27 thoughts on “News/Politics 4-18-22

  1. Yet another example….

    And what does any of this woke idiocy have to do with Math?

    ——-

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Like I said, it’s all about the co-morbidities…..

    “WHO DIED OF COVID IN MINNESOTA?”

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/04/who-died-of-covid-in-minnesota.php

    “Greg Pulles was the long-time general counsel of TCF Financial Corporation. (I worked for Greg in that capacity for 12 years.) Greg is something of a Renaissance man, however, in dogged pursuit of truth, beauty, and the American way. Most recently, Greg undertook the review of all 2020 and 2021 Minnesota death certificates which bear the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code for COVID-19 (U07.1).

    Having reviewed all 10,903 such certificates, Greg’s analysis supports the conclusion that the vast majority of Minnesotans was not at serious risk of death from COVID-19 and that the campaign of fear and intimidation was simply wrong. Greg’s viral Alpha News column setting forth his analysis is “Who died of COVID-19 in Minnesota?” Subhead: “Only 291, or 2.67% of the 10,903 certificates we examined, were ‘COVID only’ with no comorbidity listed.””

    —-

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Here’s the breakdown. This is the same in every state.

    https://alphanews.org/commentary-who-died-from-covid-19-in-minnesota/

    “It is abundantly clear from this data that most of the individuals who died with COVID-19 were not healthy, and many were extremely unhealthy, totally aside from COVID. Again, 50% had at least four comorbidities. A comprehensive review of underlying medical conditions in those U.S. citizens who “died” of COVID-19 published in the March 2022 Oxford Academic substantiates the wide prevalence of deadly comorbidities in those registered as having died of COVID-19.

    Our review of these death certificates also leads us to conclude that many, many of these deaths were not due to COVID-19. In many cases, other conditions were likely the primary cause of death. Our comprehensive review of these certificates where multiple serious comorbidities are listed leads us to believe that the number of actual “COVID deaths” represents just half of the deaths tabulated as “COVID-19.”

    For example, the following are just a few of the kinds of cases which we found:

    Pulmonary embolism during an elective surgery — tested positive a month prior to the surgery

    Sepsis-like syndrome with suspected COVID — despite a negative COVID test

    Blunt force craniocerebral injuries caused by a fall — complications of COVID infection

    Traumatic brain injury caused by a pedestrian being struck by a car — complications of COVID

    Hypertension and throat cancer — suspected COVID

    Essential hypertension, BPH and gerd, dementia, cerebral infarction — had COVID 10 months prior

    Acute kidney injury with hyperkalemia and congestive heart failure — recovered from COVID

    Emphysema, congestive heart failure, hypertension and advanced age — probable COVID

    Peripheral vascular disease and uncontrolled type 2 diabetes — tested positive for COVID 6 weeks prior

    We also felt it was important as part of this analysis to look at the age of the decedent, and when we factored in age, the risk pool declined very dramatically. For those who died in 2020 with COVID-19 as the cause of death on their certificate, the average age was 80.84. For 2021, the average age was 74.07. Looking at deaths to date, 20% of Minnesotans listed by the state as COVID deaths were over the age of 90, 50% over the age of 80, and 74% over the age of 70. Only eight COVID deaths occurred in those under age 20, and only 209 in those under age 40.”

    ——

    “”We found that almost seven out of 10 death certificates (69.29%) listed at least three comorbidities. Five out of 10 death certificates (50%) listed at least four comorbidities, 3.4 out of 10 death certificates (34%) listed at least five comorbidities, and 2.1 out of 10 death certificates (21%) listed at least six comorbidities.

    We also found that only 291, or 2.67% of the 10,903 certificates we examined, were “COVID only” with no comorbidity listed.””

    ——–

    And yet kids are still being forced to mask?

    That’s idiocy driving that, not science.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. “Confessions of a Disney writer”

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/04/confessions_of_a_disney_writer.html

    “For many years, I made my living writing TV shows for Disney. I was proud of my work, considering it a privilege to make kids laugh all over the world. But in light of Disney’s disastrous embrace of pro-pedophilia policies, I’m glad that I grew disillusioned with kids’ TV and walked away from the field.

    Every kids’ TV writer knows that when crafting a story, you have to be careful about “modeling behavior.” Whatever kids see, they imitate, so you should “model” positive traits in your scripts, particularly when writing for pre-schoolers. Imagine inserting a pint-size Larry David character in your story who was obnoxious, argumentative, and sneaky. Inevitably, you’d get back notes from the story editor telling you to revamp the script to avoid modeling negative behavior.

