“President Joe Biden’s approval rating continued to decline as 71 percent of Americans believe the United States is on the wrong track, according to the latest NBC News poll released Sunday.
The study found that 42 percent of respondents approved of Biden’s job performance, while 54 percent disapproved. This marks the first time an NBC poll has reported that Biden has underwater approval ratings since his election as president.
Among likely voters, his approval was not quite as low. Still, 52 percent disapproved of his job performance, while 45 percent said they approved of it.
His approval has dropped significantly over the past few NBC News polls. Its August poll found that 49 percent approved of his performance, while 48 percent disapproved. In April, 53 percent approved, while 39 percent disapproved.
A narrow majority of respondents said they still approve of how Biden has handled the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the poll. Fifty-one percent of respondents said they approved of his pandemic management, while 47 percent did not. These numbers are down from April when 69 percent said they approved of how he has managed the crisis.
Only 40 percent approved of how the president is handling the economy, while 57 percent disapproved, according to the poll.”
“The origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19 remains unclear, but recent revelations reinforce the likelihood that the true source was a lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
A letter from Lawrence Tabak, the National Institutes of Health’s principal deputy director, to Kentucky congressman James Comer confirms that the NIH funded research at the WIV during 2018–2019 that manipulated a bat coronavirus called WIV1. Researchers at the institute grafted spike proteins from other coronaviruses onto WIV1 to see if the modified virus was capable of binding in a mouse that possessed the ACE2 receptors found in humans—the same receptor to which SARS-CoV-2 binds. The modified virus reproduced more rapidly and made infected humanized mice sicker than the unmodified virus.
Starting in 2014, the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, headed by Anthony Fauci, funded the New York-based research nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance with annual grants through 2020 for “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.” Total funding was $3,748,715. More than $600,000 of that went to the WIV. Three other Chinese institutions received funding as well. The principal investigator was EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak, who, from the onset of the pandemic, has consistently campaigned in public and behind the scenes to convince people that SARS-CoV-2 did not come from the WIV but evolved naturally from animal-to-human transmission.
Tabak’s letter asserts that the modified virus’s becoming more virulent “was an unexpected result” and not “something that the researchers set out to do”—an odd claim, considering that the whole point of manipulating the virus was to investigate things that could make it more virulent. The 2018 research mentioned in Tabak’s letter is similar to earlier WIV research, funded in part by the NIH, that modified viruses related to SARS to see if they could infect human cells. Publications of these studies in 2017 and 2016 were the subject of a contentious Senate hearing in which Senator Rand Paul pressed Fauci to admit that they constituted gain-of-function research, prompting Fauci’s denial and a statement that “NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
Many, but not all, virologists believe that the WIV experimentation qualifies as gain-of-function research. Such research was originally defined as “any modification of a biological agent that confers new or enhanced activity.” The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity proposed that only a narrower category, gain-of-function research of concern—research that could make a pathogen likely to spread and cause disease in humans—needs extra regulatory oversight.
Following laboratory biosafety incidents at government research facilities, the U.S. paused funding on gain-of-function research with influenza and the SARS and MERS coronaviruses in 2014 to determine additional oversight. Researchers conducted the 2017 and 2016 studies discussed in the Senate while this pause was in effect. In 2017, officials lifted the moratorium and replaced it with oversight guidelines for research using potential pandemic pathogens (PPP)—pathogens likely to be highly transmissible, capable of uncontrollable spread, and able to cause significant morbidity or mortality in humans. A PPP resulting from the enhancement of the transmissibility or virulence of a pathogen is called an enhanced PPP (ePPP).
Tabak does not address whether the 2018 WIV experiments he cited in his letter were gain-of-function research. Instead, he maintains that NIH did not consider the WIV experiments so dangerous as to require special review and biosafety measures under the ePPP regulations adopted in 2017 “because these bat coronaviruses had not been shown to infect humans.” But this is an unconvincing technicality. Other bat coronaviruses had already caused two deadly diseases, SARS and MERS, and other coronaviruses regularly circulate and infect humans to cause the common cold. It isn’t a stretch to think that a different coronavirus could become dangerous, too—particularly if used in an experiment designed to manipulate a virus that humans have never encountered to see if it could acquire the ability to infect humans.”
“When the pandemic hit, America needed someone to turn to for advice. The media and public naturally looked to Dr. Anthony Fauci—the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, an esteemed laboratory immunologist and one of President Donald Trump’s chosen COVID advisers. Unfortunately, Dr. Fauci got major epidemiology and public health questions wrong. Reality and scientific studies have now caught up with him.
Here are the key issues:
Natural immunity. By pushing vaccine mandates, Dr. Fauci ignores naturally acquired immunity among the COVID-recovered, of which there are more than 45 million in the United States. Mounting evidence indicates that natural immunity is stronger and longer lasting than vaccine-induced immunity. In a study from Israel, the vaccinated were 27 times more likely to get symptomatic COVID than the unvaccinated who had recovered from a prior infection.
We have known about natural immunity from disease at least since the Athenian Plague in 430 BC. Pilots, truckers and longshoremen know about it, and nurses know it better than anyone. Under Fauci’s mandates, hospitals are firing heroic nurses who recovered from COVID they contracted while caring for patients. With their superior immunity, they can safely care for the oldest and frailest patients with even lower transmission risk than the vaccinated.
Protecting the elderly. While anyone can get infected, there is more than a thousand-fold difference in mortality risk between the old and the young. After more than 700,000 reported COVID deaths in America, we now know that lockdowns failed to protect high-risk older people. When confronted with the idea of focused protection of the vulnerable, Dr. Fauci admitted he had no idea how to accomplish it, arguing that it would be impossible. That may be understandable for a lab scientist, but public health scientists have presented many concrete suggestions that would have helped, had Fauci and other officials not ignored them.
What can we do now to minimize COVID mortality? Current vaccination efforts should focus on reaching people over 60 who are neither COVID-recovered nor vaccinated, including hard-to-reach, less-affluent people in rural areas and inner cities. Instead, Dr. Fauci has pushed vaccine mandates for children, students and working-age adults who are already immune—all low-risk populations—causing tremendous disruption to labor markets and hampering the operation of many hospitals.
