Posted on

Horowitz: American Academy of Pediatrics backtracks on science about opening schools amid teachers union revolt

If you are looking for the quintessential example of how our response to coronavirus is being driven by politics, not prudence or science, look no further than the sudden and inexplicable flip-flop of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) on reopening schools.

The anatomy of a political flip-flop and the politicization of our children

In June, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) put out an unambiguous statement “strongly” advocating “that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school.” It noted, based on all the available research, that not only are children not at risk from the virus, but they do not contribute to community spread. “Although children and adolescents play a major role in amplifying influenza outbreaks, to date, this does not appear to be the case with SARS-CoV-2.”

This is not the type of statement that can change over the course of a few weeks. It’s built upon consistent data from the beginning of the year showing that children are less vulnerable to COVID-19 and contribute less to its community spread than that of the flu. But as I lamented at the time, barely anyone in the media covered the AAP’s statement because it didn’t fit the narrative of the cult of coronavirus panic.

In the ensuing days, as more states discussed reopening schools, teachers’ unions throughout the country have vigorously protested. You know, they so much want to be teachers that they want to ensure schools are shut. Once this became a political circus, the AAP dropped all its science and prudence and gave in to the pressure. Something interesting happens when people like President Donald Trump and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis support reopening schools. That becomes an untenable position for any “prestigious” institution to hold. If Trump and DeSantis voiced support for children playing with puppies, the Left and the media would find something wrong with that too.

On Friday, the AAP published “updated” guidance on re-opening schools, with a completely changed tune. In a press release announcing the update, the Academy is clearly responding to President Trump’s call for reopening when it stresses the need for local decision-making: “Local school leaders, public health experts, educators and parents must be at the center of decisions about how and when to reopen schools, taking into account the spread of COVID-19 in their communities and the capacities of school districts to adapt safety protocols to make in-person learning safe and feasible.” It adds that “schools in areas with high levels of COVID-19 community spread should not be compelled to reopen against the judgment of local experts. A one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate for return to school decisions.”

Gee, what changed in just a few weeks? Has the fatality rate or transmissibility among kids gone up? Nope. It’s just “orange man bad.” The AAP took a swipe at Trump’s threat to cut off federal funding to schools that fail to reopen:

Reopening schools in a way that maximizes safety, learning, and the well-being of children, teachers, and staff will clearly require substantial new investments in our schools and campuses. We call on Congress and the administration to provide the federal resources needed to ensure that inadequate funding does not stand in the way of safely educating and caring for children in our schools. Withholding funding from schools that do not open in person fulltime would be a misguided approach, putting already financially strapped schools in an impossible position that would threaten the health of students and teachers.

The AAP asserts, “Science should drive decision-making on safely reopening schools,” but offers no scientific data to explain its flip-flop or its veiled attack on Trump for taking the position the AAP itself staked out before it became political.

Of course, unlike the original statement, which reflected the AAP’s true belief, untainted by politics, this one was picked up by the media everywhere.

Why is it that every time conservatives cite a prestigious institution, that institution is forced to walk back its position? We saw this recently with Michigan State researchers walking back research showing police shoot more white people per capita than black people after it was cited in essays by prominent conservatives.

The science is settled on low risk to and from children  

Just how absurd is shutting schools for COVID-19? A study from the Consumer Product Safety Commission found that 13,837 children are hospitalized every year due to playground accidents, three times the number that have been hospitalized for COVID-19, and children have less of a chance of dying from COVID-19 than from getting struck by lightning. In fact, children 5-14 are 24 times more likely to die from homicide than from COVID-19, and that is unfortunately a growing concern in America’s inner cities.

Here is a powerful presentation from Yinon Wiess showing the risk (or lack thereof) of COVID-19 to children in the scheme of different ways they could die throughout the school year.

We need not speculate about the ability of school children to live normally during coronavirus. Sweden never closed its primary schools. The results? According to one analysis, at most only 14 children in Stockholm were hospitalized for what could possibly have been COVID-related ailments, and only one child with serious underlying conditions who tested positive wound up dying, “but the relevance for the outcome is unclear since other pathogens were also identified in post-mortem testing.”

A report by the Public Health Agency of Sweden found no measurable difference of outcomes in children between Sweden and Finland, even though Finland closed its schools. “Closure or not of schools had no measurable direct impact on the number of laboratory confirmed cases in school-aged children in Finland or Sweden,” concluded the report, even though Sweden, in general, had more cases among the population than Finland. “The negative effects of closing schools must be weighed against the positive indirect effects it might have on the mitigation of the covid-19 pandemic.”

They also found that the comparison “does not show any increased risk for teachers” because “the role of children in propagating this infection is likely to be small.”

Numerous countries have conducted studies that have yet to find child-to-adult transmission (UK, Australia, Switzerland, Canada, Netherlands, France, Ireland and Taiwan), but the most painstaking study is the one conducted by Iceland. Researchers sequenced all the genomes from samples of every positive case and tracked the mutation patterns. They concluded that “even if children do get infected, they are less likely to transmit the disease to others than adults. We have not found a single instance of a child infecting parents.”

