I sometimes ask myself, “Why is the New York Times allowed to exist?” And I don’t mean: “Why doesn’t the government ban the paper?” because that’s not how I roll. But why is it that this roiling cesspool of lies continues to be supported after decades of outright lies, propaganda and just plain bad reporting. This is the paper that gave us Walter Duranty, for crying out loud. This is the paper that constantly warns of the dire threat of weather, whether warming or cooling, as this great roundup from American Thinker shows. (Notice how many other “respectable” journalistic institutions get in on the act that also still exist.)
— ACE OF SPADES
That’s the gist of an amazing chronology of the last 120 years of scare-mongering on climate, assembled by butnowyouknow.net and reprinted by the estimable Anthony Watts in Wattsupwiththat, who updates it to the present.
1902 – “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times
1923 – “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune
1923 – “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post
1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
1938 – Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
1938 – “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
1939 – “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post
1954 – “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report
1954 – Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine
1959 – “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times
1969 – “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969
1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000″ — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)
1970 – “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post
1974 – Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine
1974 – “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” –Washington Post
1974 – “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger
1974 – “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times
Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age
1975 – Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975
1975 – “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
1976 – “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report
1981 – Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times
1988 – I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote andHis superior’s objection for context
1989 -“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,Discover magazine, October 1989
1990 – “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth
1993 – “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” – U.S. News and World Report
1998 – No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998
2001 – “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001
2003 – Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003
2006 – “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006
2006 – “It is not a debate over whether the earth has been warming over the past century. The earth is always warming or cooling, at least a few tenths of a degree…” —Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT
2006 – “What we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes. It is always…warming or cooling, it’s never stable. And if it were stable, it would actually be interesting scientifically because it would be the first time for four and a half billion years.” —Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London
2006 – “Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.” –Senator James Inhofe, Monday, September 25, 2006
2007– “I gave a talk recently (on fallacies of global warming) and three members of the Canadian government, the environmental cabinet, came up afterwards and said, ‘We agree with you, but it’s not worth our jobs to say anything.’ So what’s being created is a huge industry with billions of dollars of government money and people’s jobs dependent on it.” – Dr. Tim Ball, Coast-to-Coast, Feb 6, 2007
2008 – “Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress” – Dr. John S. Theon, retired Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program atNASA, see above for Hansen quotes
Section updated by Anthony:
2009 – Climate change: melting ice will trigger wave of natural disasters. Scientists at a London conference next week will warn of earthquakes, avalanches and volcanic eruptions as the atmosphere heats up and geology is altered. Even Britain could face being struck by tsunamis – “Not only are the oceans and atmosphere conspiring against us, bringing baking temperatures, more powerful storms and floods, but the crust beneath our feet seems likely to join in too,” – Professor Bill McGuire, director of the Benfield Hazard Research Centre, at University College London, – The Guardian, Sep 2009.
2010 – What Global Warming Looks Like. It was more than 5°C (about 10°F) warmer than climatology in the eastern European region including Moscow. There was an area in eastern Asia that was similarly unusually hot. The eastern part of the United States was unusually warm, although not to the degree of the hot spots in Eurasia. James Hansen – NASA GISS, August 11, 2010.
2011 – Where Did Global Warming Go? “In Washington, ‘climate change’ has become a lightning rod, it’s a four-letter word,” said Andrew J. Hoffman, director of the University of Michigan’s Erb Institute for Sustainable Development. – New York Times, Oct 15, 2011.
2012 – Global warming close to becoming irreversible-scientists. “This is the critical decade. If we don’t get the curves turned around this decade we will cross those lines,” said Will Steffen, executive director of the Australian National University’s climate change institute, speaking at a conference in London. Reuters, Mar 26, 2012
2013 – Global-warming ‘proof’ is evaporating. The 2013 hurricane season just ended as one of the five quietest years since 1960. But don’t expect anyone who pointed to last year’s hurricanes as “proof” of the need to act against global warming to apologize; the warmists don’t work that way. New York Post, Dec 5, 2013
2014 – Climate change: It’s even worse than we thought. Five years ago, the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change painted a gloomy picture of our planet’s future. As climate scientists gather evidence for the next report, due in 2014, Michael Le Page gives seven reasons why things are looking even grimmer. –New Scientist (undated in 2014)
(James Klug) In this video I talk to people about how I believe Donald Trump is NOT a racist. Trump says and Tweets obnoxious things all the time, but after closely examining his actions and the change that he’s doing policy wise I am not convinced that he is a racist. This video was a difficult one to create because the overwhelming majority of people that walked by and said he was wouldn’t talk to me. Thankfully we had a handful of people that wanted to defend their stance!
(Mike Luso) I visited Cal Poly Pomona with the task of debating the students on campus on whether or not President Trump is a racist.
This a redoing of an old post (Mar 16, 2018), I save some audio from my now defunct VIMEO account. Enjoy.
