How you act under pressure can say a lot about you. If you can remain calm, cool and collected and deal with the situation in such a manner, it speaks well of your leadership skills. However, Biden, who largely has never faced much pressure at all because of a largely friendly fake news media, is lashing out as a result of waning popularity amongst even his supporters/voters and usually friendly media.
 
His approval ratings, following the disastrous Afghan crisis that he created, as well as his mishandling of the southern border and inflation, have gone down into the low 30s (as if they were ever actually higher, given that the country didn’t elect him), and are even noticeably low in fake news media polls which always show favoritism to Democrats.
 
Backed into a corner, and with his faux-presidency crumbling around him (I’m prophesying right now that he will be out in a few months, particularly if he keeps digging his own grave like this), Biden has chosen to lash out at dissenters regarding the toxic Chinese coronavirus vaccines in a speech which, had Trump given it, the media would have pointed out as “divisive” and “hateful.”
 
During this speech, the Occupier repeatedly demonized the tens (or hundreds, as I believe) of millions of Americans who have not taken the toxic vaccine, saying that “many” people in the country are “frustrated” with the unvaxxed, going so far as to claim that “this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated.”
 
If he were right, which is no surprise that he isn’t, then Israel wouldn’t be seeing such massive influxes of COVID patients who have had the vaccine.
 
According to Vision Times, “The majority of [COVID-19] patients in an Israeli hospital are fully vaccinated, including those with severe disease… ‘95% of the severe patients are vaccinated’… ‘85-90% of the hospitalizations are in fully vaccinated people.’”
 
There is also anecdotal evidence to suggest that the same is happening here, but reportedly, doctors aren’t allowed to disclose whether someone in the hospital suffering from the Chinese coronavirus is vaccinated.
 
Not to mention that, as I have written in a prior article, the fully vaccinated may be super spreaders of the Delta variant. And while I have questioned the existence of even the virus itself (and still do), the point is that if there is any pandemic at all, it’s a pandemic of the vaccinated, not the unvaccinated as the pressured pretend president claims.
 
Biden also claimed in his speech that “a distinct minority of Americans” are causing “a lot of damage” and are “keeping us from turning the corner.”
 
If it’s as distinct of a minority as you say, why is any of this necessary? More than that, if the vaccinated are as protected from the virus as YOU yourself claim in this very speech, Joe, then what does it matter whether someone else is protected? Couldn’t the vaccinated workers go back to work without any issues? And if so, why did the CDC backtrack on the vaccinated's need for wearing a mask?
 
You ask “What more is there to wait for? What more do you need to see?” First, and foremost, the answers to these questions that you keep avoiding. What we need to wait for is the results of the long-term effects of the vaccines, which are unknowable as of yet because not enough time has passed. What we’re waiting for is a RECENTLY LAUNCHED study into the effects of the vaccine on menstruating women. What more we need to see is that these things aren’t the toxic crap that they appear to be. What we need to wait for is the formula of what exactly is in these jabs.
 
“We’ve made vaccinations free, safe, and convenient.” Oh, you’ve made them free and “convenient” (as in, they are widely available, which is what I think he means here), but they are FAR from safe, as numerous articles on THIS VERY WEBSITE ALONE indicate, let alone the dozens or hundreds of other studies out there which I haven’t covered or haven’t even read yet.
 
“We’ve been patient, but our patience is wearing thin. And your refusal has cost all of us.” Big talk coming from a guy who can barely string two sentences together. Your patience is wearing thin? Ours ran out a LONG time ago. Our refusal to be subjected to experimental vaccines has cost people? How many people has your administration killed, Joe?
 
Back during the campaign trail, when supposedly 230,000 Americans died under Trump, you said that “anyone responsible for that many deaths shouldn’t remain president.” According to mainstream figures (remember, only 6%, according to the CDC, have actually died from the virus, if it exists at all), 250,000 Americans have died since your administration took over.
 
If Trump killed 230,000 people by the time he left office, you’ve killed 250,000 since you’ve taken office. So I repeat, Joe, how many people have you killed? And we know that the vaccine itself has killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, if the VAERS system is any indication (and the fact that only 1% of all actual cases are reported), so how many people has this administration killed because of its insistence (now close to being illegal if he intends to enforce the b.s. he’s spewing in this speech) that people get vaccinated?
 
Your refusal to listen to real scientists and observe the data has cost this country infinitely more than you could possibly claim about the unvaccinated.
 
But it’s not just a medical or physical price you would have us pay, but also a social one. You insist that this mandate isn’t about people’s “freedom or personal choice.” In essence, you demand that we obey and that we have no choice on the matter.
 
To that, I say go f**k yourself. I have never said that word about anyone or to anyone in the past (at least on this site), but I believe it’s warranted here. You want us to ignore the data SCREAMING that the vaccines are dangerous and want to FORCE us, through our employers, to get a dangerous vaccine? This is the very tyranny the Left claimed Trump supported. Furthermore, this is a complete and utter violation of the Nuremberg Code, regarding the coercion of people to unwillingly undergo medical experimentation.
 
Keep in mind, Trump was impeached over a phone call. And here, we have the Occupier of the Oval Office violating INTERNATIONAL LAW through means of coercion, basically telling people that they won’t have a job anymore if they don’t get the vaccine.
 
Well and justly do I say to Biden to go f**k himself. Not because he can actually do any of this, but because he is OPEN about what he wants.
 
No, I don’t fear that what he says wants done will actually be done. Already, multiple Republican governors and companies have stated their purpose to not comply with such an illegitimate and unconstitutional order. And if he continues to press on with this crap, getting more tyrannical in his actions, I don’t see how his administration survives (politically). Push people far enough and they will eventually push back. And as we’ve seen in countries around the world trying their hand at full-on communism, the people push back.
 
Iran, the U.K., France, Italy and Australia, to name a few, have seen anti-lockdown and anti-vaccine passports/mandates protests. Australia being particularly significant, as there are a number of laws in that country which outright illegalize protesting and hundreds have been arrested for doing so in anti-lockdown protests.
 
Do not expect the American people, out of everyone, to simply take illegal, liberty-limiting actions from the government lying face down.
 
Biden’s faux-presidency is crumbling around him and I believe it will soon come undone, particularly as more evidence mounts and is shared of the rigged election.
 
Deuteronomy 28:7
“The Lord will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before you. They shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways.” 

As we have known for a very long time now, Joe Biden isn’t exactly a master speaker nor does he command a strong knowledge of the English language when he speaks. This was very much demonstrated recently when talking about climate, as the Occupier of the Oval Office basically claimed that tornadoes don’t exist anymore, or at least, an unspecified “they” don’t call them that anymore.
 
“Uh, you know, the, looks like a tornado, they don’t call ‘em that anymore, that hit the crops and, and wetlands in the middle of the country, and, and Iowa, and Nevada, and, I mean it’s just across the board. And uh, you know um, uh, as I said we’re in this together.”
 
Hard to be “in this together” when most of us don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, Joe.
 
But, hey, this ought to be something to celebrate, right? Tornadoes don’t exist anymore, which is a success in the “fight” against climate change, right? Oh, wait, yeah, this is just because Old Man Biden is a senile coot unfit for the office he stole. Forgot.
 
Naturally, Pretend President Porky Pig had people attempt to defend his incoherence online, claiming that what Biden was talking about wasn’t tornadoes but derechos, a different kind of storm.
 
