20 thoughts on “News/Politics 11-20-20

  1. Huh.

    And yet they keep closing them.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/cdc-director-schools-among-safest-places-kids-can-be-closing-schools-an-emotional-response-not-backed-by-data?%3Futm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dwtwitter

    “CDC Director: Schools Among ‘Safest Places’ Kids Can Be, Closing Schools An ‘Emotional Response’ Not Backed By Data”

    CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield said on Thursday that K-12 schools should remain open because data shows that schools are among the “safest places” that kids can be from the pandemic, and attempts to close schools are nothing more than an “emotional response.”

    “Today, there’s extensive data that we have—we’ve gathered over the last two to three months—that confirm that K-12 schools can operate with face-to-face learning and they can do it safely and they can do it responsibly,” Redfield said. “The infections that we’ve identified in schools when they’ve been evaluated were not acquired in schools. They were actually acquired in the community and in the household.”

    “Today, as Dr. Birx said, our big threat for transmission is not the public square, it’s small family gatherings, family gatherings where people become more comfortable, they remove their face-mask when they get together and it’s this silent epidemic that begins to transmit,” Redfield continued. “But it’s not interschool transmission. The truth is, for kids K-12, one of the safest places they can be, from our perspective, is to remain in school, and it’s really important that following the data, making sure we don’t make emotional decisions about what to close and what not to close, and I’m here to say clearly the data strongly supports that K-12 schools—as well as institutes of higher learning—really are not where we’re having our challenges.”

    He added, “And it would be counterproductive from my point of view, from a public health point of view, just in containing the epidemic, if there was an emotional response, to say, ‘Let’s close the schools.’””

    Like

  2. Now that the threats from Democrats have been exposed and stopped…..

    https://nypost.com/2020/11/19/michigan-gop-again-reverses-course-on-certifying-election-results/?utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow&utm_campaign=SocialFlow

    “Michigan GOP again reverses course on certifying Wayne County election results”

    “President Trump called one of the two GOP members of a four-person board in Wayne County, Michigan, tasked with certifying election results who again reversed course following their initial refusal, and then acquiescence, to certify results.

    “I did receive a call from President Trump, late Tuesday evening, after the meeting. He was checking in to make sure I was safe after hearing the threats and doxing that had occurred,” Monica Palmer, one of the two Republicans on the board, told the Washington Post Thursday.

    Discussing her conversation with the commander-in-chief, Palmer told the paper that they spoke for about two minutes, during which time he did not make her feel pressured to change her vote.

    “His concern was about my safety and that was really touching. He is a really busy guy and to have his concern about my safety was appreciated,” the Republican board member told the outlet.

    When asked if they discussed the presidential vote count, Palmer said she was unsure, citing the craziness of the moment.

    “It’s hard for me to describe. There was a lot of adrenaline and stress going on. There were general comments about different states but we really didn’t discuss the details of the certification,” she remarked.

    Still, she stood by the merits of the call, praising the president and noting, “It was not pressure. It was genuine concern for my safety.”

    Palmer and William Hartmann, the two Republicans on the four-member board of canvassers, originally offered no explanation for why they changed course, but abruptly did so Tuesday evening hours after voting against certification of the results.

    By Wednesday night, Palmer and Hartmann had signed onto affidavits alleging that they had been pressured to certify the results under a false promise that Democrats would agree to an audit in Detroit, according to the Washington Post, which has reviewed the documents.

    “I rescind my prior vote. I fully believe the Wayne County vote should not be certified,” Palmer wrote in an affidavit. Hartmann, according to the paper, signed a similar affidavit.

    Prior to signing the document, Palmer told the paper in an interview that she and Hartmann had been concerned about the number of precincts that were not in “balance,” meaning the number of votes tabulated did not match the number of voters who signed in at the polls.”

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Keep this in mind while they lecture about unity….

