Four people were killed and nearly 20 others were wounded in shootings in gun-controlled Chicago over the weekend.

NBC5 published a column as the weekend shootings were unfolding, noting that the violence began around 11:00 p.m. Friday when a 19-year-old was shot and wounded while driving.

The outlet reported at least 11 were shot on Saturday alone, including a 17-year-old girl who was “dropped off at Holy Cross Hospital after being shot in the face and neck.”

By the time the NBC5 column was updated late on Sunday, four people had been killed and at least 17 shot. On Monday morning, the Chicago Sun-Times reported the carnage had risen to four dead and 19 wounded.

The Times also detailed that 46 were shot, including four fatally, over the weekend of May 1-3 in Chicago.

Moreover, according to Breitbart News, 17 of the shooting victims–14 wounded and three killed–were shot during a 36-hour time frame.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York says that it’s “shocking” to discover that 66 percent of new hospitalizations appear to have been among people “largely sheltering at home.” 

“We thought maybe they were taking public transportation,” he said, “but actually no, because these people were literally at home.”

“Much of this comes down to what you do to protect yourself,” he continues.  “Everything closed down, government has done everything it could, society has done everything it could.”

It’s your fault, he says to the hospitalized New Yorkers who loyally complied with his government directive.  But here’s an interesting alternative theory as to why, mostly, old people who are staying at home are being hospitalized.  What if the government directive to close everything down and mandate “social distancing” actually made the problem worse?

Dr. David Katz predicted precisely this outcome on March 20, in an article that is proving every bit as correct in its predictions and sober policy recommendations as Dr. Anthony Fauci has been proven incorrect — which is another way of saying that the article has proven flawless, so far. 

Dr. Katz writes:

[I]n more and more places we are limiting gatherings uniformly, a tactic I call “horizontal interdiction” — when containment policies are applied to the entire population without consideration of their risk for severe infection.

But as the work force is laid off en masse (our family has one adult child home for that reason already), and colleges close (we have another two young adults back home for this reason), young people of indeterminate infectious status are being sent home to huddle with their families nationwide. And because we lack widespread testing, they may be carrying the virus and transmitting it to their 50-something parents, and 70- or 80-something grandparents. If there are any clear guidelines for behavior within families — what I call “vertical interdiction” — I have not seen them.

One might be inclined to simply accept this as an unintended consequence of “social distancing,” but accepting that would require there to be some kind of benefit to “social distancing” that would make it worth the cost.  Is there?

Very likely, you already instinctively know that the guidelines suggesting that it’s somehow helpful to keep a six-foot space between healthy people, even outdoors, is not based on science, but just an arbitrary suggestion we’ve been conditioned to accept without evidence.

And your gut feeling would be right.  There’s a reason that “social distancing” wasn’t a buzzword common to the American lexicon prior to 2020.  There’s very little science behind “social distancing” at all. 

“It turns out,” Julie Kelly writes at American Greatness, “as I wrote last month, “social distancing” is untested pseudoscience particularly as it relates to halting the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. On its website, the CDC provides no links to any peer-reviewed social distancing studies that bolster its official guidance.” 

There’s a reason for the lack of peer-reviewed studies on the CDC website.  She continues:

The alarming reality is that social distancing never has been tested on a massive scale in the modern age; its current formula was conceived during George W. Bush’s administration and met with much-deserved skepticism.

“People could not believe that the strategy would be effective or even feasible,” one scientist told the New York Times last month. A high school science project—no, I am not joking—added more weight to the concept.

“Social distancing” is very much a newfangled experiment, not settled science.  And, Kelley writes, the results are suggesting that our “Great Social Distancing Experiment of 2020” will be “near the top of the list” of “bad experiments gone horribly wrong.”

You also don’t have to be a scientist to also instinctively know that “two weeks to flatten the curve” becoming “America must lock down until a vaccine is created” is more social experimentation than science.  But what the data have fleshed out, beyond the point of argument, is that the proximity of one human being to another has proven to be a very small factor in determining the impact of Covid-19 infections. What’s far more important is which human beings happen to be in close proximity of one another. 

According to Dr. Steven Shapiro and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center:

Crowded indoor conditions can be devastating in nursing homes, while on the USS Theodore Roosevelt 1,102 sailors were infected, but only 7 required hospitalization, with 1 death. This contrast has significant implications that we have not embraced. Epidemiologic prediction models have performed poorly, often neglecting critical variables.

The USS Theodore Roosevelt had a crew of 4,800.  Given the acute sample, testing was holistic.  This yields an actual infection rate of roughly 23 percent, and among those infected, the fatality rate is 0.09 percent.  Among the Roosevelt’s entire crew of assumedly healthy and able-bodied sailors, on a floating Petri dish, during the thick of viral outbreak that shut down all schools and placed healthy citizens across America under house-arrest, the fatality rate was .002 percent. 

It seems more than obvious that there is little sense in quarantining the young and healthy.  As Dr. Shapiro also observes:

Our outcomes are similar to the state of Pennsylvania, where the median age of death from COVID-19 is 84 years old.  The few younger patients who died all had significant preexisting conditions.  Very few children were infected and none died.  Minorities in our communities fared equally well as others, but we know that this is not the case nationally.  In sum, this is a disease of the elderly, sick, and poor.

Here’s another thing you likely already know.  Politicians and the media are committing to damage control to hide all of these facts from you.  In fact, finding any news relating to Dr. Shapiro’s somewhat revelatory comments online is, so far, quite difficult. 

