There are a number of measures that the government and the fake scientists have suggested people and businesses take in order to slow down the spread of the Chinese coronavirus. From wearing masks to social distancing, avoiding travel, gatherings of numerous people, switching from shaking people’s hands to giving them an awkward “elbow bump”, etc.
 
One such measure taken by businesses and government facilities was the installation of Perspex screens, those clear screens put into place in locations such as grocery stores, schools, etc. Matter of fact, when it came to schools, the installation of such screens was a condition for allowing the schools to reopen following the lockdown. However, a report from Politico EU (so not exactly a conservative source, but in this case, it serves to lend it a bit more credence as opposed to taking away from it) indicates that the Perspex screens not only likely haven’t prevented transmission of the virus, but might have actually increased the risk of transmission.
 
According to the report: “Ministers are also being advised that those Perspex screens that have appeared in some offices and restaurants are unlikely to have any benefit in terms of preventing transmission. Problems include them not being positioned correctly, with the possibility that they actually increase the risk of transmission by blocking airflow. Therefore there is clear guidance to ministers that these Perspex screens should be scrapped.”
 
So not only have masks shown to be useless at best, and lockdowns to be actively detrimental to the physical and financial health of people and entire countries, but even something as simple as a screen might be ineffective against the transmission of the virus.
 
And not only is it reportedly ineffective, it might even work AGAINST its intended objective by increasing the risk of transmission as opposed to lowering it.
 
I don’t know if this will happen, but I really hope someone someday documents all the steps countries, most states, and businesses took to lower the transmission of the Chinese coronavirus so that in the future, were another pandemic to strike the world, we will know to do the EXACT OPPOSITE.
 
Seriously, how many measures have government officials and fake scientists suggested or, in many cases, ordered onto people that have turned out to be useless at best and actively harmful at worst? Because at this point, I’ve lost count.
 
And the more we discover about this pandemic, the more those of us who are paying attention become absolutely livid at all the lies and deception. We were told “15 days to slow the spread” back on March 16th. That was 458 days ago. And while most of the country is no longer under lockdown, the fact remains that FAR more days than just 15 were spent under lockdown for most people in most states.
 
California has only recently “fully re-opened” back on June 15th, and even then, many restrictions are still in place that make it “less open”, shall we say? Throughout this time, entire businesses went under, people lost their jobs for good, and countless people have died from things APART from the virus (and still, were counted as deaths to the virus, because in case it was hard to notice, we are ruled by morons).
 
And among the laundry list of failed measures which have only served to make things worse for not only hundreds of millions of Americans but also for billions of people around the globe, there is the simple clear Perspex screen?
 
At least that one was considerably less intrusive of people’s rights, unlike the mask mandate crap and the unconstitutional lockdowns. But regardless of how much or little of a bother those screens were for people, it’s just one more piece of evidence that whatever the government tells you that you should do in a pandemic, the exact opposite measure might actually be better.
 
And this is assuming that these people weren’t acting with malicious intent. At best, the people who have been giving this kind of advice are utterly incompetent and unfit to lead a potted plant through a pandemic, let alone entire nations. At worst, these are people who have ulterior motives, be they ideological or financial, or some combination of the two, and have suggested these awful things knowing full well what they would lead to and DESIRING those results, at least in secret.
 
And at this point, I have little reason to give them the benefit of the doubt on anything. They have been caught lying, deceiving and manipulating time and time again, all the while they utterly shut down anyone who raised protestations at their actions, including actual scientists. Such actions of censorship and deceit are hardly the actions taken by those who are simply incompetent. Incompetent people at least sometimes get things right and might be willing to listen to advise.
 
Malevolent people, on the other hand, act very much in the manner that people like Fauci and other big government types have. I’m not saying that Fauci is an evil person, but I am saying that if he were to be an evil person, there is nothing different that he would have done throughout the last year.
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”

For some reason, the idea of keeping people alive is a polarizing one, and one which can potentially lead someone to be cancelled if they choose the side of life. But despite the risks, one TikTok teen influencer named Naim Darrechi told his 26 million followers, in a series of videos, that he is pro-life and makes good to great arguments against abortion.
 
The 19-year-old said: “An abortion is interrupting a life. When a woman is pregnant, if she doesn’t take anything, if she doesn’t abort, the natural cycle is going to make a life emerge.”
 
“But here one of the biggest arguments of the people who are in favor of abortion, which is: ‘no, but the fetus does not suffer, that is something that has nothing there, is that it does not suffer.’ (The guy is from Spain, so forgive the slightly broken English) Here the question is not whether he suffers or not. The question here is that a life is being taken.”
 