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/11/democrats-and-the-media-blew-up-all-norms-to-get-trump-and-shouldnt-lecture-about-election-contests/

    “Democrats and the media blew up all norms to get Trump, and shouldn’t lecture about election contests

    “You maniacs, you blew it up.” There are no norms left. Democrats and the media burned them all to the ground in the scorched earth attack on Trump that started before the 2016 election and continued without interruption through Election Day 2020.”

    “The Trump campaign and various allied Republicans are contesting the results of the presidential election in several key swing states, particularly Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Arizona. Some court cases have been filed, but the promise of more substantial legal efforts are in the offing.

    On November 5, I urged Republicans to Stay the course on election contests and litigation – Almost 70 million Trump voters deserve the effort, but cautioned:

    At the end of the day, which could be just days or weeks away, we’ll know if Trump and his team have the goods. Almost 70 million Trump voters deserve the effort.

    I also pointed out on November 7 that people should be realistic about the high hurdles to success whether in recounts or litigation, You are not alone, you have over 70 million friends:

    So it’s not over, but we have to be honest with ourselves that it remains a longshot. Trump needs hard evidence of major fraud, miscount, or computer malfunction to prevail in court. A specific category of ballot that was not legally cast is going to have to be identified, and it’s going to have to be in a sufficient quantity to make a difference.

    Again on November 9, I emphasized to Stay focused on the prize:

    Folks, stay focused. Trump needs to find votes through recount or other vote count irregularity, or find a court to rule that specific categories of ballots were unlawfully cast, whether through fraud or contrary to election law. That’s the prize. Focus on the prize.

    All that background and caution brings us to today.

    Today Rudy Guliani and Sidney Powell held a news conference. Rudy laid out what he says affidavits and other evidence gathered shows about specific allegations of voter fraud, potentially involving tens or hundreds of thousands of votes. Those affidavits are not all public, with the understandable claim that the people involved fear retribution from the same Democrat supporters who have been attacking people physically and via online campaigns. That evidence is going to have to be submitted to a court soon, the clock is ticking.

    The problem with the voter fraud as related by Rudy is that, by his own account, the illegal votes have become merged with the legal votes because numerous safeguards were eliminated or not followed. What Rudy appears to be left with is possible proof of widespread fraud, but no clear remedy. No judge or panel of judges is going to throw out several hundred thousand votes in the City of Philadelphia just because some of the votes were fraudulent. If the election was stolen, it was stolen in pre-election procedure and election night process, and there may be no lawful remedy other than the ballot box in 2022 and 2024.

    Unlike Rudy, Sidney Powell offered few specifics. She has a unified theory of election software and hardware fraud that spans numerous countries, possibly “three-letter agencies,” and an election night execution of a preexisting plan across several jurisdictions. But something being possible is not the same thing as proof that it did happen. Powell says she has proof it happened, but she offered no details today. It would shake our system to the core if such evidence exists and is provable, but I don’t think people should get their hopes up. Prove me wrong, please, I’m practically begging her to do so, but in the end, she is going to need proof, not conjecture.

    The Democrat and media reaction is to dismiss this effort as insane conspiracy theories not worthy of consideration. Challenging the election and refusing to “concede” is called a breach of all norms.

    Excuse me, but there are no norms left. Democrats and the media burned them all to the ground in the scorched earth attack on Trump that started before the 2016 election and continued without interruption through Election Day 2020.”

    ———-

    Dems built this, and now they gotta live in what they built.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Grotesque.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/11/obamas-grotesque-self-revisionism/

    “Obama’s Grotesque Self-Revisionism”

    The former president’s assessment of Trump ignores his own administration’s lawlessness.”

    “In an episode of CBS’s 60 Minutes last Sunday, former president Barack Obama not-so-subtly compared Trump’s tenure in the White House to something out of a banana republic or a one-party totalitarian state:

    I think that there has been this sense over the last several years that literally anything goes and is justified in order to get power. And that’s not unique to the United States. There are strong men and dictators around the world who think that I can do anything to stay in power. I can kill people. I can throw them in jail. I can run phony elections. I can suppress journalists. But that’s not who we’re supposed to be. And one of the signals I think that Joe Biden needs to send to the world is that no, those values that we preached, and we believed in, and subscribed in, we still believe.