Of course, since this is a Leftist argument, there are a few holes in it.
 
First of all, Biden was referring, at least, to something that “looks like a tornado.”
 
Here’s a tornado:

And here’s a picture of a derecho:

The only people who could claim that a tornado and a derecho look similar are people who have never seen one or the other and people who are awfully dishonest like Leftists who still defend the ghost of the Democrat Party.
 
The only similarity between both storms is the color, and that’s just because they look LIKE DARK CLOUDS, as you would typically find in PRETTY MUCH ALL STORMS.
 
Furthermore, The National Weather Service defines a tornado as “a violently rotating column of air extending from the base of a thunderstorm down to the ground” which is “capable of completely destroying well-made structures, uprooting trees, and hurling objects through the air like deadly missiles.” Meanwhile, their definition of derecho is a “widespread, long-lived wind storm that is associated with a band of rapidly moving showers or thunderstorms.”
 
In essence, the two are nothing alike, again, apart from color and I already explained why that is the case.
 
Secondly, and lastly, it makes no sense for Biden to have been talking about derechos because people still call them that. Even if one were to argue that most people don’t know the term “derechos”, which is certainly possible, and would usually refer to a derecho as a weird storm, or a storm in general, that represents a lack of information on the particular storm, not a change in idiom regarding the name of the storm.
 
Whoever “they” is in Biden’s nonsensical speech, it’s definitely not meteorologists who can accurately recognize and name the particular storm. If “they” is the general public which might not know the name of the storm, again, that’s about a lack of information, not a conscious decision to start calling those storms something else.
 
So whether Biden actually meant to say tornadoes or was merely referring to derechos, what he said was both incoherent and inaccurate. Not that they had to be coherent or accurate for loyal Leftist dogs to defend Biden at the drop of a hat (even when no one would blame them if they stopped defending him considering his drop in ratings, even those which are rigged in his favor). Frankly, it’s pathetic that these people have to force themselves (even more pathetic if they don’t have to force themselves, to be honest) to defend the nonsense of a man who should be long retired by now and as far away as possible from the nuclear button.
 
And yet, we don’t really expect them to do anything else. This is the dog they chose in the primaries (even if the country at large didn’t choose him) and they have to stick by him, apparently. This, despite the increase in Biden voters regretting their decision in 2020.
 
But hey, at least tornadoes aren’t a thing anymore, right? Ah, wait, almost forgot again.
 
The Left really can’t have anything, huh?
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”

In what is a seeming attempt at “owning” pro-lifers, commie actress Bette Midler suggested on Twitter that “all women refuse to have sex with men until they are guaranteed the right to choose by Congress.”
 
In other words, she is telling women, namely pro-abortion women, to NOT spread their legs as they often do and have sex, because this apparently would be detrimental to pro-life men.
 
Yeah, I don’t get it either, but you won’t hear me complaining about this instance of Leftist illogic.
 
Naturally, this comes following the Texas Heartbeat Act which protects the unborn beginning at six weeks gestation, when the heart usually begins to beat. Because women usually don’t find out that they are pregnant around this time as well, this bill pretty much effectively bans abortion.
 
And unlike similar pro-life, heartbeat laws which can easily be ignored by activist judges and pro-abortion law enforcement (including Leftist DA’s), the Texas heartbeat law allows individuals to report violations of that law and sue the abortionists as a result. This means that the power to enforce this law doesn’t have to rest on a state government which might be full of activists who will ignore the law for their ideologies, but rather, on We the People, particularly pro-life people to actually do something about abortion.
 
Basically, this bill is an important first step in overturning the criminal and disastrous Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 which has led to a holocaust of the unborn. Which is precisely why so many Leftists are so uppity about this law, including Bette Midler.
 
Still, that she would encourage women to abstain from sex as a “punishment” is utterly hilarious to me and quite the self-own.
 
For the most part, pro-life men aren’t going around sleeping with every woman they can find. If anything, men who sleep around so much would much rather abortion be widely available, since they wouldn’t want to be “burdened” with the responsibilities of fatherhood. Pro-life men tend to be Christians, and Christians tend to view sex in the way God does, which is that it’s something only a man and a woman ought to do when they are married, not before or outside of it.
 
The funny thing is that Bette Midler isn’t the only moron to suggest women don’t have sex with men in “protest” to a heartbeat bill. Back in 2019, when Georgia passed a similar heartbeat bill, equally-as-stupid actress Alyssa Milano called on women to go on a “sex strike” because “we just cannot risk pregnancy” “until women have legal control over our own bodies.”
 
Naturally, I’m inclined to argue that women have legal control over their OWN bodies, not the bodies of others including their own children, but I don’t care to argue with someone who said this back in 2019.
 
The reason for pointing this out is that this seems to be one of at least two arguments Leftists sometimes make regarding pro-life bills (yes, they make a slew of other ones, but I want to talk about these two specifically because both arguments are actually beneficial to society).
 
They make the self-defeating argument that women should abstain from sex, as we just talked about. But they also make another argument that, frankly, I can’t help but agreeing with 100% and believe would be a benefit to society: that men shouldn’t legally be allowed to get a woman pregnant and then abandon her. That “if she has to stick with the pregnancy and the consequences of it, then so should he,” as I hear liberals put it.
 
Every time I see this on social media (not that I frequent them all too much anymore) from a liberal who makes this argument, I tend to reply with something akin to “deal”. In essence, completely agreeing with the premise.
 
Though they obviously make these arguments for the wrong reasons (as they would still prefer both to have sex and not have to “stick” with the pregnancy), I definitely won’t stop liberals from inadvertently making arguments which help improve society.
 
Indeed, women should be practicing abstinence until they get married (same for men). This is the Christian view of sex and I won’t complain if liberals end up making this same argument or begin advocating for this, even if for the wrong reasons. And men definitely shouldn’t get to enjoy the pleasures of sexual intercourse and then bail the minute the consequences of such intercourse come up.
 
Both as a Christian and as a man, it disgusts me that a man would get a woman pregnant and then abandon her and the child. It’s utterly wrong and despicable to do such a thing to a woman. And while the Left might say that they also have a problem against that, it’s the natural consequence of the “sexual liberation” movement of the 1960’s, sponsored by the American Left both of then and now.
 
But if liberals inadvertently make arguments that would make society better (a man having to legally stay with the pregnant woman would do wonders for strengthening the nuclear family, not to mention it would accomplish much the same as the abstinence insofar as it keeps these men from humping anything that moves), who am I to complain?
 
I’ll certainly point out that they would make things better, hence this very article, but you won’t hear me making arguments against such things. At most, I would only highlight that they are only doing this for the entirely wrong reasons, which is something that definitely ought to be addressed, but otherwise, I’ll be as silent as a mouse.
 
After all, as Napoleon is attributed with saying, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”
 
Romans 12:19
“Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’”

Because liberalism is a mental illness, it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that any solution to a problem brought up by a Leftist will be utterly moronic.
 
So when it comes to the problem of gun violence, instead of going with logical solutions like allowing people to defend themselves, the city of San Francisco will instead opt to pay “high risk criminals”, aka people who are highly likely to shoot someone, $300 a month to not shoot people and an extra $200 if they work on “improving their community”, which can mean anything from simply working and attending school to being a mediator in a situation that might lead to violence.
 