School closures. Schools are major transmission points for influenza, but not for COVID. While children do get infected, their risk for COVID death is minuscule, lower than their already low risk of dying from the flu. Throughout the 2020 spring wave, Sweden kept daycare and schools open for all its 1.8 million children ages 1 to 15, with no masks, testing or social distancing. The result? Zero COVID deaths among children and a COVID risk to teachers lower than the average of other professions. In fall 2020, most European countries followed suit, with similar results. Considering the devastating effects of school closures on children, Dr. Fauci’s advocacy for school closures may be the single biggest mistake of his career.
Masks. The gold standard of medical research is randomized trials, and there have now been two on COVID masks for adults. For children, there is no solid scientific evidence that masks work. A Danish study found no statistically significant difference between masking and not masking when it came to coronavirus infection. In a study in Bangladesh, the 95 percent confidence interval showed that masks reduced transmission between 0 percent and 18 percent. Hence, masks are either of zero or limited benefit. There are many more critical pandemic measures that Dr. Fauci could have emphasized, such as better ventilation in schools and hiring nursing home staff with natural immunity.
Contact tracing. For some infectious diseases, such as Ebola and syphilis, contact tracing is critically important. For a commonly circulating viral infection such as COVID, it was a hopeless waste of valuable public health resources that did not stop the disease.
Collateral public health damage. A fundamental public health principle is that health is multidimensional; the control of a single infectious disease is not synonymous with health. As an immunologist, Dr. Fauci failed to properly consider and weigh the disastrous effects lockdowns would have on cancer detection and treatment, cardiovascular disease outcomes, diabetes care, childhood vaccination rates, mental health and opioid overdoses, to name a few. Americans will live with—and die from—this collateral damage for many years to come.”
——
What’s most sad is some are still listening to this fraud.
“If you read this newsletter you are acutely aware of the transformation of the mainstream media over the last decade and, especially, over the past couple of years. But few have offered a fully satisfying answer to the question of why.
Why is it, for example, that between 2013 and 2019, the frequency of the words “white” and “racial privilege” exploded by 1,200 percent in The New York Times and by 1,500 percent in The Washington Post? Why was the term “white supremacy” used 2,400 times by National Public Radio in 2020?
What changed? Why was there suddenly a relentless focus on race and power? And who—or what—was driving it?”
—–
“On November 16, 2018, CNN’s Don Lemon hosted a panel discussion about white women who voted for Donald Trump. There was no real news peg for the story; the president hadn’t spent the morning tweeting about anything specific, and it was 10 days after the midterm elections. But Lemon valiantly torqued them into an awkward hook for the panel: “A wave of women, white, black and brown are sweeping into office after the 2018 election. Does Donald Trump still have the support of a majority of white women and if so, why is that?”
A Friday night capping off a slow news week was as good an opportunity as any to bring up the increasingly hot topic of white supremacy. In fact, the only remarkable thing about the panel was how unremarkable it was, one of a thousand such panels that have graced American airwaves in recent years.
Lemon’s guests were Kirsten Powers, a senior CNN political analyst; Alice Stewart, a CNN commentator playing the supporting role of token Republican; and Stephanie Jones-Rogers, a professor of history at UC Berkeley, whose book “They Were Her Property: White Women as Slave Owners in the American South” had been cited in an article on Vox, a progressive opinion site that caters to millennials.
Powers had much to say about Donald Trump’s female supporters. “People will say that they support him for reasons other than his racist language,” she told Lemon. “They’ll say, ‘Well I’m not racist; I just voted for him because I didn’t like Hillary Clinton.’ And I just want to say that that’s not, that doesn’t make you not racist. It actually makes you racist,” Powers explained. “As for why white women do it,” she went on, “I think we have to remember that the white patriarchal system actually benefits white women in a lot of ways.”
Professor Jones-Rogers concurred. “So, as a historian, I explore white women’s economic investments in the institution of slavery,” she said. “And what that has led me to understand is that there’s this broader historical context that we need to keep in mind when we’re looking at white women’s voting patterns today, and as we look at their support—their overwhelming support of Donald Trump.” Lemon jumped in to note that just over half of white women had voted for Trump—hardly what would constitute “overwhelming” support. Jones-Rogers clarified: “What I meant by overwhelming was emotionally overwhelming.”
The sole Republican, Alice Stewart, was briefly allowed to respond, and voiced her resentment at being called racist for her vote for Trump, whom she chose for his policies. But Powers interjected: It’s not just Republican women who have a problem with racism but all white women, indeed, all white people. “Every white person benefits from an inherently racist system that is structurally racist, so we are all part of the problem,” Powers said. Jones-Rogers heartily agreed. It was a scene as inescapable today as it would have been rare ten years ago.
For a long time, the notion that America is an unrepentant white-supremacist state—one that confers power and privilege to white people and systematically denies them to people of color—was the province of far-left activists and academics. But over the past decade, it’s found its way into the mainstream, largely through liberal media outlets like the New York Times, NPR, MSNBC, the Washington Post, Vox, CNN, the New Republic, and the Atlantic.
What changed? Most obviously: white liberals. Their enthusiasm for wokeness created a feedback loop with the media outlets to which they are paying subscribers. And the impact has been monumental: Once distinct publications and news channels are now staggeringly uniform. A moral panic around race is everywhere: In television segments like Don Lemon’s, and articles like “Is the White Church Inherently Racist?” and “The Housewives of White Supremacy” and “When Black People Are in Pain, White People Just Join Book Clubs” and “How White Women Use Themselves as Instruments of Terror,” which have become the bread and butter of the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Where did this obsession come from? The election of Donald Trump is often given all the credit. Trump was so extreme in his disregard of liberal mores, so willing to offend with comments that were sometimes casually racist—comments that were amplified and justified throughout conservative and right-wing news outlets—that American liberals, including the liberal media, swung hard to the left. This is true: The mainstream media certainly molded itself around Trump, whose presidency was a major gift to MSNBC and CNN and the New York Times—outlets that were facing a bleak outlook are now thriving thanks to the ratings and clicks that the Trump stories generated.