He then goes on to liken an abortion (under the assumption that it doesn’t cause suffering to the child or mother) to going to someone’s house while they sleep and turning on the gas so that it kills them “without making them suffer”. He argues that, in such a case, that would still be considered murder and the culprit would still be arrested and charged with murder, but when it comes to abortion, which is “similar” in this scenario (again, under the aforementioned assumption, which I will talk about momentarily), not only is it legal in most places, but outright encouraged and taxpayers are forced to fund it.
 
Frankly, I think that is a very good argument to make against pro-abortion people. However, it is also important to bring in the fact that both the baby and the mother suffer during and after an abortion (namely, the mother suffering after the abortion).
 
LiveAction reports: “A preborn child does suffer during an abortion as her body is torn apart by either the suction machine in a first trimester D&C or the abortionist’s tools of dismemberment in a second trimester D&E. The abortion pill starves the developing preborn child, and during a third-trimester induction abortion, preborn children capable of surviving outside the womb are killed when the abortionist causes cardiac arrest. There is nothing about abortion that is peaceful or pain-free, and researchers have found that preborn children may be able to feel pain as early as eight weeks.”
 
And that’s just regarding the child, which is, of course, a major deal. The baby can feel pain as early as eight weeks, so any abortion that happens after those eight weeks of pregnancy will cause the child pain. But the pain doesn’t end with the dead baby. If anything, it begins with it; for the mother, that is.
 
There is a slew of women who suffer either physically or, most often, psychologically and emotionally following an abortion. For example, there is rape survivor Ashley Sigrest (I’ll get to the argument of abortion in the case of rape in a moment). Ashley explained: “I could never ever deal with my rape because I was so focused on what I had done in choosing abortion. And that’s what people don’t understand when they tell rape victims, ‘Oh, yes, have an abortion so that way you can go on and we can deal with the rape.’ But the abortion just makes the rape 1,000 times worse because now you have these two horrible events that you have to deal with.”
 
The idea that abortion is a painless “healthcare” procedure is nothing but pro-abortion propaganda. The reality is that it is painful to the child as it is literally killed and can feel it happening, via a suction tube, poisoning, forced cardiac arrest, or literal dismemberment. And the reality is that it can also be very painful for the mother, who has to carry the weight of killing her own child for the rest of her life. Provided, of course, that she isn’t a lunatic, twisted Leftist who would be proud of such a barbaric, pagan and evil act.
 
Darrechi then went on to say that he is not necessarily against abortion in cases where the mother’s life is at risk, but I chuck that up to the kid not quite being so informed on this matter, since abortion is never necessary to save the life of a mother.
 
One argument pro-abortion people make is that abortion should be permitted at least if there is the possibility that the mother herself is at risk because of ectopic pregnancy or other issues such as cancer which might lead to her death if the baby is not taken out of her. However, abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of a mother.
 
Neonatologist Dr. Kendra Kolb explains: “In situations where the mother’s life is truly in jeopardy, her pregnancy must end, and the baby must be delivered… These situations occur in cases of mothers who develop dangerously high blood pressure, have decompensating heart disease, life-threatening diabetes, cancer, or a number of other very serious medical conditions. Some babies do need to be delivered before they are able to survive outside of the womb, which occurs around 22 to 24 weeks of life. These situations are considered a preterm delivery and not an abortion.”
 
“There are also serious safety concerns related to late-term abortion. If a woman’s life is in imminent danger, a preterm delivery is a much safer option. An emergency C-section can be completed in less than an hour, while an abortion after 24 weeks, when the most common life-threatening life complications occur, takes 2-3 days to complete due to the necessary dilation process – in essence, delaying treatment and significantly increasing the risk of death and serious disability to the mother,” Dr. Kolb continued.
 
And she is far from alone on this. The Dublin Declaration is a document which was signed by 1,000 healthcare providers and which affirms the idea that Dr. Kolb is sharing: abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of a mother.
 
So as far as Darrechi goes, given his stances on the other matters regarding abortion, I suspect he doesn’t really know of this fact but would change his mind once given this information.
 
And as far as abortion in the case of rape, as I talked about earlier, it doesn’t make the situation any better to take the life of an innocent child.
 
Darrechi himself argued: “I know it is a very sensitive issue and in those cases it could happen. But wouldn’t it be better to give a very large compensation from the State for the damage caused to that person, for the psychological help that it will entail… for the expenses of the baby and for thousands of things?,” adding that abortion after rape would just be “putting another trauma [on the mother] and not helping her and such, I think it is not the best solution. Because in the end the baby, the baby, is not to blame for anything.”
 