    Comparisons of Trump’s rhetoric and actions to an authoritarian’s have ranged from the hysterical to the nuanced. But Obama’s assessment of Trump is not only dramatic and overtly partisan. It is a whitewashing of his own administration’s lawlessness and overreach. It is sheer projection.

    Throughout his presidency, Obama routinely engaged in the sort of behavior he would describe as authoritarian and vindictive. His rhetoric matched his actions. After the 2010 midterm elections, House Republicans refused to enact the president’s overwhelming regulatory agenda. A frustrated Obama proclaimed, “Where they won’t act, I will.” Later, in his 2014 State of the Union address, Obama said he would try to “take steps without legislation,” “whenever and wherever” possible.

    No doubt, Obama occasionally paid lip service to constitutional norms. In early 2011, when discussing immigration law, Obama said, “With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportation through executive order, that’s just not the case.” A year later, though, Obama issued his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals order (DACA), which gave partial legal status to over 700,000 illegal immigrants who had arrived in the United States as children. In 2014, Obama again issued an executive order on immigration — Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, or DAPA — but a lower-court block of the sweeping move, which would have granted amnesty to millions, was eventually upheld by a deadlocked Supreme Court.

    Obama’s IRS also attempted to silence political enemies. Lois Lerner, an IRS official who served under Obama, threatened Tea Party nonprofits that had applied for tax-exempt status throughout the 2010 midterms and the 2012 presidential election. Between 2010 and 2013, the IRS subjected these nonprofits, based on their names and policy positions, to unfair, heightened, abnormal scrutiny. Obama himself called out this behavior as “outrageous” and vowed to hold the IRS “fully accountable.” No one would be held accountable, and the scandal was swept under the rug, naturally.

    During his final press conference, Obama fawned over journalists, calling upon the American press corps to retaliate against the incoming Trump administration. “Our democracy needs you,” he said, “America needs you.” This was not his position when in the White House; Obama was, in practice, more “Nixonian” than any president since Nixon. In 2015, former New York Times reporter James Risen described the Obama administration, in very stark terms, as “the greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation.” His assessment is accurate.”

    ————

    But the press love him and lap it up.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I feel like a mushroom. Probably because they keep us in the dark, and because of the steady diet of @#$% they keep feeding us.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/11/danish-study-shows-that-face-masks-provide-only-limited-protection-against-covid-19/

    “Danish Study Shows That Face Masks Provide Only Limited Protection Against COVID-19”

    “Last month, I reviewed the many reasons why mask mandates won’t work. In a nutshell, it is because those mandates’ success relies on humans to use and maintain those masks at all times…which, of course, dooms it to failure.

    However, data on masks’ actual effectiveness has not really been persuasive for or against them. A Danish study has found face masks provide the wearer with only limited protection against COVID-19 infection.

    In the study, which was carried out in April and May when Danish authorities did not recommend wearing face masks, 6,024 adults were divided into two groups, one wearing face masks and one control group.

    After one month, 1.8% of the people wearing masks had been infected, while 2.1% of the people in the control group had tested positive, Copenhagen University Hospital said in a press release.

    “The study does not confirm the expected halving of the risk of infection for people wearing face masks,” it said. “The results could indicate a more moderate degree of protection of 15-20%, however, the study could not rule out that face masks do not provide any protection.”

    The media rushes to insists that masks must be worn anyway. The study’s authors were less than impressed by a mask’s effectiveness.

    “Our study gives an indication of how much you gain from wearing a mask,” said Dr. Henning Bundgaard, lead author of the study and a cardiologist at the University of Copenhagen. “Not a lot.”

    Dr. Mette Kalager, a professor of medical decision making at the University of Oslo, found the research compelling. The study showed that “although there might be a symbolic effect,” she wrote in an email, “the effect of wearing a mask does not substantially reduce risk” for wearers.