The kicker of that last one is that it’s unclear whether or not one needs to be successful in preventing violence through mediation in order to get paid. So it potentially could be that two people could be fighting, a person in the Dream Keeper Fellowship program (the program we’re talking about) comes in and says “stop, don’t hurt each other”, the two say “shut up” and the person in the program could just be like “well, I tried,” and be paid $200.
 
And there is a reason I think such a ridiculous situation could be plausible, which I will get to momentarily.
 
Now, where will San Francisco get the money to pay criminals not to specifically shoot people (another thing I will get to momentarily)? Well, by diverting $120 million in funding from law enforcement, of course. So it’s basically another “defund the police” attempt which will undoubtedly backfire on San Francisco.
 
According to The New American, the program “will start with engaging 10 participants in October, and will then expand to another 30 ‘high-risk individuals’ by the end of the year.”
 
And The San Francisco Examiner, which is critical of programs such as these, noted that this program is partly designed after the Operation Peacemaker Fellowship program in Richmond, California, which offers criminals up to $1,000 a month to not shoot other people.
 
At the outset, that program seems like a resounding success. A 2019 study published in the American Journal of Public Health showed that, following the installation of the program, there was a 55% decrease in gun homicides and a 43% decrease in shootings since the program began in 2010. However, there are a few problems with the program.
 
First, there is one massive, obvious loophole that criminals can take advantage of: They are paid not to SHOOT others, not to not harm or try to kill others in general. While it’s true that gun-related crime decreased by a lot since the program began, there was also a 16% increase in stabbings, beatings, all kinds of assaults and homicides which didn’t involve a firearm.
 
In essence, Richmond experienced what London has for a few years now: less gun-related crime, but a lot of other kinds of violent crime anyway.
 
They didn’t make their cities safer, just changed the way in which violence was perpetrated.
 
And the second problem of this program: it didn’t even work with one criminal. One of the participants of that Richmond program was later arrested and sentenced to 40 years to life in prison for SHOOTING and killing another man.
 
Basically, the guy was part of the program, likely was paid a decent amount of money (again, Richmond offered up to a thousand dollars a month), and then went on to violate the terms of the program anyway, rendering it utterly useless.
 
Those two real-life cases are the reason I think that aforementioned ridiculous scenario, where two people fight and a participant could be paid for “trying” to stop it, could happen, and why I specified that the program pays criminals to not shoot people.
 
The guy who shot and killed someone was paid by the program and then went on to violate the rules of the program anyway, so it’s easy to see someone doing that exact same thing in San Francisco and particularly easy to see someone “trying” to stop a violent act from happening and getting paid even if unsuccessful.
 
And the rise in other kinds of violent crime apart from gun violence is why I specified the program paying criminals not to shoot others. Such idiotic solutions may appear to work at the outset, like I said, but they don’t actually work to perform the stated purpose of reducing violence.
 
If San Francisco wants to see a decrease in violence, gun-related or otherwise, they need to make it easier for people to arm and defend themselves.
 
Like I have said in other articles talking about gun control, it doesn’t work. San Francisco has strict gun control measures and still sees a lot of gun violence. That’s no coincidence.
 
And for those who might argue that it makes no sense to make it easier for criminals to get a gun, consider that this makes it easier for law-abiding citizens to get a gun, and criminals often target people and places they strongly believe are unarmed.
 
Schools are gun-free zones and are often targeted by sickos. Police departments and prisons have tons of people who have guns and know how to use them, and you rarely, if ever, hear about shootings happening in those places.
 
Now, one might argue “but military bases have been sites for shootings, and they have the best weapons in the world.” Yes, but bases also have regulations that disarm their soldiers in most places. Allow soldiers to always be armed and you will be far less likely to hear of shootings at military bases, and if you do, the death toll will be minimal and will almost certainly largely include the shooter.
 
The general point is that by disarming the populace, you make it easier on the CRIMINALS to get their way. Not to mention that programs like these can, and often do, fund their criminal actions.
 
Criminals will procure their weapons most often through illegal means, so gun control law doesn’t prevent anyone from getting a gun except people who already INTEND to follow the law and would use it defensively.
 
Like I said, if San Francisco wants to really reduce violence in their city, they should allow their citizens to arm themselves more easily. But Democrats never actually care to solve the problems they create. After all, how else are they going to get their fundraising and donation money to “try to solve these problems”?
 
They will dine and live great lives off of the blood of their constituents.
 
Matthew 15:14
“Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”

According to a recent study by the Oxford University Clinical Research Group, published in The Lancet, fully vaccinated people (that is, those who have taken the ridiculous two shots) carry 251 times the viral load of the Chinese coronavirus compared to those who are unvaccinated.
 
The study reads: “Viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020.”
 
And in what is a particularly bad blow to the vaccine narrative, the study shows that the vaccinated can spread to both the vaxxed and unvaxxed. According to the Daily Veracity:
 
“The study focused on healthcare workers who were unable to leave the hospital for two weeks. The study showed that fully vaccinated workers, about two months after injection, carried and transmitted the virus to their vaccinated colleagues after infection. They also passed the virus to unvaccinated people, including their patients. The vaccine used in the study was the Oxford/AstraZeneca (AZD1222) vaccine.”
 
While this isn’t particularly new, it’s just more evidence against the vaccine and particularly the vax mandates.
 
One of the biggest reasons the Left claims for getting the vaccine is that one wouldn’t be able to transmit the virus onto other people. Even though a vaccine is meant to protect the person GETTING IT and this narrative goes completely against what is generally understood about vaccines, that is what the Left had been arguing for a long time. However, even that isn’t true (shocker), as the vaccinated, if they get the virus (or something, seeing as we’ve previously discussed the potential inexistence of COVID-19), can spread it onto other people, even those who are also vaccinated.
 
So what is the point of getting the vaccine? There is no medical or scientific reason for it, you’re just supposed to do as you’re told and if possible, they will force you to get it through social and financial coercion, violating the Nuremberg Code.
 
Every supposed “benefit” of getting the vaccine has utterly backfired after even some amount of review. It used to be that those who were vaccinated had the “privilege” to not wear a mask (as if that actually stopped the rest of us from doing the same), but recently, the CDC went back on that, urging vaccinated people to continue to wear masks because they were still catching and spreading the virus (or whatever else, but let’s, for the sake of the argument, say it’s really the Chinese coronavirus).
 
Even the vaccine passports will likely backfire on them, given that they already are in the UK.
 
According to Breitbart, “Britain’s socialized healthcare system reportedly falsified up to 700,000 vaccine passport records… resulting in many Britons being barred from leaving the country.”
 
In other words, the British healthcare system messed up the healthcare records of 700,000 Brits, keeping them from enjoying the “benefits” of the vaccine passport system, such as going to clubs or pubs, large public events like sports games, etc.
 
So not only is it a draconian system which divides and discriminates against people because they don’t want to be part of an experimental vaccine trial and fall victim to violations of the Nuremberg Code, but it’s a draconian system which doesn’t even work (again, shocker).
 
So the vaccinated still have to wear masks and social distance (according to the fascists, that is. They don’t actually have to do any such thing), they can still catch and spread the virus thereby negating any medical benefit to the vaccine, and the fascistic vax passport system, at least in the UK, is not only authoritarian but also incompetent and broken.
 
I repeat, what reason is there to get a vaccine? We’ve already seen that it doesn’t protect you from catching the virus, which at this point, with the Delta variant (assuming it exists) being the dominant one, isn’t much of a big deal since the variant is 20 times less lethal than the original strain (again, assuming these things exist).
 