It’s not that it’s impossible for children to ever transmit to adults, but the contribution of children is likely so low that it makes no sense to socially isolate and abuse them as part of any mitigation strategy.

As an article in the AAP’s own medical journal stated, “Evidence and experience argue that children, particularly school-aged children, are far less important drivers of SCoV2 transmission than adults.” In the article, titled, “COVID-19 Transmission and Children: The Child Is Not to Blame,” the authors concluded, “Therefore, serious consideration should be paid toward strategies that allow schools to remain open, even during periods of COVID-19 spread.”

If anything, this will allow countries to achieve herd immunity quicker through the lowest-risk population while assuming a level of risk that is lower than what we blissfully accept every flu season without batting an eyelash.

So, what sort of science is the AAP suddenly examining? The science of mob rule.

Last week, the United Teachers Los Angeles published a list of demands before schools can reopen, including mandatory mask-wearing, tiny class sizes, and impossible logistics to facilitate more social isolation.

What is the science driving these demands more than during any flu season? Who knows, but it’s likely the same science driving the other list of demands in its publication, which include: Medicare for all, a wealth tax, defunding the police, and financial aid for illegal aliens.

Truth be told, they are not wrong. There is just as much science behind closing schools until the police are abolished as there is behind closing them until the virus is eradicated. Which is why the only way to get the truth about a medical or scientific question is to study the literature published before the issue became political.

The post Horowitz: American Academy of Pediatrics backtracks on science about opening schools amid teachers union revolt appeared first on Conservative Review.

via Conservative Review

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.conservativereview.com

Posted on

Media Celebrate Demise Of Redkins: Hail To The ‘Washington NFL Team’

The white guilt-mongers at politically correct media outlets can breathe easy now. Their years of feigned suffering over the name of the "Washington NFL team" they dare not speak is over. Today the Redskins announced they plan to drop what USA Today writer Tom Schad calls "a polarizing team name and logo." It’s a case of the tyranny of the minority prevailing over huge majorities of people and Native Americans who do not object to Indian nicknames.
Schad is whooping it up because, in 2013, Skins owner Daniel Snyder vowed he would never change the nickname. 
"Now, it appears "NEVER" has arrived," Schad says. It’s "a moniker that many Native Americans considered a racial slur." "Many" — as in 10 percent in public opinion polling.
The racial paranoia engulfing corporate America obviously led Snyder to push the panic button. That’s the only thing that’s changed in the seven years since he took a hard line stance on the Redskins name. Schad writes:
"In a monumental and long-awaited move, Washington’s NFL franchise announced Monday it will drop its polarizing team name and logo at the conclusion of an ongoing review. The franchise did not immediately announce a new name for its team, or when it will finalize its new branding."
Snyder and Coach Ron Rivera are working together to come up with a name that will appease the race peddlers. One that will "enhance the standing of our proud, tradition-rich franchise and inspire our sponsors, fans and community for the next 100 years," a team statement declared.
Washington’s decision to end an 87-year run as the Redskins came 10 days into a formal review, after FedEx raised a big stink about having its name attached to the team’s stadium. 
Schad says: "It also follows decades of simmering frustration from many Native Americans and activists, who have criticized the name as either insensitive or downright racist."
Les Carpenter and Mark Maske, of The Washington Post, confirm the race mania surrounding the killing of George Floyd contributed to the name change:
"Snyder had previously said he would never change the controversial Redskins name, which is considered to be a slur against Native Americans. But in the social uprising that followed George Floyd’s death, with corporations and governments around the country removing logos and symbols considered to be offensive, the pressure to drop the old name — including from some of the franchise’s most important sponsors — was too great.
"At least one of Snyder’s outside advisers urged him to deal with the name issue in the days after Floyd’s death, a person with direct knowledge of the plea said. Soon after, Snyder apparently began confronting the reality of a name change."
On July 2, FedEx threatened to terminate the $45 million it’s paying the Redskins for naming rights to their stadium, barring a name change. Other sponsors, including PepsiCo, Nike and Bank of America, also warned the team they would revoke their sponsorships.
The Post says name changes are complicated processes and fears the team faces "a serious challenge" to complete it and also rename its Redskins Park Drive address in time for the Sept. 13 season opener.
Many petty sports writers and broadcasters have refused to say the "Redskins," name, preferring instead "the Washington NFL club." Sporting News is doing that today, ironically pushing for a race-related nickname: "Redtails," in honor of the Tuskegee Airmen. Writer Jordan Heck also suggests "Warriors," though Marquette University dropped that name, claiming it was disrespectful of Indians.
Deadspin writer Eric Barrow is ecstatic over the demise of the Redskins, writing that after the murder of Floyd "by four Minneapolis cops back in May, a push began to tear down images of white supremacy, particularly statues of Confederate officers, enslavers and known racists … It wasn’t long before public outrage turned its attention to the most racist team name in sports (because Deadspin considers the name a slur, we will not print it). In June, Nestle announced it was abandoning same racial slur it used for an Australian candy."
No doubt Bob Costas is forcing his best big Botox smile today. The former NBC broadcaster exploited his NFL halftime appearances to call for the elimination of the Redskins nickname. It "can’t possibly honor a heritage or noble character trait, nor can it possibly be considered a neutral term. It’s an insult, a slur, no matter how benign the present day intent," Costas whined years ago.
Former Redskins player Donté Stallworth, an African-American appearing in an interview on CNN, rationalized the name change is a case of "capitalism,” not "altruism."
Speaking on Fox Sports 1’s "The Undisputed," Shannon Sharpe (at left in photo) said the nickname is a derogatory, offensive, racist slur. "It was the right thing to do." Skip Bayless (at right in photo) said he has "run out of air on national TV saying this is wrong" to use a "derogatory sort of defamatory term towards native Americans, that goes way back to the days in which we, as white people, white settlers, white government, declared war on the Native Americans," and it’s wrong to use it for the football team in the nation’s capitol.