Precisely. Not to mention that abortion after a rape makes it all the more difficult to ensure that the rapist can’t victimize any more women. The baby itself would carry 50% of the father’s DNA, so it would serve as great evidence in convicting the bastard and ensuring that more women aren’t made victims of rape. You’d think that the Left, which is supposedly all about empowering women, would support maintaining the life of the baby which could help save many other women, but no, that’s not what they do.
 
They profit off of death, which is why they are so adamant about pushing for abortion at every stage of pregnancy and for it to be free and readily accessible. They are murderers and rapists only help with their profits, so why would they be against them? Some of them are rapists themselves, after all (looking at you, Occupier Biden and Bill Clinton).
 
Getting back to Darrechi, he posted a follow-up video responding to a fan who asked what he would do if his girlfriend were to become unexpectedly pregnant. He replied: “I would be a father without hesitation. You give me a child and I’ll fall in love with it. Giving life to someone and on top of having the responsibility of educating him and being able to teach and guide him is the most beautiful and most precious thing in the world.”
 
A great answer. The kid, as a popular influencer, took a great risk in saying all these things, because there are a lot of people whom he’s pissed off and who will want to cancel him for these things. They will call him an “oppressor” despite the fact that “sexual liberation” is the biggest oppressor of women, and they will smear him with lies and putrid things. But he did the right thing, and such a thing is not unnoticed by God.
 
Though evil people are against him, it is a good thing, for this means he has done the right thing. The kid seems to be a Christian, and certainly holds the Christian belief of right to life, so he will be protected by God, no matter what the evil people might try and do.
 
Galatians 6:9
“And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.”

For five years now, we have been told that President Trump is a massive racist, hates non-whites, wants to ban Muslims from travel, thinks white supremacists are “very fine people” and every other b.s. lie they could manufacture to paint him as a huge racist devil.
 
Surely, then, if they are so much against racism, they would be shocked, appalled and infuriated at Joe and Hunter Biden’s repeated use of the single most racist term a white man can utter: the N-word. But, of course, since these are Leftists we’re talking about, they of course don’t care that the Bidens casually throw such a word around. They don’t care to challenge racism because they are the ones who propagate it and give it life.
 
It has recently come to light that Joe and Hunter Biden have, collectively, used that word 16 times, at least (undoubtedly, they’ve used it far more than that, if they so casually throw this word around).
 
Joe, himself, has used the word a number of 13 times, while in Senate hearings, no less, and Hunter has been shown to have used the word three times when speaking with his white attorney.
 
Then-Senator Joe Biden used the word during a 1985 Senate hearing when he was questioning William Reynolds, President Reagan’s assistant attorney general for civil rights, as Reynolds was looking to get a promotion to associate AG. Biden used the term when quoting a memo sent to Reynolds which included a quote from a “key legislator” regarding a case of a redistricting plan in Louisiana. The quote, which Biden didn’t care to censor, was: “We already have a n***** mayor (in New Orleans), and we don’t need another n***** bigshot.”
 
Throughout the hearings, Biden kept bringing up that quote and kept using the term a total of 13 times.
 
Now, there are two things I want to say about this. First, it’s important to note that Biden was just quoting what someone else was saying, and an argument could be made that if it’s simply a quote, then it might be permissible. I, myself, believe some amount of self-censorship should be at least considered when using such a quote, but free speech demands that one ought to be able to make the choice for themselves.
 
You might be asking why it is that I’m defending Biden. Well, I’m not, which brings me to the second thing I want to say: whoever would make such arguments about the use of that word in such a context is NOT on the same side that Biden generally is. Leftists have long fought against even the idea of using that word when quoting someone, arguing that if one wishes to include a quote which includes the word, the word ought to be censored if the person using the quote is not black themselves.
 
For example, a professor at St. John’s University was fired earlier this year because she used the term when quoting a line from Mark Twain’s “Pudd’nhead Wilson,” a story about a light-skinned slave switching her newborn baby with her master’s so that he might grow up to have a better life (though Twain, having been against racism and slavery before it was cool, satirized the entire institution by making the “free” baby grow up to be a monster and a killer and the “slave” baby grew up to be a man of character).
 
The professor was first reported by a student, who initially sent an email to the professor saying how “It was unnecessary and very painful to hear,” because college students are, of course, snowflakes who get hurt by words. Eventually, the professor, who is the daughter of Holocaust survivors, was contacted by the school’s HR, with her receiving a suspension pending investigation, claiming she had “violated the university’s policy against bias”, according to the NY Post, and was then fired on April 29.
 