The study from Oxford found the less lethal Delta strain in all of those vaccinated workers, which is probably the reason as to why they survived, but again, seeing as the Delta strain is less lethal than the already pretty mild 99.98% non-lethal Chinese coronavirus, what reason is there for someone without the vax to get jabbed?
 
Not to mention the VAERS system which shows tens of thousands of reported deaths from the vaccines (which, I will remind you, is a system which reports less than 1% of all actual cases in the U.S., so the real number is likely much, much higher) and other adverse effects from the vaccine, such as thrombosis (blood clots), anaphylaxis (allergic reactions), neurologic injury and, in pregnant women, particularly those in the first and second trimesters, spontaneous abortion.
 
All these risks just to get a vaccine which doesn’t work, to “protect” you from something you have a greater than 99.98% chance of surviving if you are relatively young and healthy, since, again, the Delta variant is the dominant one and it’s far less lethal.
 
Oh, and you may even become a super spreader due to the 251 times greater viral load, therefore putting your loved ones at risk (according to the Left’s argument).
 
This entire charade has been one massive pile of bullcrap after another. A virus which people were too afraid to accurately say came from China, which has a survival rate equal to or greater than the flu, which apparently only targets rallying Republicans and Trump supporters but not BLM and Antifa rioters and Democrat politicians.
 
We were repeatedly told we only had to wait 15 days to slow the spread. This was over 530 days ago. In the meantime, almost all states went into lockdown, causing a mini-recession, millions of jobs lost from which we are still recovering, and untold pain and deaths caused by said lockdowns which will go ignored because people were too damn afraid of the virus (in large part because the Establishment kept insisting this was practically the Plague).
 
We were told we could reopen once cases went down. They went down and many states didn’t reopen. We were told we could reopen once vaccines were available. Vaccines are available and many states have RE-ENTERED lockdown. The goalposts keep being moved and b.s. reason after b.s. reason keeps being thrown out.
 
And on top of all that, we are being driven insane by the illogic of the insistence of getting a vaccine which even a VENTRILOQUIST COMEDIAN IN JEFF DUNHAM can see is utter stupidity (in a video where he had one of his puppets asks questions to a puppet “Joe Biden” during a press conference, which included the vaccines among other topics).
 
And now, along with everything else, a study shows that those who were gullible enough to get a vaccine might be super spreaders due to the viral load? I repeat, for the final time (in this article), why would anyone ever get one of these vaccines?
 
Proverbs 18:7
“A fool’s mouth is his ruin, and his lips are a snare to his soul.” 

The Left repeatedly has demanded that “we listen to doctors” and “experts” and that we “follow the science” surrounding the Chinese coronavirus. They, of course, are liars and hypocrites, as they utterly ignore any scientific data which shows this whole pandemic to be a farce and their supposedly “effective” measures to be nothing but pipe dreams at best and heavily damaging to society at worst.
 
They often try to cite Anthony Fauci as the be-all and end-all of scientific credentials, and that what he says is basically the Gospel. Well, here we have a doctor with even BETTER credentials than Fauci, Dr. Thomas T. Siler.
 
Dr. Siler is an internist with 37 years of experience, the same credentials as Fauci, and actually treats patients, so he gets to see the actual effects of the pandemic first-hand, making him a far more credible source than Fauci.
 
Dr. Siler wrote two articles, one in which he details the good news about the Chinese coronavirus and another which talks about “the bad and the ugly” surrounding the virus.
 
Let’s begin with the good news, shall we?
 
Siler details 10 points, or pieces of good news, for us to know:

    1. “Globally, the survival rate for COVID-19 is 99.8%. Under the age of 70, the survival rate for COVID-19 is 99.97%. This is on par with many influenza seasons. Americans younger than 70 do not have to fear COVID-19 any more than influenza and we know how to protect the elderly.”

   2. “Herd immunity for the alpha strain is here.” Dr. Siler says that antibody studies show that the percentage of those with natural immunity is 4-6 times higher than the number of cases in the U.S. And according to another doctor, from Johns Hopkins University, 80-85% of the population is immune. “Those who deny this,” Siler writes, “must explain how cases and deaths started to decline in January way before there was a significant vaccine effort. Instead, we are transitioning now from a pandemic to endemic status and, indeed, some eminent virologists say vaccinating in the middle of a pandemic is making herd immunity more difficult to obtain through the creation of variants.” 

    3. “The average age of death from COVID is 78. The average life expectancy in America is 78… Children and those under age 70 are at much lower risk.”  

    4. “Hydroxychloroquine works. Ivermectin works. It has been estimated 85% of COVID-19 deaths could have been prevented were these medicines used early.” 

    5. “Children are safe from COVID-19 and don’t spread the virus either. A study in the UK showed that the survival rate in children is 99.995%. In the U.S. 335 children have died since the start of the pandemic. A study done by Johns Hopkins and FAIR Health showed that all of the children that died from April 2020 to August 2020 had immune problems or were chronically ill. In that period, not one healthy child died. Children have more chance of dying in a car wreck, unintentional drug overdose, or influenza than from COVID-19. Vaccination for healthy children is not needed.” 

    6.  “Sweden did not have a lockdown or mask mandate and did better with cases and deaths than many countries. Lockdown did not work and had serious cultural and economic side effects. There is ample literature now to show that masks, as we are using them, do not work.” 
   
   7. “Persons who have had COVID-19 infection have a robust and long-lasting immunity. This immunity also is likely to protect against variants. As evidence continues to accumulate that the new mRNA vaccines are neither as effective nor safe as advertised, I would advise not getting the vaccine on top of your natural immunity if you had the COVID-19 infection.” 
 
   8. “There is very little, if any, spread of COVID-19 from asymptomatic persons. This lie was spread early to maximize fear of this new virus. COVID-19 is like other respiratory viral infections – you catch it from being around someone who has symptoms.” 

    9. “The death rate nationally for COVID-19 has been going down since January.” 

   10. “The Delta variant is acting like a typical historical virus variant. Typically, variants happen all the time and are more contagious but less deadly… A UK report states the Delta variant is likely 20 times less deadly than the alpha strain, but that more data needs to be collected.”  

Basically, Siler said, we needn’t be afraid of the Chinese coronavirus.
 
Unfortunately, there are entities who wish to only further increase the fear, rather than remain rational about it. For a variety of reasons, the lies and hysteria will only continue, and unfortunately, those who try and tell the truth will be de-platformed or generally censored, as Siler notes in his second article.
 
Now, we move on to the bad things about the pandemic:

     1. The death count “has been artificially elevated to maximize fear.” “California’s fifth-most populous county revised its COVID-19 death count down by 22% after reviewing the cases for the last 18 months.” Washington and Minnesota also lowered their counts and it’s likely that “overcounting happened across our country.” 

    2. “The PCR test for COVID-19 is flawed in many ways and led to overcounting cases. Two weeks ago, the CDC and FDA quietly said they would abandon the PCR test for COVID-19 in December 2021, acknowledging it did not work. They also alluded to the fact that the PCR test could not distinguish between COVID and the flu. Did the flu go away last year? No, many cases were counted as COVID-19. The CDC and FDA also now admit that they did not have any physical samples of the COVID-19 virus (I’ll get to why in a moment) so they used common cold Coronaviruses and human cells to make a less accurate test.” 