The other day I was listening to the Michael Medved and I heard something I didn’t know that I think is very important for the general public to be aware of as they stand around the water cooler and discuss current events. A recent event one being the 8-to-1 decision in favor of the hate group/cult Fred Phelps is leader of, the Westboro Baptists. The information I was unaware of was that he ran for office five times – each time as a Democrat. Below are some photos of the Phelps clan with Al and Tipper Gore:
BLUE COLLAR LOGIC has a great video on the Westboro Baptists::
GAY PATRIOT got me thinking about this connection between religious cults and the Democrats… I combine two graphics from GP’s post, one is from Westboro Baptist’s kids (bottom pic), the other from Democrat’s kids (top kids):
Now, however, it all makes sense! (What does? You ask.) All the hate signs hoisted by Democrats over the years match the insanity by the ones by the Westboro Baptists. I will post one that we are all familiar with from the Phelps:
We of course have seen these and this:
But what about leftists and Democrats at recent anti-war,anti-Bush,anti-military marches? Is there a common thred between the hate the Westboro Baptists (Democrats) spread and the majority of these whackoes over the year at these “peace” rallies (Democrats)? Lets see:
(A Leftist organization — Code Pink — wants our soldiers murdered) SIDE NOTE:
(Howard Dean, head of the DNC holding up moon-bat shirts!)
(A “peace” rally where leftists and Democrats and Green Party members burn our military and flag in effigy)
(A liberal at a “peace” rally wanting our President at the time hung/dead)
(from an “art” show in San Francisco)
(from a “peace” rally)
(from a “peace” rally in Oregon in 2008)
NEWER PICS
(BLAZING CAT FUR) At the Consortium of Higher Education for LGBT Resource Professionals, one learns that at an upcoming webinar, “queer and trans people of color are welcome to join and engage in or observe the space. However, we do want to provide a content warning that in these spaces we hope white folks will process our thoughts and behaviors in a learning environment so we can address them and discuss and [sic] tactics of decentering whiteness.”
What is the deadliest thing mankind has ever encountered in history? Disease, famine, nuclear weapons? Not even close. By sheer body count, it’s an idea. One that thrives on absolute power and control, and will stop at nothing to achieve complete domination. This is the story of the deadliest virus in the world, COMMUNISM. You can’t kill an idea, but ideas can kill you. We must fight this virus to survive.
You always hear that the right is fascist, WRONG! Here is a short clip from a documentary that is able to respond quite well to this charge. One should watch the whole DOCUMENTARY, its cheap enough. But this snippet can be used as a great — embeddable — answer to the left leaning challenge that Nazism and Marxism is any different.
“…the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terrorism.” — Karl Marx, “The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 7 November 1848. (See entry of 29 Jan. 2007)
“By the same right under which France took Flanders, Lorraine and Alsace, and will sooner or later take Belgium — by that same right Germany takes over Schleswig; it is the right of civilization as against barbarism, of progress as against stability. Even if the agreements were in Denmark’s favor — which is very doubtful-this right carries more weight than all the agreements, for it is the right of historical evolution.” — Friedrich Engels, Neue Rheinische Zeitung 10. Sep. 1848 (See entry of 8 Jan. 2005)
“And as for the Jews, who since the emancipation of their sect have everywhere put themselves, at least in the person of their eminent representatives, at the head of the counter-revolution — what awaits them?” — – Karl Marx, Neue Rheinische Zeitung 17. Nov. 1848)
“Every provisional political set-up following a revolution requires a dictatorship, and an energetic dictatorship at that.” — Karl Marx, Neue Rheinische Zeitung 14. Sep. 1848 (See entry of 9 Jan. 2005)
“Among all the nations and sub-nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and are still capable of life — the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary. All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary holocaust. [“world storm” ? J.D.] For that reason they are now counter-revolutionary. …these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character… [A general war will] wipe out all these racial trash [Völkerabfälle – original was given at Marxist websites as “petty hidebound nations” J.D.] down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.” — Friedrich Engels, “The Magyar Struggle,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, January 13, 1849
“We discovered that in connection with these figures the German national simpletons and money-grubbers of the Frankfurt parliamentary swamp always counted as Germans the Polish Jews as well, although this dirtiest of all races, neither by its jargon nor by its descent, but at most only through its lust for profit, could have any relation of kinship with Frankfurt.” — Friedrich Engels, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 29. Apr. 1849 (See entry of 17 Jan. 2005)
“Germans and Magyars [of the Austro-Hungarian Empire] untied all these small, stunted and impotent little nations into a single big state and thereby enabled them to take part in a historical development from which, left to themselves, they would have remained completely aloof! Of course, matters of this kind cannot be accomplished without many a tender national blossom being forcibly broken. But in history nothing is achieved without violence and implacable ruthlessness… In short, it turns out these ‘crimes’ of the Germans and Magyars against the said Slavs are among the best and most praiseworthy deeds which our and the Magyar people can boast in their history.” — Friedrich Engels, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 15 February 1849 (See the entry of 6 April 2005)
“To the sentimental phrases about brotherhood which we are being offered here on behalf of the most counter-revolutionary nations of Europe, we reply that hatred of Russians was and still is the primary revolutionary passion among Germans; that since the revolution hatred of Czechs and Croats has been added, and that only by the most determined use of terror against these Slav peoples can we, jointly with the Poles and Magyars, safeguard the revolution. … Then there will be a struggle, an ‘unrelenting life-and-death struggle’ against those Slavs who betray the revolution; an annihilating fight and most determined terrorism – not in the interests of Germany, but in the interests of the revolution!” — Friedrich Engels, “Democratic Pan-Slavism” Neue Rheinische Zeitung 15. Feb. 1849 (See entry of 16 Jan. 2005 and 3 April 2005)
“…only by the most determined use of terror against these Slav peoples can we, jointly with the Poles and Magyars, safeguard the revolution there will be a struggle, an ‘inexorable life-and-death struggle’, against those Slavs who betray the revolution; an annihilating fight and ruthless terror – not in the interests of Germany, but in the interests of the revolution!” — Friedrich Engels, “Democratic Pan-Slavism, Continued,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 16 February 1849 (See entry of 29 Jan. 2007)
“We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.” — Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels “Suppression of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung”, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, May 19, 1849 (See entry of 29 Jan. 2007)
“The workers… must try as much as ever possible to counteract all bourgeois attempts at appeasement, and compel the democrats to carry out their present terrorist phrases. They must act in such a manner that the revolutionary excitement does not collapse immediately after the victory. On the contrary, they must maintain it as long as possible. Far from opposing so-called excesses, such as sacrificing to popular revenge of hated individuals or public buildings to which hateful memories are attached, such deeds must not only be tolerated, but their direction must be taken in hand, for examples’ sake. …from the first moment of victory we must no longer direct our distrust against the beaten reactionary enemy, but against our former allies [the democratic forces], against the party who are now about to exploit the common victory for their own ends only. … The arming of the whole proletariat with rifles, guns, and ammunition should be carried out at once [and] the workers must … organize themselves into an independent guard, with their own chiefs and general staff, to put themselves under the order, not of the [new] Government, but of the revolutionary authorities set up by the workers. … Destruction of the influence of bourgeois democracy over the workers …[is a main point] which the proletariat, and therefore also the League, has to keep in eye during and after the coming upheaval. …to be able effectively to oppose the petty bourgeois democracy. In order that [the democratic party] whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the first hour of victory, should be frustrated in its nefarious work, it is necessary to organize and arm the proletariat.” — Karl Marx “Address to the Communist League” March 1850, cited in E. Burns (ed): A Handbook of Marxism 1935, p.66-68.