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/

Posted on

US Plans To Reject Chinese Claims To South China Sea In Major Reversal Of Obama-Era Appeasement

US Plans To Reject Chinese Claims To South China Sea In Major Reversal Of Obama-Era Appeasement

Tyler Durden

Mon, 07/13/2020 – 14:45

With the 4th anniversary of a landmark ruling by a UN tribunal fast approaching, the State Department is planning a major policy change that could swiftly lead to even more heightened military tensions between Washington and Beijing in one of the world’s most dangerous geopolitical powder kegs: the South China Sea.

Since Trump’s inauguration, the Pentagon has stepped up Naval operations in the contested territory, and sent dozens, if not hundreds, of destroyer-class ships and others to engage in "Freedom of Navigation" operations – or "Freeops", for short. Most recently, the US sent two aircraft carriers to the area to hold military exercises…while Chinese ships held exercises of their own nearby.

In a copy of the draft statement reviewed by WSJ, the administration claims that China’s refusal to acknowledge the landmark ruling and continue with its claims of supremacy over the area poses "the single greatest threat to freedom of the seas in modern history."

“China’s maritime claims pose the single greatest threat to the freedom of the seas in modern history,” according to a draft seen by The Wall Street Journal. “We cannot afford to re-enter an era where states like China attempt to assert sovereignty over the seas,” the draft said.

China’s territorial claims fall within what’s known as the nine-dash line, or the "Cow’s Tongue", named for its peculiar shape.

At the time of the 2016 ruling, the Obama Administration decided not to get involved, and official set America on a course of non-interference in the area.

That changed almost as soon as Trump was inaugurated, as the president promised to reverse the Obama Administration’s policy of cooperation and appeasement in favor of a more resolute stance. The Trump Administration has recently stepped up its criticism of the region’s maritime claims. Even the Philippines, which initially brought the case against China to the Hague back in 2013, is no longer pressuring Beijing to obey the ruling, after President Rodrigo Duterte was elected with a mandate to negotiate directly with Beijing.

Since the ruling, China has continued efforts to build artificial islands and fortify them with weaponry, leading to the creation of what Steve Bannon has described as "mobile aircraft carriers". Bannon has repeatedly warned that China is the most pressing threat to American security and economic interests.

While Beijing mostly just whines and complains when the US sends navy ships within 12 miles of the Spratly islands, we suspect the Foreign Ministry’s response once Washington confirms the policy change will be even more aggressive. Perhaps the decision might even spur the People’s Liberation Army-Navy to speed up their plans for fortification and weaponization, just like the initial ruling appears to have done.

via ZeroHedge News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.zerohedge.com/fullrss2.xml

Posted on

Covid-19: Is a real search for the truth now taboo?

Are public health officials telling the truth when they state they are seeking information about possible early cases of COVID-19? Similarly, is it possible some members of the “watchdog” press are unwilling to publish any story that presents compelling evidence the novel coronavirus was spreading in America in November or December?

As a freelance reporter who’s been investigating this hypothesis for two months, I’ve come to believe the answer to both questions could be “yes.”

The account below shows how I reached these conclusions and why I came to believe that lessons gleaned from working on a COVID-19 story might be more frightening than the virus itself.

***

On May 29th, as reported by NBC News, Dr. Jay Butler, deputy director for infectious diseases at the CDC,  told the country that his agency had found “no indication the (novel corona) virus had been introduced into the U.S … in November or December. We looked for evidence of early widespread transmission and could not confirm it.” He added his team will continue to search for clues of the first cases on U.S. soil (emphasis added).

But if Dr. Butler and his team of infectious disease sleuths were indeed “search(ing) for clues of the first cases on U.S. soil,” they would have been eager to reach out to Tim and Brandie McCain of Sylacauga, Alabama.

As I recount in a story published on June 25th at www.UncoverDC.com, the McCain’s experienced virtually every one of the COVID-19 symptoms in December. Tim McCain almost died the first week in January. Of note, both Tim and Brandie McCain tested positive for antibodies in early May. Brandie McCain tested positive for antibodies again on June 24th (her husband has yet to receive a second antibody test).

