Philadelphia Flyers Player Refuses To Wear Pride Jersey

Major controversy has broken out over Philadelphia Flyers hockey player Ivan Provorov because he refused to wear the rainbow flag pre-game jersey due to his Russian-Orthodox beliefs.

FLASHBACK:

Here is a Christian, conservative, apologist — Frank Turek —  making a point (CHRISTIAN POST):

  • “….Imagine a homosexual videographer being forced to video a speech that a conservative makes against homosexual behavior and same sex marriage. Should that homosexual videographer be forced to do so? Of course not! Then why Elane Photography?….”

Now, here is a gay “conservatarian” site, Gay Patriot’s input (GP’s site is sadly gone):

  •  “…it’s a bad law, a law that violates natural human rights to freedom of association and to freely-chosen work. It is not good for gays; picture a gay photographer being required by law to serve the wedding of some social conservative whom he or she despises.”

Clay Travis and Buck Sexton lace up the skates to check out this NHL story. Philadelphia Flyers star defenseman Ivan Provorov refused to wear the LGBTQ jersey during the pregame skate on Tuesday night. Even though the Flyers won 5-2, the story after the game was Provorov’s refusal to participate in the team’s Pride Night dress code. Provorov said he wanted to “stay true to myself and my religion” during the postgame scrum. However, this didn’t stop the woke leftists in the Philadelphia and national sports media from bashing the defenseman’s choice.

The Philadelphia Flyers hockey team released their pride jerseys for game day, but one player was not having it. As usual, the media pounced on the team, and Ivan Provorov, to ask why he refused to wear the jersey.

Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld Slams Liberal Canadian TV Broadcaster Sid Seixeiro because he claims the NHL needs to fine the Philadelphia Flyers $1 Million’: for Ivan Provorov not wearing pride jersey.

A New Hoax: Classified Documents

Clay Travis believes the Washington Post’s nuke documents story doesn’t add up. If the seized paperwork was already declassified by Donald Trump then we are in the midst of yet another mainstream media hoax.

Clay Travis and Buck Sexton continue to break down the fallout of the FBI’s raid of Donald Trump’s home in Florida. But what will we see happen next in the coming weeks? Watch as Clay and Buck discuss exactly that question.

Despicable: Cancer Patient Grandma to be Jailed Trespassing

Do you feel safer now that a 69-year-old cancer-ridden grandma is going to jail in California for 60 days after pleading guilty to trespassing on January 6?

Democrats do not want to admit that many in the crowd that simply walked into the Capitol had no idea violence had even taken place. In a rant even AOC admitted as much:

The above and this [I have never seen this video till AMERICAN GULAG] are good indicators that these minor cases should all be thrown out.

Nonetheless, now we have a clear picture into how the Left sets traps, as Bill Whittle noted shortly after January 6th.

Clay Travis and Buck Sexton fill you in on a despicable story stemming from the January 6th incident. A 69-year-old grandma, who has cancer, is heading to jail for 60 days for trespassing at the Capitol.

SCOTUS Strikes Down Unconstitutional Concealed Carry Law

Finally, today marks a monumental step in the right direction for gun rights activists. Listen as Buck Sexton breaks down the Supreme Court’s decision:

Here is some of the TRANSCRIPT:

…..“to keep and bear arms.” That first part, keeping up of the arms, was dealt with pretty well in D.C. v. Heller. Remember that case from some years ago?

You had an individual licensed to have a gun for work but who lived in the District of Columbia and couldn’t even bring his firearm that he had at work all day home with him. So that’s crazy, right? But that was the law, and they would arrest you. D.C. was vicious about enforcing even the most minor infractions of firearms law. Unless you’re, you know, a gang member with a long history of drugs; then they’re always looking. And this is the thing you have to remind yourself about the libs.

If you’re somebody who has guns and is actually a danger to society, they don’t want to make an example of you. They want to go soft on you. This is what we’ve seen with the progressive prosecutors and criminal justice reform, as they call it. But if you’re guy who likes to go hunting on the weekends but you cross from Virginia into D.C. with two shotgun shells in your pocket that are 20-gauge meant for pheasants, guess what? Too bad. You’re on your own. They’re gonna lock you up. That’s their attitude, right?

Well, in this case the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen — Bruen is the superintendent of the New York State police — what we have here is the “bear arms” part of it finally coming into Supreme Court focus. And by 6-3 the proper cause requirement for getting a handgun permit, a firearm permit to have and carry a concealed pistol or revolver, the proper cause requirement is gone now. It is unconstitutional.