But Trump is an insufficient answer. The moral panic mainstreamed by the liberal news media had actually been underway for at least five years before Trump appeared on the scene. It began around 2011, the year the New York Times erected its online paywall. It was then that articles mentioning “racism,” “people of color,” “slavery,” or “oppression” started to appear with exponential frequency at the Times, BuzzFeed, Vox, the Washington Post, and NPR.
This “Great Awokening” has been impossible to miss if you consume mainstream news. But you don’t have to rely on your impressions. David Rozado, a computer scientist who teaches at New Zealand’s Otago Polytechnic, created a computer program that trawled the online archives of the Times from 1970 to 2018 to track the frequency with which certain words were used. What he found was that the frequency of words like “racism,” “white supremacy,” “KKK,” “traumatizing,” “marginalized,” “hate speech,” “intersectionality,” and “activism” had absolutely skyrocketed during that time.
His work echoes that of another academic, Zach Goldberg, a PhD candidate in political science at Georgia State University who found that in 2010, the term “white supremacy” was used fewer than 75 times in 2010 in the Washington Post and the New York Times, but over 700 times in 2020 alone; at NPR, it was used 2,400 times. The word “racism” appeared in the Washington Post over 4,000 times in 2020. That’s the equivalent of using it in 10 articles every single day.
What could explain the sudden market for this obsession with race and power?
The reason for this radical shift, despite the media’s fixation on race, has very little to do with it. It has everything to do with class.”
“Wisconsin Investigation Uncovers Potential Tip Of A Voting Fraud Iceberg
The investigation revealed both blatant violations of state election law by election officials and detailed evidence of voter fraud by stealing elderly Americans’ votes.”
“Last Thursday, the Racine County, Wisconsin sheriff’s office held an hour-long press conference detailing the results of an investigation into a complaint the office received of potential violations of state election law. While leftist media ignored the story, the investigation revealed both blatant violations of state law by election officials and detailed evidence of voter fraud by stealing elderly Americans’ votes.
The methodical presentation by the Racine County Sheriff’s Office provided the context, as well as additional texture, to one discrete aspect of the irregularities that took place in Wisconsin during the 2020 presidential election. The press briefing highlighted the Wisconsin Election Commission’s illegal directive to municipalities not to “use the Special Voting Deputy process to service residents in care facilities,” and instead to “transmit absentee ballots to those voters by mail.”
Those well-versed in the many violations of election law that occurred in the last election have long known of the WEC’s override of the legislatively mandated use of special voting deputies. But Thursday’s presentation provided an accessible summary of the situation that (should have) resonated beyond political lines and put a figurative face to the fraud enabled by the state’s election officials’ own apparent fraud.
Sgt. Michael Luell, who led the investigation and presented his findings during the briefing, also has a law degree and has served as a prosecutor. This unique combination allowed him to simplify the situation, which he did by first highlighting key portions of Wisconsin code in a crisp PowerPoint presentation.
Ignoring the Law Because COVID
Section 6.875 of the Wisconsin election code provides the “exclusive means” of absentee voting in residential care facilities, the presentation noted. That statute requires the local municipality to dispatch two special voting deputies, or “SVDs,” to a facility. The SVDs must then personally deliver a ballot to residents of the facility and must witness the voting process. The statute further provides that only a relative or an SVD may assist the voter and then, following the vote, must seal the ballot envelope and deliver it to the clerk.
In addition to laying out Section 6.875’s mandates for voting in residential care facilities, Luell provided quotes and video clips establishing that the WEC commissioners knew their directive to eliminate SVDs violated state law.
Further, in an attempt to justify their decision to violate state law, WEC commissioners focused on the dangers of COVID to the senior community, Luell stressed that in response to the WEC’s request that the governor “suspend” the portions of Wisconsin election law related to SVDs, the governor’s office informed the WEC that the governor lacked that power.
Moreover, the WEC continued to claim to override the SVD provisions even after the governor’s lockdown orders—which did not ban SVDs from nursing homes in any event—expired in September. Then, to illustrate the absurdity of the WEC’s position, Luell highlighted for the public the visitors allowed into senior facilities.”
—
“Luell also excerpted details from a document the WEC apparently distributed to nursing homes throughout the state. That document, entitled “Absentee Voting at Care Facilities in 2020,” informed “care facility administrator[s] and staff member[s]” that they could, among other things, “assist residents in filling out their ballots or certification envelops,” in express violation of Section 6.875.
My Mom Voted After She Died?
Throughout the press conference, Luell made election law minutia understandable with the personal element, beginning with the fact that he launched his investigation based on a complaint his office received from “Judy.” As Luell explained, Judy discovered her mother had purportedly voted by absentee ballot in the November 3, 2020 election, even though “Shirley” had died on October 9, 2020.
Judy filed an affidavit with the WEC, stating she believed the residential care facility where her mother had resided, the Ridgewood Care Facility, “took advantage” of her mother’s “diminished mental capacity and filled out ballot(s) in her name.” WEC refused to investigate and forwarded the complaint to the Racine County Prosecutor’s Office, which forwarded it to the sheriff’s office for investigation.
As part of the investigation, Luell obtained a list of all Ridgewood Care residents who voted in the 2020 election: 42 in all. After subpoenaing the named contacts for each voter from the nursing home’s file, Luell attempted to contact the next-of-kin to inquire if they had any concerns about whether their family member had actually voted.
In addition to Judy, the children of six other residents of Ridgewood Care Facility expressed concerns about a ballot cast in their parents’ names. The patients’ children detailed to the sheriff’s office their parent’s lack of mental capacity and other facts indicating the votes did not represent the freewill of their parents, such as the difficulty in convincing one mother to sign any documents and one father’s statement that if he couldn’t vote in person, he did not want to vote. Also, none of those other six residents had voted in the 2016 presidential election, or in any election since 2012.”
“A good friend who owns a major auto dealership in the Dallas area recently told me he typically has about 500 to 1,000 cars and trucks on his lot. Now, he has 15. That’s how severe the supply chain problem has become.
