The illegitimate Biden DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel recently wrote an opinion detailing that they have no intention to prosecute any states or businesses for mandating vaccinations.
They write: “As access to the COVID-19 vaccines has become widespread, numerous educational institutions, employers, and other entities across the United States have announced that they will require individuals to be vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition of employment, enrollment, participation, or some other benefit, service, relationship, or access. For instance, certain schools will require vaccination in order for students to attend class in person, and certain employers will require vaccination as a condition of employment.”
Generally speaking, the DOJ has decided, like I said earlier, to not prosecute the entities which mandate vaccinations for their employees or other people in general. That is the extent of their power, but for some reason, there are those who believe this means the Biden DOJ has “ruled” that vaccine mandates are “legal.”
For example, though they are largely conservative sources, both TrendingPolitics and The Gateway Pundit have the following headlines: “BREAKING: Department of Justice Declares That All Vaccine Mandates are *Legal*,” (Trending Politics). “Breaking: Biden DOJ Declares COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates Legal,” (The GP).
Despite those brow-raising and perhaps blood-boiling headlines, the matter of fact is that the Biden DOJ, nor any DOJ for that matter, can “rule” anything as “legal.”
The DOJ is part of the executive branch. They prosecute, investigate, etc., but they can’t create laws nor can they rule anything as legal or illegal. Now, I can understand that when a Democrat is in the White House (legitimately or not), things like that tend to sort of go by the wayside, such as when Obama signed the DACA executive order and everyone, including judges and the SCOTUS, pretended as though that was a law.
However, the Biden DOJ “declaring” or “ruling” vaccine mandates as “legal” has as much legitimacy as if they were to “rule” murder, kidnapping or rape “legal.” All it means is that the federal Department of Injustice won’t prosecute, in this case, states and businesses which mandate people get vaccinated. It doesn’t mean that vaccine mandates are legal or constitutional – such rulings can only be done by the Supreme Court.
So if you are at all fearful that this means states and businesses have the “green light” to mandate vaccinations, like TrendingPolitics suggested, then don’t be. The federal DOJ might not prosecute such entities but both state AGs and private citizens have the ability to do so.
In other words, not a damn thing changes with this “ruling.” I don’t think anyone alive expected the Biden DOJ to prosecute states and businesses for mandating vaccines. So let’s not pretend as though this means that the DOJ can take the place of the SCOTUS or Congress. Vaccine mandates are still illegal and certainly unconstitutional and just because the federal DOJ won’t prosecute it doesn’t make it legal.
If the DOJ were to stop prosecuting federal marijuana cases, that wouldn’t mean that weed would all of a sudden become legal across the country.
So why is anyone pretending as though vaccine mandates are now something which we can hardly fight against? Nothing, realistically, has changed. Hell, I doubt even the Trump DOJ would have prosecuted vaccine mandates (in part because the Trump DOJ was largely a rogue entity and went against the President’s wishes a lot of the time, but I also doubt Trump himself would have ordered such prosecutions, seeing as he is inexplicably supporting the vaccines even if he doesn’t think there ought to be mandates). So effectively, nothing at all has changed with this declaration from the DOJ, and that’s all that it is: a declaration.
Again, they aren’t the Supreme Court. They can’t “rule” that something is legal or not legal. So let’s not spread the idea that that’s what’s happening here.
While there are other reasons for concern regarding tyrannical actions from both state and federal governments, this simply isn’t one of them and conservatives shouldn’t be all “doom and gloom” over something like this. It’s not necessarily a good thing and I would far rather the DOJ prosecute vaccine mandates, as that would make it a lot easier to defeat it, but it’s not like we are screwed and out of options here.
Again, state AGs can still sue businesses which mandate vaccines and private citizens can both sue businesses and their own states if they mandate vaccines. Whether or not such lawsuits would get that far is another matter entirely, but it is utterly unnecessary and frankly shameful for conservative news sites like TrendingPolitics and The Gateway Pundit to fearmonger people on their own side.
There are still tools available to us to fight against tyranny in this country, and one such tool is information. Understanding what the enemy is capable of is of utmost importance, but it’s also important to not be misled about what they can do.
This whole ordeal reminds me of the story of the 12 spies in the Book of Numbers.
The thirteenth chapter of the Book of Numbers talks about how the Lord told Moses to send men to explore Canaan, “which I’m giving to the Israelites,” as God specifically said.
These 12 were leaders from each of the tribes of Israel, among them being Hoshea (who Moses named Joshua) and Caleb.
The 12 explored Canaan and 40 days later returned with their report. They explained to Moses and the people of Israel that Canaan was a great place with fertile land, flowing with milk and honey, and generally was great. However, they also explained “… the people who live there are strong, and the cities have walls and are very large. We even saw the descendants of Anak there,” Numbers 13:28.
Despite that, Caleb, one of the 12 spies, said “Let’s go now and take possession of the land. We should be more than able to conquer it.”