Now, what this means, in effect — remember D.C. v. Heller said, “You gotta be able to — if you’re a law-abiding citizen and you meet some very basic thresholds, you gotta be able to — buy a gun. You can’t just say, ‘You’re not allowed to have a gun, period,’ because the Second Amendment.” Well, now it’s can you get a concealed carry permit? Can you actually carry your weapon with you? And I know there’s gonna be the whole distinction between concealed carry and open carry and all this.

But just to be able to carry in any capacity in these states was not allowed unless you were special, unless you could prove, demonstrate a special need that is different from just people in general. And 6-3 decision here. Roberts did join the majority; so he may be a wimp, but he’s not a lunatic. 6-3 decision, took a sledgehammer to the anti-gun regime of so many of these states, or I should say the anti-bearing arms regime, right? ‘Cause you’re loud to own in New York, you’re allowed to own a firearm in California, but can you carry it anywhere?

Can you get a concealed carry permit? Now, in the state of New York, as I said, this is near and dear to me because I have not been able to. As an adult, I have not been able to enjoy Second Amendment rights in my home state, and it’s obscene. And one of my favorite parts of this decision, one of my favorite parts of the way they dismantle… I mean the libs, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, just pathetic stuff in their dissent. Honestly. “Oh, but there’s so much gun violence!” Wait, but there’s so much gun violence, you guys are banning guns in these states in every way you can but there’s still so much violence.

Almost like the only people who are gonna have guns in a no gun regime state like New York or California are the bad guys. Oh, that is what happens. That is what happens. New York bans and has for over a hundred years. I’ve known about the Sullivan law passed in 1911… By the way, I rarely would say this you to. If you are a Second Amendment enthusiast, though, reading this whole decision just because of the history that it goes into is fascinating, the history of weapons and concealed carry and the Old West and even goes back in the medieval period, goes back to English common law, seventeenth century, eighteenth century.

It’s fascinating history, of course, written by the constitutionalists, the conservatives on the court in their 6-3 slap down of this unconstitutional absurdity of you’re not allowed — a law-abiding American in these states was not allowed — to get a pistol to carry concealed for protection unless they were special, which basically meant unless you’re connected, unless you know how to work the system. And that’s why honestly you know who is the getting concealed carry permits in New York City specifically? Celebrities………

MORE form JUSTICE THOMAS:

…..I just want to read to you. THIS IS FROM THE OPINION, WRITTEN BY JUSTICE THOMAS, who is… I’ve said this before. If I can come up with a better, more specific phrase, but he is a national treasure. He really is. Justice Thomas is an amazing man who should be so much more… I mean, he’s celebrated by conservatives. He should be celebrated so much more nationally for what he is, being brilliant, having an incredible life story. But I digress.

“When we look to the latter half of the 17th century,” this decision says, respondents’ case only weakens. As in Heller, we consider this history ‘[b]etween the [Stuart] Restoration [in 1660] and the Glorious Revolution [in 1688]’ to be particularly instructive. During that time, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II ramped up efforts to disarm their political opponents, an experience that ‘caused Englishmen to be jealous of their arms,’” and there’s other examples like this.

But this is the key point, friends. When you look at the history of these efforts to disarm the law-abiding, whether it’s in England, whether it’s in the medieval period, or it’s in the Revolutionary period in America, you look at these efforts to disarm, it’s always a means of the powerful asserting their control. Because they want to be able to do whatever they want to do. They don’t want anyone to be able to say, “No, you’re a tyrant. No, you’ve gone too far, and I can do something about it.”

And this really goes to the heart of the Second Amendment. When you read through the history, it’s fascinating. Those with the guns or the swords and the daggers and the halberds and those with those weapons, they don’t want others to be able to meet them with steel and gunpowder. They want to be the ones that get to call all the shots. They say, “You know what? We’re just gonna” “No. You are not important. You don’t get a weapon,” and you could look all throughout history.

At different times, just the carrying of a sword unless you were connected to the nobility was something that could get you even executed. But then there are other times where there was an expectation that all gentlemen would be carrying. There are cultures, actually, where you have to carry a working blade. Cultures where carrying a knife for utility and for the protection of oneself and perhaps even one’s faith or one’s state, that was expected.

The libs ultimately… There’s the criminal justice component of this and the self-protection. But then there’s also the defense against tyranny aspect. And the left in this country, the anti-gun Democrat Party which now effectively is all the Democrat Party. There are some who will still pretend here and there to win some votes that they’re pro-Second Amendment. But the Democrat Party’s become the anti-gun party because they’re authoritarians.

You’ve seen this over the course of covid. You see this in your day-to-day lives. They want to control your speech. They want to control your property. They want to control every aspect of your life. They want to brainwash your children to gender identity theory. They want full and total control, and even if they may not have the eloquence and the constitutional understanding — which they certainly don’t — to put it in these terms, they do understand at some level that the individual ownership by citizens of this country, of firearms, is a personal act of rebellion against authoritarianism.