“Removed and expelled members, like suspect individuals in general, are to be watched in the interest of the League, and prevented from doing harm. Intrigues of such individuals are at once to be reported to the community concerned.” — Rules written by Karl Marx and others for the Communist League (Art. 42) 1850 (See entry of 18 Jan. 2005)
“Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way.” — Karl Marx, “Forced Emigration”, New York Tribune 1853 (See entry of 29 Jan. 2005)
“Even with Europe in decay, still a war should have roused the healthy elements; a war should have awakened a lot of hidden powers, and surely so much energy would have been present among 250 million people that at least a respectable battle would have occurred, in which both parties could have reaped some honor, as much honor as courage and bravery can gain on the battlefield.” — Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, “The Boring War”, 1854 (See entry of 13 March 2005)
“Those dogs of democrats and liberal riff-raff will see that we’re the only chaps who haven’t been stultified by the ghastly period of peace.” — Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels (Letter, 25 February 1859) (See entry of 11 Feb. 2005)
“Thus we find every tyrant backed by a Jew, as is every pope by a Jesuit. In truth, the cravings of oppressors would be hopeless, and the practicability of war out of the question, if there were not an army of Jesuits to smother thought and a handful of Jews to ransack pockets.
…the real work is done by the Jews, and can only be done by them, as they monopolize the machinery of the loan-mongering mysteries by concentrating their energies upon the barter trade in securities… Here and there and everywhere that a little capital courts investment, there is ever one of these little Jews ready to make a little suggestion or place a little bit of a loan. The smartest highwayman in the Abruzzi is not better posted up about the locale of the hard cash in a traveler’s valise or pocket than those Jews about any loose capital in the hands of a trader… The language spoken smells strongly of Babel, and the perfume which otherwise pervades the place is by no means of a choice kind.
Thus do these loans, which are a curse to the people, a ruin to the holders, and a danger to the governments, become a blessing to the houses of the children of Judah. This Jew organization of loan-mongers is as dangerous to the people as the aristocratic organization of landowners… The fortunes amassed by these loan-mongers are immense, but the wrongs and sufferings thus entailed on the people and the encouragement thus afforded to their oppressors still remain to be told.
The fact that 1855 years ago Christ drove the Jewish moneychangers out of the temple, and that the moneychangers of our age enlisted on the side of tyranny happen again chiefly to be Jews, is perhaps no more than a historical coincidence. The loan-mongering Jews of Europe do only on a larger and more obnoxious scale what many others do on one smaller and less significant. But it is only because the Jews are so strong that it is timely and expedient to expose and stigmatize their organization.”
— Karl Marx, “The Russian Loan”, New York Daily Tribune, 4 January 1856 (See entry of 20 May 2009)
THE DAILY CALLER has some of the names listed But they point out that out of the 16 they have tracked down, most are young, and most are minorities:
Barry Perkins, 29, died after getting stuck on the converter dolly between a FedEx truck’s trailers while the driver of the truck pulled away. The driver, who was rerouted because of the protests, said he didn’t know the man was there. People began “removing items” from the truck and two men standing on the passenger side showed the driver they had guns, so the driver feared for his life, honked the horn and started driving until he was stopped by police. By the time police stopped the truck, Perkins had gotten caught by the trailer tire and was run over, according to KSDK.
Dorian Murrell, 18, was shot and killed by Tyler Newby, 29, in Indianapolis. Newby and his friend told police that they were walking around Downtown after the protests, found a gas canister on the ground and picked it up. They said after doing so, they were approached by a group of about 10 males who asked them what they found. Newby said he was pushed to the ground, pulled out his gun and shot the person standing over him. Murrell’s family member at the scene said there was no physical altercation, according to Indy Star.
These two videos made me both immensely sad, and mad at the same time (CAUTION).