    So Disney’s recent commitment to “add queerness” wherever possible can’t be explained as just trying to teach tolerance and inclusivity. The executives know that by showing “queerness,” they are modeling queerness and encouraging kids to imitate that behavior.

    In fact, Disney has had issues with sexualizing children for a long time. Cole Sprouse, a former Disney Channel star, recently noted that he and his co-star brother both suffered trauma from their acting career. He added, “The young women on [Disney Channel] were so heavily sexualized from an earlier age than my brother and I that there’s absolutely no way we could compare our experiences.”

    You only need to witness the spectacular flameouts of Disney child stars Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan to wonder what traumas changed them from adorable ingenues into hypersexual vixens. Tracking the endless legal troubles, destructive addictions, and mental breakdowns of former Disney stars has become almost a parlor game, as in this depressing article, “20 Child Stars Ruined By Disney.” What on earth happened to those beautiful kids that destroyed their sanity?

    We do know that Disney has a history of exposing their young actors to convicted child molesters. Brian Peck served 16 months in prison after pleading guilty to two counts of molesting a Nickelodeon child actor. One year after his release, Disney hired him to work on the children’s series, “Yay, Me! Starring London Tipton” and “The Suite Life of Zak and Cody.” Victor Salva served 15 months in jail for raping and videotaping a boy who was acting in a film he directed. Nevertheless, Disney hired him to direct the film Powder.

    And then there’s the case of James Gunn, the hugely successful writer-director of the first two Guardians of the Galaxy films. Disney fired Gunn in 2018 after his disgusting sexual tweets about young boys prompted an outcry. Disney’s honcho publicly proclaimed that Gunn’s tweets were “inconsistent with our studio’s values, and we have severed our business relationship with him.” But that didn’t last long. A few months later, Disney quietly rehired Gunn to direct Guardians of the Galaxy 3, after various stars of the series wrote an open letter begging for Gunn to come back. So much for studio values.

    Parents are now furious about Disney’s woke agenda to sexualize children and they’re organizing and protesting. Will their consumer boycotts of Disney’s products and theme parks have a long-term impact on Disney’s bottom line? It’s too soon to tell, but Disney’s hostility to traditional family values is not winning them friends and their brand magic seems to be evaporating.”

    Liked by 1 person

  5. “D.C. Abortion Pictures Reveal Uncomfortable Truths”

    https://www.newsweek.com/dc-abortion-pictures-reveal-uncomfortable-truths-opinion-1698021

    “Sometimes it’s because images are hard to look at that we feel compelled to view them. The video of George Floyd’s murder shone a bright spotlight on racial injustice and police brutality. Photographs of murdered Ukrainian civilians revealing Russian war crimes appear daily in newspapers, often printed with disclaimers. In searing images like these, the truth speaks for itself.

    So it is with the images of the five nearly full-term aborted babies recently surrendered to Washington, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department. The babies in the photographs allegedly came out with the medical waste from a late-term abortion clinic in the nation’s capital. The photographs are unsettling in the extreme—little boys and girls, far along in their development and their bodies mostly intact, all of them not simply dead but killed. It’s not a coincidence that the police department’s homicide unit took custody of the five little bodies.

    Naturally, we want to look away because the photos are ghastly, but even more so because we don’t want our hearts to break. But when we look away, it enables the barbarity to continue behind the clinic doors. In the comparable case of notorious late-term abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell of Philadelphia, officials looked the other way for 17 years. Gosnell performed thousands of abortions, delivering many infants alive and “snipping” the backs of their necks to sever the spinal cord. Gosnell’s technique only came to light during a drug bust at his clinic, because he also dealt in illegal prescription drugs.

    The photographs of the late-term babies allegedly aborted at D.C.’s Washington-Surgi Clinic are eerily similar to the images of Gosnell’s victims. Medical experts told pro-life group Live Action that the babies appeared old enough to survive outside the womb, raising the question of whether they had been born alive. D.C. police seem to be looking the other way, however, declining to do autopsies to determine cause of death. Sixty-nine members of Congress have written to the FBI requesting an investigation, since local detectives have demonstrated such a strange lack of curiosity.”

    Liked by 1 person

  6. What….?

    Amnesty International is a fraud?