He said people are buying cars over the sticker price. You usually haggle down the price for a new car. Now, you haggle up the price! Welcome to Bidenflation.
But now, the Commerce Department has reported that the high-flying U.S. economy with a 6.5% growth rate for the first half of this year has crash-landed in the third quarter with an anemic rate of just 2% growth. Those lousy numbers predate the supply chain crisis that emerged in October.
At the start of the year, the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank predicted 7% growth. So, that’s quite a downgrade we are seeing.
Car sales, for example, are way down because of microchip shortages. The carmakers also don’t have the metals they need to make the cars. Don’t try to buy a used car, either. Those prices in many parts of the country are up by more than 20% — even for clunkers. Many grocery stores now have empty shelves of produce and vegetables.
It means we have slow growth while inflation has hit its highest level in more than a decade at 5.6%. In addition, consumer confidence in the economy has tumbled.
All of this is a bit reminiscent of the economy of the 1970s. Does anyone remember the term stagflation?
Those under the age of 40 probably don’t even know what that is, and they’ve certainly never experienced it upfront and personally.
Here’s the definition from Investopedia: Stagflation is characterized by slow economic growth while at the same time accompanied by rising prices (i.e., inflation).
Under Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter, years of persistently high inflation triggered a surge in unemployment. That then led to the term “misery index.” The sum of the inflation rate and the unemployment rate. It exceeded 18% in Carter’s last year in office.
And then it was, “So long, Jimmy.” With the economy sagging, Carter lost a landslide election to Ronald Reagan.”
“Tucker Carlson has created a terrorist recruitment video.”
“Why does Rupert Murdoch want to destroy America?”
“The Murdochs and Tucker Carlson, their primetime pyromaniac, appear to be hell-bent on dragging this country into a Civil War. Jefferson Davis would be proud.”
Just a comment . . . many knew about the “Black Death,” as the Chinese called it, in November 2019. The Chinese government was just as shocked and ill-prepared as the rest of the world. They didn’t know what it was, either.
Maybe it was rogue scientists? Who knows. But, had it been planned, it would have been better organized. 😦
I see the media already have their excuses ready…..
Sabato's lead-in was this 👖 on 🔥 lie from MSNBC's Chris Jansing: "Every single person I asked, why are you supporting Glenn Youngkin, it was education, education, critical race theory. I mean, first of all, critical race theory, as we know, isn't taught in Virginia schools." pic.twitter.com/qyIjiVOyji
Capehart w/fear-mongering lies: "[I]f…McAuliffe does not win, the damage isn't just to black voters…it's to Virginia b/c what could come w/a @GlennYoungkin administration, you know, you need only look to Texas & Georgia to see what the template might be for Virginia" (4/4) pic.twitter.com/rHyU7DW7y9
“In Wichita, Kansas, nearly half of the roughly 10,000 employees at aircraft companies Textron Inc and Spirit AeroSystems remain unvaccinated against COVID-19, risking their jobs in defiance of a federal mandate, according to a union official.
“We’re going to lose a lot of employees over this,” said Cornell Adams, head of the local Machinists union district. Many workers did not object to the vaccines as such, he said, but were staunchly opposed to what they see as government meddling in personal health decisions.
The union district has hired a Texas-based lawyer to assist employees and prepare potential lawsuits against the companies should requests for medical or religious exemptions to vaccination be denied.
A life-long Democrat, Adams said he would no longer vote for the party. “They’ll never get another vote from me and I’m telling the workers here the same thing.”
The clock is ticking for companies that want to continue gaining federal contracts under an executive order by Democratic President Joe Biden, which requires all contractor employees be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by Dec. 8.
That means federal contract workers need to have received their last COVID-19 shot at least two weeks before the deadline to gain maximum protection, according to U.S. government guidance.
With a three-week gap between shots of the Pfizer /BioNTech vaccine, workers must get the first jab by Wednesday. If the government holds fast to its deadline, it is already too late to choose Moderna’s vaccine, which is given in two doses four weeks apart. Workers could opt to get Johnson & Johnson’s single-shot vaccine until Nov. 24 to meet the deadline.
The mandate has stirred protests from workers in industries across the country, as well as from Republican state officials.
Opposition to the mandate could potentially lead to thousands of U.S. workers losing their jobs and imperil an already sluggish economic recovery, union leaders, workers and company executives said.”
——–
If you’re OK with this idiocy, some introspection is overdue in your life.
See his handler (red leather jacket girl) swoop in to tell him to move when she realizes that someone was going to cover up the flag. https://t.co/ku3K6BTXG4
Rittenhouse's defense team just played my video in their opening statement to establish how Rosenbaum was being aggressive towards the armed civilians protecting businesses the night of the shooting. https://t.co/TutwBrLoYQ
When Wearing a Mask Covers Up a Social-Anxiety Problem – People wearing masks to avoid human connection. Leading young people to want to wear masks forever. https://t.co/uiapOlstjS
"With the transition to a post-pandemic world, mental-health specialists worry about people who may've grown dependent on masks to shield themselves from human connection. If serious enough, the dependency amounts to a social-anxiety disorder."@miho_inada: https://t.co/eSUmT4AGQG
Wandering Views 
Uhhhh….
What?
“Biden Insists Surging Gas Prices Caused By Green New Deal Policies Is Reason To ‘Double Down’ On GND…”
LikeLike
9,000 employees fired in NYC for refusing the jab.
These Covid scold idiots think this is a good thing.
LikeLike
Big deal.
30% are Democrats who will vote to re-elect The Senile One anyway.
“71 Percent of Americans Say U.S. Is Going in Wrong Direction as Biden’s Job Rating Dips: Poll”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/71-percent-of-americans-say-u-s-is-going-in-wrong-direction-as-biden-s-job-rating-dips-poll/ar-AAQ9WKT?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531
“President Joe Biden’s approval rating continued to decline as 71 percent of Americans believe the United States is on the wrong track, according to the latest NBC News poll released Sunday.
The study found that 42 percent of respondents approved of Biden’s job performance, while 54 percent disapproved. This marks the first time an NBC poll has reported that Biden has underwater approval ratings since his election as president.