That’s because, for the people who pushed “social distancing” and destroying the economy as an absolutely necessary evil, this is a matter of self-preservation.  If this information were widely known, citizens might be more inclined to demand that schools and parks and restaurants and malls be opened.  But if schools open tomorrow, without testing, and there is not a surge in hospitalizations or deaths, then the obvious question is why the schools closed in the first place.  If restaurants and other shuttered businesses open without a spike in hospitalizations and deaths, then why did they ever close? 

There’s value in the media and government officials maintaining the public perception that the costs of “social distancing” have been offset by its benefits.  But while those benefits are elusive in the data, and require mountains of presumption to imagine that they even exist at all, the costs of “social distancing” couldn’t be clearer.

As Dr. Steven Shapiro concludes:

What we cannot do, is extended social isolation. Humans are social beings, and we are already seeing the adverse mental health consequences of loneliness, and that is before the much greater effects of economic devastation take hold on the human condition….

In this particular case, the problem we’re not going to be able to fix in the short term is the complete eradication of the virus. The problem we can fix is to serve and protect our seniors, especially those in nursing homes. If we do that, we can reopen society, and though infectious cases may rise as in the Theodore Roosevelt, the death rate will not, providing time for the development of treatments and vaccines.

At this point, this is little more than common sense, and the truth can’t continue to be suppressed for much longer.  It’s becoming more and more obvious that it’s well past time to take a more tactical approach to mitigation, as Dr. Katz suggested back on March 20, allocating resources and efforts toward protecting and caring for those most at-risk, and ending this soul-crushing and economy-crashing experiment with holistic “social distancing.”

Image credit: Pixabay public domain

Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York says that it’s “shocking” to discover that 66 percent of new hospitalizations appear to have been among people “largely sheltering at home.” 

“We thought maybe they were taking public transportation,” he said, “but actually no, because these people were literally at home.”

“Much of this comes down to what you do to protect yourself,” he continues.  “Everything closed down, government has done everything it could, society has done everything it could.”

It’s your fault, he says to the hospitalized New Yorkers who loyally complied with his government directive.  But here’s an interesting alternative theory as to why, mostly, old people who are staying at home are being hospitalized.  What if the government directive to close everything down and mandate “social distancing” actually made the problem worse?

Dr. David Katz predicted precisely this outcome on March 20, in an article that is proving every bit as correct in its predictions and sober policy recommendations as Dr. Anthony Fauci has been proven incorrect — which is another way of saying that the article has proven flawless, so far. 

Dr. Katz writes:

[I]n more and more places we are limiting gatherings uniformly, a tactic I call “horizontal interdiction” — when containment policies are applied to the entire population without consideration of their risk for severe infection.

But as the work force is laid off en masse (our family has one adult child home for that reason already), and colleges close (we have another two young adults back home for this reason), young people of indeterminate infectious status are being sent home to huddle with their families nationwide. And because we lack widespread testing, they may be carrying the virus and transmitting it to their 50-something parents, and 70- or 80-something grandparents. If there are any clear guidelines for behavior within families — what I call “vertical interdiction” — I have not seen them.

One might be inclined to simply accept this as an unintended consequence of “social distancing,” but accepting that would require there to be some kind of benefit to “social distancing” that would make it worth the cost.  Is there?

Very likely, you already instinctively know that the guidelines suggesting that it’s somehow helpful to keep a six-foot space between healthy people, even outdoors, is not based on science, but just an arbitrary suggestion we’ve been conditioned to accept without evidence.

And your gut feeling would be right.  There’s a reason that “social distancing” wasn’t a buzzword common to the American lexicon prior to 2020.  There’s very little science behind “social distancing” at all. 

“It turns out,” Julie Kelly writes at American Greatness, “as I wrote last month, “social distancing” is untested pseudoscience particularly as it relates to halting the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. On its website, the CDC provides no links to any peer-reviewed social distancing studies that bolster its official guidance.” 

There’s a reason for the lack of peer-reviewed studies on the CDC website.  She continues:

The alarming reality is that social distancing never has been tested on a massive scale in the modern age; its current formula was conceived during George W. Bush’s administration and met with much-deserved skepticism.

“People could not believe that the strategy would be effective or even feasible,” one scientist told the New York Times last month. A high school science project—no, I am not joking—added more weight to the concept.

“Social distancing” is very much a newfangled experiment, not settled science.  And, Kelley writes, the results are suggesting that our “Great Social Distancing Experiment of 2020” will be “near the top of the list” of “bad experiments gone horribly wrong.”

You also don’t have to be a scientist to also instinctively know that “two weeks to flatten the curve” becoming “America must lock down until a vaccine is created” is more social experimentation than science.  But what the data have fleshed out, beyond the point of argument, is that the proximity of one human being to another has proven to be a very small factor in determining the impact of Covid-19 infections. What’s far more important is which human beings happen to be in close proximity of one another. 

According to Dr. Steven Shapiro and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center:

Crowded indoor conditions can be devastating in nursing homes, while on the USS Theodore Roosevelt 1,102 sailors were infected, but only 7 required hospitalization, with 1 death. This contrast has significant implications that we have not embraced. Epidemiologic prediction models have performed poorly, often neglecting critical variables.