So we have two very similar cases here, but with wildly different results. The professor was shown to have used the n-word only ONCE when QUOTING Mark Twain, who is pretty famous for his use of such words, and she was ultimately fired for her “offense.” Meanwhile, you have a then-sitting Senator REPEATEDLY using the same quote which uses the word more than once, and the media is utterly silent about it and absolutely no repercussions came from it. Again, that was in 1985. Biden would go on to become the VICE PRESIDENT to the country’s first (half) black POTUS and would go on to illegitimately occupy the Oval Office.
 
Why the double standard? Because that’s the only standard the Left lives by. If there is issue with the professor saying the n-word in a quote, there should be issue with a SITTING SENATOR uttering the word NUMEROUS TIMES throughout a Senate hearing, even if that was also because of a quote. But because Biden is the Left’s golden man-child, they will protect him from the very things which they would ravage anyone else for.
 
Speaking of golden children, let’s talk about Joe’s. Like I said, the crack addict was recently shown to have used the n-word in text messages to his white attorney. The Daily Mail reports:
 
“The [occupier’s] son joked in a January 2019 text to corporate attorney George Mesires about a ‘big penis,’ and said to the lawyer: ‘I only love you because you’re black’ and ‘true dat n***a.’”
 
“In another text a month earlier he wrote to the Chicago lawyer saying: ‘how much money do I owe you. Becaause (sic) n***a you better not be charging me Hennessy rates.’ Mesires replied: ‘That made me snarf my coffee.’ Hunter added: ‘That’s what I’m saying ni…’, cutting off the racial slur mid-word, then texted a picture to Mesires.”
 
So not only does Hunter casually throw the word around, he even talks in a “gansta” way. If he so comfortably says the word, and even speaks (or texts) in this manner, he must have picked it up from somewhere, and I doubt that somewhere wasn’t his segregationist father who has no issue with saying the n-word 13 times during a SENATE HEARING.
 
But despite all these things, the media is utterly silent about it. They spent five years making fake story after fake story of how “racist” President Trump was, claiming he said things he never actually said or claiming he didn’t say things he repeatedly said (namely, the idea that he has “never denounced white supremacy” despite having done it at least 38 times), but the Bidens use the n-word like it’s part of their everyday vocabulary and all of them have no issue whatsoever with that.
 
Don’t misunderstand, I’m not surprised one iota by this. The Left has a history of blatant racism, as it courses through their veins, so it’s not surprising whatsoever that they would have no issue with the racism of the Bidens.
 
Racism is a tool, a weapon, to them. Why would they want to get rid of it? Why would they want to “fight” it? They use it all the time against their opponents. So it’s not exactly mesmerizing to see the Bidens use the n-word, and it’s equally as un-mesmerizing to see the media completely ignore this. They have a certain narrative to uphold and that’s that Trump supporters and Republicans are the blatant racists, not them.
 
But much to their dismay, they can’t keep such things hidden forever. Eventually, the truth comes out, particularly as there exists alternative media to them (and particularly as they continuously suffer ratings hits). People are tuning them out, and the time will come when they have little power over the American people. Possibly, sooner than one might think.
 
To sum up, the Bidens are unsurprisingly racists, both in regards to their anti-white racism and their anti-minority racism, and the fake news media refuses to cover it because they have no morals or standards, just an agenda to drive down people’s throats.
 
Their demise will have been of their own making.
 
Isaiah 48:22
“’There is no peace,’ says the Lord, ‘for the wicked.’”

As we all know, the CDC itself has admitted that only 6% of all “COVID-related deaths” had the Chinese coronavirus as the cause of death, meaning that the actual number of people in the country who are dead because of the virus is 6% of the official death toll.
 
However, a county in California has needed to do at least SOME revision of their death toll, not necessarily acknowledging that 6% figure, but enough to revise down their death toll by 25%.
 
Alameda County has had to change their total death count from 1,634 to 1,223 because the state and county tally deaths rather differently. Interestingly, the state has the more logical way of counting deaths out of the two of them, and so, the county has to adjust to the way the state counts Chinese coronavirus deaths.
 
According to Fox News: “The county previously included deaths of anyone infected with the virus, regardless of whether COVID-19 was a direct or contributing cause of death.”
 