At least for this journalist, the evidence that both McCain’s had COVID-19 in December meets the “beyond-a-reasonable-doubt” standard. And if this couple had COVID-19 in December or November – as did at least 14 other Americans (see below) – COVID-19 was almost certainly circulating in America at least two months before the CDC says it was.

This, I thought, was a big and significant story, one that every news editor would be eager to publish. As it turns out, I’d thought wrong.

More than a month before the article was finally published I began to send my story – or a pitch of the article’s numerous “newsworthy” features – to editors at approximately 25 well-known news organizations. Only four editors replied with a short “we’ll-pass-on-this” message and none asked to see the supporting evidence I offered to provide.

But the 26th try was the charm. Tracy Beanz, the editor of UncoverDC.com, replied almost immediately. Not only would her site publish the story, she was dumbfounded nobody else would.

“Why hasn’t anyone else published this?” Tracy asked me several times. “I don’t know,” I replied. “It’s a head-scratcher, the $64,000 question.” I offered several possible explanations, speculating that perhaps my story didn’t align with the “authorized narrative.”

Perhaps those on the right didn’t like the story because it could call into question the premise that the virus originated in China in late December. (The story is actually mute on this question and certainly doesn’t rule out the possibility the virus may have begun in China earlier than the public was initially told).

Maybe those on the left didn’t like the story because it might provide evidence that the virus “horse” may have been well “out of the barn” by the time governors began to “lock-down” the economy in March, a public policy response clearly endorsed by the left-leaning press.

A third possibility is that the news judgment of “big-time” editors is simply much different than this former small-time newspaper editor. Yet another possibility is that today’s press corps has become increasingly leery of publishing any story that contradicts statements of government authorities or “experts,” a chilling statement about our free and “skeptical” press if true.

One “alternative media” blogger I shared my frustrations with speculated that my story was probably viewed as “conspiracy” fodder by editors at well-known mainstream publications. He’s probably right, although (don’t laugh) I simply view myself as a journalist seeking the truth. Readers could decide for themselves if the evidence presented in my story was convincing or not. That is, I wasn’t seeking to advance any conspiracy theories with this story.

But I might be with this one. A “conspiracy” is simply two or more people “conspiring” to conceal something they don’t want large numbers of people to learn about.

Are at least some officials who receive tax-payer-funded salaries trying to prevent those of us who pay their salaries from knowing that COVID-19 existed in America in December, or probably earlier than this? As of today’s date, I can’t prove this, but I certainly will not be surprised if this is proven to be the case in the future.

Prior to writing my story, I interviewed Dr. Karen Landers of the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) and shared with her many details of the McCain’s likely early cases. Dr. Landers said it was “possible” the McCain’s had COVID-19. However, citing CDC and WHO data that showed no evidence of community spread in America at the time the McCain’s experienced their symptoms, she doubts this is the case.

Fair enough. But didn’t she or other officials at the ADPH at least want to look into the McCain’s “possible” case given that this couple would qualify – by at least 2 1/2 months – as Alabama’s first COVID-19 case, and given all the evidence that supported a possible/likely diagnosis?

Dr. Landers replied that the ADPH would “take a look” at details of Mr. McCain’s case if the agency was provided relevant information by either the McCain’s or the hospital that treated Tim McCain for 24 days in January.

It’s clear to me that no one at Grandview Medical Center in Birmingham ever forwarded such information to the ADPH. I tried several times to get someone at the hospital to talk to me about Tim McCain’s case but was told by the hospital’s spokesperson no one “is interested in being interviewed.”

Brandie McCain also told me that she’d left two messages with Dr. Landers and/or her media liaison at ADPH, requesting that someone from the agency contact her. Weeks after leaving these messages, she has still not been contacted by state health officials, she says.

The day after my story was published, I sent an email to Dr. Landers and the ADPH’s media relations contact. In the email, I provided a link to my article and also included Brandie McCain’s telephone number.

In this email I dispensed with decorum and told Dr. Landers what I really thought: 

“The fact you or no other infectious disease experts will even follow up with this family is borderline criminal, perhaps professional malpractice or maybe just incompetence, displaying an utter lack of professional curiosity,” I wrote.

“I hope you read this story and this sidebar closely. If you still shrug your shoulders and dismiss the significance of their case, we need new officials at the ADPH. There is certainly copious and persuasive evidence that this couple may have had the virus. Isn’t it your job to investigate people that meet this profile? Brandie is literally begging for some attention from ‘experts.’ She and her family are also suffering (likely) long-term effects from this disease, areas that need to be understood and studied. Details of their case can help others.”

“I’m sorry this email comes off harsh, but someone needs to reach out to the McCain’s and show the world that our state health department understands the implications and significance of these likely positive cases.”

I received no response to this email.

On June 26, I also reached out to the CDC’s media affairs office and included a link to my story. This the July 1 response I received from Jason McDonald, who identified himself as a “member of the media team for CDC’s COVID-19 response.”