“All over some TVs.” 77-year-old St. Louis retired Police Captain David Dorn was shot dead by looters when he tried to get them to stop looting a local pawn shop. pic.twitter.com/Xtvii4HoB1
22-year-old Italia Marie Kelly was murdered by a fellow protester in Iowa. Here’s her sister. THIS is the result of these “protests.” pic.twitter.com/NCWjbSrCXw
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:
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 ANYmainstream 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:
Oh man, I have had to give some variation of your exact explanation to people who were over reacting to this. Ultimately I left all of those conversations with an ultimatum. Either you are severely lacking in critical thinking skills, which if you went through the public education system is no fault of your own, OR you are doing something to emotionally make yourself feel better at the expense of your intellectual honesty… which is it?
Yep . . . .
POISON CONTROL
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:
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.
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.
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?)
…Continuing
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 asked this person: Are you making them?
… here is the response: Nope. I’m afraid if I do I will be deported.
… the humorous comeback was: Nobody is getting deported till January 20 2017, Christmas tamales are safe.
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:
(She said) “Black people and white people weren’t allowed get married years ago either… if small minded, bigoted people had their way it would still be that way. Gay marriage Is NO different…. religious folks who believe and support same sex marriage ?? They must not be real religious people.”
(I Responded) In other words, a discussion to you is calling me and other readers here “bigots,” and impugning the character of religious gays by creating straw-man arguments of what I (we) say/mean? And when I politely point this out by not pointing out how you name call and use “cards” (sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted ~ S.I.X.H.I.R.B.)….
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:
This election has brought to mind the now famous quote by elite Manhattanite and New Yorker columnist Pauline Kael after Richard Nixon’s sweeping presidential victory in 1972:
“I don’t know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don’t know anybody who voted for him.”
There is a tendency to build sound rooms around one’s belief and where they choose to get their information from. WE ARE ALL susceptible to this.
So, part of our journey is allowing in other sources of information…
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:
“By-the-by, for those reading this I will explain what is missing in this type of discussion due to the media used. Genuflecting, care, concern, one being upset (does not entail being “mad”), etc… are all not viewable because we are missing each other’s tone, facial expressions, and the like. I afford the other person I am dialoguing with the best of intentions and read his/her comments as if we were out having a talk over a beer at a bar or meeting a friend at Starbucks. (I say this because there seems to be a phenomenon of etiquette thrown out when talking through email or Face Book, lots more public cussing and gratuitous responses.) You will see that often times I USE CAPS — which in www lingo for YELLING. I am not using it this way, I use it to merely emphasize and often times say as much: *not said in yelling tone, but merely to emphasize*. So in all my discussions I afford the best of thought to the other person as I expect he or she would to me… even if dealing with tough subjects as the above. I have had more practice at this than most, and with half-hour pizza, one hour photo and email vs. ‘snail mail,’ know that important discussions take time to meditate on, inculcate, and to process. So be prepared for a good thought provoking discussion if you so choose one with me.”
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.
I shared what others wrote on election day, can I share mine? I went and cast my ballot for Trump and wrote this afterwords:
I voted. It was really hard to overcome my original emotions of dislike for Trump with reason (mind). But this IS the essence of being human… To think and reason beyond our emotive states…
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.
FACEBOOK CONVO
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::
TS
So let’s be clear, you are suggesting that his context meant that we should research injecting UV light into our lungs?
ME
TS, his team has seen companies from Colorado, Santa Barbara, and others, who think they have the magic bullet to help defeat The Rona. I document some of what Trump must have seen on my site, but this is one example (which I do not think works as well as the others I mention after this process):
More via RPT
But after you realize this and what his Coronavirus team members have probably brainstormed over, his comments here:
Which now makes perfect “Trump sense”
The [Chicago Tribune] article doesn’t give the full context (Trumps own words before and after the excerpt) — in other words TS, you are making my point. The only person mentioning injecting this stuff was Jonathan Karl — “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?”
Keep in mind the speeches earlier by the experts they used MULTIPLE times”injecting UV light” into the controlled specimens of Covid-19.TO WIT
TS 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.
ME
What did the President say right after that?
Also, in my post on my site and elsewhere around FACEBOOK, I note this:
…AGAIN, just because I am posting this does not mean I am endorsing this… AND, in fact, I include a warning.
[….]
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)
I also play video/audio (“Larry Elder Sanitizes The Left” – YOUTUBE) of Trump saying he isn’t a doctor and recommends medical advice. So like your context, Trump also said the same thing.
TS 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.
ME
WHAT IS THE CONTEXT?
…through the skin or …ahh… in some other way – and I think you said you were going to test that out…
…injection inside, or, or, almost a cleaning – as you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, it will be interesting to check that….
…you are going to have to use medical doctors, but it sounds interesting to me…
…but the whole concept of the light the way it kills in one minute…
…suppose we did this…
…supposing we hit the body with a tremendous … ultraviolet light…
…hasn’t been checked, you said you would test it…
…is there a way to do something like that….
…gotta use medical doctors…
[….]
…I would like you to speak to the medical doctors to see if there is any way you can apply light and heat to cure…
…maybe you can, maybe you can’t, again, I say, maybe you can, maybe you can’t, I’m not a doctor…
…you ever heard of the heat or the light…
TWO UPLOADS OF MINE via YOUTUBE:
TS 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.
ME
Which is why he said, LIKE YOU,
“…maybe you can, maybe you can’t, again, I say, maybe you can, maybe you can’t, I’m not a doctor…“
Do you not understand that??
TS Why would someone say that?
ME
“I’m definitely not a scientist or a doctor and am a product of the public school system…”
Because they are an Architect or a Business Project Manager.