Or at least the possibility waiting in the wings, waiting on the sidelines to be that act of rebellion should it be called upon. And they hate that. They hate that because they know somewhere, deep down, hold on a second. We can’t just force them to do anything we want if we have full and total control of the apparatus. We can’t just start pulling people out of their homes and arresting them in front of their families because of climate denial. What do you mean? That would be a problem for us?

Ultimately, the true believers on the left, the real center of the Democrat Party finds that notion of an armed populace unacceptable, unacceptable to them, because they want They’re always trying They’re progressing, you see? Yeah, they’re always moving for the next thing, moving to the next issue. But their ultimate progression as progressives is to get to the utopia that is only possible when they are in total and complete control.

And so long as we have an armed population in this country that represents the final bulwark against that tyranny. And they know it; so, they hate it. And they also like all the virtue signaling, of course, from, if we could only pass more gun laws, we would stop all the gun violence out there. It’s not true, but people say that and they feel proud and brave and smart. If only we passed this gun law.

No matter how many times they fail, it feels good for them to say it. It feels good for the left to shout this out so they will keep doing it, they won’t look at the data. Doesn’t matter to them. They want you disarmed and double masked. That’s the point. That’s how they see this. And if we allow them, that’s where we’ll go. But today’s Supreme Court decision a huge victory, a huge move in the right direction.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

BUCK: I gave a shout-out to Justice Thomas, who a lot of us know he’s amazing, but deserves even more praise than he gets from those of us who are fans of his jurisprudence, his sharp mind, and his courage. In this decision, he wrote, “A short prologue is in order. Even before the Civil War commenced in 1861, this Court indirectly affirmed the importance of the right to keep and bear arms in public. Writing for the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857), Chief Justice Taney offered what he thought was a parade of horribles that would result from recognizing that free blacks were citizens of the United States.”

Again, this is a quote from the decision. “If blacks were citizens, Taney fretted, they would be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, including the right ‘to keep and carry arms wherever they went.’ Id., at 417 (emphasis added). Thus, even Chief Justice Taney recognized (albeit unenthusiastically in the case of blacks) that public carry was a component of the right to keep and bear arms — a right free blacks were often denied in antebellum America,” and that’s the end of the quote there.

Just a reminder as well for everybody, it was the racist Democrat Party that worked so hard after the Civil War to make sure that black citizens of this country were disarmed. It was the racist Democrat Party during reconstruction and then leading all the way up into the era of the Ku Klux Klan that was doing everything it could to disarm our fellow Americans who were black. So there is a, as I said, long history of disarming in the name of oppression that stretches back for hundreds of years.

Not even just in America but hundreds of years. It stretches back all throughout history. The people in charge want you to shut up and do what you’re told. They get the guns; you get the orders. That’s the way they wanted it to be. Our Founding Fathers — the reason for the Second Amendment — realized, “No, that’s not gonna work. We’re not gonna have a free society, a truly free society of individuals with real liberty unless we change that dynamic.” So I think that’s essential to take away from all this.

Marie Antoinette Democrats: Let Them Drive EVs

(WESTERN JOURNAL HAS MORE)

This was floating around Facebook, But I wanted to get something a tiny bit more substantial than FB. To wit: THE VERMONT DAILY CHRONICLE:

Tesla said it best in referring to batteries as an Energy Storage System. They do NOT make electricity – they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators. So, to say an electric vehicle (EV) is a zero-emission vehicle…not. Also, since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal-fired plants, it follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are in fact coal-powered…let that sink in.

Einstein’s formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.

There are two orders of batteries, rechargeable, and single use. The most common single use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. Please note they all contain toxic, heavy metals. Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium. The United States uses three billion of these two battery types a year, and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. If you throw your small, used batteries in the trash, they will continue to leak like the ooze in a ruined flashlight. All batteries eventually rupture; it just takes rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill.

In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles. The good thing about these is that ninety percent of them are recycled. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to recycle single-use ones properly.

But that is not the half of it. For those excited about EV, a closer look at batteries along with windmills and solar panels is highly recommended. These three technologies share environmentally destructive embedded costs.

Everything manufactured has two costs associated with it: embedded costs and operating costs. Embedded costs are those that happen before point of sale such as fuel costs, equipment, labor, transportation, etc. For example, a typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds, about the size of a travel trunk. It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. 

Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells. This should concern you. All those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. 

All told, it would take 500,000 pounds of the earth’s crust for just one battery. Sixty-eight percent of the world’s cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls, and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material.

Despite the fact California is the only state which requires batteries be recycled, they are building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco which they intend to power from solar panels and windmills. This construction project is creating an environmental disaster. 