“Thank you for sharing the story you wrote. CDC has no access to personally identifiable information of cases or those who had samples tested; meaning, we would have no information for the subject of your story.  Such information is never provided to CDC. It is best to reach out to the Alabama health department for information.”

I replied to Mr. McDonald that I had reached out to Alabama’s health department  … to no avail.

I again highlighted quotes where Dr. Butler stated there was “no indication the virus had been introduced into the U.S. … in November and December” … and that  his “team will continue to search for clues of the first cases on U.S. soil.”

No one from the CDC’s media team replied to my follow-up email.

I’ve also contacted press liaisons with the University of Alabama Birmingham’s Medical Center, which includes a highly-regarded infectious disease department very active in COVID-19 research. Researchers at such an institution might be interested in a likely early case in our own state, I thought.

But I was wrong again.

“Thanks for reaching out,” one of the hospital’s media affairs employees replied. ”I will rely (stet) this to our infectious diseases physicians, but it sounds as if this is a matter for ADPH and the CDC.”

It probably goes without saying that none of the hospital’s infectious disease physicians contacted me (nor the McCain’s).

So, to summarize my interactions with hospitals, public health bureaucrats and infectious disease experts: No one from Grandview Medical Center was willing to talk to this reporter, nor (apparently) did the hospital pass along information to public health officials about a patient who very likely had COVID-19 in December.

The CDC is not interested (telling me this was a matter for the ADPH). UAB’s infectious disease experts weren’t interested and referred me to the CDC and ADPH. And the ADPH obviously has no interest in performing even a cursory investigation into the McCain’s cases.

So I ask again: Is it possible there is some kind of “conspiracy” on the part of health officials to conceal information that might strongly suggest that the novel coronavirus was spreading in America in December?

While I’m not willing to state this as fact, I am comfortable stating this theory: At least some public health officials and infectious disease experts have no interest in performing serious inquiries into likely early cases – probably because they know such investigations, if legitimate, would almost certainly prove that this virus was indeed spreading in many people much earlier than they’ve publicly acknowledged.

That is, by not investigating the McCain’s cases (and other people who fit the same profile), the “official narrative” is protected.

I should note that my article on the McCain’s was not the only journalism that identified early COVID-19 patients.

The Seattle Times and Palm Beach Post had previously published stories that identified 13 other people who were sick in November and December who later tested positive for COVID-19  antibodies. Surely, I thought, editors at these two papers would be interested in any story that corroborates or supports the theory advanced in their own two articles.

Wrong again.

I did receive one reply from Lewis Kamb, the reporter who wrote The Seattle Times story. Mr. Kamb said he was busy covering the George Floyd protests, but he did ask one question: “Did the couple you’re focusing on travel to China prior to their illnesses or have contact with anyone who did?  Just curious.”

“No,” I replied.

I kept reaching out, but this was the last I heard from anyone at The Seattle Times or The Palm Beach Post. (In addition to its “contrarian” antibody story, The Palm Beach Post had also broken a story that strongly suggests a government conspiracy to conceal possible early COVID-19 patients in Florida. See story here.)

Hypothetically speaking, if editors were interested in blocking or “censoring” certain stories, they could achieve this goal any number of ways.  For example, they could simply refuse to assign reporters stories that would not qualify, in their opinion, as news “fit to print.”  They could also not mention or follow-up on stories published by other news outlets.

I did note with interest that only a handful of news outlets picked up the Seattle Times story and no news organization picked up the Palm Beach Post story which stated that 11 people from one “small neighborhood” in Delray, Florida probably had COVID-19 in November and December. Given the example of these case studies, I was not surprised when my UncoverDC piece was also ignored by the national media.

Apparently, I am the only journalist in the country who is keeping a tally of people who had COVID-19 symptoms in November and December and later got antibody tests that “confirmed” a COVID diagnosis.  At the time I wrote my story, this figure was 15 such people (and this number does not include the unknown people who transmitted the virus to these individuals).

As it turns out, however, I missed one of the most intriguing cases. Michael Melham, who is the mayor of Belleville, New Jersey, also got sick in late November and has now tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies. Readers can watch this 4-minute YouTube video and gauge for themselves if the mayor’s account is convincing. (Since this video was produced, the mayor has tested positive for antibodies a second time).

I contacted Mayor Melham by email and he told me he remains “steadfast” that he had the virus in November. He believes he contracted it at a conference he attended around Nov. 20th in Atlantic City. He also reports that several other people who attended the conference got sick at the same time.

Mayor Melham also told me no public health officials have contacted him to follow-up with his possible diagnosis. He said his case received “huge” amounts of media coverage in China, but very little in this country. (Fox News did run a story with the headline: “China uses New Jersey mayor’s claim he had coronavirus in November in propaganda war against US.”)

Considering all of the above, do I believe editorial decisions dealing with potential arrival dates of the novel coronavirus have become politicized? As my daughter might say: Duh.

Do I think public health officials are actively and sincerely investigating possible early cases of COVID-19? Based on my own experiences and research, I do not.