     3. “The new mRNA vaccines are far from safe. While the VAERS reporting system now has over 10,000 deaths (EU 20,000 deaths) after the vaccine, a whistleblower with the CDC says the actual count is closer to 50,000 and not being reported. Adverse reactions, including… blood clots, neurologic injury, and spontaneous abortion have approached 650,000 patients in the USA.” 

    4. “The mRNA vaccine is not safe in pregnant women. An article in the New England Medical Journal showed a rate of spontaneous abortion of 12% which is close to what is normally expected and the conclusion was the vaccine was safe to give. However, the study was skewed to include mostly women in the third trimester (84%). The remaining women in the 1st and 2nd trimesters had a 75% spontaneous abortion rate (96 out of 127).” 

    5. Supposedly prestigious medical journals have spread disinformation. “The Lancet, the top medical journal in Europe, had to retract a study saying Hydroxychloroquine was not working on COVID-19 when it was proved that there was no data for the study… The Lancet also published a statement signed by several scientists saying the COVID-19 virus could not have possibly come from the Wuhan lab. With evidence mounting now that this is exactly what happened the Lancet cannot admit it was wrong. Faith in our medical leaders is waning.” 

    6. “Antibody Dependent Enhancement (“ADE”) may be happening. [R]eports are beginning to come in from countries that are heavily vaccinated, such as Israel, that vaccinated people are getting sick and may have more serious illnesses than those not vaccinated.” 

     7. “The mRNA vaccines are not 95% effective as touted. Efficacy is likely closer to 40-70% but more data is needed. Reports coming in from Israel and states like Massachusetts show high numbers of vaccinated people (over 50%) in the hospital with COVID-19.”  

In that article, Siler also points to “the ugly” of the pandemic, such as the shady bullcrap that we have seen from “scientists” and the government. For example, Siler points to the faulty PCR testing being used to inflate case numbers and maximizing fear; or the fact that some protests and riots are ok and not superspreaders, such as BLM and Antifa riots, or things like a massive birthday bash for Obama, but other protests and gatherings, like any Trump rally or the Jan. 6th rally, being supposed superspreader events.
 
Read the article yourself for more such examples from Siler, because I want to get to the one thing the doc never got to which, as I mentioned previously, is related to why neither the CDC nor FDA don’t have samples of the Chinese coronavirus and had to use other coronaviruses: COVID-19 has yet to be proven to actually exist.
 
See, the way in which viruses are effectively proven to exist is through a process of isolation. You take a cell you believe is infected with the virus and attempt to isolate the virus from the rest of the cell. There is a pretty good article on Algora that goes into more technical detail about the process for finding new viruses, far too detailed for me to be able to simplify more than I already have. It also says that “none” of the steps necessary for isolating and discovering a new virus have “even been attempted with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, nor have all these steps been successfully performed for any so-called pathogenic virus.”
 
“But how can that be?” one might be compelled to ask. “We have seen the picture of the virus, with the cell and the things sticking out of it looking kind of like a crown, like the picture above.” Well, if that were evidence of the existence of the virus, the evolutionary “road-map” from ape to human would count as evidence of evolution. They likely made that graphic out of other coronaviruses and how they look. For example, the following:

MERS also looks rather similar to coronaviruses.
 
So just because we have all seen the graphic of what COVID-19 “looks like” that doesn’t necessarily mean that it exists. That it hasn’t been isolated means that it hasn’t been proven to exist.
 
Remember, also, that Siler mentioned that the death rate is on par with many influenza seasons and that the flu didn’t simply go away last year but many flu cases were counted as Chinese coronavirus cases. In a pandemic, it would be expected for MORE people than usual to die in a given year, yet we have seen that the number of people dying over the last few years has been about the same. Fewer were reported to die from things like the flu or influenza, etc., not because humanity somehow evolved into being capable of surviving those things within a year or two (any evolutionary biologist, even the most ardent and Leftist one, would tell you that’s not how evolution works) but because we have attributed non-COVD deaths to COVID, literally including gunshot wounds.
 
People have gotten sick, yes, but people always get sick with many things. The only difference is that, this time, those illnesses have been in the spotlight but been called COVID-19.
 
In Alberta, Canada, a man was fined $1,200 CAN for being in a “large gathering” of more than 10 people. In court, he demanded to see evidence of the virus isolated to justify a pandemic and the measures for which he was being fined. He specifically subpoenaed the Chief Medical Officer of Health for Alberta that she might isolate the virus and show proof of its existence. They tried dirty tricks like subpoenaing the man back within 24 hours of a court appearance, which was a “procedural violation” and which the man got the judge to agree was a violation. Eventually, the CMO’s lawyer said: “Well, your honor, [the defendant] is requesting evidence we cannot get.”
 
The health office of Alberta could not get evidence that the Chinese coronavirus was isolated and, therefore, real, something which, if anyone had isolated the virus, ought to be easy for them to have acquired such evidence.
 
Now, I have said previously that the CCP likely developed this virus in a lab and released it on accident but took advantage of the chaos to set the world on fire. It can’t be that both are true, since either it’s not real and therefore the CCP developed nothing or it’s real and the CCP developed something but there should be isolation and proof of the virus of which there isn’t any.
 
The CCP definitely is developing things in their virology institutes, since they are commie crap. We know for certain that, if the virus is real, that it’s artificial. But do we know that it definitely exists even artificially? The evidence points to the idea that no, it doesn’t exist. It would certainly make sense, since, again, you’d expect far more deaths in pandemic years than we would have in other years, even if the virus is artificial, yet the number of deaths has been about the same.
 
My gut instinct here is to go with the idea that it doesn’t exist (isolation is a key component) but that if it ever is isolated and proven to exist, we at least also know for sure that it is manufactured and not natural, as evidence shows.
 
At any rate, to close on this rather long article, what Dr. Siler wrote in his articles is great and certainly truthful. And all this from someone who has FAR more credibility than the Left’s St. Fauci.
 
Proverbs 15:14
“The heart of him who has understanding seeks knowledge, but the mouths of fools feed on folly.”

As I have explained many times in the past, Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a racist theory calling itself “anti-racist” because it supposedly “empowers” blacks while “destroying” white supremacy or whatever else. Basically, it makes white people out to be devils because of their race and black people to be victims for the same reason. Anyone with a positive IQ can tell that CRT fits the definition of racism to a T.
 
One black father from Colorado, named Derrick Wilburn, has such a positive IQ and in a school board meeting, demanded that the board ban the racist teaching from Colorado Springs School District 49’s classrooms.
 
Wilburn began by saying the following: “I am a direct descendant of the North American slave trade. Both my parents are black. All four of my grandparents are black, all eight of my great grandparents, all 16 of my great greats. On my mother’s side, my ancestors were enslaved in Alabama. On my father’s side, we were enslaved in Texas.”
 
The reason for mentioning this is that, by the Left’s own logic, if anyone can claim to be a victim of the legacy of slavery in this nation, it would be Wilburn and his family. Yet, he says the following: “I’m not oppressed, and I’m not a victim.”
 
The Left, mostly white knight liberals, make the claim that black people are oppressed and victimized because of crap that happened centuries ago. That a black person today is a victim of the slavery that was abolished over 150 years ago. By sharing the fact about his ancestry, and that his family used to be slaves, and proceeding to say that he is not oppressed or a victim is to shatter this delusional argument.
 
He then went on to explain that he travels the country extensively, and that no matter where he goes, he is “treated with kindness, dignity, and respect.”
 
“I have three children. They are not oppressed, either – although they are victims. I’ve taught my children they are victims of three things: their own ignorance, their own laziness, and their own poor decision-making.”
 