    Oh say it isn’t so….. 🙄

    “New Study Exposes Extensive Lies and Fabrications in Amnesty’s Anti-Israel “Apartheid” Report

    NGO Monitor: “Overall, our analysis uncovered 287 total flaws comprised of 102 errors, 97 misrepresentations, 29 omissions, 24 double standards, and 35 dead citations” in Amnesty’s 280-page report. ”

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/04/new-study-exposes-extensive-lies-and-fabrications-in-amnestys-anti-israel-apartheid-report/

    “Amnesty International’s recent report, which accused Israel of being an “apartheid” state, contained serious errors and fabrications, a detailed review published by the Jerusalem-based watchdog group NGO Monitor showed.

    The 156-page rebuttal authored by Israeli scholar Salo Aizenberg reveals that the Amnesty’s report is replete with misleading statistics, manipulated quotes and outright lies. “Overall, our analysis uncovered 287 total flaws comprised of 102 errors, 97 misrepresentations, 29 omissions, 24 double standards, and 35 dead citations,” Aizenberg concluded.

    The report released by Amnesty’s UK office in early February, is “fundamentally flawed, using lies, distortions, omissions, and egregious double standards to construct a fraudulent and libelous narrative of Israeli cruelty,” NGO Monitor‘s analysis showed.

    Here are some of Amnesty’s falsehoods exposed by the NGO Monitor (view the 156-page document here):

    Amnesty simply cannot acknowledge the existence of Palestinian violence and terrorism against Israel, either now or in the past, as doing so would imperil their narrative that all Israeli actions are part of cruel and inhumane apartheid and have nothing to do with legitimate security needs. The complete erasure of Arab and Palestinian actions of violence or terrorism is a startling omission that permeates the entire report. (Page 14)

    Amnesty refuses to use the word “terrorism” even one time in the body of the text. This deliberate omission is part of Amnesty’s decision to pretend that Arabs and Palestinians have never been and are not at all engaged in deliberate acts of violence against Israel and its civilian population. (Page 17)

    Amnesty’s [report cites] Palestinians violence as a cause of certain Israeli actions, and its portrayal of Arabs as only victims and Jews as oppressors is not merely an observation deduced from our analysis. (Page 27)

    Amnesty continually cherry-picks numbers that purport to evidence apartheid and deliberately omits countervailing data, even when highly significant and from the same sources Amnesty cites. (Page 92)

    Amnesty omits critical context and grossly misrepresents events that would show the blame should actually all be placed on Hamas. (Page 98)

    As usual [throughout the report], Amnesty takes normal instances of minority disparities and cites them as evidence of apartheid, refusing to note many of the statistics show that Israel is actually performing better than many OECD countries. (Page 127)

    As we at the Legal Insurrection noted in our previous coverage, Amnesty’s report “recycles antisemitic lies and terrorist propaganda.” The NGO Monitor’s analysis confirms our initial assessment of the report.

    Palestinian Terrorist Groups Cheered Amnesty’s Report
    True to the character of the biased report, Amnesty received glowing praise from Palestinian terrorists groups for its latest piece of work. The Islamic terror organization Hamas, the terrorist group Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) lined up to cheer Amnesty’s UK bureau for publishing a report which recycled antisemitic tropes and old lies propagated by their own propaganda outlets.

    Hamas lauded the rights group, declaring that Gaza-based terror outfit “views with great appreciation and respect the efforts of Amnesty” for putting “the facts in perspective.”

    Amnesty’s report labeling Israel a “apartheid” was rejected by the U.S., Britain, Germany and other Western countries.”

    ———

    In other words, the civilized world rejected it.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Kurt always tells you exactly how he feels. 🙂

    “Defending American Democracy Requires We Start by Crushing the Public School Weirdos”

    https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2022/04/18/defending-american-democracy-requires-we-start-by-crushing-the-public-school-weirdos-n2605963

    “If you think pierced mutants with blue hair and gender confusion have some sort of right to leverage their position as public school teachers to groom your kids with racist Marxism and sexual confusion, you hate democracy. Schools were not established so that narcissistic stange-os with galaxy-sized daddy issues could work out their personal psychodramas using our children’s minds as props. They were established to teach our kids to read, write, do some math, and be useful citizens. And that’s what we, the People, want.

    And we, the People, get to make the decision about what gets taught in our classrooms. The emphasis is on “our classrooms,” as in “not the government employees we hire to instruct classes” classrooms. I know where these people got the idea that the classrooms are their domain and we mere citizens are mere interlopers. They got it in their college education course classrooms, where they were taught that they are entering some sort of special caste by being teachers and have some sort of special claim on what goes on inside the schools that mere parents may not interfere with.