Among likely voters, his approval was not quite as low. Still, 52 percent disapproved of his job performance, while 45 percent said they approved of it.
His approval has dropped significantly over the past few NBC News polls. Its August poll found that 49 percent approved of his performance, while 48 percent disapproved. In April, 53 percent approved, while 39 percent disapproved.
A narrow majority of respondents said they still approve of how Biden has handled the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the poll. Fifty-one percent of respondents said they approved of his pandemic management, while 47 percent did not. These numbers are down from April when 69 percent said they approved of how he has managed the crisis.
Only 40 percent approved of how the president is handling the economy, while 57 percent disapproved, according to the poll.”
LikeLike
I’m shocked!
Not really.
Fauci has the blood of millions on his hands.
“The Evidence Mounts
A new NIH letter reinforces the lab-leak hypothesis for the origins of Covid-19.”
https://www.city-journal.org/new-evidence-for-lab-leak-hypothesis-of-covid-origins?wallit_nosession=1
“The origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19 remains unclear, but recent revelations reinforce the likelihood that the true source was a lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
A letter from Lawrence Tabak, the National Institutes of Health’s principal deputy director, to Kentucky congressman James Comer confirms that the NIH funded research at the WIV during 2018–2019 that manipulated a bat coronavirus called WIV1. Researchers at the institute grafted spike proteins from other coronaviruses onto WIV1 to see if the modified virus was capable of binding in a mouse that possessed the ACE2 receptors found in humans—the same receptor to which SARS-CoV-2 binds. The modified virus reproduced more rapidly and made infected humanized mice sicker than the unmodified virus.
Starting in 2014, the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, headed by Anthony Fauci, funded the New York-based research nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance with annual grants through 2020 for “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.” Total funding was $3,748,715. More than $600,000 of that went to the WIV. Three other Chinese institutions received funding as well. The principal investigator was EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak, who, from the onset of the pandemic, has consistently campaigned in public and behind the scenes to convince people that SARS-CoV-2 did not come from the WIV but evolved naturally from animal-to-human transmission.
Tabak’s letter asserts that the modified virus’s becoming more virulent “was an unexpected result” and not “something that the researchers set out to do”—an odd claim, considering that the whole point of manipulating the virus was to investigate things that could make it more virulent. The 2018 research mentioned in Tabak’s letter is similar to earlier WIV research, funded in part by the NIH, that modified viruses related to SARS to see if they could infect human cells. Publications of these studies in 2017 and 2016 were the subject of a contentious Senate hearing in which Senator Rand Paul pressed Fauci to admit that they constituted gain-of-function research, prompting Fauci’s denial and a statement that “NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
Many, but not all, virologists believe that the WIV experimentation qualifies as gain-of-function research. Such research was originally defined as “any modification of a biological agent that confers new or enhanced activity.” The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity proposed that only a narrower category, gain-of-function research of concern—research that could make a pathogen likely to spread and cause disease in humans—needs extra regulatory oversight.
Following laboratory biosafety incidents at government research facilities, the U.S. paused funding on gain-of-function research with influenza and the SARS and MERS coronaviruses in 2014 to determine additional oversight. Researchers conducted the 2017 and 2016 studies discussed in the Senate while this pause was in effect. In 2017, officials lifted the moratorium and replaced it with oversight guidelines for research using potential pandemic pathogens (PPP)—pathogens likely to be highly transmissible, capable of uncontrollable spread, and able to cause significant morbidity or mortality in humans. A PPP resulting from the enhancement of the transmissibility or virulence of a pathogen is called an enhanced PPP (ePPP).
Tabak does not address whether the 2018 WIV experiments he cited in his letter were gain-of-function research. Instead, he maintains that NIH did not consider the WIV experiments so dangerous as to require special review and biosafety measures under the ePPP regulations adopted in 2017 “because these bat coronaviruses had not been shown to infect humans.” But this is an unconvincing technicality. Other bat coronaviruses had already caused two deadly diseases, SARS and MERS, and other coronaviruses regularly circulate and infect humans to cause the common cold. It isn’t a stretch to think that a different coronavirus could become dangerous, too—particularly if used in an experiment designed to manipulate a virus that humans have never encountered to see if it could acquire the ability to infect humans.”
LikeLike
He didn’t fool everyone, but we were called nuts, crazy, conspiracy theorists, and what not. But I’m sure apologies are forthcoming…..
Yep. Any minute now….
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/how-fauci-fooled-america-opinion/ar-AAQbFiu
“When the pandemic hit, America needed someone to turn to for advice. The media and public naturally looked to Dr. Anthony Fauci—the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, an esteemed laboratory immunologist and one of President Donald Trump’s chosen COVID advisers. Unfortunately, Dr. Fauci got major epidemiology and public health questions wrong. Reality and scientific studies have now caught up with him.
Here are the key issues:
Natural immunity. By pushing vaccine mandates, Dr. Fauci ignores naturally acquired immunity among the COVID-recovered, of which there are more than 45 million in the United States. Mounting evidence indicates that natural immunity is stronger and longer lasting than vaccine-induced immunity. In a study from Israel, the vaccinated were 27 times more likely to get symptomatic COVID than the unvaccinated who had recovered from a prior infection.
We have known about natural immunity from disease at least since the Athenian Plague in 430 BC. Pilots, truckers and longshoremen know about it, and nurses know it better than anyone. Under Fauci’s mandates, hospitals are firing heroic nurses who recovered from COVID they contracted while caring for patients. With their superior immunity, they can safely care for the oldest and frailest patients with even lower transmission risk than the vaccinated.
Protecting the elderly. While anyone can get infected, there is more than a thousand-fold difference in mortality risk between the old and the young. After more than 700,000 reported COVID deaths in America, we now know that lockdowns failed to protect high-risk older people. When confronted with the idea of focused protection of the vulnerable, Dr. Fauci admitted he had no idea how to accomplish it, arguing that it would be impossible. That may be understandable for a lab scientist, but public health scientists have presented many concrete suggestions that would have helped, had Fauci and other officials not ignored them.