The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium-diselenide, and cadmium-telluride which are highly toxic. Also, silicone dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled.

Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weigh 1688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last only 15 to 20 years. The used blades cannot be recycled. And sadly, both solar arrays and windmills kill birds, bats, sea life, and migratory insects.

There may be a place for these technologies, but looking beyond the myth of zero emissions, it is predicted EVs, solar panels and windmills will be abandoned once the embedded environmental costs of making and replacing them become more apparent. 

This is always a favorite of mine… and remember, I have a rather large post detailing ARE ELECTRIC CARS “CLEAN”?.


A Previous Post


Vice President Joe Biden aims to be the most progressive president on the issue of climate change. The man who spent most of 2020 hiding in the basement believes the future of energy is renewable energy like wind and solar. Biden should go back to the basement, watch Michael Moore’s “Planet of the Humans,” and rethink his advocacy for renewable energy. Wind and solar are not the answer, and the idea of converting our fossil fuel-based economy into renewables could be a devastating take-down to society.

Remember when Google joined the common sense era?

We came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.

[…..]

“Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.”

Google Joins the Common Sense Crew On Renewable Energies ~ Finally! (RPT)

  • What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change: Today’s renewable energy technologies won’t save us. So what will? (SPETRUM)
  • Shocker: Top Google Engineers Say Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’ (WATTS UP WITH THAT)
  • Polluting the Beauty and Cleanliness Of Our World With Renewable Energy (RPT)
  • Wind and Solar More Harmful To Environment Than Helpful (RPT)

Trevor Noah & Other Begin to Realize Lockdowns Are Nuts

Clay Travis and Buck Sexton react to an increasingly more common theme in recent weeks: left-wing comedians sounding more and more like Clay and Buck themselves. Trevor Noah is the latest person to comment on how truly dumb the Kyrie Irving situation is in the NBA. (BREITBART and NEW YORK POST has more on the story)

More Media #FakeNews (“Genius” and “Savvy”)

Clay Travis and Buck Sexton wade through the left’s lies about our interview with Donald Trump. These journos have nothing else left but to gaslight and demonize Trump.

REAL CLEAR POLITICS notes the out of context nature of the MSM narrative:

BUCK: Mr. President, in the last 24 hours we know Russia has said that they are recognizing two breakaway regions of Ukraine, and now this White House is stating that this is an “invasion.” That’s a strong word. What went wrong here? What has the current occupant of the Oval Office done that he could have done differently?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, what went wrong was a rigged election and what went wrong is a candidate that shouldn’t be there and a man that has no concept of what he’s doing. I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, “This is genius.” Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful.

So Putin is now saying, “It’s independent,” a large section of Ukraine. I said, “How smart is that?” And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s strongest peace force We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace all right. No, but think of it. Here’s a guy who’s very savvy I know him very well. Very, very well.

By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened. But here’s a guy that says, you know, “I’m gonna declare a big portion of Ukraine independent,” he used the word “independent,” “and we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.” You gotta say that’s pretty savvy. And you know what the response was from Biden? There was no response. They didn’t have one for that. No, it’s very sad. Very sad.

Marco Rubio says of the interview:

Former President Donald Trump was being “sarcastic” when he referred to Russian President Vladimir Putin as a “genius,” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said Tuesday. 

“I heard that interview,” Rubio said during an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” “I’m not going off the press reports. I heard the interview. I didn’t hear him say that. I heard what I heard. A guy who was being sarcastic. He was saying, Oh, look at this guy, he’s a genius, this, that and the other.”

Trump came under fire last week after his comments on the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton radio show, on which he referred to Putin as being “savvy” and a “genius.”

[….]

“If it wasn’t for what the Trump administration did and laid the groundwork for, there’s no way Ukraine would still be able to hold out today,” Rubio said.

(NEWSMAX)

RED STATE rightly notes what Clay and Buck did when speaking about what the Left and Press has run with counters basic English context when “referring to someone as a ‘genius’ can carry with it, alternative meanings.”

Certainly, Trump’s talk on Putin has been at times sycophantic, something this author will not discount. However, referring to someone as a “genius” can carry with it, alternative meanings.

For instance, when it comes to people like David Axelrod or Rahm Emanuel, I can admire their genius within politics and hold them in utter contempt because of how they choose to use their gifts. Adolf Hitler was a genius as an orator, but a genocidal sociopath. I do not presume to understand Trump’s motivations in his less-than-polished statements about the Russian leader; however, I simply state that Trump can believe Putin is a genius and a sociopath. While I can think Trump is a genius in manipulating the media (and trust me… he is), I can disagree with him on things like increasing deficit spending and his lowest-common-denominator rhetoric.

