Be yourself; Everyone else is already taken.— Oscar Wilde.
This is the first post on my new blog. I’m just getting this new blog going, so stay tuned for more. Subscribe below to get notified when I post new updates.
Be yourself; Everyone else is already taken.— Oscar Wilde.
This is the first post on my new blog. I’m just getting this new blog going, so stay tuned for more. Subscribe below to get notified when I post new updates.
Perhaps inspired by the success of Coronavirus fearmongering in impoverishing the formerly prosperous West, global warming enthusiasts are beginning to agitate to list “climate change” as the cause of death on death certificates. The widely observed practice of listing Coronavirus as the cause of death for anyone who died with it, not necessarily of it, has worked wonders in scaring people into accepting previously unheard-of abrogation of constitutionally guaranteed rights.
The seed for this propaganda offensive was just planted in a spinoff publication of The Lancet, the formerly prestigious British medical journal that has fallen to the forces of political correctness. In a letter appearing the The Lancet Planetary Health (hat tip: Breitbart), researchers at The Australian National University write:
National mortality records in Australia suggest substantial under-reporting of heat-related mortality. Less than 0·1% of 1·7 million deaths between 2006 and 2017 were attributed directly or indirectly to excessive natural heat (table). However, recent research indicates that official records underestimate the association at least 50-fold.
Understanding the degree to which environmental factors affect human health is important if the impact of climate change is to be fully appreciated. As severe environmental events become more common, correct reporting and attribution is needed for effective evidence-based responses and to guide local, national, and global adaptation.
The Sydney Morning Herald eagerly picked up the story and transmitted it to a mass audience:
The most dangerous time of the long past four years is now upon us, and the waning pandemic is only a dying part of it.
Steam roller like, massive distractions are already being sent out to flatten the curve known as the awakening public masses.
Make ready to duck for cover, taking your children and prayers with you.
It’s the ‘End Times of Obama’ and what Dan Bongino calls the ‘Spygate Plotters’, an era destined to make the Big Women’s March, ‘Russiagate’, two, Democrat back-to-back televised Trump Impeachment hearing and trial—the threat of a third one surely on its way, now looking like the proverbial walk in the park.
Mind you, this ‘End Times’ coincides with an era where most parks are now closed to supposedly keep the public at large safe from Coronavirus, but you get the picture.
Democrats and the media that enables them are now in full desperado mode. The tell-tale damage to their own strategies is clear for all to see: All attempts to bring down President Donald Trump now showing up as abysmal failures; more and more people now seeing that the massive loss of jobs is just as—and maybe even more so—deadly than Coronavirus—and worst of all the walls are caving in on duplicitous Obama and his Spygate Plotters leaving them no choice but to ramp up the fear on a captive audience under lock down that is—also— now showing the first signs of failure.
Originally promoted as a necessity against the contagion of a runaway pandemic, governors like Illinois Gov. J. B. Pritzker are extending the shutdown of state churches for a full year, in effect leaving the lie on full display.
Sheer spite and corrosive hatred is coming from some small town mayors who, only in the past two days, sent out official orders that dog parks, children’s playgrounds, beaches and parks are being closed.
Why now when so many small business owners were holding out hope that they’d be able to reopen on May 15?
American conservative commentator, radio show host, and former Secret Service agent, Dan Bongino is dead on in his tweet: “NOW, more than ever, you need to tune out the lib media. As the walls close in on Obama & the Spygate plotters, they’ll claw at their faces & scream disinformation at the top of their lungs. They’re desperate to distract you. Please, for the sake of the truth, tune them out.”
Evidence that “they’ll claw at their faces & scream disinformation at the top of their lungs” is already out there:
“WASHINGTON — Former President Barack Obama, talking privately to ex-members of his administration, said Friday that the “rule of law is at risk” in the wake of what he called an unprecedented move by the Justice Department to drop charges against former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn. (Yahoo, May 8, 2020)
“In the same chat, a tape of which was obtained by Yahoo News, Obama also lashed out at the Trump administration’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic as “an absolute chaotic disaster.”
Most already knew that the Democrats would blame the pandemic on Numero Uno enemy Donald Trump and not China.
Adam Schiff wasn’t long in joining Obama on the media cacophony:
“Congressman Adam Schiff pushed back hard on Attorney General Bill Barr, calling out his justification for abandoning the Justice Department’s case against Lt. Gen Michael Flynn, who twice pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, as promoting a “false narrative.” (Mediaite, May 8, 2020)
After the controversial news that the DOJ wants to drop the case, Barr sparked further outrage on Thursday after he chuckled and said “history is written by the winners” when asked in a CBS News interview about how time will treat the Flynn decision.”
Smugly convinced that their tactics have thoroughly demoralized patriots, Obama and Spygate Plotters are counting on the time being right for them to capitulate in total hopelessness.
They forget that Hillary’s deplorables now see that the emperor is wearing see-through clothes:
Twelve years later, the table has been turned—with leaks now coming from the former Obama admin, rather than the beleaguered Trump admin.
After three interminably long years, the DoJ has—most publicly—dropped their case against Gen. Flynn;
A majority of Americans are against the Democrat-inspired mail-in vote.
Other little, but important signs are also out there. Michelle Obama’s self-serving Netflix ‘documentary’, launched only two days ago, is being throughly panned.
The Democrat House of Cards is about to take a big fall that incredibly will have little to do with doddering Joe Biden.
Knowing that they can run but not hide, loud cheers are being sent up that Obama, Schiff, Brennan, Comey et al are now on the run.
COVID-19 seems to hit some people harder than others, with some people experiencing only mild symptoms and others being hospitalized and requiring ventilation. Though scientists at first thought age was the dominant factor, with young people avoiding the worst outcomes, new research has revealed a suite of features impacting disease severity. These influences could explain why some perfectly healthy 20-year-old with the disease is in dire straits, while an older 70-year-old dodges the need for critical interventions.
About 8 out of 10 deaths associated with COVID-19 in the U.S. have occurred in adults ages 65 and older, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The risk of dying from the infection, and the likelihood of requiring hospitalization or intensive medical care, increases significantly with age. For instance, adults ages 65-84 make up an estimated 4-11% of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S, while adults ages 85 and above make up 10-27%.
The trend may be due, in part, to the fact that many elderly people have chronic medical conditions, such as heart disease and diabetes, that can exacerbate the symptoms of COVID-19, according to the CDC. The ability of the immune system to fight off pathogens also declines with age, leaving elderly people vulnerable to severe viral infections, Stat News reported.RECOMMENDED VIDEOS FOR YOU…CLOSEVolume 0%PLAY SOUND
Diabetes mellitus — a group of diseases that result in harmful high blood sugar levels — also seems to be linked to risk of more severe COVID-19 infections.
The most common form in the U.S. is type 2 diabetes, which occurs when the body’s cells don’t respond to the hormone insulin. As a result, the sugar that would otherwise move from the bloodstream into cells to be used as energy just builds up in the bloodstream. (When the pancreas makes little to no insulin in the first place, the condition is called type 1 diabetes.)