The USS Theodore Roosevelt had a crew of 4,800.  Given the acute sample, testing was holistic.  This yields an actual infection rate of roughly 23 percent, and among those infected, the fatality rate is 0.09 percent.  Among the Roosevelt’s entire crew of assumedly healthy and able-bodied sailors, on a floating Petri dish, during the thick of viral outbreak that shut down all schools and placed healthy citizens across America under house-arrest, the fatality rate was .002 percent. 

It seems more than obvious that there is little sense in quarantining the young and healthy.  As Dr. Shapiro also observes:

Our outcomes are similar to the state of Pennsylvania, where the median age of death from COVID-19 is 84 years old.  The few younger patients who died all had significant preexisting conditions.  Very few children were infected and none died.  Minorities in our communities fared equally well as others, but we know that this is not the case nationally.  In sum, this is a disease of the elderly, sick, and poor.

Here’s another thing you likely already know.  Politicians and the media are committing to damage control to hide all of these facts from you.  In fact, finding any news relating to Dr. Shapiro’s somewhat revelatory comments online is, so far, quite difficult. 

That’s because, for the people who pushed “social distancing” and destroying the economy as an absolutely necessary evil, this is a matter of self-preservation.  If this information were widely known, citizens might be more inclined to demand that schools and parks and restaurants and malls be opened.  But if schools open tomorrow, without testing, and there is not a surge in hospitalizations or deaths, then the obvious question is why the schools closed in the first place.  If restaurants and other shuttered businesses open without a spike in hospitalizations and deaths, then why did they ever close? 

There’s value in the media and government officials maintaining the public perception that the costs of “social distancing” have been offset by its benefits.  But while those benefits are elusive in the data, and require mountains of presumption to imagine that they even exist at all, the costs of “social distancing” couldn’t be clearer.

As Dr. Steven Shapiro concludes:

What we cannot do, is extended social isolation. Humans are social beings, and we are already seeing the adverse mental health consequences of loneliness, and that is before the much greater effects of economic devastation take hold on the human condition….

In this particular case, the problem we’re not going to be able to fix in the short term is the complete eradication of the virus. The problem we can fix is to serve and protect our seniors, especially those in nursing homes. If we do that, we can reopen society, and though infectious cases may rise as in the Theodore Roosevelt, the death rate will not, providing time for the development of treatments and vaccines.

At this point, this is little more than common sense, and the truth can’t continue to be suppressed for much longer.  It’s becoming more and more obvious that it’s well past time to take a more tactical approach to mitigation, as Dr. Katz suggested back on March 20, allocating resources and efforts toward protecting and caring for those most at-risk, and ending this soul-crushing and economy-crashing experiment with holistic “social distancing.”

Image credit: Pixabay public domain

“I am reliably informed that the NSA or its partners intercepted at least some of the communications between Mr. Rich and Wikileaks,” wrote attorney Ty Clevenger in a startling letter last week to Richard Grennell, Interim Director of National Intelligence.

Clevenger represents Ed Butowsky, a high-profile author and financial adviser who dared to ask questions about the late Seth Rich and was sued for his troubles.

The known facts of Rich’s still unsolved murder were largely established within hours by the local media. “A 27-year-old man who worked for the Democratic National Committee was shot and killed as he walked home early Sunday in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Northwest Washington, D.C.,” NBC Washington reported.

The shooting occurred at 4:19 a.m. on Sunday, July 10, 2016. “There had been a struggle,” said Seth’s mother, Mary Rich. “His hands were bruised, his knees are bruised, his face is bruised, and yet he had two shots to his back, and yet they never took anything.” She added, “They took his life for literally no reason.”

In the real world, most killers have a reason. Those who fire two shots and take nothing from the victim always do. In the major newsrooms, journalists have been perversely keen on not knowing what this reason was. In the years since the shooting, they have offered little useful information beyond the account above.

Butowsky was much more curious. The woman who stirred his curiosity was Ellen Ratner, a veteran TV news analyst. On the day after the 2016 presidential election, Ratner participated in a videotaped panel discussion at Embry-Riddle University.

“I spent three hours with Julian Assange on Saturday at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London,” said Ratner with a curious lack of emphasis. “One thing he did say was the leaks were not from, they were not from the Russians. They were an internal source from the Hillary campaign.”

As Ratner should have known, this was a major revelation, and she was a credible source. An open supporter of Hillary Clinton with access to Assange through her late brother and Assange attorney, Michael Ratner, she had no reason to make this up.

Ratner was referring to emails from inside the DNC and the Hillary campaign that the media, the Democrats and the deep state insisted had been hacked from the DNC computers by the Russians. She should have been shouting this contrary news from the rooftops, but she did little more than share it with colleague Butowsky.

According to Butowsky’s multi-party suit, Ratner repeated to him a more detailed claim by Assange, namely that “Seth Rich and his brother, Aaron, were responsible for releasing the DNC emails to WikiLeaks.” Following up on this claim got Butowsky into a world of a trouble. He is one several would-be investigators, Fox News included, who have been sued into silence.

Based on his deposition of Asst. U.S. Attorney Deborah Sines, Clevenger makes a compelling case that the FBI did indeed review Rich’s electronic accounts. Sines’s testimony contradicted the official FBI narrative that Rich was never the subject of an FBI investigation and has no records pertaining to Rich.

Clevenger also cites a troubling August 2016 FBI email chain unearthed by Judicial Watch. The exchange began with a note from an FBI public-affairs official, name redacted, noting Assange’s recently televised suggestion that Rich was involved in the DNC hack. The official wanted to know “what involvement the Bureau has in the investigation.”