Numbers 13:31-33 then explains the protestations and even deception of the other spies (apart from Joshua, of course): “But the men who had gone with him said, ‘We can’t attack those people! They’re too strong for us!’ So they began to spread lies among the Israelites about the land they had explored. They said, ‘The land we explored is one that devours those who live there. All the people we saw there are very tall. We saw Nephilim there. (The descendants of Anak are Nephilim.) We felt as small as grasshoppers, and that’s how we must have looked to them.’”
Perhaps not to the same extent, this is what TrendingPolitics and The Gateway Pundit are doing. Yes, the Biden DOJ declared they wouldn’t prosecute states and businesses for implementing vaccine mandates, but to treat that as a “ruling” equal to what the Supreme Court does is disingenuous. Give people the information that they need without making it seem as though we are facing giants.
Even if we are, do you want to know what the ten spies forgot and which many of us often forget? At the beginning of the chapter, God specifically said: “… Canaan, which I’m giving to the Israelites.”
The spies were so concerned with the size of the enemy that they forgot all about the size of their God. He had already promised and declared that He would be giving Canaan to the Israelites, and yet, the spies did not believe they would be capable of taking it from the giants which they saw. Even worse, they began to spread lies about what they saw to discourage other Israelites from action.
This is what people do sometimes and make things worse for themselves, even on our side. Let’s not pretend that what we are fighting are unbeatable giants who would crush us were we to engage them. Let’s not pretend as though the DOJ declaring they won’t prosecute states and businesses for vaccine mandates means such mandates are legal, constitutional and unbeatable.
And let’s not pretend as though the tyranny of Man can stand against the Might of the Lord. He gave Canaan to the Israelites, despite the apparent gap in size and power between the Israelites and Canaanites. He led Gideon to victory against the Midianites with an army as small as 300 soldiers (the real story of the 300). He led Saul to defeat thousands and David tens of thousands.
God is the God of victory. He triumphs over all who stand against Him, always. So why would we ever be afraid of what the Biden DOJ declares? Why would we pretend as though it has as much legitimacy as a Supreme Court ruling (particularly from an illegitimate DOJ)?
Fight lies with truth, not more lies. That is my message to TrendingPolitics and The GP. You’re not like CNN or the NYT – you’re not fake news – so don’t act like it. Point out the real tyrannies of the illegitimate Biden administration, not make up other ones.
“For the Lord your God is he who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies, to give you the victory.”
I can probably come up with a million and one reasons not to get the Chinese coronavirus vaccine, but seemingly, even those who are in favor of it are willing to give me more and more reasons.
From the fact that the Chinese coronavirus doesn’t have a mortality rate which would justify getting a vaccine to the fact that these are entirely experimental vaccines and inexplicably require more than one dose to properly function (something unique to the world of vaccination), it isn’t difficult to find reasons not to get the vaccine.
And yet, we keep on finding more as more time passes and we can begin to see the relatively long-term effects of the vaccines.
Last Wednesday, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) held an open meeting about the link between the Chinese coronavirus shots and the serious heart problems that we are finding in teenagers and young adults. The problem is so bad that the CDC was practically FORCED to take a look at it, something that they haven’t really done for all other questions and problems that have arisen regarding the vaccines.
Naturally, the CDC used their VAERS system, which I have previously noted only shows less than 1% of reported vaccine adverse events, so you should probably know roughly what to expect here.
According to former NYT reporter Alex Berenson, who attended the meeting, the CDC “showed that even without accounting for underreporting, a second dose of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines could increase the risk of problems up to 200-fold in young men.”
“The CDC’s focus [at the meeting] was on two illnesses, myocarditis and pericarditis, forms of heart inflammation that can occasionally progress to heart failure and even death. The CDC and many reporters insist on calling the cases mild. In fact 95 percent of the 300+ post-vaccination cases the CDC has reviewed have led to hospitalization.”
To be more specific, the CDC looked at 323 reported cases of myocarditis/pericarditis post-vaccination in people aged 29 and younger. 309 of those 323 (95.66%) were hospitalized (thankfully, 295 have been discharged but these are diseases which can alter people’s lives depending on the severity of the condition. Some of these kids might not be able to live very active lifestyles anymore). 9 of these 309 are still hospitalized with 2 being in ICU, and 5 have no outcome data available for the report. Only 14 of those 323 teens were not hospitalized.
This is what the CDC calls “mild” and “rare” cases, by the way. If 309 hospitalizations are “mild” and 95% of cases leading to hospitalization is “rare”, I don’t know what “severe” and “common” are by comparison.
But we’re not done with the horrendous data that the CDC shared at that meeting. You see, cases are continuing to be reported to their system, which in itself was a funky enough system as it was. This means that their crappy system is being overwhelmed by side effect reports on the vaccines.
Berenson gives us a good way to look at this in perspective: “In all of 2019, the CDC’s voluntary vaccine side effect reporting system received about 48,000 reports for ALL vaccines. So far in 2021 it has received at least seven times that many for Covid vaccines alone.”
So for all of the year 2019, there were 48,000 reports in the VAERS system for all vaccines. And yet, in only half that time in 2021, there are at least 336,000 reports of side effects from the Chinese coronavirus vaccine ALONE. And keep in mind that less than 1% figure, so the actual number is likely FAR higher than we see here. But even ignoring the underreporting tendencies of the system, this is a MASSIVE number and a huge problem.