In a review of 13 relevant studies, scientists found that people with diabetes were nearly 3.7 times more likely to have a critical case of COVID-19 or to die from the disease compared with COVID-19 patients without any underlying health conditions (including diabetes, hypertension, heart disease or respiratory disease), they reported online April 23 in the Journal of Infection.
Even so, scientists don’t know whether diabetes is directly increasing severity or whether other health conditions that seem to tag along with diabetes, including cardiovascular and kidney conditions, are to blame.
That fits with what researchers have seen with other infections and diabetes. For instance, flu and pneumonia are more common and more serious in older individuals with type 2 diabetes, scientists reported online April 9 in the journal Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice. In a literature search of relevant studies looking at the link between COVID-19 and diabetes, the authors of that paper found a few possible mechanisms to explain why a person with diabetes might fare worse when infected with COVID-19. These mechanisms include: “Chronic inflammation, increased coagulation activity, immune response impairment and potential direct pancreatic damage by SARS-CoV-2.”
Mounting research has shown the progression of type 2 diabetes is tied to changes in the body’s immune system. This link could also play a role in poorer outcomes in a person with diabetes exposed to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
No research has looked at this particular virus and immune response in patients with diabetes; however, in a study published in 2018 in the Journal of Diabetes Research, scientists found through a review of past research that patients with obesity or diabetes showed immune systems that were out of whack, with an impairment of white blood cells called Natural Killer (NK) cells and B cells, both of which help the body fight off infections. The research also showed that these patients had an increase in the production of inflammatory molecules called cytokines. When the immune system secretes too many cytokines,a so-called “cytokine storm” can erupt and damage the body’s organs. Some research has suggested that cytokine storms may be responsible for causing serious complications in people with COVID-19, Live Science previously reported. Overall, type 2 diabetes has been linked with impairment of the very system in the body that helps to fight off infections like COVID-19 and could explain why a person with diabetes is at high risk for a severe infection.
Not all people with type 2 diabetes are at the same risk, though: A study published May 1 in the journal Cell Metabolism found that people with diabetes who keep their blood sugar levels in a tighter range were much less likely to have a severe disease course than those with more fluctuations in their blood sugar levels.
Scientists aren’t sure whether this elevated risk of a severe COVID-19 infection also applies to people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). A study coordinated by T1D Exchange — a nonprofit research organization focused on therapies for those with type 1 diabetes — launched in April to study the outcomes of T1D patients infected with COVID-19. When a person with T1D gets an infection, their blood sugar levels tend to spike to dangerous levels and they can have a buildup of acid in the blood, something called diabetic ketoacidosis. As such, any infection can be dangerous for someone with type 1 diabetes.
People with conditions that affect the cardiovascular system, such as heart disease and hypertension, generally suffer worse complications from COVID-19 than those with no preexisting conditions, according to the American Heart Association. That said, historically healthy people can also suffer heart damage from the viral infection.
The first reported coronavirus death in the U.S., for instance, occurred when the virus somehow damaged a woman’s heart muscle, eventually causing it to burst, Live Science reported. The 57-year-old maintained good health and exercised regularly before becoming infected, and she reportedly had a healthy heart of “normal size and weight.” A study of COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China, found that more than 1 in 5 patients developed heart damage — some of the sampled patients had existing heart conditions, and some did not.
In seeing these patterns emerge, scientists developed several theories as to why COVID-19 might hurt both damaged hearts and healthy ones, according to a Live Science report.
In one scenario, by attacking the lungs directly, the virus might deplete the body’s supply of oxygen to the point that the heart must work harder to pump oxygenated blood through the body. The virus might also attack the heart directly, as cardiac tissue contains angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) — a molecule that the virus plugs into to infect cells. In some individuals, COVID-19 can also kickstart an overblown immune response known as a cytokine storm, wherein the body becomes severely inflamed and the heart could suffer damage as a result.
People who smoke cigarettes may be prone to severe COVID-19 infections, meaning they face a heightened risk of developing pneumonia, suffering organ damage and requiring breathing support. A study of more than 1,000 patients in China, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, illustrates this trend: 12.3% of current smokers included in the study were admitted to an ICU, were placed on a ventilator or died, as compared with 4.7% of nonsmokers.
Cigarette smoke might render the body vulnerable to the coronavirus in several ways, according to a recent Live Science report. At baseline, smokers may be vulnerable to catching viral infections because smoke exposure dampens the immune system over time, damages tissues of the respiratory tract and triggers chronic inflammation. Smoking is also associated with a multitude of medical conditions, such as emphysema and atherosclerosis, which could exacerbate the symptoms of COVID-19.
A recent study, posted March 31 to the preprint database bioRxiv, proposed a more speculative explanation as to why COVID-19 hits smokers harder. The preliminary research has not yet been peer-reviewed, but early interpretations of the data suggest that smoke exposure increases the number of ACE2 receptors in the lungs — the receptor that SARS-CoV-2 plugs into to infect cells.
Many of the receptors appear on so-called goblet and club cells, which secrete a mucus-like fluid to protect respiratory tissues from pathogens, debris and toxins. It’s well-established that these cells grow in number the longer a person smokes, but scientists don’t know whether the subsequent boost in ACE2 receptors directly translates to worse COVID-19 symptoms. What’s more, it’s unknown whether high ACE2 levels are relatively unique to smokers, or common among people with chronic lung conditions.
Several early studies have suggested a link between obesity and more severe COVID-19 disease in people. One study, which analyzed a group of COVID-19 patients who were younger than the age of 60 in New York City, found that those who were obese were twice as likely as non-obese individuals to be hospitalized and were 1.8 times as likely to be admitted into critical care.
“This has important and practical implications” in a country like the U.S. where nearly 40% of adults are obese, the authors wrote in the study, which was accepted into the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases but not yet peer-reviewed or published. Similarly, another preliminary study that hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed found that the two biggest risk factors for being hospitalized from the coronavirus are age and obesity. This study, published in medRxiv looked at data from thousands of COVID-19 patients in New York City, but studies from other cities around the world found similar results, as reported by The New York Times.
A preliminary study from Shenzhen, China, which also hasn’t been peer-reviewed, found that obese COVID-19 patients were more than twice as likely to develop severe pneumonia as compared with patients who were normal weight, according to the report published as a preprint online in the journal The Lancet Infectious Diseases. Those who were overweight, but not obese, had an 86% higher risk of developing severe pneumonia than did people of “normal” weight, the authors reported. Another study, accepted into the journal Obesity and peer-reviewed, found that nearly half of 124 COVID-19 patients admitted to an intensive care unit in Lille, France, were obese.