An unidentified agent passed the email along to the FBI’s notorious Peter Strzok with the notation, “Just FYSA [for your situational awareness]. I squashed this with [redacted].” Strzok, in turn, forwarded this email to his lover and co-conspirator, Lisa Page.

Clevenger reports too that former NSA officials Bill Binney, Ed Loomis, and Kirk Wiebe “are prepared to testify that the DNC emails published by Wikileaks could not have been obtained via hacking.”

Clevenger’s evidence that the NSA captured exchanges between Rich and Assange is largely circumstantial but credible. According to Clevenger, the NSA refused to produce 32 pages of records about Seth Rich due to their classified nature.

In addition, one of Clevenger’s consultants was reportedly informed that the NSA possessed “additional communications between Mr. Rich and Wikileaks.” Were Rich and Assange communicating, capturing that information would have been within the legitimate purview of the NSA or its “Five Eyes” partners.

“I believe the NSA is trying to conceal wrongdoing that occurred during the Obama Administration,” Clevenger concludes his letter to Grennell. “I respectfully request that you de-classify the NSA’s records about Seth Rich.”

Clevenger adds, “Disclosure would go a long way toward exposing the depravity of the ‘deep state,’ and that is long overdue.”

If Rich’s ultimate fate remains certain, what is altogether clear is the conspiratorial role the major media have played in keeping this story buried. As renegade Rolling Stone reporter Matt Taibbi observed in his book Hate Inc., “Being on any team is a bad look for the press, but the press being on team FBI/CIA is an atrocity, Trump or no Trump.”

(Hat tip to Gateway Pundit.)

Fox News screen grab via Vox

Jack Cashill’s forthcoming book, Unmasking Obama, is available for pre-order at Amazon.

“I am reliably informed that the NSA or its partners intercepted at least some of the communications between Mr. Rich and Wikileaks,” wrote attorney Ty Clevenger in a startling letter last week to Richard Grennell, Interim Director of National Intelligence.

Clevenger represents Ed Butowsky, a high-profile author and financial adviser who dared to ask questions about the late Seth Rich and was sued for his troubles.

The known facts of Rich’s still unsolved murder were largely established within hours by the local media. “A 27-year-old man who worked for the Democratic National Committee was shot and killed as he walked home early Sunday in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Northwest Washington, D.C.,” NBC Washington reported.

The shooting occurred at 4:19 a.m. on Sunday, July 10, 2016. “There had been a struggle,” said Seth’s mother, Mary Rich. “His hands were bruised, his knees are bruised, his face is bruised, and yet he had two shots to his back, and yet they never took anything.” She added, “They took his life for literally no reason.”

In the real world, most killers have a reason. Those who fire two shots and take nothing from the victim always do. In the major newsrooms, journalists have been perversely keen on not knowing what this reason was. In the years since the shooting, they have offered little useful information beyond the account above.

Butowsky was much more curious. The woman who stirred his curiosity was Ellen Ratner, a veteran TV news analyst. On the day after the 2016 presidential election, Ratner participated in a videotaped panel discussion at Embry-Riddle University.

“I spent three hours with Julian Assange on Saturday at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London,” said Ratner with a curious lack of emphasis. “One thing he did say was the leaks were not from, they were not from the Russians. They were an internal source from the Hillary campaign.”

As Ratner should have known, this was a major revelation, and she was a credible source. An open supporter of Hillary Clinton with access to Assange through her late brother and Assange attorney, Michael Ratner, she had no reason to make this up.

Ratner was referring to emails from inside the DNC and the Hillary campaign that the media, the Democrats and the deep state insisted had been hacked from the DNC computers by the Russians. She should have been shouting this contrary news from the rooftops, but she did little more than share it with colleague Butowsky.

According to Butowsky’s multi-party suit, Ratner repeated to him a more detailed claim by Assange, namely that “Seth Rich and his brother, Aaron, were responsible for releasing the DNC emails to WikiLeaks.” Following up on this claim got Butowsky into a world of a trouble. He is one several would-be investigators, Fox News included, who have been sued into silence.

Based on his deposition of Asst. U.S. Attorney Deborah Sines, Clevenger makes a compelling case that the FBI did indeed review Rich’s electronic accounts. Sines’s testimony contradicted the official FBI narrative that Rich was never the subject of an FBI investigation and has no records pertaining to Rich.

Clevenger also cites a troubling August 2016 FBI email chain unearthed by Judicial Watch. The exchange began with a note from an FBI public-affairs official, name redacted, noting Assange’s recently televised suggestion that Rich was involved in the DNC hack. The official wanted to know “what involvement the Bureau has in the investigation.”

An unidentified agent passed the email along to the FBI’s notorious Peter Strzok with the notation, “Just FYSA [for your situational awareness]. I squashed this with [redacted].” Strzok, in turn, forwarded this email to his lover and co-conspirator, Lisa Page.

Clevenger reports too that former NSA officials Bill Binney, Ed Loomis, and Kirk Wiebe “are prepared to testify that the DNC emails published by Wikileaks could not have been obtained via hacking.”

Clevenger’s evidence that the NSA captured exchanges between Rich and Assange is largely circumstantial but credible. According to Clevenger, the NSA refused to produce 32 pages of records about Seth Rich due to their classified nature.