Continuing down the rabbit hole of horrendous CDC data, we find the rate of hospitalization to the Chinese coronavirus vaccine compared to the virus in and of itself. According to the CDC, for every 100,000 vaccines given to young people, over 25,000 will showcase seemingly temporary side effects which will keep them from “normal activities”, 700 will require medical attention and 200 will be hospitalized.
None of those numbers give anyone any reason to trust the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines, but even looking at the smallest number given, that 200 hospitalizations per 100,000, that’s still higher than the 50 per 100,000 hospitalizations for the virus itself.
So according to the CDC’s own numbers, a teenager/young adult is four times more likely to have to go to the hospital following vaccination than from contracting the virus for which they are getting vaccinated in the first place. Oh yeah, that just SCREAMS safety and effectiveness. Hell, even if it did actually effectively get rid of the virus (there are PLENTY of reports that one can still get the virus after getting vaccinated, yet another reason not to get the vaccine and showcases its ineffectiveness), one must still weigh the risks versus the rewards of such actions.
If one is four times as likely to have to go to the hospital because of the vaccine than the disease, what sense does it make to get the vaccine even if it gets rid of the disease? On top of the fact that the VAST majority of Chinese coronavirus cases are actually mild (as in, no hospitalization or medical attention required) and the survival rate for most people (and in particular for teenagers and young adults) is over 99.9%, there is simply no logical reason why anyone would want to get the Chinese coronavirus vaccine.
Not to mention that most people seemingly have only gotten it or plan to get it not because they think the virus is just that bad, but because their JOBS demand that they do (highly unconstitutional, of course, but most people won’t make such legal challenges).
Returning to the CDC’s data, we find something that is outright insane and even contradictory to data the CDC has previously used. And not “previously” as in data which they had months ago which has since changed. I mean “previously” as in they used that data IN THIS VERY MEETING and which I JUST talked about.
In the meeting, the CDC claimed that "the rate of hospitalization in adolescents was roughly 400 out of 14,000 cases, or close to 2,900 per 100,000” that is “almost 20 times what its own data shows,” according to Berenson.
So then, which is it? Is it 200 per 100,000 or 2,900 per 100,000? Because that is a MASSIVE difference and I don’t know how the CDC arrived at such conclusions. And, once again, I ask that you keep in mind that VAERS shows less than 1% of all reported cases, so these numbers are such best-case scenarios as to practically be pipe dreams.
What is perhaps the most bizarre part of it all is that they used these numbers to ENCOURAGE vaccination for teenagers and young adults, even for those with previous cases of myocarditis or pericarditis, arguing that the vaccines have a “positive balance for all age and sex groups.”
This is like looking at a basketball team’s horrendous statistics like being dead-last in offense and defense, allowing massive point differentials in favor of their opponents, and then unironically claiming that this is a championship-contending team. And these are the “experts” we’re supposed to blindly trust to make the right decisions? Doctors and scientists looking at data which PROVE how unsafe the vaccines are and go on to argue that EVEN THOSE MOST AT-RISK LIKE KIDS WITH MYOCARDITIS AND PERICARDITIS ought to get the vaccines?
I once said that future generations will look at how we handled the pandemic and understand that, for the next pandemic, they should do the EXACT opposite as what we did. Similarly, in the present, I’ve arrived at the conclusion that whatever the CDC recommends people do, they should actually do the exact opposite.
But this has all gotten me to think far more critically. I never expected the CDC to be infallible, and can excuse being wrong because humans err. However, being this wrong about this many things, and even making the EXACT opposite arguments than they should with the data which proves the unsafety of the vaccines, makes me think it can’t just be one massive oopsie. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while, and yet, the blind CDC has not found even one nut in the last year and a half. And it’s not just the CDC either, but the WHO, NIH, NHS, etc.
Either these people are the single most incompetent batch of scientists the world has ever known, or they’re doing this crap on purpose. At this point, it’s far more likely to be the latter. Again, one can excuse the occasional error. What I can’t excuse is being dead wrong about everything up to this point.
Bottomline is that no one, young or old, healthy or sick, should get the Chinese coronavirus vaccines. Frankly, it’s BETTER to just have the virus than to get the vaccine, according to the CDC’s own underreported data.
So add to the already long list of reasons not to get the vaccine: It is literally worse than the virus for most people.
2 Timothy 3:13
“While evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.”
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.
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
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.
“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.
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):
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.
“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.”
You know it’s election season when trust in the fake news media is down and the lowest it has ever been. While a strong case can be made that no one, not even liberals, ought to have trusted the fake news media ever since Trump won the 2016 presidential election, trust in the fake news media had gone up a bit following the election (though with many points where it fell drastically) and now, we are once again at an all-time low in trust for the MSM.
A new Gallup poll finds trust in the fake news media to be extremely low. Only 9% report trusting the media “a great deal” and 31% trust it “a fair amount.” Meanwhile 27% of people have “not very much” trust in the mainstream media and a full 33% have “none at all,” making the split between “trust” and “not trust” at 40%-60% respectively, a 20-point differential.