It’s not clear why obesity is linked to more hospitalizations and more severe COVID-19 disease, but there are several possibilities, the authors wrote in the study. Obesity is generally thought of as a risk factor for severe infection. For example, those who are obese had longer and more severe disease during the swine flu epidemic, the authors wrote. Obese patients might also have reduced lung capacity or increased inflammation in the body. A greater number of inflammatory molecules circulating in the body might cause harmful immune responses and lead to severe disease.
Blood type seems to be a predictor of how susceptible a person is to contracting SARS-CoV-2, though scientists haven’t found a link between blood type per se and severity of disease.
Jiao Zhao, of The Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, and colleagues looked at blood types of 2,173 patients with COVID-19 in three hospitals in Wuhan, China, as well as blood types of more than 23,000 non-COVID-19 individuals in Wuhan and Shenzhen. They found that individuals with blood types in the A group (A-positive, A-negative and AB-positive, AB-negative) were at a higher risk of contracting the disease compared with non-A-group types. People with O blood types (O-negative and O-positive) had a lower risk of getting the infection compared with non-O blood types, the scientists wrote in the preprint database medRxiv on March 27; the study has yet to be reviewed by peers in the field.
In a more recent study of blood type and COVID-19, published online April 11 to medRxiv, scientists looked at 1,559 people tested for SARS-CoV-2 at New York Presbyterian hospital; of those, 682 tested positive. Individuals with A blood types (A-positive and A-negative) were 33% more likely to test positive than other blood types and both O-negative and O-positive blood types were less likely to test positive than other blood groups. (There’s a 95% chance that the increase in risk ranges from 7% to 67% more likely.) Though only 68 individuals with an AB blood type were included, the results showed this group was also less likely than others to test positive for COVID-19.
The researchers considered associations between blood type and risk factors for COVID-19, including age, sex, whether a person was overweight, other underlying health conditions such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, pulmonary diseases and cardiovascular diseases. Some of these factors are linked to blood type, they found, with a link between diabetes and B and A-negative blood types, between overweight status and O-positive blood groups, for instance, among others. When they accounted for these links, the researchers still found an association between blood type and COVID-19 susceptibility. When the researchers pooled their data with the research by Zhao and colleagues out of China, they found similar results as well as a significant drop in positive COVID-19 cases among blood type B individuals.
Why blood type might increase or decrease a person’s risk of getting SARS-CoV-2 is not known. A person’s blood type indicates what kind of certain antigens cover the surfaces of their blood cells; These antigens produce certain antibodies to help fight off a pathogen. Past research has suggested that at least in the SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV), anti-A antibodies helped to inhibit the virus; that could be the same mechanism with SARS-CoV-2, helping blood group O individuals to keep out the virus, according to Zhao’s team.
Many medical conditions can worsen the symptoms of COVID-19, but why do historically healthy people sometimes fall dangerously ill or die from the virus? Scientists suspect that certain genetic factors may leave some people especially susceptible to the disease, and many research groups aim to pinpoint exactly where those vulnerabilities lie in our genetic code.
In one scenario, the genes that instruct cells to build ACE2 receptors may differ between people who contract severe infections and those who hardly develop any symptoms at all, Science magazine reported. Alternatively, differences may lie in genes that help rally the immune system against invasive pathogens, according to a recent Live Science report.
For instance, a study published April 17 in the Journal of Virology suggests that specific combinations of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes, which train immune cells to recognize germs, may be protective against SARS-CoV-2, while other combinations leave the body open to attack. HLAs represent just one cog in our immune system machinery, though, so their relative influence over COVID-19 infection remains unclear. Additionally, the Journal of Virology study only used computer models to simulate HLA activity against the coronavirus; clinical and genetic data from COVID-19 patients would be needed to flesh out the role of HLAs in real-life immune responses.
Originally published on Live Science.
Libertarians are handing America over to socialists. That’s not what they want, but that’s what’s happening. How can this be? After all, if you want limited government, you’re a libertarian. So where’s the problem?
The problem, as John Rogers alludes to in his unforgettable quote, is with the “real world.” In the real world, America is a two party system, and if a strong libertarian candidate shows up, they take votes away from other candidates who also – despite all their other impurities – oppose socialist candidates.
When the anti-socialist vote is split, the socialist wins.
In the real world, we have nations so that people with a common culture and heritage can govern themselves. This necessitates the existence of governments, laws, regulations, taxes, public spending, and a host of other nasty things. To oppose overreaching laws, bad regulations, high taxes, excess spending, wasteful spending, or inappropriate spending, is the duty of any fiscal conservative. But the role of government is to protect a national culture, not to just get out of the way so corporate multinationals can commoditize the world.
This ought to be embarrassingly self-evident, but libertarians don’t seem to understand the implications of these real world constraints on their ideals.
The Libertarian Party hasn’t yet swung an American presidential election, but their influence is felt everywhere. And while their overall message – limited government – is far better than its opposite, but in its extreme that message can also cause grievous harm. One glaring example concerns the interdependent politics of immigration and welfare.
Libertarians, along with plenty of Republicans, are fond of quoting Milton Friedman, who once said “You can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.” Yet libertarians, if they are true to their principles, favor open borders. All the while, they insist that of course they’re also opposed to state welfare.
How many Republicans in the House of Representatives, influenced by libertarian donors, have to-date resisted legislation that would enforce America’s borders, whether through sanctioning employers who hire undocumented workers, or by funding more effective border security?
Other glaring examples include opposition to the war on drugs, where libertarians tend to think it’s just fine to let an entire generation of Americans marinate themselves in a pharmacological stupor, and foreign policy, where wishful thinking libertarians reject the reality of rising nations filling the vacuum wherever Americans withdraw.
When it comes to trade, powerful libertarian donors have actually worked to destroy Republican incumbents who recognize that selling America to the Chinese because that’s “free trade” is a recipe for national destruction, and if tariffs are the only way to get their attention, so be it.
And shall any of these issues be discussed openly on the most powerful means of communication ever known, the internet? Well, maybe. But not too openly. Progressives run the companies that monopolize the online platforms for search and social media, they exercise blatant censorship of views that threaten the progressive narrative, and libertarians applaud.
Moving beyond the obvious, it is in the area of housing and infrastructure where libertarians also exert a destructive influence. The influence of libertarians in these areas is harder to immediately see, but it is causing, if anything, even greater long term damage to America.
It seems counter-intuitive to suggest that libertarians are against a free market where land developers can easily navigate their way through a streamlined, discounted permitting process so more homes can go onto the market which will lower prices. And indeed, libertarians are calling for those sorts of reforms. But these libertarians are ignoring the most critical variable – expanding the footprint of cities.
Instead of recognizing that housing cannot possibly become affordable unless new construction spreads outside the boundaries of existing urban centers, libertarians are, by default, joining with progressives who want to stack and pack all new residences into already established neighborhoods. The implications of this policy are cruel and far reaching.
Not only is it much harder, if not impossible, to increase the supply of homes enough to lower prices if the only new homes allowed have to be built inside existing cities, but when that happens the quality of life in these cities is tragically diminished. In Oregon, new legislation now permits multi-family dwellings to be constructed in any residential neighborhood, regardless of current zoning laws, in any city of more than 25,000 residents. Similar legislation is pending in California.