As I have said time and time again, that method is utterly asinine and bound to artificially raise the death toll and leave people more afraid than necessary (an intentional “mistake”). Using that line of logic, one could argue that if someone is run over by a truck but they had gotten a splinter on their finger, then we would count that as death to a splinter, instead of the obvious cause that killed them. It makes absolutely no sense to do things this way and no doctor ever would, say, diagnose someone with cancer and then claim that cancer killed them if they ended up in a car accident or if they ended up falling off a ladder and dying.
 
So the county had to change the way in which they count deaths, not because that method is inherently stupid, but because the state, for once, actually had a better method of counting deaths to the Chinese coronavirus.
 
Alameda County Public Health Department spokeswoman Neetu Balram said that “There are definitely people who died from reasons that were clearly not caused by COVID,” according to The Oaklandside. Barlam seemingly couldn’t give any examples of cases that were clearly not deaths to Chinese coronavirus, but if they are anything like the state of Washington, one can assume that at least some of those 411 deaths were actually from gunshot wounds and not from the Chinese coronavirus.
 
Interestingly enough, infectious disease “expert” Dr. Amesh Adalja was rather critical of the 25% drop, saying that such a revision “seems high,” according to The Daily Wire. Well, considering that the actual number is 6%, so there ought to be a 94% revision, 25% seems rather generous (though still fairly disingenuous).
 
Axios argued that “While the cause of death listed as solely from the coronavirus occurred in 6% of cases in the U.S.,… this doesn’t mean that the virus was not a contributing factor or, indeed, the leading cause in the other 94%. The U.S. virus death toll would be much lower if this were the case.”
 
Here’s the thing, Axios: it is lower. Lower than the official number, that is. How do I know that? Well, you see, in the year 2019, 2,854,838 people died in the United States, according to the CDC. In the year 2020, 2,861,000 Americans died. That’s a difference of a little over 6,000 people. Yet, we are told that roughly 500,000 Americans died of the Chinese coronavirus in 2020. Doesn’t that seem a little strange? That the death toll would see such a miniscule increase between years when the latter year was faced with a global pandemic?
 
If 500,000 Americans died, assuming that they wouldn’t have died otherwise (as this is the standard hospitals used to count actual Chinese coronavirus deaths, not just the “if they had it, they died from it” insanity), wouldn’t that mean that we would have seen a 500,000 people increase in that death toll from 2019 to 2020? So why was it so minimal?
 
Stranger still, that is the lowest increase in deaths year-to-year in some time. From 2018 to 2019, the U.S. saw a death increase of 15,633, while from 2017 to 2018, the increase was 25,702. And from 2015 to 2016, the increase was of 31,618 more deaths.
 
In essence, roughly the same amount of people died in 2020 as did in 2019, and the increase between the two years is LOWER than in previous years, and by a lot. Isn’t that just a little bit strange for a pandemic year? Even if you assumed a good chunk of that 500,000 number would have died anyway, you would expect a considerably higher number than just a 6,000 people increase.
 
So, yes, Axios, the actual U.S. virus death toll is much lower. It’s just that the powers that be wanted to scare as many people as they could into submission and a higher number would accomplish that. Either that or doctors and experts are utter morons and don’t know how to logically count something with its actual death toll, which is entirely possible but not something which the Left would be willing to admit.
 
So they are forced to admit that either they made stuff up or their “experts” are dumbasses. Well, I say “forced”, but in reality, they won’t admit a damn thing, of course. They’ll just spin things like what Axios was trying to do here. But still, reality is what it is, not as the Left claims it to be.
 
And the reality is that this virus has a survivability rate of 99.97% for most people and the actual death count ought to be 94% lower (and no, I don’t buy that whole “they might have died partly because of it” because no one claims that someone who had cancer and diabetes would say that both are the causes of death, so why would we count “died partly because of the virus” as “they died because of the virus”?)
 
It certainly is good that Alameda County has revised its death count to be at least a little more accurate, but I can’t help but be rather frustrated at the fact that it was because of a discrepancy with the way they were doing it and the way the state was doing it, as opposed to the fact that their method was UTTERLY MORONIC and anyone with a functioning brain could tell.
 
Here’s hoping they further revise their count to be more accurate with the CDC’s 6% count and that other counties and states begin revising their asinine death tolls.
 
Proverbs 29:12
“If a ruler listens to falsehood, all his officials will be wicked.”

The Washington Post, for whatever reason, despite being owned by far Leftist Jeff Bezos, seemingly has decided to turn against Anthony Fauci and made Freedom of Information Act requests to see 10,000 emails sent to and by the epidemiologist, many of which point to how utterly fake, disingenuous and in-bed-with-China he has been.
 
For this piece, I will focus merely on three emails, since I can’t possibly talk about all 10,000, neither are all the emails necessarily scandalous or show Fauci to be a massive liar.
 