TS No not why would he say he’s not a doctor. Why would he say maybe you can, maybe you can’t.
ME Because they have looked at all the new possibilities many companies are probably contacting his Coronavirus team with.
TS 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?
ME
He is not an eloquent purveyor of his ideas in conversation. And? In no way did he tell people to inject themselves with “Lysol” type products. I understand that people who dislike him for whatever reason find it easy to malign him (due to how poorly he expresses himself), but in almost all the attacks against him I have come across, I have come to the conclusion people are misapplying to him their own bad motives.
I wrote a long post a month before the 2016 election deciding I would vote for him three such attacks that upon reflection (a closer look) do not hold water: “Some Trump Sized Mantras“
This is the same.
He wasn’t spitballing ideas out of the blue. Him and his team were being made aware of this very recently. Which is why, TS, Trump spoke in a past tense: “…and I think you said you were going to test that out…“
TS 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.
ME 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.
TS 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.
ME
Take note that the Colorado company working with Cedars-Sinai to disinfect the lungs (with light) is separating the waves to just “A” I believe.
But I may be wrong, I am not a doctor or scientist, or engineer.
So, TS, could I be so bold as to say maybe you would — if Joe Biden said this to you like he did in his Tweet — you might politely correct him?
TS
ME
Hahaha, Biden wins!
[….]
And BTW TS, thank you for engaging. It keeps me on top of my game, and allows others to see how polite conversation is done. While we know each other well, I want others to take my idea that I often share with people I engage with that I do not know all that well — the following:
“By-the-by, for those reading this I will explain what is missing in this type of discussion due to the media used. Genuflecting, care, concern, one being upset (does not entail being “mad”), etc… are all not viewable because we are missing each other’s tone, facial expressions, and the like. I afford the other person I am dialoguing with the best of intentions and read his/her comments as if we were out having a talk over a beer at a bar or meeting a friend at Starbucks. (I say this because there seems to be a phenomenon of etiquette thrown out when talking through email or Face Book, lots more public cussing and gratuitous responses.) You will see that often times I USE CAPS — which in www lingo for YELLING. I am not using it this way, I use it to merely emphasize and often times say as much: *not said in yelling tone, but merely to emphasize*. So in all my discussions I afford the best of thought to the other person as I expect he or she would to me… even if dealing with tough subjects as the above. I have had more practice at this than most, and with half-hour pizza, one hour photo and email vs. ‘snail mail,’ know that important discussions take time to meditate on, inculcate, and to process. So be prepared for a good thought provoking discussion if you so choose one with me.”
(First posted in March 2013) You Might Live In A Country Founded By Geniuses But Run By Idiots, If…
If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally …you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
[….]
If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
If, in the largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not a 24-ounce soda because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
[….]
If an 80-year-old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
[….]
If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing and free cell phones … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to incentivize NOT working with 99 weeks of unemployment checks and no requirement to prove they applied but can’t find work … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you more “safe” according to the government … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
Mark Levin asks just how much our economy can take… why aren’t we attacking this thing like South Korea did? Tactfully.
Mark Levin reads from or touches on at least four articles linked below:
Horowitz: The Key Bad Assumption in The Bipartisan Panic Pander Bill (CONSERVATIVE REVIEW)
Prevention Expert: Data Shows Our Fight Against Coronavirus May Be Worse Than The Disease (DAILY WIRE)
A Fiasco in The Making? As the Coronavirus Pandemic Takes Hold, We Are Making Decisions Without Reliable Data (STAT NEWS)
Truckers Appeal To US To Keep Rest Stops, Gas Stations Open (MERCURY NEWS)
America should have followed the South Korea model, per, SCIENCE MAGAZINE:
…Amid these dire trends, South Korea has emerged as a sign of hope and a model to emulate. The country of 50 million appears to have greatly slowed its epidemic; it reported only 74 new cases today, down from 909 at its peak on 29 February. And it has done so without locking down entire cities or taking some of the other authoritarian measures that helped China bring its epidemic under control. “South Korea is a democratic republic, we feel a lockdown is not a reasonable choice,” says Kim Woo-Joo, an infectious disease specialist at Korea University. South Korea’s success may hold lessons for other countries—and also a warning: Even after driving case numbers down, the country is braced for a resurgence….
EXTRA CREDIT
ARTICLES
NEW: Coronavirus Cases Have Dropped Sharply In South Korea. What’S The Secret To Its Success? (SCIENCE MAGAZINE)
Horowitz: The Key Bad Assumption in The Bipartisan Panic Pander Bill (CONSERVATIVE REVIEW)
Prevention Expert: Data Shows Our Fight Against Coronavirus May Be Worse Than The Disease (DAILY WIRE)
A Fiasco in The Making? As the Coronavirus Pandemic Takes Hold, We Are Making Decisions Without Reliable Data (STAT NEWS)
Truckers Appeal To US To Keep Rest Stops, Gas Stations Open(MERCURY NEWS)
Taiwan Says It Warned WHO About Coronavirus In December, But Its Warnings Were Ignored (DAILY CALLER)
Why the Remedy May Be Worse Than the Disease (DENNIS PRAGER)
I was asked the following question on Facebook by a friend of the family (my oldest son’s friend to be exact,). She asked:
Alright Sean, what do you think of this whole virus deal? I’m personally not really worried about it, pretty sure I already had the dang thing, just curious!