It may not be a “libertarian” concept to have zoning laws, but they exist for a good reason. People invest their life savings into a home purchase, relying on zoning laws to ensure the neighborhood where they expect to spend the rest of their lives is going to stay reasonably intact. Clearly this can’t always be the case, sometimes neighborhoods get in the path of dense urbanization, but it is a principle worth defending.
This nuance – how cities are permitted to increase their population – is far more profound than it may appear at first glance. As America’s population grows from an estimated 334 million in 2020 to an estimated 417 million by 2060, the progressive vision is to cram nearly all of those 83 million new Americans into existing cities. They want to do this despite the fact that the lower 48 states in America are only 3.7 percent urbanized, and despite the fact that such a policy will make a detached single family home with a yard unattainable to all but the most affluent Americans.
The libertarian position on urban containment is similar to their position on immigration. Just as they effectively support immigration but ineffectively oppose the welfare state, they effectively support making it easier to get permits to build homes but ineffectively oppose urban containment. The problem, again, is that accomplishing one out of two is not sufficient.
The de facto result is libertarians are offering substantial support to the progressive goal of turning American cities and suburbs into socially engineered, unaffordable, extremely high-density warrens.
In a perfect libertarian world, every time you set foot off your personal property onto so-called public space, a meter starts running. The principle at work here is that you only pay at the rate you consume, rewarding the private interests who constructed – presumably at lower cost – social amenities such as roads.
Unfortunately, this sort of thinking plays into the hands of progressives who want to monitor and ration everything, at the same time as it benefits the high-tech companies and manufacturing corporations who sell “connected” appliances that are overly complex, high maintenance, expensive, and rarely perform as well as legacy products. But start the meter. Let the market work.
If forcing consumers to pay the government and their private partners for every vehicle mile traveled were the only innovation where progressives and libertarians affect infrastructure, that would be bad enough. But libertarians often oppose new roads from even getting built, regardless of the funding model. Instead of just letting the government blast new interstate highways and connector roads into rural areas where spacious new cities could be built, some libertarians have begun to reflexively oppose these projects because they don’t want taxpayers to “subsidize the automobile.”
And yes, in the drive to no longer “subsidize the automobile,” there is a whiff of “climate change” hysteria beginning to emanate from more than a few establishment libertarian think tanks.
What libertarians ought to be doing with respect to roads and other enabling infrastructure is fighting to reduce the regulations and environmental legislation that, at the least, has more than doubled the price and more than quadrupled the time it takes to build public infrastructure. Instead they fight against any new infrastructure that might consume public funds, playing into the hands of the progressive environmentalists who don’t want to build any new infrastructure, anywhere.
Libertarians have become pawns of the progressive left in America, and in an ironic twist, both of them have been coopted by globalist corporate interests. When everything is privatized, rationed and metered, corporate rent seekers gain new revenue streams.
When progressives put punitive regulations onto virtually all forms of land and resource development, existing holders of those resources enjoy artificial asset appreciation at the same time as emerging competitors lack the financial depth to survive.
In cities densified by urban containment, land values and rent soar to stratospheric levels, driving out independent businesses and turning every commercial district into a generic multinational corporate slurb.
And of course, when progressives cheer as hordes of unskilled immigrants pour across the U.S. border, libertarian donors applaud the free movement of people and goods – while paying impotent lip service to welfare reform.
The Libertarian Party has never been a serious contender in American politics. But their influence should not be underestimated, nor their role in tilting the political balance in favor of the progressive agenda across a host of important national issues.
The value of libertarianism is to remind us that the private sector performs most functions in a society more efficiently than the government, while preserving more individual freedom. But that’s as far as it goes. The real world is complicated, and culture is not a commodity.
This article originally appeared on the website American Greatness.
Nineteen-year-old Kendrick Johnson never came home from Lowndes High School in Valdosta, Georgia on January 10, 2013. His parents notified the local sheriff, and an investigation at the school the following morning led to the tragic discovery of Johnson’s body face down in the middle of a rolled-up wrestling mat inside one of the school’s two gyms. Investigators believed that Johnson had been reaching inside the mat to retrieve one of his tennis shoes and accidentally fell inside and became trapped.
Lead investigator Lt. Stryde Jones said, “We never had credible evidence that indicated this was anything more than an accident.” The coroner performed an autopsy on the body and officially announced that the cause of death was accidental and due to positional asphyxia. A sad, abrupt end to the story, right?
Unfortunately, it was only the beginning. This happened at a high school in rural Georgia, out in farm country. Naturally, being a bunch of goofy high school kids, conspiracy theories began to run rampant. The most popular theory dreamed up by those high school kids involved the two white sons of an FBI agent named Rick Bell.
Brian, the youngest son, and Johnson had briefly scuffled on the team bus after a football game. The rumor began to spread around the school that the tussle between Bell and Johnson (who was black) had been over Brian’s girlfriend and had nothing to do with football. That changed the narrative from “accidental death” to “two white boys murder a young black man because of a white girl, and the federal government concealed evidence of the murder because their father was an FBI agent.”
Local civil rights activists took the accusations very seriously and demanded action. Reverend Floyd Rose, the Lowndes County chapter president of the Southern Christian Leadership Council, and local NAACP leader Leigh Touchton both demanded a serious and thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding Johnson’s death, and they got one.
FBI investigators pulled surveillance video from 35 different cameras at the school and carefully analyzed the data. Dozens of witnesses were interviewed. Due to eyewitness accounts and video timestamps, by October of 2013 investigators had been able to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Brian Bell was nowhere near when Johnson went inside the gym. He simply could not have murdered Kendrick Johnson even if he’d wanted. Branden Bell wasn’t even in Valdosta; he was on a bus headed to a wrestling meet in Macon when Johnson sadly met his fate. At last, that was the end of it, right?
Wrong. The Johnsons had lost a son. Somebody had to have murdered him; the coroner, the investigators, and everyone else must be lying as part of a vast (probably right-wing) conspiracy to cover up the crime. To anyone with a smidgen of logic, reason, sense of fairness, and sanity, the issue had been settled: Kendrick Johnson’s death was an accident. The Bell brothers could not possibly have killed him and concealed his death, with or without the help of their father.
Sadly, that was not good enough for Kenneth and Jacquelyn Johnson. They had not accepted the official cause of death and paid for a second autopsy, which asserted the cause of death was blunt force trauma. The new, competing narrative to the official cause of death was that Kendrick had actually been beaten to death.
The problem was that their two best (and really, the only) “suspects” had been eliminated by video evidence and eyewitness accounts. That and the absolute lack of physical evidence that Kendrick had been physically assaulted. The new theory was that Kendrick had been murdered by a single, expert blow to the head, as if a couple of high school kids were actually Ninja assassins with the ability to teleport to and away from the crime scene.