Do I think important news organizations – those that ultimately shape “conventional wisdom” –  are willing to report stories that contradict the “authorized narrative?” Generally speaking, I do not.

Does a simple “search for the truth” even matter anymore? For some journalists and for some employees at government agencies, I’m sure it still does. However, the numbers in this group seem to be diminishing by the week.

With my article on the McCain’s, I thought I was simply doing a story on one couple who had a disease earlier than this disease was said to have existed. As it turned out, my efforts to get this story published were more illuminating and ended up frightening me more than COVID-19.

When a genuine search for the truth is increasingly viewed as taboo or off-limits, the prognosis for a nation we all want to see survive and prosper is probably bleak.

 

Bill Rice, Jr. is a freelance writer in Troy, Alabama. He can be reached by email at wjricejunior@gmail.com

 

The post Covid-19: Is a real search for the truth now taboo? appeared first on UncoverDC.

via UncoverDC

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://uncoverdc.com

Posted on

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other leftists gaslight America about the sudden crime surge


Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is out explaining things again, obviously taking Americans for fools:

Maybe this has to do with the fact that people aren’t paying their rent & are scared to pay their rent and so they go out and they need to feed their child and they don’t have money so… they feel like they either need to shoplift some bread or go hungry.

The problem, of course, is burglaries, rapes, shootings and murders, not the price of bread.

She’s got her Hugo Chavez on, nattering on and on in some cloud cuckoo land derived from 19th century socialism, as if to ‘re-educate’ her audience that the new crime wave engulfing New York and America’s big blue cities is all a problem in their heads, merely an issue of desperate people trying to steal loaves of bread, instead of a monstrous descent of one of America’s great cities into its pre-Giuliani-era Fort Apache and ‘Shattered’ era.

Call it the great gaslight, a phenomenon where you’re living something but not supposed to believe the evidence of your own eyes. We’re now seeing it in spades from the left as the crime wave mounts.

Was the thug who brazenly shot dead the father walking his six year old daughter on the streets of the Bronx just looking for a loaf of bread? 

This argument in fact is not only garbage, it’s old, real old, staler than year-old bread. It’s the scenario put forward in Les Miserables, an 1845 French novel written by a French socialist, (which became a famous Broadway production she must have seen to get the idea from since nobody thinks she read the book).

Would this explain why all the Apple stores are hunkered down and the Nike tennis shoe emporiums are boarded up?

Or why the Jew-haters targeted tiny Jewish shops, in a sick phenomenon not seen since the days of Kristallnacht, or the days of the tsar and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

Does it explain the attack on the Asian Hello Kitty souvenir store on Melrose Avenue? The destruction of the little Japanese teahouse in Santa Monica?  

The mass lootings of Gucci, Macy’s, Michael Kors, Coach, North Face, and other high end stores on New York’s 5th and Madison Avenues? Not a lot of bread, other than maybe the green kind, in those places.

Or the sudden surge in murder and burglary rates in New York? Murders have skyrocketed 21% in New York City in the first six months of the year. Shootings are up 46%. Burglaries are up, too.

The gaslighting from Ocasio-Cortez and others on the left is all over.

Here’s some gaslighting from the press, emphasis mine:

The rise in shootings has exceeded a troubling trend that started earlier this year but there has been no clear reason why the number has skyrocketed. The increase comes on the heels of NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea disbanding an anti-crime plainclothes unit that had focused on stopping people and searching for guns.

Shea said the “stop, question, and frisk” a tactic employed by the anti-crime unit was not the answer and activists say it unfairly targets Black and Hispanic communities.

New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo gaslights, too, calling the mass looting events: “The right to protest, the right to air grievances, and the right to raise issues so the government responds.” And Cuomo at least was trying to distinguish the protests as if they could be separate from the mass looting and vandalism that followed.

Not Ocasio-Cortez. She’s trying to normalize crime and put forward government handouts as the solution. 

As if crime existed like this when welfare benefits weren’t so abundant and generous as they are now.

New Yorkers know what they can see and what’s happening is a huge crime surge. That crime surge is brought on by the demonization, demoralization, and defunding threats of the police. New York ended cash bail for hoodlums, handcuffed their own cops with excessive rules on use of force, and ended plainclothes units.

No police, lots of crime. And the police are being removed from the most vulnerable parts of the cities, the poor areas, where minorities live, and minorities are now the leading victims.

What she’s doing is obviously in response to voters questioning her policy prescriptions of defunding the police, and she’s hardly the only one.

Chicago’s Lori Lightfoot took Chicagoans for fools too when she explained that guns, and a lack of gun control, was why Chicago’s murder rate had soared 78% as of June on the year earlier. Chicago, of course, has had gun control for decades.

 

 

Then there’s another gaslighter, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who explained the statue vandalism as “people will do what they do.” 

 

 

The bottom line is that all of these explanations are gaslights, attempts to make people think that the evidence of their own eyes about the impact of blue-city and blue-state policies somehow isn’t as destructive as it is. It’s time to call bee ess on this, because that’s what it is.