    Baloney.

    The kids are ours.

    The schools are ours.

    And the curriculum is ours.

    Public education is not a vehicle to vindicate the feelz and thotz of the nimrods who teach in them. It’s to do the job we – the bosses – decree should be done, and nothing else. Teach our kids their ABCs and how to count.

    And teach them about democracy, though the teachers clearly need a refresher. Let me help. Here’s how democracy works. We citizens decide, and you government flunkies obey. I would ask if you have any questions, but you shouldn’t. The chain of command is clear.

    Citizen, followed by hireling. In that order.

    I just love it when I see some mutated whiner on Tik Tok complaining that xe is not supposed to show videos if xis interpretative dance performance of “My Penis Confounds Me” to classrooms of second graders and how the mean old school board is cruelly repressing xis personal vision of a genderfluid future.

    Yes, exactly.

    Yes, you are being repressed. You may not use the classroom as your personal venue for your delusional and stupid obsessions.”

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Of course he did. Gotta keep his human trafficking operation going…

    “Ahead of Title 42 lifting, Biden creates ‘exception’ to let illegal migrants into U.S. early

    Memo sent to Border Patrol creates widespread exemptions to health rule starting Thursday.”

    https://justthenews.com/government/security/ahead-title-42-lifting-biden-creates-exception-let-illegal-migrants-us-early

    “Well ahead of next month’s lifting of Title 42 immigration restrictions, President Joe Biden has ordered Border Patrol agents to begin allowing illegal migrants into the country by granting them multiple exemptions to the current health regulation, according to a document reviewed by Just the News.

    The memo sent last week identified a half dozen ports of entry (POEs) where exceptions can be granted and a broad range of conditions that qualify for the exemptions. The order takes effect Thursday.

    “Beginning April 21, 2022, OFO will increase its capabilities to process noncitizens potentially amenable for an exception to Title 42,” the memo reviewed by Just the News says.

    “Factors weighing in favor of an exception,” the memo explains, “include the following: a physical or mental illness, disability; pregnancy; lack of access to safe housing or shelter in Mexico (under 21 years old or younger or over 70, including families); and an indication that an individual has been threatened or harmed in Mexico.”

    Under the new rules, if a single member of a family qualifies for the exception, in most cases the entire family can come into the country legally, Border Patrol agents were told.

    A senior U.S. official, speaking only on condition of anonymity, said the exemption policy means the flood of illegal immigrants coming into the country could start much earlier than the May 21 lifting of Title 42.

    “We are bracing for an avalanche to begin in just a few days,” the official said.

    Even before the order, nearly 210,000 illegal migrants were encountered by Border Patrol in March and more than 80,000 let into the country.

    The memo made clear the Border Patrol should be working with advocacy groups and lawyers trying to get as many illegal migrants as possible into the country using the exception process. “

    Liked by 1 person

  9. I’m not sure what’s the fuss on the math worksheet which uses the biography of Maya Angelou as hints and motivation. Its an attempt to integrate math and literature but as its grade nine, its fairly silly. Nothing CRT about this — just a biography. As for the biographical content, not too shocking for grade nines. George Orwell’s 1984 and Adolph Huxley’s Brave New World are more graphic.

    I don’t think anyone is denying most Covid deaths have co-morbidities. A weakened immune system is more susceptible to any virus.

    Like

  10. This sounds like an interesting series (coming early next month) from the folks at The Gospel Coalition — Good Faith Debates: Modeling disagreement with charity

    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/video/introducing-good-faith-debates/

    (This is from the email that went out today for subscribers — and TGC is a good source to subscribe to — free — for those interested)

    ~ Are you feeling pressure to understand and engage with an ever-growing array of confusing and polarizing issues? Perhaps you’ve witnessed bitter arguments tearing your family, friends, or churches apart.

    You’re not alone. I feel it too. Every week I hear from confused and concerned Christians. They want less heat and more light. They want to stay focused on the gospel. They want to put their faith into action. They want to care. But they don’t know who to trust.

    The Gospel Coalition serves the church by producing timely content that grapples with some of the most pressing issues of our time.

    I’m praying that the Good Faith Debates will do just that. Early next month we’ll be releasing a five-part video debate series featuring prominent Christian thinkers discussing some of the most divisive issues facing the church today.

    When we keep the gospel central, we can disagree on lesser but still important matters in good faith. In the Good Faith Debates, we hope to model this—showing that it’s possible for two Christians united around the gospel to engage in charitable conversation even amid substantive disagreement.