So, with only the results of this second, conflicting autopsy to support their claims, the Johnsons accused everyone involved of participating in a massive conspiracy. At least forty or fifty people would have to be involved, from the local sheriff to the FBI, even the coroner, and they weren’t all white people, either. How bad was the evidence against Branden and Brian Bell? It was so bad that even the Civil Rights division of the Department of Justice under Eric Holder and Barack Obama refused to directly interfere. Reverend Rose and Ms. Touchton both withdrew their support after realizing that the Johnsons and their lawyers were not being truthful about information they had received from investigators. The Johnsons refused to watch the surveillance videos.
Touchton told the Valdosta Daily Times, “We have to have justice for everybody. That means when you think your entire law enforcement, sheriff’s department, district attorney, all the school officials at Lowndes High, all the school board members, all the teachers and coaches, when you think they are all conspiring to cover up the murder of a black child, that’s unjust to all those people because they give their lives to help children.”
Let’s be honest: when you’re black but the local SCLC and NAACP aren’t on your side, your case must be pretty weak. When Barack Obama and Eric Holder wouldn’t offer their public support, reasonable people might conclude that legal action would be an exercise in futility.
But who needs reasonable people when we have Al Sharpton?
The Johnsons already had attorney Chevene King, Jr. as their legal counsel and soon added the notorious Benjamin Crump, famous for successfully suing The Retreat at Twin Lakes subdivision in the Trayvon Martin case and the city of Ferguson, Missouri in the Michael Brown case. They had the firepower to go after a big settlement from somebody.
Then U.S. Attorney Michael Moore got involved.
William “Boss” Tweed was one of the most notoriously corrupt politicians in American history, believed to have stolen anywhere between $25-$200 million dollars from New York City taxpayers. Shortly after the Civil War ended, his gang of cronies operating out of Tammany Hall controlled the Big Apple with an iron fist, until Thomas Nast’s political cartoons exposing the rampant corruption eventually led to Tweed’s arrest and conviction.
However, Boss Tweed was a piker and a rank amateur when compared to former President Barack Obama., who used the full weight and power of the federal government for his own personal political gain. However, Boss Tweed only controlled the largest city on the East Coast. Obama controlled the entire country for eight years, and the stench of corruption still lingers from his administration, four years later. President Barack Obama’s Department of Injustice appointed attorneys like Michael Moore for the middle district of Georgia.
Ironically, Moore’s specialty in private practice is false claims litigation. As mentioned in Part 1 (LINK) he’s about the only person other than Kenneth and Jacquelyn Johnson who believed that Brian and/or Branden Bell had murdered Kendrick Johnson. His opening of an investigation into the allegations against Rick Bell and his sons allowed the Johnsons to file a civil lawsuit against the Bell family for $100 million dollars. Brian Bell, one of the teens falsely accused in public of murder but never actually charged with any crime, lost his scholarship offered by the nearby Florida State Seminoles and was lucky to even get the opportunity to play for the Akron Zips.
Here’s where the story not only gets weird, but stupid. Rick Bell, father of the two boys accused of Johnson’s murder, was accused of helping them conceal the crime. Rick was an active FBI agent and about the last person anyone would ever expect of a racially motivated hate crime — his investigation of the burning of a black church in Arkansas led to the arrest and conviction of three white men for the crime. Although multiple eyewitnesses and recorded video evidence had thoroughly exonerated both boys and absolutely proved beyond any reasonable doubt that neither could have possibly murdered Kendrick Johnson, Moore apparently directed his investigators to operate as if Rick Bell was a criminal mastermind behind the mother of all conspiracy theories, not an honest FBI field agent with a known and respected track record. When FBI Agents Carlton Peeples and Greg McClendon (both of whom are black), along with Special Agent in Charge Britt Johnson, met with U.S. Attorney Moore to discuss the Kendrick Johnson evidence and explicitly stated that no evidence supported any murder theory, Moore’s ludicrous reply was, “Maybe KJ was murdered at night.”
The FBI announced they were closing the case, which outraged Moore, who suggested that Attorney General Eric Holder should be making the final decision. However, SAC Johnson curtly replied, “I work for FBI Director Comey and we are closing this case. Period. We will not take part in this witch hunt any longer.”
Such strong opposition from the FBI would probably deter most normal prosecutors, but Michael Moore may as well have been operating from the same handbook as Mike Nifong. At one point, the Bell family woke up to discover a 25-member SWAT team banging on their front door and an armored personnel carrier parked on their street. It was only one of six early morning raids by U.S Marshals working for Michael Moore, allegedly looking for evidence of Johnson’s murder.
Don’t those Gestapo tactics sound familiar? When pre-dawn raids by overwhelming numbers of heavily armed police officers swarmed the personal residences of guys like Paul Manafort and Roger Stone, the general public sort of assumed those two gentlemen had to be guilty of something — something above and beyond their association with President Trump.
Former federal prosecutor Tom Withers commented, “This is an egregious miscarriage of justice. It’s shocking that this case would go forward after the FBI concluded these kids were not involved. It’s just unbelievable.” He added that Moore could be sanctioned if it could be proved he continued the investigation without any probable cause, but the hurdles for a conviction are high and the maximum punishment is only a public reprimand — big deal.
With the exception of the privately commissioned second autopsy, all of the evidence pointed to an accidental death, or at minimum exonerated the Bell brothers. Yet Moore sent Rick, Branden, and Brian Bell “target letters” suggesting that substantial evidence linked them to the murder of Kendrick Johnson, and the likely outcome would be they would eventually become defendants in a criminal trial in federal court. This move also opened the door for the Johnsons to file a frivolous $100 million civil suit against the Bell family.
The full weight and power of the federal government was being brought to bear against a dedicated, completely innocent public servant and his family. Facts didn’t matter. Ron Hosko, president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, wrote in a scathing letter to the Valdosta Daily Times, “Moore’s investigation began with nothing more than rumor and the politics of race. He should know he has violated his oath of office and should hang his head in disgrace as he leaves.”
In a second letter Hosko sent to the Daily Times after Moore’s resignation in 2015 he added, “A curious reader might ask, if the government had substantial evidence of a crime in 2014 and probable cause to search for evidence at locations occupied by the grand jury targets in 2015, how could they now close their case with a lack of evidence? What changed? Can substantial evidence and probable cause simply vaporize?”
As previously mentioned in Part 1, the Johnson family was represented by attorney Benjamin Crump — surely that name rings a bell (pun intended).
Please remember that Crump is the same lawyer who allegedly suborned perjury out of Rachel Jeantel in the George Zimmerman murder trial. The tragic, sordid persecution of the Bell family would have been bad enough if it was an aberration, an exception to the rule. Unfortunately, it seems to fit a pattern of behavior by the Barack Obama Department of Injustice.
Basically, the same tactics were used to target and destroy General Michael Flynn in the earliest days of the Trump administration. Not only did the DoJ target dedicated public servants and their children, these DOJ thugs knew they would be causing irreparable harm and unnecessary pain to innocent victims, using the full weight and power of the federal government as they tried to bully false confessions to nonexistent crimes.