“Putting Critical Race Theory into our classrooms has taken our nation in the wrong direction. Racism in America would by and large be dead today if it were not for certain people and institutions keeping it on life support,” among which being the education system in this country.
 
“I can think of nothing more damaging to society,” he continued, “than to tell a baby today that she has grievances against another baby born today simply because of what their ancestors may have done two centuries ago.”
 
And he’s certainly correct. It is outright ghoulish to teach a child that he or she is naturally made enemies with another person simply because of what happened LONG before either of them were born or simply because of the immutable aspects of their skin color.
 
Critical Race Theory teaches white kids that they are, by nature, oppressors and black kids that they are, also by nature, oppressed. It gives rise to victimizing black people and, in some of those white kids, to make them think that they might be superior, thereby increasing, not diminishing, white supremacy. And if they teach that the white kids should feel inferior, that creates black supremacy instead, which is equally terrible.
 
CRT is simply the newest model of outright blatant racism that the Left wishes to create in this country.
 
And there are people like Wilburn who recognize this as well. He continued, “Putting Critical Race Theory into our classrooms is not combating racism. It’s fanning the flames of what little embers are left. Let racism die the death it deserves.”
 
Later on, the school board, thankfully, voted to pass the resolution to ban CRT from its schools, but by a narrow 3-2 vote.
 
The board provided their rationale for this vote, explaining that the school district “partners with parents to assist in their responsibility to educate their children in accordance with the principle that America is a nation founded on the principle that all men and women are created equal per the Declaration of Independence, Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
 
They also argued that CRT “excludes individuals who merely advocate for neutral principles of the Constitution, or who deny or question the extent to which white supremacy shapes our institutions.” And that while schools ought to teach unvarnished American history, “such exposure should not purport to deliberately undermine student/family values, religious beliefs, or principles.”
 
The resolution also bans schools from being able to separate students by their race or assigning them work based on such criteria. It also further prohibits teaching the idea “that race is the most important identity,” “that group identity is more important than individual identity,” and that one is automatically an “oppressor or oppressed according to their race.”
 
While that is a good statement, it bothers me to no end that this wasn’t a 5-0 vote and even more so that it was as slim a margin as 3-2, which leads me to encourage parents, if they are able, to take their kids out of these crappy government schools.
 
That it was as slim a margin as that leaves it vulnerable to go the other direction some time in the future. While the people of that school district should take measures to ensure that that doesn’t happen, there is no guarantee that the district won’t ever go back on this decision and start teaching the racist CRT in their classrooms.
 
To save their children from such indoctrination (and, frankly, the indoctrination that is already allowed to occur in such classrooms), parents should take their kids out of these government schools and find alternatives, such as private school (a good one, as there can still be Leftist ones, if New York is anything to go by), schools tied with a church, or homeschooling which can be organized by parents in a neighborhood.
 
Whatever it takes to save these children from the toxic nonsense that the Left teaches and ruins any child that is subjected to it.
 
We have already seen, for the last few decades, what Leftist education does to children. It destroys them physically (obesity rates are sky-high because kids aren’t taught that sugar leads to obesity, not to mention the unhealthy crap they serve in cafeterias), spiritually (not having God in the classroom for 60 years will do that), mentally (an astounding coincidence that we have so many mental health issues when people who are mentally ill teach in schools) and emotionally (youth suicide, ages 10 to 24, jumped 57% between 2007 and 2018, and this was, as you can see, BEFORE the COVID-related suicides).
 
You wanna know how to Make America Great Again? Take Leftists and Leftism, not God, out of schools. Put God back in schools and His Teachings. Don’t tell kids that they are worthless crap descended from dumbass monkeys and fish who don’t know how to be fish (seriously, I’m to believe life on land happened because a fish somehow “evolved” to live somewhere it never lived on before? That’s not adaptation, that’s retardation) and are, therefore, here for no reason at all. Tell them that they were created in the image of the Almighty God who has a plan for their lives and that their lives matter (wanna ensure people believe that black lives matter? Teach them that lives matter, period).
 
That this decision was 3-2 when it should be clear as day that CRT is racist bullcrap tells me one of two things about the two people who voted to teach that crap: They are racist themselves, or they have a negative IQ. Either option is intolerable and inexcusable.
 
Parents shouldn’t wait for the district to, one day, reverse course on this, given how close of a vote this was. That it was this close ought to infuriate parents on the winning side and demand the resignation of the two dissenters.
 
Pull your kids out of government schools, for their sake.
 
Colossians 2:8
“See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.”

Evidence #481284 that socialists are utter hypocrites and only espouse beliefs they think others ought to follow but not themselves if said beliefs are in any way detrimental to those socialists.
 
For context, a group of employees of far-Left magazine Current Affairs have complained that Editor-in-Chief of the magazine, Nathan J. Robinson, has terminated their employment because they were attempting to organize a worker co-op at the company.
 
For those who don’t know, a worker co-op is basically the stated goal of communism, whereby companies are owned and controlled by the workers, not the people at the top.
 
What the workers were doing was practicing the very thing that Robinson espouses, and he tried to get them fired over it.
 
The employees who were reportedly fired wrote a statement giving out their grievances over the situation:
 
“Dear Comrades (yes, it does seriously start like that)
 
On August 8th, editor-in-chief Nathan J. Robinson (author of Why You Should Be A Socialist) unilaterally fired most of the workforce to avoid an organizational restructuring that would limit his personal power. Yes, we were fired by the editor-in-chief of a socialist magazine for trying to start a worker co-op.” (Emphasis original).
 
The statement then goes on to discuss a Zoom meeting during which Robinson was reportedly agitated over the workers’ desire to start a co-op. The statement also claims that Robinson wrote letters to five particular individuals where he expressed that he had “irreparably lost faith” in them and their ability to work together in the future.
 
Shortly after, Robinson reportedly retracted such statements, but claimed that “in his guts” he thought of the magazine as his and that, therefore, he ought to be the sole voice and leader atop any hierarchy in the organization.
 
“This organization has been heading slowly for some sort of reckoning where it was going to have to be made clear once and for all what kind of authority I wanted to have over it,” Robinson explained. “And I was in denial about the fact that the answer is I think I should be on top of the org chart, with everyone else selected by me and reporting to me. I let Current Affairs build up into a sort of egalitarian community of friends while knowing in my heart that I still thought of it as my project over which I should have control.”
 
Kind of sounds like a greedy capitalist pig! Or, more realistically, like a typical commie once he gets a taste of near absolute power.
 
Communism might sell itself as being about the benefit of workers and their control over corporations, but reality shows that to be the exact opposite. Corporations, if owned by anyone, are owned by either the government or people who are allied to the government by ideology or threat of death.
 
The Soviets routinely promised that the power belonged to “The People”, but by “The People” they meant themselves. They killed their people, arrested their people, kidnapped their people, starved their people, raped their people, robbed their people, abused their people and enslaved their people. Where they had originally promised the people the ability to own the companies and land they worked for, they instead forced them to own nothing at all, save for the clothes on their backs.
 
And this wasn’t a unique occurrence to the Soviets and the Russian people. This occurrence was the rule, not the exception, and I have yet to see the exception. In reality, everywhere there is communism, this is what happens: Promises of a better future where the people will own everything and the cold reality of a bitter future where the people will own nothing.
 