The poll also notes that the percentage of people who have no trust at all is a record high and up five points since last year.
According to the poll: “33% who do not have any confidence this year reflects a five-point uptick and is the highest reading on record. Republicans are the main drivers behind this change: 58% of them now express this view, marking a 10-point increase and the first-ever majority-leading reading.”
The poll shows that just 10% of Republicans trust the news media with just 3% have a “great deal” of trust in them. And we can clearly see who the Never Trump RINOs are in this poll, particularly with that second number. Only someone who hates Trump to the core would consider the fake news media responsible for the fabrication of numerous different hoaxes to be in any way trustworthy.
I’m less worried about that 10% because, despite the fact that it’s the lowest level on record from Gallup, as far as I could see, I can imagine some of them had sources like Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh in mind when answering this question, and such sources are largely trustworthy.
The question was framed as follows: “In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media – such as newspapers, TV and radio – when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately and fairly – a great deal, a fair amount, not very much or none at all?”
While there are liberal radio hosts and stations, such as NPR, most Republicans will think of “radio” and will immediately picture Rush Limbaugh’s show, which to many, is a great source for news and political commentary that is trustworthy. So there is definitely the possibility that at least some of the people who said they were Republicans in the poll answered with conservative publications in mind.
At any rate, perhaps entirely unsurprisingly as well, the poll also finds that 73% of Democrats trust the fake news media, which is up 21 points since 2016. I imagine being fed the things they wanted to hear at extreme rates made them have a lot of trust in the anti-Trump media, which can explain these numbers. These Democrats largely hate Trump and love to watch and hear and read of any news story which is exclusively bad for Donald Trump (which is literally more than 90% of the time).
Gallup also noted that many hold the belief that the media is an important element to a strong democracy (we are a Republic, for one. Two, I agree but only when it is honest media), but that their opinions of the current news media do not purport to a great deal of support for it, which is rather obvious given the numbers.
When the news industry is actually fair and balanced, with reporters who will share all the details that they can without blatantly and obviously intentionally omitting important aspects that help shape the context of the news in order to attack people they don’t like, that is going to help any country with almost any system of government. Most definitely, a constitutional Republic would benefit tremendously from honest media.
But that’s not the kind of media that we have today. We have the kind of media banana republics and second- and third-world dictatorships have. We have the kind of media which will blatantly favor one side and which will lie for the government if the government is run by the people they like.
The fake news media helped sell the Iran nuclear deal to the American people. They asked no real questions of Obama, then-Secretary of State John Kerry, or anyone. They fully bought into the idea that we were giving Iran $150 BILLION for them to “build bridges and roads.” No one in the fake news media questioned it, acting as though we are Russia or China or North Korea.
The fake news media is basically state-sanctioned media whenever there is a Democrat in the White House. Such political partiality does damage to democracy and leads people astray (not that they do it by accident – it’s entirely purposeful).
In any case, Gallup’s “Bottom Line” analysis in the end says: “Americans’ confidence in the media to report the news fairly, accurately and fully has been persistently low for over a decade and shows no signs of improving, as Republicans’ and Democrats’ trust moves in opposite directions. The political polarization that grips the country is reflected in partisans’ views of the media, which are now the most divergent in Gallup’s history.”
This is also not at all surprising. When the fake news media drives, for four years, the hoax that the sitting President of the United States colluded with a foreign power to steal the 2016 election, that is bound to divide people greatly. At no point did the media have a shred of evidence to support their claims and yet talk about it as though it’s settled science – as though it’s an undeniable fact that Trump colluded with Russia. It’s nothing but b.s., so of course people who support the president aren’t exactly cool with these people.
Now, the poll itself was conducted from August 31st to September 13th, and a lot of news stories, including one debate, have occurred since then which ought to have driven confidence down a bit (not that there was a lack of fake news stories in that time period or before), but as we get closer and closer to the actual election, I hope that trust in the media further plummets.
They keep trying to tell the lie that Biden is far ahead in multiple states and that he has an even greater chance than Hillary did to win this election, which is a total load of crap. What reason do I have to believe polls conducted by the fake news media, particularly when they routinely oversample Democrats and under-sample Republicans?
They are not to be trusted by anyone, even liberals. The fake news media assured them in 2016 that that election was Hillary’s to lose and that she was all but assured to win it and look where that got them. Why would anyone, even liberals, be willing to trust what these people say, at least when it comes to who is the likely winner of the election, when they got it so wrong last time?
“And Jesus answers them, ‘See that no one leads you astray…’”
In a statement published by the journal of BioScience, 11,000 “scientists” sounded the alarm about the emergency that is climate change and called on governments and people to take action.
The statement read: “We declare clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency… An immense increase of scale in endeavors to conserve our biosphere is needed to avoid untold suffering due to the climate crisis… The climate crisis is closely linked to excessive consumption of the wealthy lifestyle… To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live…”
Boy, does that sound like a huge warning and boy does that sound like a massive pile of crap. Funny enough, whoever thinks this is, indeed, a massive pile of crap is absolutely right.