First, the email regarding the potential origins of the Chinese coronavirus. Over the past year, people, mostly on the Right, have speculated and even provided evidence to show that the Chinese coronavirus originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Naturally, since the pre-determined narrative created by the fake news media was that it came from some guy eating bat soup, the Left pushed hard against this theory, going so far as to say that it was a “debunked conspiracy theory” even though it neither was “debunked” nor a “conspiracy” theory, as there is evidence to show its veracity.
 
But as this debate was going on, Anthony Fauci, being pretty much in charge of the country’s response to the pandemic (as much as he could, given our system of federalism), had to give his two cents on this theory which, as time went on, seemed not only more and more possible, but more and more probable.
 
As we know, he had been siding with the Left on this matter, pushing the idea that the Chinese coronavirus was natural, and not originating from a lab. However, an email from an infectious disease expert and professor at Scripps Research, Kristian G. Andersen, shows that Fauci was made aware of the possibility of this having been an artificial virus as early as January 31st of LAST YEAR.
 
From Andersen:
“Hi Tony,
Thanks for sharing. Yes, I saw earlier today and both Eddie and myself are actually quoted in it. It’s a great article, but the problem is that our phylogenetic analyses aren’t able to answer whether the sequences are unusual at individual residues, except if they are completely off. On a phylogenetic tree the virus looks totally normal and the close clustering with bats suggests that bats serve as the reservoir. The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered.”
 
Now, a liberal might read that email and say “so less than 0.1% of the genome looks only ‘potentially’ engineered. And you want to say that proves it was engineered?” to which I say “most likely.”
 
I’m not an epidemiologist, so I don’t know how viruses work the entire time. But I figure that if any part of a virus looks engineered and it is, that means that the virus itself was engineered, or at least artificially, not naturally, altered. I’m not saying the Chinese invented the coronavirus itself, but I am more likely to believe they created SARS-CoV-2 using another coronavirus as a base.
 
Do you know how new guns are often designed? By taking the base of a different gun and making changes. For example, the AR-15 is based off of the M16 series of rifles used by the U.S. military. If you were to look up images of the ArmaLite AR-15, the 1973 Colt AR-15 SP1 and the M16A1 rifles, you would see and feel very slight differences among them. Those differences are generally what make them “new” and distinct guns.
 
Similarly, by taking natural coronaviruses as a base and engineering it a little, the CCP has created a new coronavirus. 100% of the virus doesn’t have to be artificial or lab-made for it to be a man-made virus. It’s man-made if nature didn’t alter it in its entirety.
 
At least, that’s my reasoning here. But let’s say that the liberal is right and I am wrong (a first) and that this doesn’t necessarily mean that the virus is engineered, just that Andersen suggests it potentially could be. That still doesn’t make Fauci look any better because he has always insisted that there is no real chance or probability that the virus was made in a lab. He never even suggested the possibility for it, even though he was told VERY EARLY ON that there was, at least, a possibility of it.
 
The reason for his stance is purely ideological, as the next email I’ll show you demonstrates, but that only further serves to undermine the guy’s credibility. He’s supposed to be an unbiased, objective and knowledgeable scientist, not a communist mouth-piece. But the latter is what he has shown to be.
 
The second email (or, rather, series of emails within the following subject, as Fauci responds), which is from the Chinese CDC director George Gao, sent to Fauci on March 28, 2020, reads as follows:
 
“I saw the Science interview, how could I say such a word ‘big mistake’ about others? That was journalists’ wording. Hope you understand. Let’s work together to get the virus out of the earth.”
 
Fauci responded: “I understand completely. No problem. We will get through this together.”
 
On April 8th, Gao sent another email to Fauci: “I saw some news (hope it is fake) that [you] are being attacked by some people. Hope you are well under such a (sic) irrational situation.”
 
To which Fauci replied a few days later: “Thank you for your kind note. All is well despite some crazy people in this world.”
 
This series of emails (and undoubtedly, many others) shows the sort of close and cozy relationship between Fauci and Gao. Now, a liberal might argue: “they are scientists fighting against the same virus and working together. What’s the big deal?”
 
Here’s the big deal: the first email that I showed you points to the virus having been artificially created in a lab, which Fauci knew about by the time of these other emails, and this series of emails shows that Fauci is close with A HIGH-RANKING CCP MEMBER. This relationship explains why Fauci never even remotely hinted at the possibility of this virus having been created in a lab. Now, there are other aspects of it, such as his “gain of function” research at the Wuhan lab and the benefits he received as a result, but that series of emails only further shows the close relationship between Fauci and the CCP. Or are we to believe that the CCP doesn’t control its own CDC?
 