The short answer is “I am not worried.” Democrats are twice as likely to freak-out about this than are Republicans. (I assume #NeverTrumpers are in the same “Democrat boat.”) HOWEVER, I will say this is the best argument for what the nation is doing writ large (even if I still disagree with it somewhat) — from my Facebook:
Okay. So the best argument I’ve heard so far came from Ben Shapiro for the course of action that we are taking as a country towards the Coronavirus (the Wuhan Virus). And it’s simple, unlike past flues you could have this for a few days and not realize you have it before the symptoms kick in. During this time you are highly contagious. Brand new studies show that it can be in the air from you breathing for up to 3 hours in a confined space (say, a room or elevator etc); and it can stay on surfaces for up to 3 days. Now, Italy has more beds per thousand people in hospitals and healthcare systems than does America. Since our Baby Boomer population can be more prone for serious complications in reaction to this, we stand a chance at burdening our emergency rooms/hospitals to well past it’s limits (Italy is at 200% plus capacity and are sending people home essentially to die). So all these precautions are not to “stop” Coronavirus, but to “slow” it’s spreadto help alleviate the impact on our health care network. And by slowing it we are allowing a chance for a vaccine to hit the shelves in time to mitigate this flu as it gets worse.
It’s called “drama,” which is badly needed, because there appears to be nothing very special about this outbreak of the 2019-nCoV or Wuhan virus. It should actually be called the DvV, or Déjà vu Virus, because we have been through these hysterias before. Over and over. Heterosexual AIDS, Ebola repeatedly, the H1N1 swine flu that was actually vastly milder than the regular flu and, especially, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003.
[snip]
Wuhan is repeatedly labeled “deadly” — but so is every other virus most people know about.
(UPDATE… this article was published the 8th of March, and probably uses information from March 4th)
…China is the origin of the virus and still accounts for over 80 percent of cases and deaths. But its cases peaked and began declining more than a month ago, according to data presented by the Canadian epidemiologist who spearheaded the World Health Organization’s coronavirus mission to China. Fewer than 200 new cases are reported daily, down from a peak of 4,000.
Subsequent countries will follow this same pattern, in what’s called Farr’s Law. First formulated in 1840 and ignored in every epidemic hysteria since, the law states that epidemics tend to rise and fall in a roughly symmetrical pattern or bell-shaped curve. AIDS, SARS, Ebola — they all followed that pattern. So does seasonal flu each year.
Clearly, flu is vastly more contagious than the new coronavirus, as the WHO has noted. Consider that the first known coronavirus cases date back to early December, and since then, the virus has afflicted fewer people in total than flu does in a few days. Oh, and why are there no flu quarantines? Because it’s so contagious, it would be impossible.
As for death rates, as I first noted in these pages on Jan. 24, you can’t employ simple math — as everyone is doing — and look at deaths versus cases because those are reported cases. With both flu and assuredly with coronavirus, the great majority of those infected have symptoms so mild — if any — that they don’t seek medical attention and don’t get counted in the caseload.
Furthermore, those calculating rates ignore the importance of good health care. Given that the vast majority of cases have occurred in a country with poor health care, that’s going to dramatically exaggerate the death rate….
BEFORE posting audio of Michael Medved and Dennis Prager discussing the above article with Michael Fumento… I wish to post the latest audio by Dr. Drew Pinsky discussing the issue. (See two previous posted videos from Doc Drew, HERE.) . And he says listen to Dr. Anthony Fauci, whereas Michael Fumento notes in the Medved audio that Fauci has been wrong on every case since the heterosexual AIDS scare. Even with this note, Doc Drew is waay better in his reporting than the Washington Post or CNN:
Celebrity doctor Dr. Drew slams the media for “reprehensible” coverage of the coronavirus spread in the US and tells Americans to “stop listening to journalists” and instead focus only on information provided by the CDC and other health entities.
Okay, here are the two partial audio interviews with Michael Fumento:
Michael Medved interviews Michael Fumento (March 12th) regarding his NEW YORK POST article entitled, “Coronavirus going to hit its peak and start falling sooner than you think“. I include this article because Medved adeptly notes Dr. Anthony Fauci’s assessment to get Fumento’s reaction. And these two have been “locking horns” since the “heterosexual AIDS” scare… Fumento being the hands down winner since the 80’s.
(Warning, horrible audio connection with Fumento) Dennis Prager interviews Michael Fumento (March 10th) regarding his NEW YORK POST article entitled, “Coronavirus going to hit its peak and start falling sooner than you think“. Prager has been a long time fan of Fumento’s (as have I since before listening to the Prager Show). Fumento discusses one of the tolls in how he comes to his conclusions, and it is by using Farr’s Law or Rule (ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA).
I think much of this is hysteria. I think also Trump knowing the media well and how Democrats would weaponize this issue, got a jump on this disease/flu season, and against his cabinet’s advice — withing three weeks after this strain was identified… put into action the most aggressive controls yet. (See my post on this HERE.) All while the media and Democrats called him racist for his actions:
Could you imagine the reaction if Trump had just blown this off? HoooBoy!
CBSN has info before we get to the real newsworthy comments/news sources:
ROCKLIN (CBS/AP) — Perry Lutz says his struggle to survive as a small businessman became a lot harder after California voters reduced theft penalties 1 1/2 years ago.
About a half-dozen times this year, shoplifters have stolen expensive drones or another of the remote-controlled toys he sells in HobbyTown USA, a small shop in Rocklin, northeast of Sacramento. “It’s just pretty much open season,” Lutz said. “They’ll pick the $800 unit and just grab it and run out the door.”