When it came to Putin though, the left and the media (but I repeat myself) did their damnedest to tie Trump to Putin and Russia, despite the total lack of evidence of such a connection. Whether it was Russia-gate, in which Trump and his officials were never charged, or lofty stories of Trump and his behavior with Russian prostitutes, or even flat out fabrications, like was spun regarding Russian bounties on American servicemen in Syria, the media went to all lengths to make Trump appear weak against Putin and the Russians.

Yet one stark reality cannot be ignored: Putin took no action against any of his neighbors during the Trump Administration.

Regardless of Trump’s statements (which I often took issue with), the result of his foreign policy led to the lack of the entry of the US in any additional foreign conflicts for the first time in decades. That includes saber-rattling with any foreign powers.

Meanwhile, when you look at Trump’s predecessor, the same cannot be said.

Beginning immediately in 2009, Obama faced Russian games in Crimea in Ukraine. Russia, which had been exerting influence in the region towards the end of 2008 (after Obama’s election but before he took office) thrust the new leader (Obama) into a place many felt he was unprepared to be. Obama sat idly by and watched as Putin and the Russians pushed the area to the brink of war.

In the months leading up to the conflict, the Russians had been issuing Russian passports to residents of other countries, an act which granted those people the rights of other Russian citizens, including the protection of the Russian military, should they need it. Protests, largely organized and funded by Russia, began popping up in Crimea, sending the region into chaos. Of course, this was the goal of the Russians, so they could use this conflict as a reason to enter Ukraine to reestablish peace on behalf of the (new) Russian citizens living in that region.

Obama did nothing….

(RIGHT SCOOP also responds to Meghan McCain)

Hillary Clinton jumps into the fray and gets walloped! PJ-MEDIA has a great post in which I will steal two tweets from:

Clay Travis and Buck Sexton break down Hillary Clinton’s lies about our interview with Donald Trump. How much wrong can the Democrats fit into just one year?

Fired-Up Virginia Mom Paddles School Board

Clay Travis and Buck Sexton want you to hear what this fired-up mom had to say at a Virginia school board meeting. You don’t want to mess with this mama bear.

Here is her FULL SPEECH!

Clay and Buck note the author of the Atlantic whom they had on to interview a couple weeks back wrote this in said article:

To our knowledge, the CDC has performed three studies to determine whether masking children in school reduces COVID-19 transmission. The first is a study of elementary schools in Georgia, conducted before vaccines became available, which found that masking teachers was associated with a statistically significant decrease in COVID-19 transmission, but masking students was not—a finding that the CDC’s masking guidelines do not account for.

A second and more recent study of Arizona schools in Maricopa and Pima Counties concluded that schools without mask mandates were more likely to have COVID-19 outbreaks than schools with mask mandates. Yet more than 90 percent of schools in the “no mask mandate” group were in Maricopa County, an area that has significantly lower vaccination rates than Pima County. This study had other serious shortcomings, including failure to quantify the size of outbreaks and failure to report testing protocols for the students.

The third CDC study found that U.S. counties without mask mandates saw larger increases in pediatric COVID-19 cases after schools opened, but again did not control for important differences in vaccination rates. The CDC has cited several other studies conducted in the previous school year to support its claim that masks are a key school-safety measure. However, none of these studies, including ones conducted in North CarolinaUtahWisconsin, and Missouri, isolated the impact of masks specifically, because all students were required to mask and no comparisons were made with schools that did not require masks.

Therefore, the overall takeaway from these studies—that schools with mask mandates have lower COVID-19 transmission rates than schools without mask mandates—is not justified by the data that have been gathered. In two of these studies, this conclusion is undercut by the fact that background vaccination rates, both of staff and of the surrounding community, were not controlled for or taken into consideration. At the time these studies were conducted, when breakthrough infections were much less common, this was a hugely important confounding variable undermining the CDC’s conclusions that masks in schools provide a concrete benefit in controlling COVID-19 spread: Communities with higher vaccination rates had less COVID-19 transmission everywhere, including in schools, and those same communities were more likely to have mask mandates.

[….]

Other studies—not randomized trials—have looked at the effects of masks in schools, and their results do not support pervasive, endless masking at school. A study from Brown University, analyzing 2020–21 data from schools in New York, Massachusetts, and Florida, found no correlation between student cases and mask mandates, but did see decreased cases associated with teacher vaccination. A study published in Science looking at individual mitigation measures in schools last winter found that, although teacher masking reduced COVID-19 positivity, student masking did not have a significant effect.