Feel free to explore literally any of the other articles I have written over the last few years regarding climate change to see how utterly ludicrous this is. But for this article, I will allow for others to (sort of) make the arguments for me.
You see, apart from the fact that this statement is ridiculous on its face, clearly only serves the Left’s desires of obtaining and retaining power, and offers little in terms of accurate scientific evidence, there are a number of problems with just about everything surrounding this statement.
First of all, 15,000 “scientists” signed a similar statement back in 2017, giving the same warning about climate change. What happened to the other 4,000 “scientists” this time around? Were they unavailable for comment? Were they on sabbatical? Did they change their minds? I don’t know, but the fact that there are thousands less “scientists” to sign this nonsense is quite telling.
Second of all, a decade ago, over 30,000 American scientists signed the Global Warming Petition Project, which was a warning that there was NO convincing scientific evidence to suggest or prove man-made climate change was real. The Project also insisted that global pacts like the Paris Climate Accord (such as the Kyoto Protocol) were counterintuitive to science and people’s very lives.
Funny how a petition signed by more than 30,000 American scientists didn’t get any airtime from the cable news networks but 11,000 signatories from across the world received MSM attention.
Third of all, out of the 11,000 signatories of the most recent climate warning, only 156, or 1% of them, had a job title that included the field of climate research. The rest includes a list of the following:
I am not even joking. That’s how bad and outright funny this list is (which is now inaccessible since it was discovered that the talking mouse had signed it). Not only are an extremely low amount of people who have any sort of experience in the field of climatology the signatories, but some of the signatories are outright FICTIONAL CHARACTERS!
I honestly don’t know what’s funnier: that these people are desperate enough to credit a scientist’s MOM or fictional characters.
Have a look at the following pictures to find the sort of colorful cast this list includes:
This list is beyond parody and the titles that this list includes is a major reason I say that these are “scientists”. Yes, there are many here who actually are scientists, but not people who are qualified to sound the alarm over climate change in this manner. That 11,000 number may sound like a lot, which is its major intention, but 99% of it is filled with people who are either not climatologists, not doctors, not scientists or not even real.
Even one of the Zoologists on the list says that they are from the University of Neasden, UK. There is no University of Neasden, UK. The University of Neasden, UK is said to be a fictional university created by a British satirical magazine.
To put it into perspective, it’d be like giving credence to someone who was featured in a “The Onion” article.
The entire statement has a lot of problems, from bad graphs (no graph used shows historical data past 1980, so the lines are very sharp and diagonal when throughout the history of the world, what we have now might be considered fairly normal) to less signatories in just two years to the fact that there was a similar warning only two years ago to the fact that far more than double the amount of just American scientists argue AGAINST the idea of man-made climate change to the hilariously unqualified signatories ranging from scientists that have nothing to do with the climate to other professions to family members of a scientist to fictional people from fictional places.
Anyone who would even for a minute take this statement seriously is severely lacking in any sort of information about the topic at hand. Worse still, they would have to be severely lacking in this sort of information about who the signatories actually are or would have to be extremely dishonest to push this as any sort of significant evidence that there is a climate crisis and we must act with haste and in extreme ways.
Again, I invite you to read over any of the other articles I have written over the years surrounding the topic of climate change. Regardless of what you may think of them, or even me, I can guarantee I’m more qualified to talk about climate change than MICKEY MOUSE.
“A faithful witness does not lie, but a false witness breathes out lies.”
One of the Left’s most powerful and oft-used weapons is deception. They will take something that is fairly true, misconstrue it and use it to tell a bold-faced lie. Anything from “Trump had Russians in Trump Tower” to “Trump assails against hate but not guns” are things that are basically true but heavily misconstrued to drive a narrative. The Russians that were in the Trump Tower meeting with Don Jr. were not from the Russian government and Trump’s assailing against hate but not guns is due to not blaming an inanimate object for mass shootings and instead attacks the ideologies the shooters had and their reason for killing people.
But the point remains that the Left often uses deception and lies to drive their fictitious narratives and advance their agendas. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is no different and used this tactic when unveiling her gun control plan should she be elected President of the United States.
The funny thing is that, even before talking about gun control, Elizabeth Warren lied about something else: automobile deaths going down supposedly after government issued regulations to car manufacturers.
The senator wrote: “Over fifty years, we reduced per-mile driving deaths by almost 80% and prevented 3.5 million automobile deaths. And we’re still at it.”
However, Dr. John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), explains the logical deceitfulness of Warren’s claim:
“It is pretty deceptive to claim that government regulations reduced motor vehicle deaths by 80%. Those deaths were falling much faster before the federal [government] started regulating auto safety.”
“As indicated by the figures from my book, ‘The War on Guns’: 1) it is easy to see that cars were getting safer from the time the very first data was released in 1921, long before there were mandated federal safety regulations, and 2) when you look over the entire period, the rate at which car safety improved actually slowed down after the federal government started regulating car safety. The first seatbelts were introduced in 1950 by car companies that were figuring out on their own how to make cars safer. But the New York Times’ graph doesn’t show the even faster drop in vehicle deaths per-mile-traveled that occurred before 1946.”