Anything below $950 keeps the crime a misdemeanor — and likely means the thieves face no pursuit and no punishment, say retailers and law enforcement officials. Large retailers including Safeway, Target, Rite Aid and CVS pharmacies say shoplifting increased at least 15 percent, and in some cases, doubled since voters approved Proposition 47 and ended the possibility of charging shoplifting as a felony with the potential for a prison sentence….
The video was found because ofTEXAGS, so a shout-out to that site. NATIONAL REVIEW has a good comment on this:
…The underlying premise of Proposition 47 was to free up funds so the state could focus on violent and serious offenders. Savings would be diverted to school-based prevention and support programs, victim services, and mental-health and drug treatment. Therefore petty thieves, who might be drug addicts, would avoid costly and ultimately detrimental incarceration. The referendum had the support of California Democratic party and the American Civil Liberties Union, and the state’s voters passed it into law in 2014.
What could possibly go wrong?
That question is best asked of the people in California who are robbed and call the police for help. Overall, they’re blindsided by the slow (or non-) response. The surprise and anger they feel is tremendous. Nearly a thousand dollars in stolen property is hardly minor, especially to those who have little to lose. It’s not just the loss of personal possessions they’ll probably never see again that is so distressing, but the ruined trust in the system that they assumed was designed to protect the innocent.
For law enforcement, however, there is little incentive to chase down low-level criminals. Even if the person is escorted to the station, odds are great he’ll be back on the street in an hour or so.
Outrage in these circumstances is apolitical. A liberal Berkeley student studying in a café whose laptop is swiped from a table feels just as violated as the right-leaning visitor to Los Angeles whose luggage is stolen. A struggling small-business owner wonders how long he can withstand the damage done by constant pilfering.
“Every bicycle in our building has been stolen,” says Karen Burns, president of a San Francisco condo association. “I’ve caught so many people stealing packages. They don’t care. They know nothing will happen to them. It’s crazy. It’s horrible. I feel like these people need to go to jail.”
Proposition 47 didn’t stop with theft. The personal use of illegal drugs was also reclassified to a misdemeanor. Although the intent may have been kind (it’s cruel to punish people for having an addiction) and practical (they’ll emerge from prison hardened, and a felony on their record makes it more difficult to reintegrate into society), the downstream impact on the community at large has been disastrous. In San Fransisco, for example, shooting up in public is commonplace, whether it’s on the steps of City Hall, in front of a supermarket, or at the entrance to a children’s playground.
Residents who are experiencing an uptick in so-called low-level crimes in their neighborhoods are baffled by studies indicating otherwise. For example, a December 2017 Center on Criminal and Juvenile Justice report shows property crimes down by an average of 18.1 percent across the state. Those numbers are false, says Michael Rushford, president of the Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a nonprofit public-interest law organization: “More, not fewer, of these crimes are being committed, but people aren’t reporting them. In most cases they have to do it online, and they end up not doing it. They don’t believe anything will happen, so don’t see the point. And they’re right.”
In fact, Magnus Lofstrom, a researcher at the Public Policy Institute of California, pointed to a 12 percent jump in larceny-theft (essentially, unlawfully taking someone’s property) in the state immediately after Proposition 47 took effect. “Crime rates always fluctuate, and the data isn’t always accurate,” says Lofstrom.
CertainlySan Franciscans aren’t debating whether or not crime is up. They know it is. In January, Police Chief William Scott acknowledged a 24 percent jump in property crimes from 2016 to 2017. Auto break-ins have soared in every district, and the arrest rate for them is an astonishing 1.6 percent….
(FLASHBACK to Feb, 2017) John and Ken interview Michael Rushford of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a nonprofit, public interest law organization dedicated to improving the administration of criminal justice. Through the failures of California AB 109, prop 47 and prop 57 we all knew would happen but Jerry “MOONBEAM” Brown did not, quite a few violent crimes and the killing of our first defense has happened. (A previous similar upload). But hey, let’s spend billions on a train… effe the police and women.
JONATHAN TURLEY writes on his website about the tradition Nancy trampled on:
…Forty-four years ago, I walked on to the floor of the House of Representatives as a new Democratic 15-year-old page from Chicago. I stood and marveled at the beehive of activity on the floor in the People’s House. I can still remember that moment because it forged a bond and reverence that has never weakened for me. As a Democratic leadership page during the speakership of Tip O’Neill, I watched some of the most passionate and important debates of the generation from the Neutron Bomb to civil rights legislation to sweeping national park bills. The country was deeply divided, but both parties maintained the tradition of civility and decorum. I was struck how members, even in the heat of furious debates, would not attack each other by name and followed rigid principles of decorum. They understood that they were the custodians of this institution and bore a duty to strengthen and pass along those traditions to the next generation.
That is why I was (and remain) so offended by this display. I believe that President Trump himself is worthy of criticism for not shaking the hand of Pelosi. I also did not approve of aspects of his speech, including bestowing the Medal of Freedom on Rush Limbaugh in the gallery like a reality show surprise scene. There was much to object to in the address, but presidents often make comments that enrage or irritate speakers.
However, none of that excuses Pelosi. At that moment, she represents the House as an institution — both Republicans and Democrats. Instead, she decided to become little more than a partisan troll from an elevated position. The protests of the Democratic members also reached a new low for the House. Pelosi did not gavel out the protest. She seemed to join it.
It was the tradition of the House that a speaker must remain in stone-faced neutrality no matter what comes off that podium. The tradition ended last night with one of the more shameful and inglorious moments of the House in its history. Rather than wait until she left the floor, she decided to demonstrate against the President as part of the State of the Union and from the Speaker’s chair. That made it a statement not of Pelosi but of the House.