In addition, one of Clevenger’s consultants was reportedly informed that the NSA possessed “additional communications between Mr. Rich and Wikileaks.” Were Rich and Assange communicating, capturing that information would have been within the legitimate purview of the NSA or its “Five Eyes” partners.

“I believe the NSA is trying to conceal wrongdoing that occurred during the Obama Administration,” Clevenger concludes his letter to Grennell. “I respectfully request that you de-classify the NSA’s records about Seth Rich.”

Clevenger adds, “Disclosure would go a long way toward exposing the depravity of the ‘deep state,’ and that is long overdue.”

If Rich’s ultimate fate remains certain, what is altogether clear is the conspiratorial role the major media have played in keeping this story buried. As renegade Rolling Stone reporter Matt Taibbi observed in his book Hate Inc., “Being on any team is a bad look for the press, but the press being on team FBI/CIA is an atrocity, Trump or no Trump.”

(Hat tip to Gateway Pundit.)

Fox News screen grab via Vox

Jack Cashill’s forthcoming book, Unmasking Obama, is available for pre-order at Amazon.

It has always been a lie that Barack Obama was a distinguishded constitutional law scholar, a professor of law at the University of Chicago. In fact, he was a lecturer brought in to teach a class on his theories of race and law, and never published any scholarly work. That is not what a professor does.

But in his telephone call to “Obama alumni” that was immediately leaked to Michael Issikoff, he demonstrated appalling sloppiness and ignorance that reveals what a lightweight legal thinker he is.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board is slamming him this morning:

Barack Obama is a lawyer, so it was stunning to read that he ventured into the Michael Flynn case in a way that misstated the supposed crime and ignored the history of his own Administration in targeting Mr. Flynn. Since the former President chose to offer his legal views when he didn’t need to, we wonder what he’s really worried about.

“There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free,” Mr. Obama said in the Friday call to about 3,000 members of the Obama Alumni Association.  (snip)

…this gets the case willfully wrong. Mr. Flynn was never charged with perjury, which is lying under oath in a legal proceeding. Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty to a single count of lying to the FBI in a meeting at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017 that he was led to believe was a friendly chat among colleagues.

The Journal points out that it was President Bill Clinton who got off “scot-free” for lying under oath.

But even more egregiously, as Don Surber and retired FBI Special Agent Mark Wauck point out, Obama himself pardoned a different general fromaperjury conviction, allowing him to get off scot-free. Surber cites this New York Tomes  article published on the last day of Obama’s presidency, Jan 17, 2017:

“President Obama on Tuesday pardoned James E. Cartwright, a retired Marine Corps general and former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about his discussions with reporters about Iran’s nuclear program, saving him from a possible prison sentence.

“General Cartwright, who was a key member of Mr. Obama’s national security team in his first term and earned a reputation as the president’s favorite general, pleaded guilty late last year to misleading investigators looking into the leaking of classified information about cyberattacks against Iran.

“He was due to be sentenced this month. His defense team had asked for a year of probation and 600 hours of community service, but prosecutors had asked the judge overseeing his case to send him to prison for two years.

“Now, the retired general will be spared such punishment.”

Don Surber points out:

So once again, Obama lies.

The media knows this and fails to inform the public.

Surely, Charlie Savage, who wrote the Times story, remembers.

Surely, Obama remembers as well, unless he is having a Biden moment.

Obama verbally worried about “the rule of law” to his 3000 closest friends on the call.  This is utter projection, a nearly universal practice on the left of accusing opponents of the tactics they use. As the Journal editorialized:

We doubt Mr. Obama has even read Thursday’s Justice Department motion to drop the Flynn prosecution. If he does ever read it, he’ll find disconcerting facts that certainly do raise doubts about whether “our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk,” though not for the reasons he claims.

Start with prosecutorial violation of the Brady rule, which Mr. Obama knows is a legal obligation that the prosecution must turn over potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense. Yet prosecutors led by special counsel Robert Mueller didn’t disclose that the interviewing FBI agents at the time didn’t think that Mr. Flynn had lied about a phone call with the Russian ambassador.

Worst of all, as a legal matter, is that they never told Mr. Flynn that there was no investigative evidentiary basis to justify the interview. The FBI had already concluded there was no evidence that Mr. Flynn had colluded with Russia in the 2016 election and had moved to close the case. James Comey’s FBI cronies used the news of Mr. Flynn’s phone call with the Russian ambassador as an excuse to interview the then national security adviser and perhaps trap him into a lie.

Monica Showalter called it right: Obama is panicking.

Photo credit: YouTube screen grab

It has always been a lie that Barack Obama was a distinguishded constitutional law scholar, a professor of law at the University of Chicago. In fact, he was a lecturer brought in to teach a class on his theories of race and law, and never published any scholarly work. That is not what a professor does.

But in his telephone call to “Obama alumni” that was immediately leaked to Michael Issikoff, he demonstrated appalling sloppiness and ignorance that reveals what a lightweight legal thinker he is.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board is slamming him this morning:

Barack Obama is a lawyer, so it was stunning to read that he ventured into the Michael Flynn case in a way that misstated the supposed crime and ignored the history of his own Administration in targeting Mr. Flynn. Since the former President chose to offer his legal views when he didn’t need to, we wonder what he’s really worried about.

“There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free,” Mr. Obama said in the Friday call to about 3,000 members of the Obama Alumni Association.  (snip)

…this gets the case willfully wrong. Mr. Flynn was never charged with perjury, which is lying under oath in a legal proceeding. Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty to a single count of lying to the FBI in a meeting at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017 that he was led to believe was a friendly chat among colleagues.