“It is important to note that accidental deaths from all sources are falling over time. Companies are competing against each other to provide customers with safer products, and items such as seat belts, shatter proof glass, padded dashboards, and safety cages were just some of the many safety features adopted by car makers long before the federal government got involved in regulating auto safety.”
Dr. Lott also figures that “government regulations slowed down safety regulations for a simple reason: the government micromanaged how companies would meet those safety improvements. It isn’t just that the government mandated that car companies had to use airbags in their cars, it is that the government would tell the companies exactly how to make those bags and how to install them. That forced car companies to wait on installing these safety features until the federal government told the companies exactly how they wanted the product made and installed. If the companies didn’t wait, they may find themselves spending hundreds of millions of dollars, or even billions of dollars, only to find that they had to redesign everything and start all over.”
In sum, Dr. Lott points out that Sen. Warren’s claim is purposefully misleading. Yes, automobile deaths were going down over time, but definitely not because of the government. If anything, those numbers would’ve gone down QUICKER without government involvement and regulation. The free market would’ve demanded car manufacturers to make their cars safer, installing more and more safety features. From seatbelts to airbags and even the fairly recent back-up cameras that are being installed more and more, the free market makes it so that companies compete with one another to make their products good and safe for the public. The government only gets in the way of progress.
Of course, the reason this is even being talked about is that Warren is trying to insist that government regulation “helped” lower vehicle deaths (it was actually a detriment to that) and as such, government regulation can “help” lower gun deaths (it would also be a massive detriment to that too). The problem that Warren faces is that reality speaks of a different story. The government DIDN’T help cars get safer and it certainly wouldn’t help lower gun deaths.
Now, that isn’t the only dumb claim Warren makes in her plan. Far from it, as much of it basically regurgitates the ridiculous gun control ideas other Democrats have put forth with some changes to make them her own. One of Warren’s ideas was to make private gun sales require background checks. Of this, Dr. Lott said:
“A lot of academic research by criminologists and economists on background checks on the private transfer of guns has found no effect on crime rates. There is a simple reason for this. A major source of illegal guns are drug dealers, who have weapons to protect their valuable property. You will have about as much success stopping drug dealers from selling guns as you have in stopping them from selling drugs, and if you think that you have stopped criminals from being able to buy illegal drugs, good luck thinking that you will stop them from being able to obtain guns.”
What Dr. Lott is essentially saying is that private gun sales, and particularly background checks, have no noticeable impact on crime rates largely because illegally-acquired guns are far more prevalently used. Whether it be through stealing it from someone or purchasing it from a black market, there is no legislation that has ever been thought up or could ever be thought up that would actually be able to completely stop the use of illegal weapons. Certainly, coming up with regulations that ban or make illegal guns that are currently legal don’t help either. Restricting the law-abiding citizens in their abilities to protect themselves and/or their families doesn’t keep gangsters or mass shooters from killing other people.
According to Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck, at minimum, there are 760,000 defensive gun uses (DGUs) per year. Meaning that there are at least 760,000 times and scenarios in which someone uses a gun in self-defense every single year (and the actual number is likely higher due to underreporting that tends to occur. People don’t tend to want to admit they used a gun to harm or kill someone else, even if it was in self-defense and they wouldn’t be held criminally liable). This dwarfs even the most ridiculous claims by Leftists about how many mass shootings there are in a year (they often claim in the hundreds, but they include shootings in which two or less people were killed and/or wounded, or even when there were no killed or wounded, but a firearm happened to have been discharged). So defensive use of guns far outweighs offensive use of guns such as in premeditated killings and mass shootings.
To restrict We the People’s ability to defend ourselves would only exacerbate the problem of mass shootings and killings. It’s no surprise, really, that Chicago often has very bloody weekends with all of its gun control regulations that are in place.
The last thing I will talk about regarding Warren’s gun control plan (there is a lot more, but I don’t want this article to be too long) is that she intends to allow for gun manufacturers and companies to be “strictly liable” for damages caused with a firearm. Of course, this leaves manufacturers in great financial peril given that it would allow for citizens to sue them to bankruptcy and that they would have to pay every single time a firearm causes someone some sort of damage.
Alongside that, she intends to increase taxes on firearms and ammunition purchases (30% and 50% respectively). It goes without saying that Warren’s plan would help bankrupt gun manufacturers and keep poor people from being able to protect themselves. The government can’t outright take our guns (there are far too many for that to be plausible and they would, at most, only be able to confiscate legally-purchased weapons, not illegal ones) but they certainly can make it a nightmare for people to make a living. Taxes and regulation are the enemy of businesses and they always restrict how much capital they are able to make.
There are certain times when I think regulation is a good idea, such as in the case of social media companies when they try to ban people for expressing differing opinions. If the end is to protect Constitutional rights, I think regulation can be a force for good (but, as with many things, can also be a force for evil when taken to the extreme). But in general, regulation is a detriment. You saw it in car manufacturing, with vehicle death numbers going down significantly until the government came in and told car manufacturers how to make their cars safer, and you see it whenever more gun control legislation is passed.