    Debate #1 … How should Christians think about gun control and the right to bear arms? Featuring Bob Thune and Andrew Wilson.

    Debate #2 … Is “woke church” a stepping stone to theological compromise? Featuring Sean Demars and Rebecca McLaughlin.

    Debate #3 … Should the “pro-life” movement be holistically (womb to tomb) or narrowly (womb) focused? Featuring Scott Klusendorf and Karen Swallow Prior.

    Debate #4 … What’s the best approach for the church to address racial injustice? Featuring Brian Davis and Justin Giboney.

    Debate #5 … Should we insist on a theological and historical definition of “evangelical” if many self-described evangelicals see it primarily as a political identity? Featuring Ryan Burge and Andrew Walker

    I’m looking forward to this series as we explore together how the gospel applies to all of life. We need better discourse than artificial cable TV fights designed to divide us. We need deep reflection on the contours of Christian freedom and obligation.

    Gather some friends to watch together and begin your own discussion. You might even change your mind a time or two—and learn to disagree in good faith. ~

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Disney has been promoting sexist and class stereotypes for decades. In this time they’ve been using and abusing child actors — their post Disney lives indicates the damage done. Female actresses in particular have been sexualized at a very young age. This is nothing new – the fact some have finally noticed when Disney has become “equitable” in overly sexualizing youth demonstrates something about these newfound critics and their own biases.

    The criticism extended to Amnesty International is done by an Israeli group. Obviously a biased critique of Amnesty. During the Cold War era, AI was very good at keeping a balanced and neutral approach to human rights. In the more modern era, they’ve come under more criticism — neutrality has become far more difficult as does the perception of being neutral. The world is far more complicated.

    Like

  12. On an emotional level, I can understand pro life groups demanding more investigation into the fetus recovered from the medical waste. However, its fairly difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether it was a late term aborted fetus and a killed live birth. I can understand why the police don’t want to touch it.

    If your townhall columnist doesn’t want “mutants” teaching children, perhaps some American states should treat teaching as an important profession deserving of professional wages and qualifications. Until then, it may be “mutants” with a mission will be the only one willing to teach for low wages and tough conditions.

    Not sure if my Dutch Reformed background has a mistaken view of Christianity but should the pregnant, the sick, the homeless, disabled, etc be welcome?

    Like

  13. DJ,

    So I have a question……?

    Did your irony detector not go off yesterday? No alarm bells?

    First you post “spiritual” advice from, of all people, David French.

    Not my go to for anything that matters in life, but you do you.

    But then you follow it up with a piece from a pastor about bearing false witness against our neighbors. That is good advice, but it should disqualify French.

    That didn’t set off any alarm bells? I figured the Easter Daily thread wasn’t the place to bring it up, so I am here, now.

    David French is notorious for posting false info, fake news, and downright idiotic takes on the former president, and against your Christian brethren who dared vote for Trump.

    Some examples…..

    ———

    “Major Pastors Rebuke David French Over His Repeated Criticism Of Churches And ‘White Evangelicals’”

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/major-pastors-rebuke-david-french-over-his-repeated-criticism-of-churches-and-white-evangelicals

    “For years, decades even, political pundit David French has been a well-respected and frequently cited voice in Protestant circles, often held forward as the representative of Evangelicalism on cable news and in major media outlets. This was especially true when he was on staff at the conservative journal, National Review. Recently though, his criticism of his fellow believers over their support of Donald Trump, skepticism of government COVID-19 policies, and rejection of racial ideologies derived from Critical Race Theory has more and more well-known pastors cautioning that French’s writing lacks discernment and Christian charity.

    In dozens of essays over the last two years, French has routinely decried what he views as the sins of white evangelicals. While some of this writing has appeared in large, mainstream publications like The Atlantic and Time Magazine, most of his criticism is delivered in his “Sunday Essays”— a weekly op-ed that French publishes via The Dispatch on the day Christians set aside for worship and fellowshipping as local church communities. The tendency of the articles to spark dissension and arguments between Christians on what is known as “the Lord’s day” has even become something of a running joke on social media. As pastor Steven Wedgeworth, a columnist for the Evangelical outlet World Magazine, quipped, “The 4th Commandment [to remember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy] was given in part to spare you from bad Sunday columns.”

    It’s easy to see why French’s views of his brethren receive such a pointed reaction, given that he often charges them with Covid conspiracy-mongering, racism, and being motivated by a desire to defend their white supremacist power.”