The Journal points out that it was President Bill Clinton who got off “scot-free” for lying under oath.

But even more egregiously, as Don Surber and retired FBI Special Agent Mark Wauck point out, Obama himself pardoned a different general fromaperjury conviction, allowing him to get off scot-free. Surber cites this New York Tomes  article published on the last day of Obama’s presidency, Jan 17, 2017:

“President Obama on Tuesday pardoned James E. Cartwright, a retired Marine Corps general and former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about his discussions with reporters about Iran’s nuclear program, saving him from a possible prison sentence.

“General Cartwright, who was a key member of Mr. Obama’s national security team in his first term and earned a reputation as the president’s favorite general, pleaded guilty late last year to misleading investigators looking into the leaking of classified information about cyberattacks against Iran.

“He was due to be sentenced this month. His defense team had asked for a year of probation and 600 hours of community service, but prosecutors had asked the judge overseeing his case to send him to prison for two years.

“Now, the retired general will be spared such punishment.”

Don Surber points out:

So once again, Obama lies.

The media knows this and fails to inform the public.

Surely, Charlie Savage, who wrote the Times story, remembers.

Surely, Obama remembers as well, unless he is having a Biden moment.

Obama verbally worried about “the rule of law” to his 3000 closest friends on the call.  This is utter projection, a nearly universal practice on the left of accusing opponents of the tactics they use. As the Journal editorialized:

We doubt Mr. Obama has even read Thursday’s Justice Department motion to drop the Flynn prosecution. If he does ever read it, he’ll find disconcerting facts that certainly do raise doubts about whether “our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk,” though not for the reasons he claims.

Start with prosecutorial violation of the Brady rule, which Mr. Obama knows is a legal obligation that the prosecution must turn over potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense. Yet prosecutors led by special counsel Robert Mueller didn’t disclose that the interviewing FBI agents at the time didn’t think that Mr. Flynn had lied about a phone call with the Russian ambassador.

Worst of all, as a legal matter, is that they never told Mr. Flynn that there was no investigative evidentiary basis to justify the interview. The FBI had already concluded there was no evidence that Mr. Flynn had colluded with Russia in the 2016 election and had moved to close the case. James Comey’s FBI cronies used the news of Mr. Flynn’s phone call with the Russian ambassador as an excuse to interview the then national security adviser and perhaps trap him into a lie.

Monica Showalter called it right: Obama is panicking.

Photo credit: YouTube screen grab

New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his political allies were quick to declare that President Trump had ‘blood on his hands‘ based on the state’s failure to prepare supplies for the coronavirus pandemic.

It now comes to light that the bloody hands were Cuomo’s.

It’s not just that the subways were continuously running packed, or New York City’s schools took a long time to shut, or city officials were busy going to the gym, if not encouraging people to attend those Chinatown parades, the better to Get Trump.

The worst of it was from the death toll coming out of New York City’s nursing homes, where a disproportionate percent of New York’s humongous death toll occurred. Not only were the nursing homes with the city’s most vulnerable residents not so much as basically protected, they were positively seeded with COVID-19 patients, rolling in from the hospitals, forced into the homes no matter how much the homes objected, because ‘discrimination.’ Nursing homes weren’t even allowed to ask incoming patients if they were coming back ‘stabilized’ from the coronavirus units. This, despite President Trump having sent a whole hospital ship to take care of such outbound COVID-19 patients, which stood largely empty. Instead of sending them there, the nursing homes were positively forced to take the COVID-19 patients while the hospitals, knowing what was going to happen, sent along extra body bags with the arriving COVID-19 patients to prepare for the inevitable.

Cuomo, the one who spoke of Trump’s hands being bloodied, sleazily denied any knowledge of this horrible, lethal decision, and even argued that protecting nursing homes was “not our job.” He mendaciously told critics elsewhere that his forcings were consistent with CDC guidelines. He threatened nursing homes with de-certification if they ‘couldn’t protect’ the resident patients being shoved in with newly arriving COVID-19 patients. His creepy spokesman called the outcry nothing but the nursing homes’ bid to deflect blame from “their own failures.” He continually dodged blame for the outrageous decision, which left more than 5,000 nursing home patients dead.

And for good measure he threw in that the whole problem was a matter of greedy capitalist nursing home seeking to get that extra paying patient, as if losing a whole lot of other paying patients — to death — never figured in their calculations as if that were the case.

It was complete garbage. Now the smoking-gun documents are out, showing that yes, it was Cuomo who ordered the COVID-19 patients into the nursing homes because political correctness.

 

Here is the death sentence signed by the Lord High Executioner. Remember the “death panels” ridiculed by the clowns at CNN et al? This is a little preview of “national health” run by crooked Democrats… https://t.co/6doQUUa0v1

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) May 11, 2020

 

Now he says order was wrong, claims he has reversed it (The New York Post says there’s enough weasel room to say it’s not reversed) and instead of blame himself, claims the problem was some underling, health commissioner Howard Zucker, who ought to be fired and out on his ear if not in the dock for murder. Somehow he’s not.

Instead of accept any blame, Cuomo continues to make sick excuses. He now says “some” nursing homes ‘simply misunderstood‘ the rules, as if they couldn’t read that decertification threat embedded within the original order, or the words ‘must accept‘ from his goon Zucker. It was all ’a failure to communicate,’ he now claims. Previous coverage from the New York Post says the nursing homes desperately tried to communicate and got cut off or ignored by state authorities.