    The Danish finding is also consistent with evidence from a study conducted by Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in cooperation with the Naval Medical Research Center. This research sought to test lockdowns, testing, and rigid isolation with 3,143 new recruits to the Marines.

    The program was titled CHARM – COVID-19 Health Action Response for Marines. The testing conditions were rigorous and noted in the New England Journal of Medicine article.

    All recruits wore double-layered cloth masks at all times indoors and outdoors, except when sleeping or eating; practiced social distancing of at least 6 feet; were not allowed to leave campus; did not have access to personal electronics and other items that might contribute to surface transmission; and routinely washed their hands. They slept in double-occupancy rooms with sinks, ate in shared dining facilities, and used shared bathrooms.

    All recruits cleaned their rooms daily, sanitized bathrooms after each use with bleach wipes, and ate preplated meals in a dining hall that was cleaned with bleach after each platoon had eaten. Most instruction and exercises were conducted outdoors. All movement of recruits was supervised, and unidirectional flow was implemented, with designated building entry and exit points to minimize contact among persons. All recruits, regardless of participation in the study, underwent daily temperature and symptom screening.

    The virus still spread despite all of these precautions:

    The virus still spread, though 90% of those who tested positive were without symptoms. Incredibly, 2% of the CHARM recruits still contracted the virus, even if all but one remained asymptomatic. “Our study showed that in a group of predominantly young male military recruits, approximately 2% became positive for SARS-CoV-2, as determined by qPCR assay, during a 2-week, strictly enforced quarantine.”

    In fact, when comparing the infection rate to Marines who did not undergo the COVID-Prevention regimen, nonparticipants actually contracted the virus at a slightly lower rate.”

    Like

  6. One good thing our governor here in Connecticut, Ned Lamont (Dem.), is doing is that he is encouraging school districts to stay open. At least a couple, maybe more, have decided to go back to online schooling until January, but most districts are open. Ours has school on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, with Wednesday being online as they super-clean the school.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. I went to the Reuter’s article on the study that was linked in the Legal Insurrection piece. It included these paragraphs:

    ” A Danish study released on Wednesday found face masks provide the wearer with only limited protection against COVID-19 infection, but said this should not be used to argue against their widespread use to prevent people infecting others. . . .

    The findings are consistent with previous research. Health experts have long said a mask provides only limited protection for the person wearing it, but can dramatically reduce the risk to others if the wearer is infected, even when showing no symptoms. Preventing the spread to others is known as source control.

    The study’s findings “should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the authors wrote.”

    Like

  8. You left out the relevant part Kizzie.

    “After one month, 1.8% of the people wearing masks had been infected, while 2.1% of the people in the control group had tested positive, Copenhagen University Hospital said in a press release.

    “The study does not confirm the expected halving of the risk of infection for people wearing face masks,” it said. “The results could indicate a more moderate degree of protection of 15-20%, however, the study could not rule out that face masks do not provide any protection.””

    Like

  9. AJ – You had that part in your quote, so I didn’t bother re-quoting it. I was filling in some of what else was said. The study itself includes this:

    “Limitation:
    Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.”

    As I commented to Tammy on Facebook: “FTR, I am not a gung-ho mask promoter as some are, but wear one in public as a precaution, for others if not for myself.

    I am losing confidence (if I had any) in masks, but I added what I added because that was what was in the study, and what the authors had to say about it.”

    What you quoted and what I quoted seemed to be focusing on two different aspects of the mask-wearing controversy – protecting the wearer vs. protecting others. Most of what I have seen by those who promote mask-wearing focuses on the latter.

    Like

  10. Tychichus, for context it might help to say who Coomer is (since with only a last name it’s basically impossible even to google to find that information). I assume he or she is associated with Dominion, but you don’t say who the person is or why it matters.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Regarding the mask controversy : it seems to me that masks should be strongly advised but not absolutely required. People are losing too many essential freedoms right now. They’re losing their livelihoods and their businesses. Masking should be voluntary. People who are vulnerable can and should take the extra precaution.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.