    ——–

    “David French: The ‘Principled Conservative’”

    https://spectator.org/david-french-the-principled-conservative/

    “David French is typical of a kind of Christian thinking that New York Post opinion editor Sohrab Ahmari calls “French-ism.” In a takedown of the Dispatch writer for First Things, Ahmari describes French-ism as “more a persuasion or a sensibility than a movement with clear tenets.” Whatever you call it, I call it problematic.

    For the uninitiated, David French, formerly of National Review, is currently senior editor of the Dispatch. He is the intellectual armory for a type of Christian that has done — and continues to do — a great deal of damage. French associates himself with “principled conservatism.” This is a pandering term the Left employs for those conservatives who are useful to them because they attack other conservatives, and it is a term people like French use to imply that those who disagree with him and his ilk are without principles.

    Yes, French makes much of his principles. Indeed, he has insulated himself with them, appearing to take a very principled Christian position. Permit me a story to illustrate why his principles are the problem:

    In 2009, my wife and I adopted a little girl named Sasha from Ukraine. Along the (deliberately grueling) way, all but one of a myriad of government officials involved in the process demanded a bribe. I paid them all without hesitation. Bitterly, yes, but without any pangs of conscience. When I wrote of this experience in a book about Sasha and the dehumanizing influence of socialism, many were the Christians who mounted their high horses to lecture me on how wrong I was to pay such bribes. Their principles, they said, would never let them do it.

    Think about this for a moment. It’s a monstrous pride that says such a thing. Sasha was not an abstract point of argument who existed merely for the self-righteous to demonstrate their virtue by denying her a home. She was a human being who could not afford their warped notion of principles. With 60 percent of girls who “graduate” from these orphanages becoming prostitutes, 10 percent committing suicide, and another 30 percent of those with severe disabilities dead by the age of 18, it’s not a stretch to suggest she would be dead now. (Happily, Sasha, a blessing to everyone she meets, was just married.) And who among my interlocutors wouldn’t pay a king’s ransom to liberate one of their own children from captivity were it necessary to do so?

    I give you David French, the celebrated “principled conservative.” I find French’s principles offensive because they are a self-made crown adorning a colossal vanity to rival that of the former president he so loathes. (Even in defending French, PJ Media calls him “a bit pompous.”) If French, for the sake of his principles, wants to fall on his own sword, I’ll not stop him. But it’s the unborn who are impaled instead. French can sacrifice them in the principled conviction that it is the right thing to do because they are, like Sasha to my critics, an abstraction. But they are human beings who cannot afford his principles.

    Of course, French would argue that he is fiercely pro-life. And he is — in the abstract. However, in campaigning hard for Trump’s defeat with his tiresome harangues on the president’s alleged lack of character and his relentless assaults on those who planned to vote for him, he worked at cross purposes.”

    —–

    ——-

    “Now That the Russia Hoax Is Revealed, Never Trump Is Using Whataboutism to Avoid Responsibility”

    https://redstate.com/streiff/2019/03/27/now-russia-hoax-revealed-never-trump-using-whataboutism-avoid-responsibility-n103835

    “Now that the biggest political hatchet job in the history of American politics has wound down with the end of the Mueller investigation, a lot of nominal conservatives who shamelessly flogged the obviously bullsh** story of Russia influencing the 2016 election in favor of Donald Trump have a lot of explaining to do. Guess what. They’re resorting to whataboutism.

    Take this nonsense from NRO’s David French. French, to be charitable, has been a little more pro-Trump than Max Boot, but not much more. This is the guy, you’ll recall, who wanted Devin Nunes recused from the investigation conducted by the committee he chaired because Nunes was convinced, and rightfully so, that the Steele dossier was a fraud and it had been used to justify the FISA warrant on the still unindicted Carter Page.”

    “French, let no one forget, is one of those conspiracy theorists who pushed just about every anti-Trump story one can imagine. If you want an example of this, try the story in which he said people calling the Russia collusion crap a hoax were engaging in a “conspiracy theory.” Here is Julie Kelly with more:

    David French also has been a Russian collusion propagandist, hysterically insisting that the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting was “evidence that senior members of the Trump campaign tried unsuccessfully to facilitate Russian government efforts to defeat Hillary Clinton.” Commenting on Mueller’s list of questions for the president, French claimed that the line of inquiry “stopped me in my tracks and made me wonder if there were material facts we don’t know.” Without irony, French chided the notion that no collusion existed because “it’s totally fine to get oppo research from a hostile foreign power.”

