include a warning.
Dr. Kristi Wrightson is conducting a study to assess the ability of UV light to reduce the severity and duration of flu symptoms. The UV light device that she uses is called UVLrx, also a Santa Barbara company:
Dr. Wrightson found that patients’ symptoms resolve within 1-2 treatments with improvement in upper respiratory symptoms such as cough, sore throat as well as generalized symptoms such as increase in energy, decrease in body aches and fever.
Here is the WARNING about the above:
- The idea of using UV light to treat infections started with a Nobel Prize – using UV light to treat tuberculosis infection of the skin. This, of course, is an external use. Using UV light to treat the blood had its heyday in the 1950s, but fell out of favor without leaving much of a paper trail behind….. UV light can cause tissue damage, as anyone who has suffered a sunburn can attest. What damage is being done with the UV light from this device, and can it have any clinically significant effect on infections at a dose that is safe for the tissue? These are unanswered questions. (SCIENCE BASED MEDICINE)
WIKI has an interesting “history” portion on its page regarding this and simply state: “This procedure fell out of favor in the late 1950s, at a time when antibiotics and the polio vaccine were becoming widely used. Since then it has been sidelined as a type of alternative and complementary medicine.” There is also a long article on this at the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health (Ultraviolet Irradiation of Blood: “The Cure That Time Forgot”?).
But, since this is an older technology and it seems the safest way to do this to blood is like the old way, outside the body. Here are some modern machines THAT DO THIS OUTSIDE THE BODY:
Trump did follow up the statements after a question came from a reporter by saying: “It wouldn’t be through injections, you’re talking about almost a cleaning and sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work, but it certainly has a big affect if it’s on a stationary object.” This is proof he wasn’t telling people to drink or injects disinfectant. But all the media likes to post is a paragraph from minutes earlier by President Trump to spread a false narrative. Trump said during that whole speech that he isn’t a doctor, it would be handled or administered by a doctor, and that they are seeing if it is even effective.
This story is multiplied at many sites, but I like LEGAL INSURRECTION’S “inflection.” Here is the meat of their post, and I will include others sites after the excerpt (I will emphasize):
Some other good posts follow:
- Don’t Believe the Blue Checks: Here’s the Context to Trump’s Comments About UV Light and “Injecting” Disinfectant (RED STATE)
- FACT CHECK: No, Trump Did Not Tell People To ‘Inject Themselves With Disinfectant’ Or ‘Drink Bleach’ (DAILY WIRE)
- Fake News: Trump Didn’t Tell People to Inject Bleach or Lysol Into Their Veins to Fight Coronavirus (PJ-MEDIA)
- ‘Sit This One Out’! CNN’s Chris Cuomo Apparently Forgets That He’s Probably The Last Person Who Should Bust Trump Over Covid19 And Disinfectants (TWITCHY — SEE BELOW)
>>> Cristina Cuomo Says She Treated Her Coronavirus With Clorox Baths, Vitamin Drips: Experts React (USA TODAY)
I do have to say though, there are some pretty funny Twitter stuff about the whole thing.
Dennis Prager open up his 3rd hour on Friday by quickly going over Tucker Carlson’s noting Dr. Fauci’s understanding of when we can relax these quarantining and social distancing regulations (see more at DAILY CALLER)… and getting people back to work. Obviously, this cannot happen… we live in a world of trade-offs, as the Thomas Sowell video I added to this video points out (see more at RPT: “3-QUESTIONS LIBERALS NEVER ASK“). One comment I came across humorously noting the impossibility of Dr. Fauci’s statement is this: “Read my lips, no new cases!” ???????, get ready for the backlash from Leftists and #NeverTrumpers when Trump opens society before there are no new cases or deaths.
FYI — After the opening monologue, I truncated calls to almost exclusively include Dennis’ response… so while this sounds like almost an un-edited audio clip, stitch together portions of his third hour as well as add media.
Here are a few articles or blogposts I think are important to understand the irresponsibility of basing public policy on these faulty models:
- WOW! Dr. Fauci Now Says, “You Can’t Really Rely Upon Models” …WTH? (GATEWAY PUNDIT)
- Birx Warns of Inaccurate Models Predicting Large Spread Of Coronaviruses (FR24 NEWS)
- Numerators and Denominators in the Coronavirus Saga (AMERICAN THINKER)
- Are Covid-19 Models A Sound Basis For Public Policy? [With Comment By Paul] (POWERLINE)
- Complicated Mathematical Models Are Not Substitutes for Common Sense (NATIONAL REVIEW)
- Inaccurate Virus Models Are Panicking Officials Into Ill-Advised Lockdowns (THE FEDERALIST)
- We Cannot Destroy The Country For The Sake Of New York City (THE FEDERALIST)
- Coronavirus Modeling Had Faulty Assumptions, the Real Data Gives Us Hope (PJ-MEDIA)
- The Scientist Whose Doomsday Pandemic Model Predicted Armageddon Just Walked Back The Apocalyptic Predictions (THE FEDERALIST)
- Epidemiologist Behind Highly-Cited Coronavirus Model Drastically Downgrades Projection (DAILY WIRE)
TUCKER: WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION PRAISES CHINA, DENIES TAIWAN’S EXISTENCE: World Health Organization would rather deny Taiwan’s existence than offend the Chinese government; reaction from Gordon Chang, author of ‘The Coming Collapse of China.’
TUCKER: THE NEW YORK TIMES’ CORONAVIRUS COVERAGE CAN BE EXPLAINED IN 4 STEPS: The establishment press has botched coronavirus from the beginning.
INGRAHAM: WHAT IS THE NEW NORMAL? If it means abandoning the life we loved before coronavirus or using this the crisis as a vehicle for advancing a left-wing, freedom-killing agenda, count us out.
I have seen multiple people I know (friends, family, acquaintances) pass along the very misguided idea that Trump dragged his feet on the response to the Wuhan Virus. This was in response to someone basically saying Trump got in the way of experts, and that he should just keep his mouth shut (adapted):
This move by Trump SHOWED how quick he acted and to what measures. A must read article excerpted below is a MUST read to show where everyone’s mind was (except Trump’s):
I also wish to note the silliness of the media (in this case Joe Scarborough) saying that everyone knew this was coming. No. No they did not. Retired Admiral James G. Stavridis and Senator Tom Cotton were the lone voices on Hugh Hewitt’s Show, here Hugh talks about a special in the works:
PJ-MEDIA has an excellent article noting easily some of the lies leveled at Trump and his administration. Here is their list:
10. Trump downplayed the mortality rate of the coronavirus
9. Trump lied when he said Google was developing a national coronavirus website
8. Trump “dissolved” the WH pandemic response office
7. Trump ignored early intel briefings on possible pandemic
6. Trump cut funding to the CDC & NIH
5. Trump “muzzled” Dr. Fauci
4. Trump didn’t act quickly and isn’t doing enough
3. Trump told governors they were “on their own”
2. Trump turned down testing kits from WHO
1. Trump called the coronavirus “a hoax”
I deal with both #1, #4, and #5 here: “CORONAVIRUS LIES VIA DEMOCRATS/MEDIA (UPDATED W/CONVO)” | And #8 and #6 are dealt with here: “WASHINGTON POST SWINGS AND MISSES” | #2 (and #1) is dealt with here “LARRY ELDER DEBUNKS MEDIA’S LATEST LIES“
And no-one ever show this video of Trump and why it is so easy to take him out of context when one hates him, which is what FACTCHECK did:
Yet, this is why Trump has said these things…
(First posted in March 2013) You Might Live In A Country Founded By Geniuses But Run By Idiots, If…