Image credit: Twitter screen shots from posted Zoom video

 

Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is out explaining things again, obviously taking Americans for fools:

Maybe this has to do with the fact that people aren’t paying their rent & are scared to pay their rent and so they go out and they need to feed their child and they don’t have money so… they feel like they either need to shoplift some bread or go hungry.

The problem, of course, is burglaries, rapes, shootings and murders, not the price of bread.

She’s got her Hugo Chavez on, nattering on and on in some cloud cuckoo land derived from 19th century socialism, as if to ‘re-educate’ her audience that the new crime wave engulfing New York and America’s big blue cities is all a problem in their heads, merely an issue of desperate people trying to steal loaves of bread, instead of a monstrous descent of one of America’s great cities into its pre-Giuliani-era Fort Apache and ‘Shattered’ era.

Call it the great gaslight, a phenomenon where you’re living something but not supposed to believe the evidence of your own eyes. We’re now seeing it in spades from the left as the crime wave mounts.

Was the thug who brazenly shot dead the father walking his six year old daughter on the streets of the Bronx just looking for a loaf of bread? 

This argument in fact is not only garbage, it’s old, real old, staler than year-old bread. It’s the scenario put forward in Les Miserables, an 1845 French novel written by a French socialist, (which became a famous Broadway production she must have seen to get the idea from since nobody thinks she read the book).

Would this explain why all the Apple stores are hunkered down and the Nike tennis shoe emporiums are boarded up?

Or why the Jew-haters targeted tiny Jewish shops, in a sick phenomenon not seen since the days of Kristallnacht, or the days of the tsar and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

Does it explain the attack on the Asian Hello Kitty souvenir store on Melrose Avenue? The destruction of the little Japanese teahouse in Santa Monica?  

The mass lootings of Gucci, Macy’s, Michael Kors, Coach, North Face, and other high end stores on New York’s 5th and Madison Avenues? Not a lot of bread, other than maybe the green kind, in those places.

Or the sudden surge in murder and burglary rates in New York? Murders have skyrocketed 21% in New York City in the first six months of the year. Shootings are up 46%. Burglaries are up, too.

The gaslighting from Ocasio-Cortez and others on the left is all over.

Here’s some gaslighting from the press, emphasis mine:

The rise in shootings has exceeded a troubling trend that started earlier this year but there has been no clear reason why the number has skyrocketed. The increase comes on the heels of NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea disbanding an anti-crime plainclothes unit that had focused on stopping people and searching for guns.

Shea said the “stop, question, and frisk” a tactic employed by the anti-crime unit was not the answer and activists say it unfairly targets Black and Hispanic communities.

New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo gaslights, too, calling the mass looting events: “The right to protest, the right to air grievances, and the right to raise issues so the government responds.” And Cuomo at least was trying to distinguish the protests as if they could be separate from the mass looting and vandalism that followed.

Not Ocasio-Cortez. She’s trying to normalize crime and put forward government handouts as the solution. 

As if crime existed like this when welfare benefits weren’t so abundant and generous as they are now.

New Yorkers know what they can see and what’s happening is a huge crime surge. That crime surge is brought on by the demonization, demoralization, and defunding threats of the police. New York ended cash bail for hoodlums, handcuffed their own cops with excessive rules on use of force, and ended plainclothes units.

No police, lots of crime. And the police are being removed from the most vulnerable parts of the cities, the poor areas, where minorities live, and minorities are now the leading victims.

What she’s doing is obviously in response to voters questioning her policy prescriptions of defunding the police, and she’s hardly the only one.

Chicago’s Lori Lightfoot took Chicagoans for fools too when she explained that guns, and a lack of gun control, was why Chicago’s murder rate had soared 78% as of June on the year earlier. Chicago, of course, has had gun control for decades.

 

 

Then there’s another gaslighter, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who explained the statue vandalism as “people will do what they do.” 

 

 

The bottom line is that all of these explanations are gaslights, attempts to make people think that the evidence of their own eyes about the impact of blue-city and blue-state policies somehow isn’t as destructive as it is. It’s time to call bee ess on this, because that’s what it is.

Image credit: Twitter screen shots from posted Zoom video

 

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Posted on

George Soros Pouring $220 Million into ‘Racial Justice’ Movement


Progressive billionaire George Soros’s philanthropic organization — Open Society Foundations — announced Monday that it will donate $220 million to groups focused on “racial justice.”

The organization plans on investigating $150 million alone into five-year grants for organizations aimed at achieving equal statistical outcomes between demographic groups in economics and criminal justice. The other $70 million is said to be going toward “more immediate efforts to advance racial justice.” Groups expected to receive funds include Black Voters Matter and Repairers of the Breach.

“It is inspiring and powerful to experience this transformational moment in the racial justice movement,” said Open Society Foundations president Patrick Gaspard. “We are honored to be able to carry on the vital work of fighting for rights, dignity, and equity for oppressed people the world over started by our founder and chair, George Soros.”

“This is the time for urgent and bold action to address racial injustice in America,” Alexander Soros, Soros’s son, said in a separate statement. “These investments will empower proven leaders in the Black community to reimagine policing, end mass incarceration, and eliminate the barriers to opportunity that have been the source of inequity for too long.”