    Perhaps most embarrassing for French was his breathless attempt to legitimize a bogus BuzzFeed report in January 2019 that Donald Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress. Based on innuendo in Cohen’s sentencing memo, French compared the false testimony allegation to those that led to impeachment charges against Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon. “It also strongly hints at potential presidential jeopardy for misconduct that has clear echoes in recent presidential scandals,” French wrote. A month later, Cohen denied that Trump told him to lie to Congress.”

    ——

    There are literally dozens more examples. If you believe the words of the pastor, French must be dismissed, as should his lying.

    This is why I don’t take French seriously, nor do I think anyone should consider his “advice” on Christianity. He’s a partisan hack, a wolf masquerading among the sheep. Take his advice on anything at your own peril.

    Like

  14. Yet another lie exposed, “The pandemic of the unvaccinated”

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-false-pandemic-unvaccinated-motto-133222331.html

    “Two full years have come and gone since the COVID-19 pandemic came to the United States and turned things upside down. For most of us, life has now pretty much returned to normal. There’s reason to hope that it will stay that way, too. At the time of this writing, COVID-19 hospitalizations in the United States have been decreasing in recent weeks, falling to levels that are as low as they’ve been since early in the pandemic. COVID-19 deaths also are decreasing dramatically, with a seven-day average of 525 per day, a 75%-plus drop from February.

    We’ve learned a lot about things relative to this coronavirus and the pandemic it caused: Various treatments for the disease, public policy for its prevention and against its spread, the development and distribution of vaccines, and a lot of other matters as well. But a number of these matters need to be discussed with regard to what we did right and what we did wrong in response to the pandemic. One of the most important of those, in my view, is the public perception of vaccine efficacy.

    Back in early November of 2020, the pharmaceutical company Pfizer announced that data from clinical trials had demonstrated that its new vaccine was 95% effective one week after the second dose. By “effective,” they meant that the vaccinated individual was protected from infection for a period of time, and that was, no doubt, how it was understood by everyone who heard the news.

    By the following summer, President Joe Biden, unhappy with how many Americans were still unvaccinated, called the continued spread of the coronavirus a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.” The narrative was simple: Get vaccinated and you won’t get sick. Don’t get vaccinated and not only can you get sick, but you’ll be a threat to everybody else. I don’t really blame Biden for promoting this sort of thing at the time. I suspect he was saying more or less what he’d been told.

    But it was enormously divisive to the country. It was also factually incorrect.

    It’s true that the vaccines are very effective in preventing hospitalization and death. The Pfizer and the Moderna vaccines, according a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in October of 2021, were 89% effective in preventing hospitalizations. Other studies have shown that this “outcome protection” remains for several months. In January of this year, Dr. Dustin Krutsinger, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, wrote to me that “…the only people I am seeing in my ICU (with COVID-19 are) people who are not ‘fully vaccinated’ (vax or booster within last 6 months) or transplant recipients who are heavily immunosuppressed.” In short, the evidence I’ve seen, whether scientific or anecdotal, indicates that the vaccines have been highly successful in preventing bad outcomes from COVID-19 infections.

    The problem was that for most of 2021, few were talking about outcome protection in relation to the vaccines. To do so was contradictory because, after all, you weren’t supposed to get sick in the first place. Breakthrough infections, the term used to describe infections of vaccinated people, were supposed to be rare.

    But they weren’t particularly rare, certainly where the delta variant was concerned.

    In September of 2021, a study led by the University of California-Davis Genome Center showed “no significant difference in viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated people who tested positive for the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2.” Professor Richard Michelmore, director of the Genome Center, said “It’s very important to get vaccinated, because vaccines greatly reduce the risk of severe disease, but you should not assume that because you are vaccinated you cannot get infected or transmit the disease to others.”

    Another study, led by the Imperial College of London, found “that people who have received two doses of vaccine have a lower, but still appreciable, risk of becoming infected with the delta variant in the home compared with people who are unvaccinated. The authors stress that vaccination also reduces the risk of severe illness, hospitalisation and death from COVID-19. The analysis found that around 25% of vaccinated household contacts tested positive for COVID-19 compared to roughly 38% of unvaccinated contacts.”