What can we do now to minimize COVID mortality? Current vaccination efforts should focus on reaching people over 60 who are neither COVID-recovered nor vaccinated, including hard-to-reach, less-affluent people in rural areas and inner cities. Instead, Dr. Fauci has pushed vaccine mandates for children, students and working-age adults who are already immune—all low-risk populations—causing tremendous disruption to labor markets and hampering the operation of many hospitals.
School closures. Schools are major transmission points for influenza, but not for COVID. While children do get infected, their risk for COVID death is minuscule, lower than their already low risk of dying from the flu. Throughout the 2020 spring wave, Sweden kept daycare and schools open for all its 1.8 million children ages 1 to 15, with no masks, testing or social distancing. The result? Zero COVID deaths among children and a COVID risk to teachers lower than the average of other professions. In fall 2020, most European countries followed suit, with similar results. Considering the devastating effects of school closures on children, Dr. Fauci’s advocacy for school closures may be the single biggest mistake of his career.
Masks. The gold standard of medical research is randomized trials, and there have now been two on COVID masks for adults. For children, there is no solid scientific evidence that masks work. A Danish study found no statistically significant difference between masking and not masking when it came to coronavirus infection. In a study in Bangladesh, the 95 percent confidence interval showed that masks reduced transmission between 0 percent and 18 percent. Hence, masks are either of zero or limited benefit. There are many more critical pandemic measures that Dr. Fauci could have emphasized, such as better ventilation in schools and hiring nursing home staff with natural immunity.
Contact tracing. For some infectious diseases, such as Ebola and syphilis, contact tracing is critically important. For a commonly circulating viral infection such as COVID, it was a hopeless waste of valuable public health resources that did not stop the disease.
Collateral public health damage. A fundamental public health principle is that health is multidimensional; the control of a single infectious disease is not synonymous with health. As an immunologist, Dr. Fauci failed to properly consider and weigh the disastrous effects lockdowns would have on cancer detection and treatment, cardiovascular disease outcomes, diabetes care, childhood vaccination rates, mental health and opioid overdoses, to name a few. Americans will live with—and die from—this collateral damage for many years to come.”
——
What’s most sad is some are still listening to this fraud.
LikeLike
“How Journalism Abandoned the Working Class
What explains the media’s obsession with race and power? It has very little to do with social justice and everything to do with class.”
https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/how-journalism-abandoned-the-working
“If you read this newsletter you are acutely aware of the transformation of the mainstream media over the last decade and, especially, over the past couple of years. But few have offered a fully satisfying answer to the question of why.
Why is it, for example, that between 2013 and 2019, the frequency of the words “white” and “racial privilege” exploded by 1,200 percent in The New York Times and by 1,500 percent in The Washington Post? Why was the term “white supremacy” used 2,400 times by National Public Radio in 2020?
What changed? Why was there suddenly a relentless focus on race and power? And who—or what—was driving it?”
—–
“On November 16, 2018, CNN’s Don Lemon hosted a panel discussion about white women who voted for Donald Trump. There was no real news peg for the story; the president hadn’t spent the morning tweeting about anything specific, and it was 10 days after the midterm elections. But Lemon valiantly torqued them into an awkward hook for the panel: “A wave of women, white, black and brown are sweeping into office after the 2018 election. Does Donald Trump still have the support of a majority of white women and if so, why is that?”
A Friday night capping off a slow news week was as good an opportunity as any to bring up the increasingly hot topic of white supremacy. In fact, the only remarkable thing about the panel was how unremarkable it was, one of a thousand such panels that have graced American airwaves in recent years.
Lemon’s guests were Kirsten Powers, a senior CNN political analyst; Alice Stewart, a CNN commentator playing the supporting role of token Republican; and Stephanie Jones-Rogers, a professor of history at UC Berkeley, whose book “They Were Her Property: White Women as Slave Owners in the American South” had been cited in an article on Vox, a progressive opinion site that caters to millennials.
Powers had much to say about Donald Trump’s female supporters. “People will say that they support him for reasons other than his racist language,” she told Lemon. “They’ll say, ‘Well I’m not racist; I just voted for him because I didn’t like Hillary Clinton.’ And I just want to say that that’s not, that doesn’t make you not racist. It actually makes you racist,” Powers explained. “As for why white women do it,” she went on, “I think we have to remember that the white patriarchal system actually benefits white women in a lot of ways.”
Professor Jones-Rogers concurred. “So, as a historian, I explore white women’s economic investments in the institution of slavery,” she said. “And what that has led me to understand is that there’s this broader historical context that we need to keep in mind when we’re looking at white women’s voting patterns today, and as we look at their support—their overwhelming support of Donald Trump.” Lemon jumped in to note that just over half of white women had voted for Trump—hardly what would constitute “overwhelming” support. Jones-Rogers clarified: “What I meant by overwhelming was emotionally overwhelming.”
The sole Republican, Alice Stewart, was briefly allowed to respond, and voiced her resentment at being called racist for her vote for Trump, whom she chose for his policies. But Powers interjected: It’s not just Republican women who have a problem with racism but all white women, indeed, all white people. “Every white person benefits from an inherently racist system that is structurally racist, so we are all part of the problem,” Powers said. Jones-Rogers heartily agreed. It was a scene as inescapable today as it would have been rare ten years ago.
For a long time, the notion that America is an unrepentant white-supremacist state—one that confers power and privilege to white people and systematically denies them to people of color—was the province of far-left activists and academics. But over the past decade, it’s found its way into the mainstream, largely through liberal media outlets like the New York Times, NPR, MSNBC, the Washington Post, Vox, CNN, the New Republic, and the Atlantic.