Even though the first half of this school year was dominated by the highly transmissible Delta variant, the picture in more recent studies looks similar. In Tennessee, two neighboring counties with similar vaccination rates, Davidson and Williamson, have virtually overlapping case-rate trends in their school-age populations, despite one having a mask mandate and one having a mask opt-out rate of about 23 percent. One would expect a quarter of the students opting out of masking to affect transmission rates if masks played any significant role in controlling COVID-19 spread, but that was not the case. Another recent analysis of data from Cass County, North Dakota, comparing school districts with and without mask mandates, concluded that mask-optional districts had lower prevalence of COVID-19 cases among students this fall. Analyses of COVID-19 cases in Alachua County, Florida, also suggest no differences in mask-required versus mask-optional schools. Similarly, the U.K. recently reported finding no statistically significant difference in absences traced to COVID-19 between secondary schools with mask mandates and those without mandates.

Despite how widespread all-day masking of children in school is, the short-term and long-term consequences of this practice are not well understood, in part because no one has successfully collected large-scale systematic data and few researchers have tried. Mental and social-emotional outcomes are hard to observe and measure, and can take years to manifest. Initial data, however, are not reassuring. Recent prospective studies from Greece and Italy found evidence that masking is a barrier to speech recognition, hearing, and communication, and that masks impede children’s ability to decode facial expressions, dampening children’s perceived trustworthiness of faces. Research has also suggested that hearing-impaired children have difficulty discerning individual sounds; opaque masks, of course, prevent lip-reading. Some teachers, parents, and speech pathologists have reported that masks can make learning difficult for some of America’s most vulnerable children, including those with cognitive delays, speech and hearing issues, and autism. Masks may also hinder language and speech development—especially important for students who do not speak English at home. Masks may impede emotion recognition, even in adults, but particularly in children. This fall, when children were asked, many said that prolonged mask wearing is uncomfortable and that they dislike it……….

(THE ATLANTIC)

Dr. Makary on “The High Cost Of Ignoring Natural Immunity”

This was an excellent interview by Clay Travis and Buck Sexton of Marty Makary about his WALL STREET JOURNAL article

Here are some other articles worth noting:

  • Youngkin Appoints Fox News Contributor Marty Makary as Head Of Virginia Medical Advisory Team (WASHINGTON EXAMINER)
  • 146 Research Studies Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to Covid-19: Documented, Linked, and Quoted (BROWNNSTONE)
  • Natural Immunity Superior to Vaccine Immunity, CDC Study Finds (DAILY SCEPTIC)
  • Hospitals Should Hire, Not Fire, Nurses with Natural Immunity (BROWNSTONE)

Here is the WALL STREET JOURNAL article reproduced in full:

The High Cost of Disparaging Natural Immunity to Covid: Vaccines were wasted on those who didn’t need them, and people who posed no risk lost jobs.

Public-health officials ruined many lives by insisting that workers with natural immunity to Covid-19 be fired if they weren’t fully vaccinated. But after two years of accruing data, the superiority of natural immunity over vaccinated immunity is clear. By firing staff with natural immunity, employers got rid of those least likely to infect others. It’s time to reinstate those employees with an apology.

For most of last year, many of us called for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to release its data on reinfection rates, but the agency refused. Finally last week, the CDC released data from New York and California, which demonstrated natural immunity was 2.8 times as effective in preventing hospitalization and 3.3 to 4.7 times as effective in preventing Covid infection compared with vaccination.

Yet the CDC spun the report to fit its narrative, bannering the conclusion “vaccination remains the safest strategy.” It based this conclusion on the finding that hybrid immunity—the combination of prior infection and vaccination—was associated with a slightly lower risk of testing positive for Covid. But those with hybrid immunity had a similar low rate of hospitalization (3 per 10,000) to those with natural immunity alone. In other words, vaccinating people who had already had Covid didn’t significantly reduce the risk of hospitalization.

Similarly, the National Institutes of Health repeatedly has dismissed natural immunity by arguing that its duration is unknown—then failing to conduct studies to answer the question. Because of the NIH’s inaction, my Johns Hopkins colleagues and I conducted the study. We found that among 295 unvaccinated people who previously had Covid, antibodies were present in 99% of them up to nearly two years after infection. We also found that natural immunity developed from prior variants reduced the risk of infection with the Omicron variant. Meanwhile, the effectiveness of the two-dose Moderna vaccine against infection (not severe disease) declines to 61% against Delta and 16% against Omicron at six months, according to a recent Kaiser Southern California study. In general, Pfizer’s Covid vaccines have been less effective than Moderna’s.

The CDC study and ours confirm what more than 100 other studies on natural immunity have found: The immune system works. The largest of these studies, from Israel, found that natural immunity was 27 times as effective as vaccinated immunity in preventing symptomatic illness.

None of this should surprise us. For years, studies have shown that infection with the other coronaviruses that cause severe illness, SARS and MERS, confers lasting immunity. In a study published in May 2020, Covid-recovered monkeys that were rechallenged with the virus didn’t get sick.