Joe Biden is somehow proud of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, despite it not having stopped any mass shootings (Columbine happened when this ban was in effect). Similarly, any gun control measure would be equally as ineffective to combating gun violence in America. If you want to know what it would take for this country to be alleviated from this problem, read my previous article about our country turning its back to God. I believe that can provide some answers.
“He said to them, ‘But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.’”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
A little over a week ago, I wrote an article talking about how there was no link between extreme weather phenomenon and man-made climate change. Well, today, let’s talk about another ridiculous claim that the Left often makes: climate change leads to rising sea levels and will mean coastal cities will be flooded in a certain amount of time unless we employ more and more socialistic policies to “turn this around”.
When you put it that way, it’s hard to deny how much it looks like a scam… because that’s precisely what it is. And yet, many people buy into the idea that we are killing our planet through our cars and our air conditioners and our capitalism (somehow, despite China being one of the most egregious polluters in the world) and that in a certain amount of decades, places like Los Angeles, New York City, Miami, etc. will be uninhabitable for humans and land animals because they will be flooded.
This sort of cycle continues, as we still hear about this idiocy despite the fact that people have made predictions for today that are exactly like that and have failed to come true, such as Dr. James Hansen predicting back in the late 1980s that New York City’s West Side Highway would be under water within 20 years. Not quite sure why he chose to be so specific, but whatever the reason may be, he was obviously very wrong as it has been about 30 years since the late 1980s and no such thing has happened.
However, a recent study has shown that “trends in recent rates of shoreline change along the U.S. Atlantic Coast reflect an especially puzzling increase in accretion, not erosion,” according to Armstrong and Lazarus (2019) in a newly-published paper.
Notice the sort of language these guys are using. They are totally baffled at the idea that shorelines are actually expanding, because they are under the belief that sea levels are rising, which would naturally lead people to believe that shorelines would have to be decreasing. The authors try to attribute this “enigmatic pattern” to “beach nourishment” or infrastructure development to explain how this is happening even though sea levels are supposed to be rising.
As Climate Depot notes, “From 1830 to 1956, shorelines eroded at the rapid rate of -55 cm per year on average. Since 1960, the U.S. Atlantic coast has been expanding (accretion) at a rate of +5 cm per year.”
The real reason for this happening is not “beach nourishment” but rather because any scientist who is not paid off to spew Leftist garbage knows that geophysical processes are the reason for such sea-level variations throughout the entire world, not idiotic beliefs like glaciers melting causing there to be more water in the ocean.
Which really brings us to the main point this article is meant to tackle: the idea that melting ice caps (which are actually doing the opposite of melting) would cause sea levels to rise and coastal areas to get flooded. Anyone who has passed 6th grade science ought to know that ice is water in a different form and that melting of ice does not cause there to be more water out of nowhere.
For example, fill a glass with ice and then fill it with water just before it begins to overflow. Leave that glass of water with ice alone until the ice melts (or put it in the microwave if you’re impatient) and see the results. According to the Left, the glass will overflow because the ice will melt. However, what we notice is something entirely different: the glass is still just as full as it was before, there was no overflow, but now there’s just no ice. That is because ICE IS WATER TOO! It’s just in a different physical state, but it will still take up the exact same amount of space. Whatever space the ice cube was filling before is replaced with the water that the cube was composed of. There is no displacement of water, so there is no overflowing of the glass.
How then, if the ice caps were to melt, would the world get flooded when all the melting of the ice does is change the physical state of the ice from a solid to a liquid?
What’s more, has any of these Leftists ever heard of the water cycle? You know, the cycle where water evaporates, goes into the atmosphere, precipitates as rain or snow (depending on the temperature), goes down into sewers, rivers, etc., makes its way back to the ocean and begins the cycle anew? Well, if the ice caps were melting, that means some of the ice would be turned into a gas too, go into the atmosphere and go through the process we just described, so there technically would be a little bit less water than when it was in its ice form anyway.
But returning to my main point, it is ridiculous to suggest that the ice caps melting (which isn’t even happening, for God’s sake) would in turn lead to coastal cities to get flooded. That’s not how any of this works.
If you don’t believe me, just ask Christopher Piecuch, Peter Huybers and literally six other scientists saying: “the majority of large-scale spatial variation in long-term rates of relative sea-level rise on the US East Coast is due to geological processes that will persist at similar rates for centuries.”
Climate change does not lead to rising sea levels. Trends in sea levels, whichever way they may go, have more to do with geological processes than climate change.
And if the study by the seemingly baffled scientists is in any way accurate, then we can clearly see this to be the case. Now, if you were to ask me exactly how it’s happening, then I have no clue. I’m not a geologist by any means. But I do understand enough about the world to know that it’s completely asinine to say that melting ice caps and glaciers, etc. would lead to massive cities getting flooded. Science itself denies that this is at all possible, never mind that shorelines around the world have been in a trend of growth for a number of decades.
Between 1985 and 2015, satellite observations showed that coasts all over the world have gained roughly 13,000 km2 more land area than it had lost to the ocean, according to scientists back in 2016. So all over the world, coasts have only gained land, not lost to the ocean.