In short, whole thing is bee ess. Not only is Cuomo the worst of all coronavirus managers, and that is saying a lot, he’s also the weaselliest, most dishonest governor in the aftermath, making him the worst governor in America, blaming others when the blame entirely lies on him. He ought to be thrown out by voters. One can only hope…

Image credit: Diane Robinson via Wikimedia Commons // CC BY-SA 2.0

 

 

 

 

 

New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his political allies were quick to declare that President Trump had ‘blood on his hands‘ based on the state’s failure to prepare supplies for the coronavirus pandemic.

It now comes to light that the bloody hands were Cuomo’s.

It’s not just that the subways were continuously running packed, or New York City’s schools took a long time to shut, or city officials were busy going to the gym, if not encouraging people to attend those Chinatown parades, the better to Get Trump.

The worst of it was from the death toll coming out of New York City’s nursing homes, where a disproportionate percent of New York’s humongous death toll occurred. Not only were the nursing homes with the city’s most vulnerable residents not so much as basically protected, they were positively seeded with COVID-19 patients, rolling in from the hospitals, forced into the homes no matter how much the homes objected, because ‘discrimination.’ Nursing homes weren’t even allowed to ask incoming patients if they were coming back ‘stabilized’ from the coronavirus units. This, despite President Trump having sent a whole hospital ship to take care of such outbound COVID-19 patients, which stood largely empty. Instead of sending them there, the nursing homes were positively forced to take the COVID-19 patients while the hospitals, knowing what was going to happen, sent along extra body bags with the arriving COVID-19 patients to prepare for the inevitable.

Cuomo, the one who spoke of Trump’s hands being bloodied, sleazily denied any knowledge of this horrible, lethal decision, and even argued that protecting nursing homes was “not our job.” He mendaciously told critics elsewhere that his forcings were consistent with CDC guidelines. He threatened nursing homes with de-certification if they ‘couldn’t protect’ the resident patients being shoved in with newly arriving COVID-19 patients. His creepy spokesman called the outcry nothing but the nursing homes’ bid to deflect blame from “their own failures.” He continually dodged blame for the outrageous decision, which left more than 5,000 nursing home patients dead.

And for good measure he threw in that the whole problem was a matter of greedy capitalist nursing home seeking to get that extra paying patient, as if losing a whole lot of other paying patients — to death — never figured in their calculations as if that were the case.

It was complete garbage. Now the smoking-gun documents are out, showing that yes, it was Cuomo who ordered the COVID-19 patients into the nursing homes because political correctness.

 

Here is the death sentence signed by the Lord High Executioner. Remember the “death panels” ridiculed by the clowns at CNN et al? This is a little preview of “national health” run by crooked Democrats… https://t.co/6doQUUa0v1

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) May 11, 2020

 

Now he says order was wrong, claims he has reversed it (The New York Post says there’s enough weasel room to say it’s not reversed) and instead of blame himself, claims the problem was some underling, health commissioner Howard Zucker, who ought to be fired and out on his ear if not in the dock for murder. Somehow he’s not.

Instead of accept any blame, Cuomo continues to make sick excuses. He now says “some” nursing homes ‘simply misunderstood‘ the rules, as if they couldn’t read that decertification threat embedded within the original order, or the words ‘must accept‘ from his goon Zucker. It was all ’a failure to communicate,’ he now claims. Previous coverage from the New York Post says the nursing homes desperately tried to communicate and got cut off or ignored by state authorities.

In short, whole thing is bee ess. Not only is Cuomo the worst of all coronavirus managers, and that is saying a lot, he’s also the weaselliest, most dishonest governor in the aftermath, making him the worst governor in America, blaming others when the blame entirely lies on him. He ought to be thrown out by voters. One can only hope…

Image credit: Diane Robinson via Wikimedia Commons // CC BY-SA 2.0

 

 

 

 

 

The World Health Organization defended its response to the coronavirus pandemic on May 1 and said that the “world had enough time to intervene.”

In a media conference, WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that because a global health emergency had been declared on Jan. 30, “the world had enough time to intervene.”

At the time, there were only 82 cases of COVID-19 outside of China and no reported deaths.

“To declare global emergency in that situation, I think it says it all. It says it all,” Tedros said.

He described how his team had traveled to China immediately after the emergency declaration to learn more about it.

TRENDING: Joe Biden Shredded for Blunder-Filled Virtual Rally: ‘How Can a National Campaign Allow This To Happen?

“We didn’t waste any time,” Tedros said. “I remember then people telling us, advising us not to travel to China because this virus is new, you don’t know how it behaves, you’re putting your life at risk. And we said, ‘No, we go.’”

The WHO also declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11 when there were just 121,000 global cases, CNBC reported.

President Donald Trump has been a frequent critic of the World Health Organization’s response to the coronavirus pandemic and ceased voluntary funding from the United States.

“Today, I’m instructing my administration to halt funding of the World Health Organization while a review is conducted to assess the World Health Organization’s role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus. Everybody knows what’s going on there,” Trump said during a White House coronavirus task force briefing in April.

A senior administration official told The Daily Caller at the time the decision was made because the organization had failed to do its job.

“WHO clearly failed to do its job, and continues to make serious mistakes that puts our nation’s safety and security at risk, including allowing the reopening of wet markets,” the unnamed official said in a statement to the outlet.