Please, never forget that the federal government literally has the authority to print money. Once Uncle Sam has an indictment, the odds against the typical defendant in federal drop so low that it usually isn’t worth fighting. Even if you win in court your opponent has bottomless pockets and the ability to file appeals, and even if they don’t get a conviction, they can ruin you financially and threaten to go after both you and your children.
In the case of General Flynn, a “302” FBI investigation document was deliberately altered to produce false evidence, and exculpatory evidence was withheld from the defense. In other words, the FBI agents who initially interviewed General Flynn knew that he had not intentionally deceived them in any way, but the FBI is part of the Department of Injustice, and they wanted Flynn’s scalp. FBI Director James Comey deliberately sent over agents to interview Flynn while the Trump administration was still being established to “get” Flynn to incriminate himself during an informal interview. When the scheme didn’t work, they fabricated evidence and coerced an American patriot to plead guilty in order to save his family.
Is this a great country, or what?
Pop quiz: what do Michael Moore (Kendrick Johnson), Mike Nifong (Duke lacrosse team), Jonathan Kravis (Roger Stone), Brandon Van Grack (Michael Flynn), and Andrew Weissmann (President Trump, Paul Manafort, the accounting firm Arthur Anderson) have in common? If you guessed they are all Democrats, you’re more than likely correct, but the answer I was looking for was “prosecutorial abuse.” Here’s the problem: Former U.S. Attorney Michael Moore is still doing okay in the private sector. Former FBI Director James Comey has written a book and contemplated trees. Andrew McCabe got fired before he could retire from the FBI, but still has a sweet gig on MSNBC.
*Those men should all be toiling at hard labor or just rotting in prison. James Wolfe gets caught leaking classified information to the media and lying to the FBI about it. He was guilty as hell but only got a slap on the wrist for far more serious crimes than Roger Stone or Paul Manafort.
The United States was founded on the principle of equal justice under the law, but the most powerful people in government abused their authority to weaponize the legal system against their political enemies. Quite frankly, an apology to the Bell family isn’t going to be good enough. Allowing Michael Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea and dismissing the case against him won’t rebalance the scales of justice, either. People need to pay and pay dearly for abusing the power of their office. Apparently, our only hope for real justice rests in the work of yet another U.S. Attorney, John Durham.
One way or another, the people responsible for this travesty of justice must be held accountable, and the consequences of their egregious abuse of power must be so severe that another 150 years or more pass before another Democrat follows in the footsteps of Boss Tweed and Barack Obama.
Al Gore And Friend’s will say, what we all know too well, it global warming
As with any hurricane season, it’s important to be prepared for anything, including worst-case scenarios. While some seasons are far busier than others, all it takes is one storm to change someone’s life forever. This is why it’s necessary to know what your risks are in areas you live that are prone to such natural disasters. While it’s impossible to know exactly how many storms we’ll see or what areas will see exact landfall, using science, math, and history can guide us, giving a general idea of what’s to come. Click the image below to view my 2020 Atlantic hurricane season outlook. A PDF file will open up in a new tab.
On Wednesday, Bay Area health officials extended shelter-in-place orders through May, bringing their duration to 11 weeks. The new orders very minimally loosen restrictions to allow construction and some outdoor shops and activities, but most businesses remain closed. The announcement comes as California’s Covid-19 situation is looking better, in terms of infections, while the economic, social, and even health repercussions of its stay-at-home orders mounts. A rational cost-benefit analysis of the public-health response should encourage California and the Bay Area to begin a phased reopening.
The health situation in the Bay Area, and California as a whole, appears far from dire. Data on new Covid-19 cases show a clear flattening of the curve. The number of patients hospitalized for Covid-19 in the Bay Area has dropped almost every day for a week. According to the website rt.live, the effective reproduction number (known as Rt or Re) in California, and in almost every other state, is below 1, indicating a decline in infections. The seven-day average for new infections in the Bay Area is the lowest in a month. California’s 16 northernmost counties, with a population of more than 1 million, have seen only 181 confirmed cases — a lower known infection rate than South Korea’s.
Meantime, some 26 million people have filed for unemployment nationally over the past month, including 3.2 million in California, a crushing tide of layoffs that dwarfs prior job-loss records. Almost one-third of Americans did not pay their rent this month. Businesses everywhere are struggling, with small businesses faring the worst and museums and nonprofits in jeopardy, too. Transit agencies face enormous financial losses because of lost riders. Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell has said that the economy is deteriorating “with alarming speed.” In a tragic irony, hospitals that worried about an overflow of Covid-19 patients are now laying off workers due to cancellation of elective surgeries and also, perhaps, sick people avoiding treatment for fear of infection. Lines at food banks are staggering. People talk openly not just of recession but depression.
Luckily, recovery should be easier than from a typical recession, since this one is a forced abnormality. Millions of people could have their jobs back tomorrow if shelter-in-place orders were eased — and as the impact of the virus wanes, it makes sense to begin lifting them, as European nations such as Norway and Austria are doing, and as Texas has begun to do. Even New York, far harder hit than California, has tentatively scheduled an end to its statewide “pause” on May 15.
Yet California shows no inclination to ease up. The statewide order has no end date. Governor Gavin Newsom refuses to set one, saying only that the end is “weeks away.” Newsom has outlined criteria to lift the order, but some of his requirements—such as sufficient hospital capacity and progress toward a treatment—are unnecessary or unrealistic. The state’s 5,000 Covid-19 hospitalizations represent a small fraction of its approximately 75,000 staffed beds. A vaccine could be more than a year away and like the swine flu virus, Covid-19 may never even get a silver-bullet cure. Neither the Bay Area nor California have put together a clear plan for reopening.
Newsom is not the only one taking a hard line. Governor Phil Murphy of New Jersey has stated that there “is no cost that is too high to save any one precious life.” Some infectious-disease specialists argue that restrictions should remain in place until the infection rate is nearly zero. These are impossible standards to meet, and not applied to any other danger or disease. Governor Murphy has never ordered streets and highways closed despite more than one life lost each day in New Jersey car crashes. According to the CDC, swine flu has continued to kill about 7,500 Americans each year since the outbreak in 2009. We must accept that Covid-19 will probably never go away entirely.
For some observers, the idea of quantifying human life in economic terms sounds heartless. Yet we perform such cost-benefit analyses all the time, both as individuals—when we choose between riding a motorcycle or a station wagon—and as societies—when we choose whether to put more money into cancer research or into studies of rarer diseases. Every developed nation maintains value of statistical life (VSL) measures, for use in planning, transportation, and health policies.
There are social as well as economic costs. The effects of job losses and recession fall hardest on the poor and working class. People living paycheck-to-paycheck, or without savings, are suffering most. As the economy sinks, it takes with it the livelihoods and aspirations of tens of millions of Californians. It is reasonable to argue that we cannot destroy the economy trying to stop every possible Covid-19 death. When people can’t eat, that’s a health problem, too.