That series of emails displays how Fauci has been in bed with China and going to bat for them (no pun intended). He lied to the entire country regarding the potential origins of the virus to maintain a relationship with the CCP. Doesn’t that at least border the line of treason?
 
And finally, we arrive at the third email I wanted to talk about, though it’s rather unrelated to the other two.
 
This final email, dated February 5th, 2020, is about mask-wearing and shows how disingenuous Fauci has been on the necessity for people to wear masks.
 
This email is directed at a woman who is asking if she should wear a mask as she was going to a relatively low-risk-for-infection area (unknown where exactly, but that detail is rather irrelevant):
 
“Sylvia,
Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection. The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keeping out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you. I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low risk location. Your instincts are correct, money is best spent on medical countermeasures such as diagnostics and vaccines.”
 
What changed? Did the masks evolve so as to somehow keep the virus from going in? Did the virus evolve to get bigger so that masks can keep them out? No? Then why were UNINFECTED AND PERFECTLY HEALTHY PEOPLE ORDERED TO WEAR MASKS?!
 
Why were people as recently as TWO WEEKS AGO arrested for not wearing masks? The case I’m taking about, by the way, is of a Sunday school teacher who was arrested for not wearing a mask to a school board meeting in New Hampshire. Without running immediate diagnostics, there is no way the people who called the police to get the teacher arrested could have known she was infected with the virus, which is what the masks are, according to Fauci, meant to protect others for.
 
So why was she outright ARRESTED, not for violating any law, but for violating a stupid POLICY created by the school? And if one can be arrested for violating school policy, then surely a school bully could be arrested for violating the policy regarding bullying, or a student could be arrested for missing class and violating the school’s policy regarding attendance, or a student could be arrested for walking in the hall without a pass and violating the school’s policy regarding walking in the halls during class time.
 
That was yet another example of an illegal and unconstitutional arrest, of which there have been plenty in the last year and a half, all because she refused to wear a mask, which even FAUCI early on in the pandemic understood should only be worn by those with the virus.
 
It makes NO SENSE for anyone who isn’t sick and/or infected to wear a mask (and as time has gone on, research further shows the utter uselessness of most masks for anyone), according to Fauci himself, so what could possibly be the justification for such an arrest?
 
The simple answer is that there is no justification, and matters weren’t exactly made better by Fauci, who decided to hop on the commie train and restrict people’s freedoms by suggesting EVERYONE not just those infected wear masks. And not just one mask, he has even suggested people wear multiple masks. Two, three, four, 312, however many to make sure you don’t get sick. I mean, it’s sound science, right? If oxygen can’t get into your nose, then the virus can’t either.
 
Now, he has seemingly backtracked on this extremely asinine idea, but he still holds that everyone, not just the sick, should wear a mask, even though he had it right originally.
 
All these emails demonstrate how utterly untrustworthy Anthony Fauci is regarding anything. He has known of the potential lab origins of the virus since early last year, WELL before anyone else really was talking about it, and he has gunned hard for the idea that there is no possibility whatsoever that it originated in the Wuhan lab for entirely ideological reasons. He sought to maintain a good relationship with the CCP’s CDC director, as well as continue to benefit from the “gain of function” research at the lab, and has all but overtly betrayed the United States. And finally, he has insisted that people disregard his earlier advice regarding wearing masks, likely for ideological purposes as well, though perhaps also some personal and financial ones.
 
After all, if the pandemic ended too soon, so would his time in the spotlight. For a while, people (mainly the Left) treated him like he was the Messiah, and I’m sure he has enough of a God complex to have felt happy about it and wished for things to continue. As I have stated previously, the pandemic is the best thing to happen to the Left, including Anthony Fauci.
 
Thankfully, it seems his little reign of terror will be coming to an end, if even the freaking WASHINGTON POST not only was a part of his undermining and potential demise, but outright drove the effort with their FOIA request and subsequent publishing of the emails. If they were just curious about the contents of the emails and didn’t intend to hurt Fauci like this, they wouldn’t have published them, unless they are so incompetent that they didn’t even read through them, which is possible but unlikely. The WaPo thoroughly screwed Fauci, bafflingly enough.
 
I can only hope that this will lead to criminal charges, most likely pushed for by Sen. Rand Paul, who has been fantastic regarding Fauci’s lies and the general pandemic.
 