This, seemingly, is even the case in a socialist COMPANY. Their editor-in-chief is an avowed socialist and has written a book literally titled “Why you should be a socialist” and yet, acts seemingly in very anti-socialistic ways.
 
Supposedly, the socialist cause is what the workers are siding with: the workers being the owners of the company. That is the stated goal of communism, after all.
 
However, the real socialist cause is what the editor-in-chief is siding with: complete control over the entity and the people involved with it.
 
The reason it seems like such a juxtaposition is because the Left has long been capable of fooling people into believing that communism is for the little people and to the benefit of the little people, when it’s that precise demographic that most gets screwed.
 
Now, make no mistake, I am NOT siding with the socialist workers here. They deserve to see this crap happening to them because this is precisely what THEY HAVE BEEN ESPOUSING this whole time. They likely won’t realize it from this instance alone, if at all, but this is exactly the kind of result socialism brings.
 
Neither am I siding with the socialist editor-in-chief, as he also deserves the crap he is getting for seemingly acting “anti-socialistically” and in seeming opposition to his espoused beliefs.
 
I am merely pointing out that everyone involved with this mess is an idiot and a hypocrite. The editor-in-chief because he is acting seemingly contrary to his espoused beliefs and the workers because they are being treated exactly how all victims of socialism are treated, minus being unfairly sent to the gulags for complaining about their “Dear Leader”.
 
Not to mention that, were we to become a complete communist country, the editor-in-chief would quickly be victimized by the communist regime he would help establish. After all, it’s the useful idiots who are taken out first.
 
In any case, the magazine’s Board of Directors issued its own statement denying that anyone was “fired”, at least in a technical sense, but that seems to hardly matter, as the “fired” employees were left utterly disgruntled at the whole affair, claiming (with accuracy) that Robinson was unfit to run an organization. This is not merely an opinion from the employees, as Robinson himself reportedly wrote in one of those retracted statements that “I am not good at running an organization. I freely admit this.”
 
Not surprising, seeing as socialists hardly ever are, and if they seemingly are, it’s largely thanks to the financial help of far-Left billionaires like George Soros and the Rothschilds.
 
At any rate, whether the employees were ultimately fired or not is irrelevant. Robinson did TRY to fire them for attempting to organize a socialist workers’ co-op, showing how hypocritical he is and how much of an actual farse socialism and communism are in general.
 
Too bad there will be people who refuse to learn from this crap.
 
Psalm 101:7
“No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.”

Allow me to preface this by explaining roughly what I mean when I say that this is at all “surprising.” What I find surprising isn’t that the CCP has control over the WHO or that it uses pressuring tactics to force such organizations to lie on their behalf. What I find surprising is that anyone from the WHO, particularly a lead investigator into the origins of the Chinese coronavirus, would reverse course on the narrative and expose the CCP for its deceitful tactics.
 
What is also rather surprising is that the news organization to break this story is Jeff Bezos’ The Washington Post. They report that Peter Ben Embarek, a top scientist leading the WHO’s investigation into the origins of the Chinese coronavirus, “said Chinese researchers on the team had pushed back against linking the origins of the pandemic to a research laboratory in Wuhan in a report about the investigation.”
 
“In further comments during the interview that were not included in the documentary but were incorporated in an account by the Danish channel TV2 on its website, Ben Embarek suggested that there could have been ‘human error’ but that the Chinese political system does not allow authorities to acknowledge that,” continued the report.
 
What he’s saying is that the virus likely originated in the lab and was released as a result of some sort of accident, or “human error” as he puts it. Since the CCP is built on nothing but lies, it insists that anyone working in the government be seen as infallible and perfect, incapable of making mistakes such as these. They try to maintain an aura of perfection and effectiveness, so the idea that the virus came not only from a lab but was an accident goes against the narrative they wish to drive.
 
Embarek also said that the CCP pressed the investigating team to not look into the lab and only allowed them to report that it was “very unlikely” that the Chinese coronavirus escaped from a lab and demanded that the team “didn’t recommend any specific studies to further that hypothesis.”
 
In a TV interview, Embarek said that “it’s interesting that the lab relocated on the 2nd of December 2019: That’s the period where it all started. We know that when you move a lab, it disturbs everything… That entire procedure is always a disruptive element in the daily work routine of a lab.”
 
Embarek wasn’t completely betraying CCP narratives, however, and while he said that the virus likely came from the lab, he also said that it was likely a researcher at the lab could have become infected collecting bat samples, arguing that such a case would be one where “the virus jumps directly from a bat to a human.”
 
Essentially, he is revealing that it likely came from a lab, but not that it was necessarily altered or artificially created, just that it was originally in a bat and it was transmitted to a human, sort of like the original reported “origin” of the virus being from a Wuhan market.
 
However, New York magazine reported earlier this year that when six field workers got sick in a Chinese cave back in 2012 with a virus which is most closely related to the Chinese coronavirus, they were taken to a hospital and none of the hospital workers got sick, so the virus was not transmissible.
 
This is relevant because Dr. Steven Quay and UC Berkeley physics professor Richard Muller explained to The WSJ back in June that the genomic structure of the Chinese coronavirus was not found in any other virus in nature. That is the strongest evidence that the Chinese coronavirus was MANUFACTURED.
 
So no, it wasn’t transmitted from a bat to a human even in a lab. That the genomic sequence was unnatural indicates artificial creation through gain-of-function research.
 
In gain-of-function research, a spike protein is altered for the purposes of making a virus more transmissible and lethal. The specific genome sequence of CGG-CGG (known as “double CGG)” has “never been found naturally,” according to Quay and Muller, “in the entire class of coronaviruses that includes CoV-2.” They further explained that natural processes could not create a sequence combination if it “isn’t present in any other virus.”
 
“Although the double CGG is suppressed naturally, the opposite is true in laboratory work. The insertion sequence of choice is the double CGG. That’s because it is readily available and convenient, and scientists have a great deal of experience inserting it… Now the damning fact. It was this exact sequence that appears in CoV-2. Proponents of zoonotic origin must explain why the novel coronavirus, when it mutated or recombined, happened to pick its least favorite combination, the double CGG. Why did it replicate the choice the lab’s gain-of-function researchers would have made?”
 
The fact that there was no serious viral “improvement” which took place until a small variation was found many months after the pandemic began in England is also indicative that it was optimized in a lab. Compare it to SARS and MERS, both of which were confirmed to have had a natural origin – rapidly evolved as they spread through the population – until the most contagious forms of the viruses were dominant. The CCP virus, according to Quay and Muller, “didn’t work that way. It appeared in humans already adapted into an extremely contagious version… Such early optimization is unprecedented, and it suggests a long period of adaptation that predated its public spread. Science knows of only one way that could be achieved: simulated natural evolution, growing the virus on human cells until the optimum is achieved. That is precisely what is done in gain-of-function research.”
 
All evidence suggests to artificial creation of this virus. It makes no sense that Embarek would still be willing to share the nonsensical “bat-to-human transmission” theory when, by this point, he has angered the CCP by revealing what they do. It’s not at all unsurprising that the CCP does this crap, but they still don’t want their dirty laundry aired, and that is what Embarek did, to an extent.
 
Still, that someone this high up in the WHO would do this at all is a surprise anyway, and something for which I can be appreciative.
 
I just hope more of the corruption and deception of the CCP gets to be released and shown by even some of their closest allies.
 
Deuteronomy 28:7
“’The Lord will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before you. They shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways.’”