What changed? Most obviously: white liberals. Their enthusiasm for wokeness created a feedback loop with the media outlets to which they are paying subscribers. And the impact has been monumental: Once distinct publications and news channels are now staggeringly uniform. A moral panic around race is everywhere: In television segments like Don Lemon’s, and articles like “Is the White Church Inherently Racist?” and “The Housewives of White Supremacy” and “When Black People Are in Pain, White People Just Join Book Clubs” and “How White Women Use Themselves as Instruments of Terror,” which have become the bread and butter of the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Where did this obsession come from? The election of Donald Trump is often given all the credit. Trump was so extreme in his disregard of liberal mores, so willing to offend with comments that were sometimes casually racist—comments that were amplified and justified throughout conservative and right-wing news outlets—that American liberals, including the liberal media, swung hard to the left. This is true: The mainstream media certainly molded itself around Trump, whose presidency was a major gift to MSNBC and CNN and the New York Times—outlets that were facing a bleak outlook are now thriving thanks to the ratings and clicks that the Trump stories generated.
But Trump is an insufficient answer. The moral panic mainstreamed by the liberal news media had actually been underway for at least five years before Trump appeared on the scene. It began around 2011, the year the New York Times erected its online paywall. It was then that articles mentioning “racism,” “people of color,” “slavery,” or “oppression” started to appear with exponential frequency at the Times, BuzzFeed, Vox, the Washington Post, and NPR.
This “Great Awokening” has been impossible to miss if you consume mainstream news. But you don’t have to rely on your impressions. David Rozado, a computer scientist who teaches at New Zealand’s Otago Polytechnic, created a computer program that trawled the online archives of the Times from 1970 to 2018 to track the frequency with which certain words were used. What he found was that the frequency of words like “racism,” “white supremacy,” “KKK,” “traumatizing,” “marginalized,” “hate speech,” “intersectionality,” and “activism” had absolutely skyrocketed during that time.
His work echoes that of another academic, Zach Goldberg, a PhD candidate in political science at Georgia State University who found that in 2010, the term “white supremacy” was used fewer than 75 times in 2010 in the Washington Post and the New York Times, but over 700 times in 2020 alone; at NPR, it was used 2,400 times. The word “racism” appeared in the Washington Post over 4,000 times in 2020. That’s the equivalent of using it in 10 articles every single day.
What could explain the sudden market for this obsession with race and power?
The reason for this radical shift, despite the media’s fixation on race, has very little to do with it. It has everything to do with class.”
LikeLike
How to steal elections, the Democrat way….
“Wisconsin Investigation Uncovers Potential Tip Of A Voting Fraud Iceberg
The investigation revealed both blatant violations of state election law by election officials and detailed evidence of voter fraud by stealing elderly Americans’ votes.”
https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/01/wisconsin-investigation-uncovers-potential-tip-of-a-voting-fraud-iceberg/
“Last Thursday, the Racine County, Wisconsin sheriff’s office held an hour-long press conference detailing the results of an investigation into a complaint the office received of potential violations of state election law. While leftist media ignored the story, the investigation revealed both blatant violations of state law by election officials and detailed evidence of voter fraud by stealing elderly Americans’ votes.
The methodical presentation by the Racine County Sheriff’s Office provided the context, as well as additional texture, to one discrete aspect of the irregularities that took place in Wisconsin during the 2020 presidential election. The press briefing highlighted the Wisconsin Election Commission’s illegal directive to municipalities not to “use the Special Voting Deputy process to service residents in care facilities,” and instead to “transmit absentee ballots to those voters by mail.”
Those well-versed in the many violations of election law that occurred in the last election have long known of the WEC’s override of the legislatively mandated use of special voting deputies. But Thursday’s presentation provided an accessible summary of the situation that (should have) resonated beyond political lines and put a figurative face to the fraud enabled by the state’s election officials’ own apparent fraud.
Sgt. Michael Luell, who led the investigation and presented his findings during the briefing, also has a law degree and has served as a prosecutor. This unique combination allowed him to simplify the situation, which he did by first highlighting key portions of Wisconsin code in a crisp PowerPoint presentation.
Ignoring the Law Because COVID
Section 6.875 of the Wisconsin election code provides the “exclusive means” of absentee voting in residential care facilities, the presentation noted. That statute requires the local municipality to dispatch two special voting deputies, or “SVDs,” to a facility. The SVDs must then personally deliver a ballot to residents of the facility and must witness the voting process. The statute further provides that only a relative or an SVD may assist the voter and then, following the vote, must seal the ballot envelope and deliver it to the clerk.
In addition to laying out Section 6.875’s mandates for voting in residential care facilities, Luell provided quotes and video clips establishing that the WEC commissioners knew their directive to eliminate SVDs violated state law.
Further, in an attempt to justify their decision to violate state law, WEC commissioners focused on the dangers of COVID to the senior community, Luell stressed that in response to the WEC’s request that the governor “suspend” the portions of Wisconsin election law related to SVDs, the governor’s office informed the WEC that the governor lacked that power.
Moreover, the WEC continued to claim to override the SVD provisions even after the governor’s lockdown orders—which did not ban SVDs from nursing homes in any event—expired in September. Then, to illustrate the absurdity of the WEC’s position, Luell highlighted for the public the visitors allowed into senior facilities.”
—
“Luell also excerpted details from a document the WEC apparently distributed to nursing homes throughout the state. That document, entitled “Absentee Voting at Care Facilities in 2020,” informed “care facility administrator[s] and staff member[s]” that they could, among other things, “assist residents in filling out their ballots or certification envelops,” in express violation of Section 6.875.
My Mom Voted After She Died?
Throughout the press conference, Luell made election law minutia understandable with the personal element, beginning with the fact that he launched his investigation based on a complaint his office received from “Judy.” As Luell explained, Judy discovered her mother had purportedly voted by absentee ballot in the November 3, 2020 election, even though “Shirley” had died on October 9, 2020.
Judy filed an affidavit with the WEC, stating she believed the residential care facility where her mother had resided, the Ridgewood Care Facility, “took advantage” of her mother’s “diminished mental capacity and filled out ballot(s) in her name.” WEC refused to investigate and forwarded the complaint to the Racine County Prosecutor’s Office, which forwarded it to the sheriff’s office for investigation.
As part of the investigation, Luell obtained a list of all Ridgewood Care residents who voted in the 2020 election: 42 in all. After subpoenaing the named contacts for each voter from the nursing home’s file, Luell attempted to contact the next-of-kin to inquire if they had any concerns about whether their family member had actually voted.