For those of us who truly love the House as an institution, it was one of the lowest moments to unfold on the floor….
…The House has its share of infamies, great and small, real and symbolic, and has been the scene of personal infamies from brawls to canings. But the conduct of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) at the State of the Union address this week will go down as a day of infamy for the chamber as an institution. It has long been a tradition for House Speakers to remain stoic and neutral in listening to the address. However, Pelosi seemed to be intent on mocking President Trump from behind his back with sophomoric facial grimaces and head shaking, culminating in her ripping up a copy of his address.
Her drop the mic moment will have a lasting impact on the House. While many will celebrate her trolling of the president, she tore up something far more important than a speech. Pelosi has shredded decades of tradition, decorum and civility that the nation could use now more than ever. The House Speaker is more than a political partisan, particularly when carrying out functions such as the State of the Union address. A president appears in the House as a guest of both chambers of Congress. The House Speaker represents not her party or herself but the entirety of the chamber. At that moment, she must transcend her own political ambitions and loyalties.
Tensions for this address were high. The House impeachment managers sat as a group in front of the president as a reminder of the ongoing trial. That can be excused as a silent but pointed message from the Democrats. Trump hardly covered himself with glory by not shaking hands with Pelosi. I also strongly disliked elements of his address which bordered on “check under your seat” moments, and the awarding of conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh with the Presidential Medal of Freedom inside the House gallery like a Mardi Gras bead toss. However, if Trump made the State of the Union look like Oprah, then Pelosi made it look like Jerry Springer.
What followed was an utter disgrace. First, Pelosi dropped the traditional greeting before the start of the address, “Members of Congress, I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the president of the United States.” Instead, she simply announced, “Members of Congress, the president of the United States.” It was extremely petty and profoundly inappropriate. Putting aside the fact that this is not her tradition, but that of the House, it is no excuse to note that the president was impeached.
Such an indignity was not imposed on President Clinton during his own impeachment proceeding, and anyone respecting due process would note that Trump has been accused, not convicted, at this point in the constitutional process. Pelosi proceeded to repeatedly shake her head, mouth words to others, and visibly disagree with the address. It was like some distempered distracting performance art behind the president.
My revulsion over this has nothing to do with impeachment. Ten years ago, I wrote a column denouncing Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito for mouthing the words “not true” when President Obama used his address to criticize the court for its decision in the Citizens United case. I considered his response to be a disgrace and wrote a column criticizing Chief Justice John Roberts for not publicly chastising Alito for breach of tradition. Instead, Roberts seemed to defend Alito in criticizing Obama for his “very troubling” language and saying that it was unfair to criticize the court when the justices, “according to the requirements of protocol,” have “to sit there expressionless.” That was not unfair. That was being judicious.
[….]
Pelosi has demolished decades of tradition with this poorly considered moment. Of course, many will celebrate her conduct and be thrilled by the insult to Trump. However, even those of us who disagree with his policies should consider what Pelosi destroyed in her moment of rage. She shredded the pretense of governing with civility and dignity in the House. Notably, she did not wait to rip up her copy of the speech until after she left the House floor. Pelosi wanted to do it at the end of the speech, in front of the camera, with the president still in the chamber.
That act was more important to Pelosi than preserving the tradition of her office. In doing so, she forfeited the right to occupy that office. If Pelosi cannot maintain the dignity and neutrality of her office at the State of the Union, she should resign as the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Hilarious. She [Democrat House Manager and Representative from Florida’s 10th congressional district, Val Demings] argues the U.S. abandoned Ukraine during Obama Admin! “Demings suggested that Ukrainians died in their war with Russia but those soldiers died during the Obama years” (GATEWAY PUNDIT):
….Ernst made it clear she was irritated with what she portrayed as hypocrisy by the Democrats.
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), she said, voted against the most recent National Defense Authorization Act, “which included lethal aid to Ukraine.” Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Hakeem Jeffreys (D-NY), and Nadler (D-NY) voted against the last one, which also included such spending.
“This president has done more than they have, and he has done more than the previous administration did,” she said.
Ernst noted that Russia had invaded Crimea in 2014, and President Obama did nothing but send blankets and non-leah military aid. “Blankets don’t throw lead down-range,” said Ernst, a U.S. Army veteran.
In contrast, she noted, President Trump had armed Ukraine with actual weapons, giving it the opportunity to mount a defense against Russia.
“House Democrats, these House managers, did nothing of the sort to provide that assistance to Ukraine, and yet now they are on their high horse about President Trump not doing enough for Ukraine.
“This administration has done more than the previous administration did when Crimea was being invaded. I have very strong feelings about that.”
Ernst later added that the president’s temporary hold on security assistance had not affected current spending for Ukraine.
Of course the VERY AWESOME Elise Stefanik made this point a while back!
Day 3 of Adam Schiff’s flimsy case for impeachment. This is the weakest case for impeachment of a President in our nation’s history.
…The Iowa Republican also said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who is an impeachment manager, along with House Democratic Reps. Zoe Lofgren of California, Sylvia Garcia of Texas and Hakeem Jeffries of New York, all who either opposed or didn’t vote for national defense bills that included lethal aid to Ukraine.
“Four of the House managers have voted against lethal aid to Ukraine and they can sit there and lecture about this President not doing enough for Ukraine,” Ms. Ernst said. “This president has done more than they have and he has done more than the previous administration did.”…