There are even direct health reasons to reopen. After six weeks of shelter-in-place, cracks are appearing in California. San Francisco police broke up an illegal nightclub, surely not the only infraction. More people are circulating outside, and the size of the groups suggests that it’s no longer just roommates walking together. People are more likely to take risks the longer their confinement lasts. Far better to begin a gradual reopening, with a highly publicized campaign to encourage mitigation measures, such as wearing masks.
Another public health reason to begin to lift restrictions is that if stay-at-home orders ruin the lives of millions, they will be much harder to implement in the future. A future disease could be worse than Covid-19—the fatality rate of SARS, in 2003, was 11 percent—but resentment over a “Covid recession” might make it much harder to get people to cooperate next time.
California led the nation in shutting down, but the state is lagging the country, and the world, in opening back up. New Zealand planned its successful lockdown on the scientific basis of two incubation cycles, or 28 days. The sequence lasted slightly longer, but after 33 days, the country began a phased reopening this week. Operating on the same parameters, California could have started lifting restrictions last week. Instead of waiting four more weeks, it should start a phased reopening now.
The stay-at-home orders have been very successful and given California a relatively low infection rate despite one of the earliest exposures. Most people have complied, and local officials should trust them to behave responsibly as restrictions lift, rather than trying to micromanage their activity. And all phases of reopening would include continuing effective mitigation measures—washing hands, wearing masks, social distancing, self-isolation of at-risk people, and tracking and quarantining of those testing positive for Covid-19.
Each region of the United States has experienced the pandemic differently; a phased reopening would work differently in each place. The current approach—where largely healthy Northern California lives under the same restrictions as harder-hit Los Angeles—is not tenable. It’s time to begin the gradual lifting of shelter-in-place orders before these orders do more damage than the illness they were issued to fight.
Phillip Sprincin is a veteran of the United States Marine Corps who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area.
A cursory study of diseases shows that defeating COVID-19 through social distancing, mass testing, and a hoped-for vaccination is impractical, and has no expiration date.
Any health care response that excludes exposure to and surviving COVID-19 – the same way hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans, contract and recover from influenza each year – is incomplete. If this is a “war against an invisible enemy,” as President Trump declares, then young, healthy people need to “serve” in this national crusade by contracting and recovering from COVID-19 to build “herd immunity,” for their own future safety and to weaken COVID-19’s deadly impact when it assuredly returns some day. “Herd immunity” simply describes strengthening one’s own, personal immune system, which naturally fights diseases such as COVID-19, while also benefiting society as a whole.
President Trump needs to fire germophobes Drs. Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx and get a “second opinion” by hiring new health care advisers who recognize this reality.
So far, the argument against the extreme social distancing mandates required by the nation’s almost overwhelmingly Democratic governors has been that the economic and societal catastrophe created will be far worse than the impact of COVID-19 to the population. But now more than six weeks into this nightmare of restricted liberties and quarantine edicts, the country ought to open for business as soon as possible for health reasons, too.
Social distancing and all the other precautions to avoiding contracting COVID-19 have merit, but can’t alone succeed even if Democratic governors would rule by executive order indefinitely. This is where the dishonesty begins: There is no practical “exit strategy” to Democrats’ shut-down measures.
Even if a vaccination were discovered tomorrow to combat coronavirus, it’s unlikely that it would eradicate COVID-19 forever based on what we already know about other viruses, such as the flu, which is that they mutate and continue to kill even with vaccinations.
Despite vaccinations, flu kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans each year and we do not shut the economy for the flu. What we do is vaccinate vulnerable elderly people and children and hope for the best. And when one considers that it took decades of research and testing to find cures for viral diseases such as polio, measles and chicken pox, we don’t have that time to wait, while our country falls apart and people’s businesses and lives are ruined.
Both COVID-19 and influenza cause lower respiratory illness that leads to death, sometimes from pneumonia. Others who die from COVID-19 had heart disease or diabetes. The point is that it’s not so simple to determine a cause of death.
Closing elementary schools and colleges in the United States to combat COVID-19 was a big mistake. Young people are the least likely to die from COVID 19, and would have greatly contributed to developing “herd immunity.” This alone cannot solve the problem of COVID-19 transmission, but would greatly contribute to reducing the number of “hosts” in which the virus could “live.”
The death data so far show that the overwhelming number of the people “killed” by COVID-19 had compromised immune systems or were older and sick, and that nearly no children have died. Once children and young adults survive COVID-19, they likely will have the antibodies to protect them in the future when COVID-19 or another coronavirus returns.
Viruses can’t survive without a host, and the more people possessing coronavirus antibodies, the sooner COVID-19 will “die,” even though it’s not technically “alive” from a scientific perspective.
Everything in this article was gleaned from well-known, mainstream disease-combating websites, such as from the federal government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The “I’m no doctor” line comes from a comedian Brian Regan skit about visiting a hospital and being asked stupid questions by the staff about why he was there.
We were told at the beginning that social distancing was to “flatten the curve” so as not to overwhelm the health care system with COVID-19 cases. However, that has morphed into we cannot open the economy until we have testing and a vaccine, which frankly will never be adequate to the Democrats who want to defeat President Trump this November, hence the politics of this “crisis.”
The media tells us that COVID-19 is “really bad,” and “much worse than the flu.” It may be worse, but they are Fake News and a mouthpiece of the Democratic National Committee. It is a partisan press, the same way that it was at the beginning of the country, and no American ought to take the Washington Post, or the New York Times, or CNN seriously on any topic.
Right now, we don’t have to care whether the number of COVID-19 deaths has been exaggerated or whether the Chinese created it as part of biological warfare. There will be time for that later, but we do have to have a plan that works, which we do not have now.
We cannot ignore the Democrats and Deep State motivation to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency, and their obvious delight that COVID-19 and their draconian response to it presents them with their latest, best opportunity to do so, but which will also fail. In this regard, the Democrats and the Deep State are Wiley E. Coyote to Donald Trump’s Roadrunner.
We are alive, but we are not living. In New York City, people wait in line to enter grocery stores; all the concrete “parks” are closed to street basketball. Even so, yesterday, I saw two Dominican teen boys hop the fence to play.
Everybody has to do their part in this “war” against the pandemic: People have to get the virus and survive it and build herd immunity. Boris Johnson, the prime minister of England, contracted COVID-19 and recovered, everyone else can and ought to as well.
Doctors are great; the whole “white lab coat” thing. But there is more to life than trying to avoid getting sick, and that’s what we are doing right now. That’s not sustainable or even desirable.
We need to stop telling people to “stay safe,” but rather “be smart.” We need healthy people, including children, to become infected and recover and develop the antibodies to minimize their future susceptibility of contracting the disease and using those antibodies to discover an effective vaccine. As said before, healthy people who survive will likely experience minimum to less severe symptoms while they become immune to hosting the virus.