“It shouldn’t be controversial for the U.S. to want to partner with international organizations that will actually protect international health.”

In an interview with Sky News, Dr. Gauden Galea, a WHO representative in China, defended the organization’s early response.

RELATED: WHO Comes Under Fire for Saying Kids Under 4 Should Be Taught About ‘Early Childhood Masturbation’

“We only know what China is reporting to us at that period in time,” he said.

He added that China “will have to answer for” claiming between Jan. 3 and Jan. 16 that there were only 41 cases in Wuhan.

“Is it likely that there were only 41 cases for that period of time? I would think not,” he said.

“Is that a matter of difficulty in finding were they getting their act together, is it a question of definition? I cannot speculate. But it would have been during that period obviously some growth would have been happening.”

The WHO has come under fire for a Jan. 14 tweet that read: “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission.”

Galea said the WHO suspected there would be human-to-human transmission, but the cases reported and investigations did not confirm that.

As of Thursday morning, there are over 3.7 million cases of COVID-19 across the globe, according to Johns Hopkins.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

The food banks in San Francisco were bulging this month after an Idaho beef company made a massive donation of steaks as its way of helping Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Snake River Farms, owned by Agri Beef Co., donated about $8 million worth of premium Wagyu steaks to health care workers, restaurant workers who have lost their jobs and communities hit hard by the disease, according to a news release on PerishableNews.com.

The family-owned company is headquartered in Boise, Idaho.

“Snake River Farms and Double R Ranch are part of Agri Beef, a family owned and operated business dedicated to producing the highest quality beef and pork in the United States,” the company said on its website.

“Founded in 1968 by Robert Rebholtz, Sr., Agri Beef started as a ranching and feeding operation and grown to incorporate every step of the beef lifecycle which includes ranching, cattle feeding, animal nutrition, and beef processing. This comprehensive approach ensures the products that arrive at your door are the best available.”

TRENDING: Joe Biden Shredded for Blunder-Filled Virtual Rally: ‘How Can a National Campaign Allow This To Happen?

About $2 million of that donation was in the form of 35,000 Wagyu steaks that went to food banks and other nonprofits in San Francisco.

“A friend of a friend mentioned there was this big steak donation that wanted to be made in SF and they didn’t know who to give it to or how to handle it. Because I have a lot of contacts with nonprofits and community organizations it all came together,” Kanishka Karunaratne Cheng of Together SF, which helped connect the beef company with recpients, told KGO.

“So random! So bizarre! I was like, ‘Are you sure? Are we really doing this?’ Turns out yes we are! They showed up today and we are delivering them,” she said.

Susan Murphy of Faces SF took 600 of Snake River’s steaks to a food drive in the city.

“They will be extremely surprised and grateful especially to have meat on the table,” she said.

Snake River Farms of Idaho donates $2 million worth of Wagyu steaks to food banks, nonprofits in San Francisco – ABC13 Houston https://t.co/1P38tKaz9e

— Bryant Adleson (@BAdleson) May 7, 2020

All told, the company gave out about 200,000 steaks to communities that include New York City, Seattle and Los Angeles.

“At Snake River Farms we are a family business. From our ranchers to our distributor partners, we are all in this together,” said Jay Theiler, executive director of marketing at Snake River Farms.

“We are firm believers that in times of crisis, food can bring comfort and healing. We care deeply and are grateful to everyone on the front lines that are risking their own health for the sake of all of us, restaurant workers who have been displaced and our community members who are in need,” Theiler said.

RELATED: Justice Thomas Breaks Signature Silence, Asks Rare Questions in SCOTUS Virtual Hearing

From our entire family, THANK YOU to all of the #HealthcareHeroes for their tireless efforts on the frontlines ❤️ pic.twitter.com/Qq4j2gOQkr

— snakeriverfarms (@snakeriverfarms) April 28, 2020

In New York, the steaks have been delivered to Northwell Health’s 23 hospitals as a gesture of support to front-line medical responders.

“The Emergency Medicine Service Line is grateful for the generous donation from Prime Food and Snake River Farms. Our teams are working hard in the emergency departments every day and every night because we believe in caring for our communities,” said Dr. John D’Angelo, senior vice president and executive director of emergency medicine services at Northwell Health.

“To see that caring reciprocated is outstanding.”

#Generosity has no bounds#ThankYou @PrimeFoodsNY @snakeriverfarms for donating $500,000 of Wagyu Steaks to #NorthwellSBIRT @Northwell_EM 🙏🏽@NorthwellHealth #NorthwellHeroes #InThisTogehter #pfdroundtable #protienserved @GiveToNorthwell @MichaelJDowling @TomMcGinn4 pic.twitter.com/EzaLKReNeT

— Sandeep Kapoor, MD, MS-HPPL (@KapoorMedEd) April 18, 2020

“There’s only one way we’ll get through this crisis — together,” Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said.

“Hospitality workers are making extraordinary sacrifices right now, and we’re grateful for the spirit of caring and community that Snake River Farms and Newport Meat are showing with this generous donation.”

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Do you think this film is pro-Obama propaganda?

How dare people cover a huge, unprecedented in history scandal. Once again, it says something about CNN that they aren’t covering it.

Brian Stelter:

It is “disappointing” that “right wing media” is “treating the Michael Flynn story like it’s a better deal than the deaths of 2,000 Americans a day.” pic.twitter.com/itaSwplkf1

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) May 10, 2020