    Researchers urged US to change its messaging
    The “pandemic of the unvaccinated” narrative should have fallen apart, but it didn’t. In November of 2021, Dr. Gunter Kampf of the University of Greifswald practically pleaded with both his native country of Germany and the United States to stop the stigmatization of the unvaccinated. He wrote this in the medical journal The Lancet: “People who are vaccinated have a lower risk of severe disease but are still a relevant part of the pandemic. It is therefore wrong and dangerous to speak of a pandemic of the unvaccinated… I call on high-level officials and scientists to stop the inappropriate stigmatisation of unvaccinated people, who include our patients, colleagues, and other fellow citizens, and to put extra effort into bringing society together.”

    Perhaps some have listened to Kampf, but the damage had already been done. Between the politicians, the government officials, and the media, many Americans were made to be deeply afraid. And some were very angry at those who had chosen not to be vaccinated.”

    ——-

    And that was the point, to pit us against one another.

    Like

  15. Tick-tock.

    Although I get their reluctance, wouldn’t want to be suicided by the Clintons…..

    I’d also note that all of these false stories were pushed as truth by French too.

    Like

  16. I puzzled by the “evidence” presented on David French (or any other non Trump conservative for that matter). I suppose the writer’s story of paying a bribe is to illustrate the need to bend principles to obtain a more worthwhile goal. By analogy I think he believes electing Trump is bending principles to gain a more pro-life policy and court. However, the abortion rate doesn’t support — the abortion rate was highest around 1980 and held steady throughout the 80s’ and early 90s, then went into a continual decline until 2000 and then declined to its historic low in 2018. He didn’t need to bend principles — the rate was in decline. In fact, the rate declined in co-relation to the expansion of public health care under Clinton and Obama; maybe he should’ve bent his principles and elected Democrats. Pro life was winning the moral argument but with the election of Trump they may have won the battle but lost the war. The new Texas law resulted in an arrest for murder a few weeks ago, she was later released as it was not an abortion but a still birth — imagine spending time in jail for a still birth — there goes the moral argument. To further argue the point, internationally there is very little correlation between abortion rate and the legal rules. Bending principles and voting for Trump wasn’t necessary.

    As for the “Russia Hoax”, only the right wing echo chamber calls it a hoax. There’s enough red flags in the Mueller report not to have it declared a hoax.

    Like

  17. The vaccine article is a strawman — when it was said it was a pandemic of the unvaccinated, it was in direct reference to severity and hospital rates not infection rate. And its a correct statement — at one point 90% of the hospitalizations in Ontario were due to the 10% who weren’t vaccinated.

    Like

  18. The entire thing was a hoax. Not surprised the you’d think otherwise, and would continue to ignore the obvious flaws and falsehoods that the leftist media spread.

    Like

  19. I’ve made my point…..

    And yes, French does need to work on his Christian charity thing….

    So sad that he treats his brethren that way because they voted wrong in his opinion.

    Like

  20. “at one point 90% of the hospitalizations in Ontario were due to the 10% who weren’t vaccinated.”

    And you can prove this how exactly?

    Oh that’s right, you can’t, unless you can show where every single one of them got it, which again, you can’t.

    That’s laughable. 🙂

    Like

  21. Hooray for common sense! The CDC doesn’t have the authority to issue mandates, anyway.

    Furthermore, these mandates have never been about health and safety – they’ve been about conditioning the population for future control.

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/federal-judge-strikes-down-cdc-mask-mandate-for-planes-travel_4411370.html

    “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) mask mandate for airplanes and other forms of public transportation was struck down Monday by a federal judge.

    U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle wrote that the CDC rule exceeded the agency’s statutory authority because its implementation violated administrative law. Mizelle, based in Florida and an appointee of President Donald Trump, directed the agency to reverse the policy nationwide in response to a lawsuit filed by the Health Freedom Defense Fund.”

    Like

  22. AJ — you misread my statement — 90% of those in the hospital for Covid were unvaccinated yet they only were 10%-20% of the population. You don’t need to prove where they got Covid — when diagnosed, check their vaccine status and that’s enough to create this stat.

    I thought the reference to Christian charity was my comment on the Biden’s policy at the US -Mexico border.

    Like

  23. Of course not. Being a lying Democrat means never admitting you were wrong, or in this case, lying.

    Like

  24. How is it charitable to allow rapists, child molesters, murderers, drug runners and other assorted criminals in with those who actually need protection and refuge when there’s no vetting of anyone?

    It certainly isn’t Christian to put your neighbors at risk like that.

    Like

  25. Just put him in a home already and let the other clown have her shot.

    Seriously, it can’t get any worse.

    ———

    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 )

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.