Public-health officials have a lot of explaining to do. They used the wrong starting hypothesis, ignored contrary preliminary data, and dug in as more evidence emerged that called their position into question. Many, including Rochelle Walensky, now the CDC’s director, signed the John Snow memorandum in October 2020, which declared that “there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection.”

Many clinicians who talk to other physicians nationwide had have long observed that we don’t see reinfected patients end up on a ventilator or die from Covid, with rare exceptions who almost always have immune disorders. Meanwhile, public-health officials recklessly destroyed the careers of everyday Americans, rallying to fire pilots, truck drivers and others in the supply-chain workforce who didn’t get vaccinated. And in the early months of the vaccine rollout, when supplies were limited, we could have saved many more lives by giving priority to those who didn’t have recorded natural immunity.

The failure to recognize the data on natural immunity is hurting U.S. hospitals, especially in rural areas. MultiCare, a hospital system in Washington state, fired 55 staff members on Oct. 18 for being out of compliance with Gov. Jay Inslee’s vaccine mandate—and that was in addition to an undisclosed number of staffers who quit ahead of the vaccination deadline. The loss of workers contributed to a full-blown staffing crisis.

It got so bad that the hospital summoned staff who were Covid-positive to return to work even if they were sick, according to an internal memo obtained by Jason Rantz of KTTH radio. The memo stated that “positive staff with mild to moderate illness” could work, so long as they wear appropriate personal protective equipment, don’t take breaks with others, and agree to stay home “if symptoms worsen.” Managers were recommended to assign Covid-positive staff to Covid-positive patients and vaccinated patients, but not immunosuppressed patients.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services took the hospital mandate national by decreeing that all medical facilities under its jurisdiction require vaccination for employees, including those with natural immunity. The Supreme Court upheld the rule on Jan. 13, the same day it issued a stay against a similar mandate from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which OSHA formally withdrew Tuesday.

Connecticut has suspended its vaccine mandate for state employees, and Starbucks is rehiring employees fired for being unvaccinated. Other states and businesses should follow their lead. Politicians and public-health officials owe an apology to Americans who lost their jobs on the false premises that only unvaccinated people could spread the virus and only vaccination could prevent its spread. Soldiers who have been dishonorably discharged should be restored their rank. Teachers, first responders, and others who have been denied their livelihood should be reinstated. Everyone is essential.

Dr. Makary is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and author of “The Price We Pay: What Broke American Health Care and How to Fix It.”

Here is the other article I opted to reproduce in full in case it disappears behind a pay-wall, via the BALTIMORE SUN

University Of Maryland’s ‘Heavy-Handed’ Booster Mandate Not Warranted By Science | Guest Commentary

When historians look back at the COVID-19 pandemic, one of many confounding details will be the enthusiasm with which colleges and universities imposed ever-expanding draconian measures on their low-risk student body. Hundreds of U.S. colleges required all faculty, staff, and students to be vaccinated upon Emergency Use Authorization of COVID vaccines. Yet students remain masked indoors (and sometimes out), subject to random asymptomatic testing and limited in their social life.

When weighing policy options with regards to the pandemic, it seems that universities have abandoned rigorous evidence appraisal in favor of memetic signaling to political peers, regardless of how the illness itself manifests among its highly vaccinated student body.

Onto this backdrop, the omicron variant appeared in early winter. The extreme contagiousness of this new variant makes uncertain whether any measure will truly “stop the spread.” One reaction to the highly contagious variant (even among the vaccinated) might have been to focus less on extreme measures to tamp down cases, and instead focus on empowering students to take action to avoid severe outcomes based on their individual risk factors and risk tolerance.

Given lower risk of severe outcomes compared to prior variants, particularly among vaccinated young people, the situation on campus could take the shape of a bad respiratory virus season. The way forward could be as simple as: if you’re sick, get tested and stay home. If you’re well, go about your business. If you’re high risk or otherwise worried, discuss a booster or other means of protecting yourself with your health care provider, and consider wearing a properly fitted N95 mask. By messaging confidence in vaccines, a college may weather the surge with outcomes indistinguishable from schools that took more restrictive measures, without the collateral damage to community cohesion, trust in public health or institutional credibility.

But this evenhanded approach bumps up against unfashionable values concerned with civil liberties. And it doesn’t relieve the anxieties of adults who are persuaded less by the efficacy of interventions than by the moral imperative of imposing any restriction deemed virtuous by the chattering class. In fact, on Jan. 7, our state’s flagship academic institution announced that all students, faculty and staff were required to receive a COVID booster shot by Jan. 24. This measure goes beyond the University System of Maryland’s mandate by including off campus students and employees.