In a recent video released by PragerU (below), psychoanalyst and author Erica Komisar made the argument that children should be exposed to God and religion, even if the parents aren’t believers themselves.
 
She explains that, as a therapist, she is often asked questions about anxiety and depression and why they are so prevalent in children and teenagers. She argues that one explanation for it, which is “almost surely the most neglected” is declining interest in God and religion in the U.S.
 
Komisar cited a Harvard study which shows that children who attended a religious service at least once a week “scored higher on psychological well-being measurements and had lower risks of mental illness.” This weekly attendance was also linked to “higher rates of volunteerism, lower probabilities of both drug use and early sexual initiation, and a sense of purpose.”
 
Regardless of the psychological benefits of weekly church attendance, there has been a 20% decrease in weekly religious attendance in the last 20 years. And in 2018, the American Family Survey showed that “nearly half of adults under 30 do not identify with any religion.”
 
Komisar commented on those surveys saying: “From a purely psychological point of view, this is not a good trend. Nihilism – the belief in nothing – is a rich fertilizer for anxiety and depression.”

As a result, Komisar argues that parents ought to expose their children to God and religion, even if those parents are themselves unbelievers.
 
Generally, I agree with Komisar and also believe that people ought to come to faith, in part, because of the moral and psychological benefits it would bring.
 
However, my one issue with JUST making this argument is that it’s no different from arguing that religion is a crutch for people to deal with their daily lives. This is an argument I often hear from unbelievers “Oh, you just believe in this pie-in-the-sky nonsense because you can’t properly deal with the daily stresses of life. It’s just a crutch for you and those who don’t believe in this unscientific nonsense have more mental/intellectual maturity.”
 
Obviously, such an argument is false and rooted in a misconception of religion, but it’s arguments like the one Komisar gives that sort of fuel that. Again, I am not disagreeing with Komisar on this, and I even understand why she’s making this argument. She’s a therapist, after all, and she wants to help people be better off psychologically and recognizes the mental benefits of religion, belief in God and regular church attendance.
 
I’m not taking away those benefits because they are, of course, very much there. If you’re going to teach your child something, better it be that God has them in the palm of His hands than that the world is on fire and they might not even get to see their adulthood.
 
However, to only argue in favor of religion and God in this manner is to lower them to crutches to deal with the truth of life. It ignores the very fact that there can BE no life in the first place without God.
 
I’m not saying that that’s the argument Komisar is making whatsoever, or that she believes that this is the only purpose of belief in God, but it does have the issue of giving those unbelievers credence they neither have nor deserve.
 
Parents should 100% expose their children to God and religion even if they don’t believe themselves. Komisar actually makes a fantastic point in the video that there are parents who say “I want to give my children the ability to choose what they believe themselves rather than force anything on them.” If that’s the case, then, Komisar argues, shouldn’t you be more willing to expose your children to God and religion? How else are they to make a free and informed decision about what to believe if they aren’t exposed to such options?
 
And that is a great argument. For parents to say that they don’t want to force a religion on their children, and so don’t expose their children to religion, because they want their children to choose for themselves is like parents saying they don’t want to force children to eat a particular type of food, so they don’t expose their children to that food, because they want them to choose for themselves.
 
Ultimately, they are accomplishing the exact OPPOSITE of what they claim to want. They are making that choice for their children to NOT be part of a religion by depriving them of the experience of it.
 
After all, who chooses to be part of something they have no idea what it is about? “I don’t want to tell my child what he should do when he grows up, so I’m not letting him do anything in any field so he can choose for himself what he wants to do.” That is a dumbass argument when put that way, and yet, it’s the standard operating procedure for some parents when it comes to their child’s beliefs?
 
If you expose children to nothing, they will know nothing and believe in nothing.
 
But at any rate, like I said, I generally agree with what Komisar is saying about God, religion and the psychological benefits of both. They definitely are true, and the benefits can be seen in anyone who is actually faithful to God.
 
God teaches us a myriad of things throughout the Bible, from that which He commands of us in the Ten Commandments to what Jesus said was the most important commandment “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind,” as well as another commandment which He said was equally as important: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
 
We are told by God, who is the author of morality (among all other things except for evil and sin), what is good, what is profitable, what must be done and how, all for His glory and His kingdom.
 
I am reminded of a guest speaker I once had for my Religion class in high school who was an atheist but argued in favor of the teachings of the Bible because they were, according to him, “good moral teachings.”
 
They certainly are, and had I known then what I know now, I would have made the same argument I had been making earlier in this article. God is, indeed, moral as He is the author of morality. We are taught that there is no sin in Him and He is not the author of sin and evil. So the speaker wasn’t technically wrong in that regard. However, the Bible is FAR more than just a guide on morality and God and religion are far more than just safe havens from the stresses and harshness of life.
 
The Bible is God’s very word to us. It depicts the history of not just the Jewish and Christian faiths, but of the entire world and its existence. It shows us who the author of the universe is, with the declaration of the very first words of the Bible being: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” showing the reader that before everything was, He IS. He is eternal, He is omnipotent, He is omniscient, omnipresent, and the Creator and originator of all.
 
He created the heavens and the earth, all living things on it, above it and underneath it, including mankind. Mankind then was deceived by Satan into rebelling against God, and thusly was punished, along with Satan, for such rebellion, taking away their eternal life and their place in paradise.
 
Following that, mankind continued to rebel against God, sinning and sinning and being evil by nature, which was once not the case but the punishment by God for their original sin of disbelief in God’s word that if they eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that they would surely die.
 
Despite this continual, natural sinfulness and rebellion, God sent His only begotten Son to, among other things, die on the cross for the sins of the people who believe in Him, that they should not perish but have eternal life. God had absolutely no obligation whatsoever to do that, and would be perfectly justified to have sent no savior at all and punish all mankind for its sins. And yet, He did send us a savior, because He is a kind and merciful God who loves His children.
 
When you understand this about God, one cannot possibly relegate Him to being a mere comforter (though He is a comforter) of the downtrodden, anxious and depressed. One cannot relegate His word as mere good guidance for how to live a moral life. One cannot relegate belief in Him and His word to just a crutch for dealing with life.
 
Again, I don’t think that’s what Komisar was saying, at all, and don’t think she believes this is all religion and God are good for. And again, I agree with almost everything she said in that PragerU video, with my biggest gripe being that at one point, she said “[B]etter for kids to use their imagination constructing something positive – such as a God who cares about us – than the dark, nihilistic idea that there’s no creator and protector…” which is problematic because it implies that God is someone we create ourselves, according to our desires. God cannot be created by people and a “god” created by evil people will permit evil deeds. I understand what she was trying to say here, but it’s rather problematic how she put it together.
 
God is a comforter and a protector, yes, but it’s far more beneficial and important to know that He is the Master of the Universe and not a single thing that happens happens without His permission. Even Satan, in all his evil deeds, is held back by God in his wickedness.
 
God created the world. God controls the world. God created you. God is in control of your life and has you in the palm of His hands. More than just a good psychological answer to the stresses of life, He is the Lord Almighty, in whom people can find comfort. And they can find said comfort precisely because of who He is, not because of who we want Him to be.
 
Yes, parents ought to expose their children to God and religion, even if they don’t themselves believe, and even if they only do it for the psychological benefits of it, because it can lead to a calling from the Lord to Him. But it is also very important to understand WHY God is even a good source of comfort to begin with and that begins with understanding WHO He is.
 
John 6:44
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”