John 8:44
“You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

For a very long time, anyone with a relatively unbiased and analytical eye could tell that the organization commonly referred to as “Black Lives Matter” does not actually believe that black lives matter. It takes whatever opportunities it can to cause destruction to public and private property, and to induce terror into the hearts of citizens and political opponents alike.
 
It is little more than a terrorist organization, alongside Antifa, and has already claimed a number of lives in the past year. However, it is seen in a favorable light by the fake news media, entirely because both BLM and the media are Leftists fighting for Leftist causes.
 
BLM’s “About Us” page included items which were explicitly Leftist LGBT crap that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the improvement of black lives or the protection of black lives, thereby pointing out how little black lives actually mattered to BLM (and is among the reasons I have been calling them “BLM” for the past year).
 
It is simply a Marxist, communist organization meant to drive Marxism and make us more into a Soviet Union.
 
They fool plenty of people into believing that their cause is genuine and noble, and even some of its chapter founders believe that the organization cares about black lives and black people.
 
However, there are some times when even a founding member of a chapter recognizes the putrid nature of the organization and sees that it works towards things which would be counterintuitive to its official mission of helping black people.
 
Rashad Turner is one such person, as he founded a Minnesota BLM chapter in 2015 and resigned some time later (unknown exactly when). The reason I am pointing this out now is because, regardless of when he actually resigned, he recently released a video (below) on YouTube in which he “reveals the truth about BLM”.
 
It’s a short, two-minute video in which he details some of his early life:
 
“My mother wasn’t able to take care of me, so I was raised by my grandparents. They told me that if I was going to change my life for the better, education was the answer. So, I worked hard in school. I got into Hamline University, and earned a college degree, the first in my family. Then I went on to earn a master’s in education from St. Mary’s University of Minnesota. I am living proof that no matter your start in life, quality education is a pathway to success.”
 
He then goes on to talk about founding the St. Paul chapter of BLM in 2015, believing “the organization stood for exactly what the name implies, black lives do matter. However, after a year on the inside, I learned they have little concern for rebuilding black families, and they cared even less about improving the quality of education for students in Minneapolis.”
 
“That was made clear when they publicly denounced charter schools, alongside the teachers’ union. I was an insider in Black Lives Matter, and I learned the ugly truth: the moratorium on charter schools does not support rebuilding the black family, but it does create barriers to a better education for black children.”
 
And it goes a lot further than that. The fact that their “About Us” page included LGBT propaganda and that one of their main missions was to disrupt the nuclear family is exemplary of their ill-will towards black people. The black family unit is racked by absent parents, with Turner himself mentioning how his mother couldn’t take care of him and was instead raised by his grandparents (notice the sheer absence of a father here, a common story for many black families).
 
The current social and welfare system in the U.S. encourages poor women (often, black women) to have as many kids as they can so they get bigger welfare checks from the government (which the Left is happy to provide, since it means they get to financially own such people, basically reliving their “glory days” of being slave owners).
 
While overt racism (towards minorities) is rather scarce, the Left enacts systematic racism (which they claim to fight against, though they are the ones implementing it) through their welfare systems which financially enslave poor people, whom are most often minorities. Of course, there are plenty of people who can get out of it, such as Turner or Ben Carson, among others. But it is undeniable that the Left does what it can to enslave as many people in as legal a way as they can.
 
And organizations like BLM are created, not for the purposes of improving the lives of black people and families, but keeping them in check. Similar to how Margaret Sanger used black people to convince other black people of the “goodness” of the genocide she wanted to commit against them, the Left uses black people to convince other black people of the “goodness” of the enslavement that they want to place on them.
 
And clearly, it works with many, as Turner sort of points out. He used to believe that black lives mattered to Black Lives Matter. After all, it’s in the name (an argument which somehow is ignored when you point out that there is “socialist” in “National Socialist” or “Nazi”, but whatever). However, there are those who can see, immediately or eventually, how disingenuous the organization is to its namesake.
 
This should have been made perfectly clear to all last year, when BLM burned down black-owned businesses and harassed black neighborhoods. BLM actively worked against the benefit of black lives, and many took notice of this.
 
Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if Turner is one of those people.
 
At any rate, it is good that Turner is speaking out against the evil of BLM, and how it is an organization which only cares about black lives in name. In action, they do things which are actively against the progress of black people and their Marxist leaders are intent on pushing not a pro-equality agenda, but a pro-LGBT, Marxist agenda, which as mentioned previously, work against black people.
 
I hope and pray many others whom are still within the organization come to the realization that BLM is nothing but a Marxist communist organization which only serves to make matters worse for black people in the short and long-run.
 
John 8:32
“And you will know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”