After nearly two years of restrictions intended to reduce the toll of this intractable disease, many may dismiss this mandate as one more inevitable imperative. But we — society and institutions of higher learning, in particular — must look critically at the necessity of such a heavy-handed intervention, and carefully evaluate the evidence supporting it.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention still consider an individual who has received the primary vaccine series to be fully vaccinated. Yet the university employed a new turn of phrase, requiring a booster to be “up-to-date,” indicating the initial vaccines are somehow deficient. Yet abundant evidence indicates that the primary vaccine series continues to prevent severe illness and death — an outcome worth celebrating.

Boosters are available to all, including those who are high risk or otherwise eager to take any measure to avoid infection. Emerging evidence indicates that reduction in infection due to boosters is uncertain and likely short-lived. As the efficacy of boosters in preventing infection is not clear, many are satisfied with their reduced risk of severe disease without additional shots.

Many experts reject the idea that boosting young and healthy individuals is an appropriate strategy at this stage of the pandemic. In September, the FDA’s external vaccine review panel voted 16 to 2 against blanket approval of boosters. The FDA decided internally to ignore these recommendations and approve boosters for all. Amid this process, two senior members of the vaccine review committee resigned. Both contributed to a Lancet opinion piece arguing against universal boosting. Among other points, they argue that unnecessary boosting impedes global vaccine equity, and may broadly reduce vaccine acceptance.

The available vaccines are based on the original strain of SARS-CoV-2. Many members of the campus community recently recovered from COVID, and now have immunity to the currently circulating strains. They will gain no benefit from a booster, meaning the risk, however minuscule, of an adverse event outweighs the benefit. It is widely accepted that myocarditis is an adverse event related to mRNA vaccines administered to young men. While these events are rare and typically mild, some are severe, and even mild cases may require limiting activity for an extended period. One may argue that this risk is justified before the initial vaccine series based on the risk of severe outcomes from COVID infection. However, vaccinated young men required to get yet another dose are being subjected to this risk with no evidence of benefit, particularly if they are recovered from COVID.

Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and a vaccine developer, recently went on record to say that the benefit of boosting is not worth the risk to the average, healthy young adult male. He advised his own 20-something son against getting a booster.

Students want and deserve a normal, in-person spring semester. However, the university’s will to reassure students, parents, and faculty that the university is taking measures to reduce the burden of the disease on campus must not overpower the will to appraise whether the chosen intervention is effective, necessary, and without harm. The booster mandate does not meet these criteria.

I made the choice to be vaccinated as soon as I was eligible. I strongly encourage all adults to be vaccinated, and to discuss boosters with their physician. I am unlikely to suffer ill effects from a booster, and I may achieve some minor benefit in a temporary delay of infection. I am concerned, however, that the University is engaged in a dishonest exchange with its community by issuing a heavy-handed mandate whose necessity is not sufficiently supported by science. As an alum and a current faculty member, I wish to uphold the credibility of the university by insisting the booster mandate be suspended.

Chrissa Carlson (chrissacarlson@gmail.com) is a senior faculty specialist at the University of Maryland Extension.

 

Royal Gnosticism Displayed By the “Religious Left”

Clay Travis and Buck Sexton cover the recent Microsoft Employee Introductions during the company’s recent “Ignite” conference. This is a shorter version of a longer clip (LONG VERSION HERE), but the point of introducing “royalty” I thought deserved a segment of its own. I include the call by the blind gentleman.

A couple posts on the topic for the people who want to follow up on this:

  • ‘I’m a Caucasian Woman:’ Microsoft Event Highlights the Future of Woke Capitalism (VOICES OF A NATION)
  • ‘WTF Is This’? Microsoft Security Podcasters Introduce Themselves By Race, Gender, And Hairstyle (In Case You Couldn’t Tell By Looking At Them) (TWITCHY)
  • Microsoft Mocked for ‘Utterly Bananas’ Employee Introductions (RED STATE)

And a few weeks ago I heard something by Michael Knowles said at a DAILY WIRE symposium (DAILY WIRE BACKSTAGE: LIVE AT THE RYMAN) that really hit home with me. You always hear about “Leftism” being “religious,” or environmentalism being a “stand in religion,” and the like. This in my mind’s eye give the Postmodernist/Gnostic combo a real metaphysical “umph.”

Michael Horton defines some of the old vs. new aspects of “Gnosticism” (WAYBACK MACHINE). And Voddie Baucham describes how the Critical Race Theorists use it to “know” what is racist: “Voddie Baucham – What Is Ethnic Gnosticism?”

  • (Reform Wiki) In this clip, Pastor Voddie Baucham explains his phrase, “Ethnic Gnosticism,” which is the concept that certain people have a secret knowledge about racism because of their ethnicity.