In addition to Judy, the children of six other residents of Ridgewood Care Facility expressed concerns about a ballot cast in their parents’ names. The patients’ children detailed to the sheriff’s office their parent’s lack of mental capacity and other facts indicating the votes did not represent the freewill of their parents, such as the difficulty in convincing one mother to sign any documents and one father’s statement that if he couldn’t vote in person, he did not want to vote. Also, none of those other six residents had voted in the 2016 presidential election, or in any election since 2012.”
LikeLike
Enjoy suckers!
“The wheels are coming off the Biden economy”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/faith-freedom-self-reliance/the-wheels-are-coming-off-the-biden-economy
“A good friend who owns a major auto dealership in the Dallas area recently told me he typically has about 500 to 1,000 cars and trucks on his lot. Now, he has 15. That’s how severe the supply chain problem has become.
He said people are buying cars over the sticker price. You usually haggle down the price for a new car. Now, you haggle up the price! Welcome to Bidenflation.
But now, the Commerce Department has reported that the high-flying U.S. economy with a 6.5% growth rate for the first half of this year has crash-landed in the third quarter with an anemic rate of just 2% growth. Those lousy numbers predate the supply chain crisis that emerged in October.
At the start of the year, the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank predicted 7% growth. So, that’s quite a downgrade we are seeing.
Car sales, for example, are way down because of microchip shortages. The carmakers also don’t have the metals they need to make the cars. Don’t try to buy a used car, either. Those prices in many parts of the country are up by more than 20% — even for clunkers. Many grocery stores now have empty shelves of produce and vegetables.
It means we have slow growth while inflation has hit its highest level in more than a decade at 5.6%. In addition, consumer confidence in the economy has tumbled.
All of this is a bit reminiscent of the economy of the 1970s. Does anyone remember the term stagflation?
Those under the age of 40 probably don’t even know what that is, and they’ve certainly never experienced it upfront and personally.
Here’s the definition from Investopedia: Stagflation is characterized by slow economic growth while at the same time accompanied by rising prices (i.e., inflation).
Under Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter, years of persistently high inflation triggered a surge in unemployment. That then led to the term “misery index.” The sum of the inflation rate and the unemployment rate. It exceeded 18% in Carter’s last year in office.
And then it was, “So long, Jimmy.” With the economy sagging, Carter lost a landslide election to Ronald Reagan.”
LikeLike
Tucker has the same magical powers as Trump. 🙂
——–
LikeLike
ELECTION DAY: The candidate’s campaign song :
I will air condition Texas
And I’ll cool Hawaii, too.
Central heating for Alaska
Is the next great thing I’ll do—
Irrigate the Western desert,
Then I’ll purify the sea
Using someone else’s money,
So just cast your vote for me.
(© Donn Taylor, 2016)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Warms me heart it does…
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1455196691490123787?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1455196691490123787%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fdougp-3137%2F2021%2F11%2F01%2Fa-look-at-rcp-and-538s-latest-on-a-biden-approval-rating-thats-circling-even-lower-in-the-drain-helps-explain-some-things%2F
———
LikeLike
Just a comment . . . many knew about the “Black Death,” as the Chinese called it, in November 2019. The Chinese government was just as shocked and ill-prepared as the rest of the world. They didn’t know what it was, either.
Maybe it was rogue scientists? Who knows. But, had it been planned, it would have been better organized. 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sen. Hawley on the deconstruction of men – too bad this man is not President!
LikeLike
Agreed Michelle.
I’ve never heard anyone here say it was intentional. Only that they tinkered, and their monster got loose.
And Fauci and our NIH paid for that tinkering. That is a fact, as the link above shows yet again.
LikeLike
The idiocy here is astounding.
“New York City Enforces Vaccine Mandate, 18 Fire Companies ‘Out Of Service’…”
LikeLike
I see the media already have their excuses ready…..
——-
LikeLike
Resist the tyrants and scolds.
“From Boeing to Mercedes, a U.S. worker rebellion swells over vaccine mandates”
https://news.trust.org/item/20211102105819-xsgq8
“In Wichita, Kansas, nearly half of the roughly 10,000 employees at aircraft companies Textron Inc and Spirit AeroSystems remain unvaccinated against COVID-19, risking their jobs in defiance of a federal mandate, according to a union official.
“We’re going to lose a lot of employees over this,” said Cornell Adams, head of the local Machinists union district. Many workers did not object to the vaccines as such, he said, but were staunchly opposed to what they see as government meddling in personal health decisions.
The union district has hired a Texas-based lawyer to assist employees and prepare potential lawsuits against the companies should requests for medical or religious exemptions to vaccination be denied.
A life-long Democrat, Adams said he would no longer vote for the party. “They’ll never get another vote from me and I’m telling the workers here the same thing.”
The clock is ticking for companies that want to continue gaining federal contracts under an executive order by Democratic President Joe Biden, which requires all contractor employees be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by Dec. 8.
That means federal contract workers need to have received their last COVID-19 shot at least two weeks before the deadline to gain maximum protection, according to U.S. government guidance.
With a three-week gap between shots of the Pfizer /BioNTech vaccine, workers must get the first jab by Wednesday. If the government holds fast to its deadline, it is already too late to choose Moderna’s vaccine, which is given in two doses four weeks apart. Workers could opt to get Johnson & Johnson’s single-shot vaccine until Nov. 24 to meet the deadline.
The mandate has stirred protests from workers in industries across the country, as well as from Republican state officials.
Opposition to the mandate could potentially lead to thousands of U.S. workers losing their jobs and imperil an already sluggish economic recovery, union leaders, workers and company executives said.”
——–
If you’re OK with this idiocy, some introspection is overdue in your life.
LikeLike
Another false flag op from desperate Dems…. 🙂
——–
LikeLike
When your prosecution starts with easily debunked lies, you got no case. 🙂
———-
LikeLike
Reality….
——
LikeLike
Sure….
NOW it’s an issue….
Mask dependency is now a thing….
———-
LikeLike
——-
LikeLike
They lie, they cheat, and they try to steal elections…
LikeLike