We are not South Korea, which has a homogeneous population and culture, and can require a complete lock down of their country to combat COVID-19. In the United States, we have individual liberties. We have to be smart and solve this with American ingenuity. There is no solution in social distancing without opening the economy, protecting the vulnerable, developing herd immunity, while waiting for a vaccine that may or not arrive soon. And even then, people are doing to die, like they have for time immemorial, because that’s the nature of life on Earth. And it is a twisted, dystopian ideology to think that “hunkering down” and hoping for an as-yet-undiscovered vaccine can save all of us. It can’t.
As the pandemic that locked down the world plays out at an excruciating slow pace, the Democrats are making away with the pandemic-beleaguered 2020 presidential election.
No longer having to put themselves out on public view where all their warts and wrinkles will show, 2020 presidential election.—starting with Joe Biden—no longer stand before the electorate in the flesh, but have managed to hide themselves by going completely digital!
Their presumptive presidential candidate is running the race digitally from the basement of his Delaware home—safe from the boos and jeers of a town hall-like settings, unwanted citizen questions or accidental media vetting of any kind.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have officially endorsed Biden—digitally.
A digital Michelle Obama is both intended and destined to go viral with a message from a Netflix documentary telling a locked down audience: ”I love and miss you all”, on May 6. (Canada Free Press, April 27, 2020)
In the real world, roughly 50% of the American citizenry don’t really miss or love Michelle Obama.
What the Dems are doing now is far more effective than the FBI-led coup d’état in which they failed to prove that “The Russians stole the election”—because , in construct, it is fail proof.
Call it ‘Digi-Coup, The Live Streaming of America’ in an election where even dead people will get to mail their votes in.
The 2016 presidential debates between candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton—including the one where Clinton had the questions given to her in advance by DNC chair Donna Brazile, now a Fox News “contributor”, are passé.
While the media world bought into Barack Obama “Resistance” leader, fomenting for revolution from a mansion within walking distance of a President Donald Trump-held White House, Obama managed to come up with the biggest “Resistance” of them all—providing a digital presence for all of his top activists—including his overbearing wife, his fumbling former vice president, and handpicked 2016 candidate, Hillary Clinton.
All can patently ignore the Tara Reade scandal as though it never happened because they’ve all been Obama awarded the “can’t-catch-me!” escapism of digital.
Digital is forever—unless of course you cross the digital Demi-gods, Google, Facebook and Twitter and are ever so conveniently de-platformed and silenced.
Then your resistance is gone within the blink of an eye.
Six months out from election day, and electioneering by strictly digital is well on its way home.
The digital world is getting to be as contagious as the pandemic keeping us hunkering down in our homes:
“On Monday afternoon, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., will host a virtual town hall for the Biden campaign with African American leaders, and on Monday evening, Dr. Jill Biden will host a virtual LGBTQ+ Social Hour.” (Deadline, April 27, 2020)
Isn’t life fun when there’s no one to throw eggs at when you’ve become completely and utterly digital.
Still telltale little details can be seen by savvy reporters like Cristina Laila over at Gateway Pundit:Cristina Laila@cristinalaila1
Hillary Clinton had her hair and makeup professionally done for this appearance as we peasants are told we cannot go to the hair salon.
So who put lipstick on this pig? https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1255242543962390531 …Trump War Room – Text TRUMP to 88022✔@TrumpWarRoomThis was actually a heartwarming moment. Joe Biden said people in his life are “reading to me” from the newspaper.
It’s good to know that he is receiving the kind of care and attention that he needs.524Twitter Ads info and privacy329 people are talking about this
Obama, Cristina, that’s who’s got all the lipstick tubes.
It was Obama who said on Sept. 9 2008: “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”
Now let’s take a close look at what Obama’s lipstick did for slicked-back hair, shades-wearing Joe Biden:
You can see by these photos that Biden’s a reincarnation of stuttering Max Headroom.
“Max Headroom is a fictional artificial intelligence (AI) character, known for his wit and stuttering, electronically altered voice. He was introduced in early 1985. The character was created by George Stone, Annabel Jankel, and Rocky Morton. Max was portrayed by Matt Frewer and was called “the first computer-generated TV personality”, although the computer-generated appearance was achieved with an actor in prosthetic make-up and harsh lighting, in front of a blue screen.” (Wikipedia)
Before morphing into Max Headroom, Biden had always followed in the footsteps of his boss Barack Obama as an unvetted-by-media Artful Dodger.
Don’t expect to get back to work until after November 3, 2020, when there may be no work left to which to return.
The lock down is a useful tool for power-crazed Democrats.
Even the Pope is in on the act:
“ROME — Pope Francis urged obedience to state lockdown measures Tuesday, just 36 hours after Italian bishops reproached the government for refusing to allow public worship.
“At this time, as indications emerge for a way out of quarantine, we pray that the Lord will grant us the grace of prudence and obedience to these indications, so that the pandemic does not return,” the pontiff said in a daily tweet.” (Breitbart, April 28, 2020)
“Meanwhile, there’s no way of escaping the Digital Dems as long as the coronavirus lock down drags on—or their smarmy streamed message that Michelle Obama and Joe Biden only want to hug and love you.” (Canada Free Press, April 27, 2020)
Now Democrats Want to Give Coronavirus Money to Illegal Aliens
Unsurprisingly, Democrats are again prioritizing non-Americans over the welfare of our citizens.
The latest outrage was introduced by California (where else?) Rep. Lou Correa who led two fellow Democrats by introducing the so-called “Leave No Taxpayer Behind Act.”
The bill would allow people in this country illegally to apply for coronavirus relief funding.
However, these funds only go to taxpayers who have filed tax returns with the IRS and have a valid Social Security number (or any of the other legal identification numbers). That naturally leaves illegals out of the equation.
These provisions are now being called “racist” by Democrats looking to further pander to illegals.
Indeed, California Democratic Rep. Judy Chu insisted that the virus does not care about tax status.
“I was appalled to learn hardworking, taxpaying immigrants were left out of the $2 trillion CARES Act,” the hard-core leftist said in his Friday press release.
“By casting out immigrants, we are placing some of our most vulnerable residents in grave danger. Every individual taxpayer, irrespective of citizenship status, needs government assistance now,” he added.
Correa was referring to the $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief package that Trump signed last week. The bill, of course, contains a $1,200 payment to individual citizens with a maximum of $2,400 per couple. The payments will also include $500 per child.
“This virus does not care about immigration status. It does not discriminate, and neither should we. Immigrants own businesses and homes, support families, and pay rent, and contribute to their communities,” Chu said last week.
“Making it impossible for them to receive the same benefit we are sending to everyone else just means those immigrants will have a harder time affording food or rent, and that leaves us all worse off. I hope to see this corrected in the next relief package,” she said. https://godfatherpolitics.com/now-democrats-want-to-give-coronavirus-money-to-illegal-aliens/