Now just watch as the Left will spin that as “we are warming the planet up so much, we are drying up the oceans”. I wouldn’t put it past them to start claiming such a thing.
“The words of his mouth are trouble and deceit; he has ceased to act wisely and do good.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
You know you have royally messed up if even the mainstream media won’t defend you and your claims. This is Elizabeth Warren now that she has willingly exposed herself as a fraud, believing that evidence contrary to her claims somehow proved her right.
Here are some headlines Monday morning when the DNA test had just been released, not a lot of people had finished reading it, and the media could have created the narrative in people’s minds that Trump was a racist and was proven wrong by the brilliant and brave Native American woman:
And my personal favorite:
Now, let’s contrast these to some of the headlines that came out after it was made obvious that the DNA test showed a range of 1/64th to 1/1024th Native American ancestry and the analyst didn’t even use Native American DNA in his analysis:
And there are plenty others like these. Keep in mind that it was the Daily Beast who most openly and utterly confirmed Warren’s Native American claims in their previous headline.
Again, you have to royally screw something up to get the media to turn on you if you are a prominent member of the Democrat Party and a figurehead of the “resistance” against Trump.
But all of this still makes sense. While it is still surprising to see the media turn on Warren in this way, which is something we never see with pretty much any other Democrat (except Bill Clinton, and you know you really messed up if you join him in the list of Democrats the media doesn’t want to talk about), it makes sense that Warren’s DNA results draw ire from people.
For decades, she had told the story that one of her ancestors was Cherokee and that her mother was Native American and had to elope with Warren’s father because her grandparents were bigots. All of it has since blown up in what can be considered a nuclear bomb on Warren.
What Warren did in releasing the test results was stupid, but not surprising. She wanted to own Trump, thought the media would back her no matter what, and thoroughly believed the lies she was propagating. She so desperately wanted to score points against Trump, particularly as part of an October Surprise against Republicans this election season, that she forsook reason, logic and facts.
The test very clearly disproved her claims that she was Native American, possibly Cherokee. While she does have some Native blood in her, so does nearly everyone else in the CONTINENT! And that’s ignoring the fact that the DNA test didn’t even use Native American DNA, but a mix of Peruvian, Mexican and Colombian, further suggesting that Warren has even less Native American DNA than the test might show.
But none of these things mattered. It didn’t matter that the test showed she has little more Native American ancestry than your average white person at best and far less than your average white person at worst. It didn’t matter that the person in charge of analyzing her DNA used samples that were not Native American to determine whether she was Native American. She wanted to score some points on Trump, was so blinded by that desire, that she inadvertently scored points against herself.
What she did was the equivalent of throwing a basketball the full length of the court, hoping to score a miracle shot, but somehow managing to get the ball to bounce all the way back and score in her own net.
With the sloppy evidence she had of her ancestry: the “high cheekbones”, the “my great, great, great x150 grandmother was Native American”, the “my parents had to elope because my grandparents were bigots”, and whatever else she had, it was a Hail Mary of a shot to try and prove Native American ancestry. And she failed… miserably… to the point even the MSM, who usually go along with the abandoning of logic, facts and reasoning, didn’t want to try and salvage or defend this train-wreck.
We will have to wait and see if this train-wreck properly derails Elizabeth Warren’s chances at a 2020 run. Despite her not having indicated that she would run, in fact, going as far as to suggest she wouldn’t, I didn’t believe her for one second. But after this week, she might actually be forced to seriously consider not running.
Her having claimed being a Native American for decades would hurt her more than you might think. The Harvard Crimson celebrated Warren as a Native American. Fordham Law Review celebrated Warren as being Harvard Law School’s “first woman of color”, which really tells you something about Harvard Law School, doesn’t it?
She identified as Native American and schools like Harvard Law School and the University of Pennsylvania Law School accepted her as Native American. She BENEFITED from calling herself Native American, given that Harvard is considered a federal contractor, with employment practices falling under Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. In other words, she benefited from affirmative action AS A WHITE PERSON!
This is not something that would sit well with minorities. Claiming to be a minority, particularly to benefit from doing so, is unethical. While the Left usually would not see much problem with this, given that they’ve been backing Warren’s claims for some time now, it would definitely be seen as a problem in any presidential race, and perhaps any future Senate race, now that she has been basically proven to be a liar.
While she is running in 2018, I don’t know if this would lead to her being beaten in a blue state like Massachusetts. But it does raise concerns for her here, at least to some extent. I don’t imagine she would even get her Party’s nomination in 2020 after this, given how much of a failure Clinton was. While Warren may not be a criminal (who knows?), part of the reason Clinton was defeated was because she was such a flawed candidate. This revelation could now mark Warren as a flawed candidate (despite the fact that she’s a socialist, that’s somehow not enough to make her flawed).
Again, you know you messed up big-time if even the media won’t cover for you. That’s almost a death sentence for Democrats.
“Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles delivered right into your inbox. All you have to do is put your email address in the allotted box on the right, click the “subscribe” button and you’re done. So make sure to check it out today!
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...