The announcement comes after public records revealed Soros will double his 2016 election spending as part of a broader effort to help defeat President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign.

As Breitbart News reported: “Soros has poured money “into the coffers of the Democracy PAC, a super PAC that passes money to other liberal PACs working to defeat Trump and congressional Republicans… [The] PAC has received $40 million, double the $20 million it received in 2016 throughout the presidential election.”

In April, Open Society Foundations pledged $130 million to fight the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic and “[push] back against government encroachment on political freedoms.”

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Posted on

The Left’s “Boycott” Of Goya Has Backfired Spectacularly As Conservative Customers Clean Out Store Shelves

The Left’s "Boycott" Of Goya Has Backfired Spectacularly As Conservative Customers Clean Out Store Shelves

Tyler Durden

Mon, 07/13/2020 – 08:46

In what is turning into a spectacular backfire, Goya products are being cleaned out of grocery store shelves in what is being dubbed the "Chick-Fil-A" effect by The Daily Wire.

Namely, leftists have called for a boycott over the brand after its CEO publicly praised President Donald Trump. Instead, conservatives took matters into their own hands and are reportedly buying more Goya products than they normally would to show support for the company, its CEO and the President. It’s being called a "Buy-Cott". 

It began when radio host Mike Opelka began encouraging people on Twitter to buy $10 worth of Goya products to turn around and donate to their local food bank. 

He Tweeted: “My brother came up with a terrific idea and I am encouraging all to join me in purchasing $10 worth of Goya Foods products and donating them to your local food bank. Let’s push a BUY-cott, not a boycott. Let’s show the #Goyaway people what compassion can do.”

Other conservative voices joined in:

And this weekend a GoFundMe effort was launched to feed the hungry using only Goya products. It has raised over $43,000 so far. 

Casey Harper, who started the GoFundMe, said: “I’m not surprised we have raised so much because people are tired of having to walk on eggshells in political discourse. Also, Americans are fundamentally generous people, so a chance to feed the hungry and stand up to cancel culture was an easy win.”

Recall, three days ago, we reported that the Goya CEO "refused to apologize" for his comments praising President Donald Trump. As a result, many liberals announced they were boycotting his company.

By last Thursday evening, "Goya," #BoycottGoya and #Goyaway were trending topics on Twitter.

Goya’s CEO joined other Hispanic leaders at the White House on Thursday to take part in the Administration’s “Hispanic Prosperity Initiative” to promote economic and educational efforts.

“It’s suppression of speech,” he told “Fox & Friends” hosts Friday.

“In 2012, 8 years ago, I was called by Michelle Obama to Tampa and they were mentioning to launch a ‘MyPlate’ thing, it’s putting the nutritional pyramid into a plate of portion control. They wanted to approach the African American community, Hispanic community to eat more nutritionally. So, they called on us as the most recognized Hispanic brand in the United States and I went.”

He continued, “I went to the White House later and I introduced Hispanic Heritage Month, President Obama. And, so, you’re allowed to talk good or to praise one president, but you’re not allowed, when I was called to be part of this commission to aid in economic and in educational prosperity, and you make a positive comment, all of a sudden that’s not acceptable.”

Recognizing the existence of a double standard between the public’s view of working alongside the different administrations, he added, “So, you know, I’m not apologizing for saying, and especially if you’re called by the President of the United States, you’re gonna say ‘no, I’m sorry, I’m busy. no, thank you.’ I didn’t say that to the Obama’s and I didn’t say that to President Trump.”

via ZeroHedge News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.zerohedge.com/fullrss2.xml

Posted on

Oops! Fake News USA Today Says Trump Campaign T-Shirts Feature ‘Nazi Eagle’ …But Speaker Pelosi Uses Same ‘Nazi Eagle’ on Her Website

Fake News will be Fake News…

USA Today wrote a BS article on how President Trump is selling Nazi T-Shirts at his campaign store.
The far left “fact checkers” at USA Today ruled the America First Eagle on the Trump T-Shirt is in fact a Nazi Symbol.

But then their fake news fell apart.

Matt Whitlock pointed out the Speaker Nancy Pelosi uses the same image on her website.

Nazi Pelosi.

The post Oops! Fake News USA Today Says Trump Campaign T-Shirts Feature ‘Nazi Eagle’ …But Speaker Pelosi Uses Same ‘Nazi Eagle’ on Her Website appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Posted on

Trump Demands Christopher Steele Be Extradited and Jailed After Court Shreds Infamous Dossier

President Donald Trump on Saturday called for extraditing and jailing former British spy Christopher Steele, whose dossier of discredited claims about Trump became part of the FBI investigation that sought — and failed — to find links between the Trump campaign and Russia. “This man should be extradited, tried, and thrown into jail. A sick…

The post Trump Demands Christopher Steele Be Extradited and Jailed After Court Shreds Infamous Dossier appeared first on The Western Journal.

via The Western Journal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com