Month: January 2022

Posted on

More Canadian truckers headed to Ottawa. Oh Canada!

Related: Pay attention to the fake news portrayal of the Truckers Movement.

Image

Related: Lyndon Slewidge.

Jim Cornelison.

Related:

 

Posted on

The vaccines are not all they are cracked up to be. Nature works.

Data: COVID shots are killing little kids

“…Data compiled by the Office of National Statistics in Great Britain shows that giving young children the COVID shots, especially those aged from 10 to 14, makes their mortality 10 to 52 times higher, depending on the number of shots received.

The graph to the right, from the link, illustrates this starkly. If a child gets one shot, the mortality goes up about ten times. If a child gets two shots, it increases the mortality another five-fold, or about fifty times greater than for children who get no shots at all.

The article at the link also notes that this data was gathered when 10 and 11 year olds were not eligible to get COVID shots. Thus all 10 and 11 year olds at that time fell into the unvaccinated category, where the death rate was low. However, since October 31, 2021, kids in Great Britain in these age brackets began getting shots, which means that we should expect deaths in these age brackets to rise. This also suggests the 52 times increase in childhood deaths caused by the COVID shots is likely understated.

Since the chances of death from the Wuhan virus itself among these children is practically nil, it is insane to give them these shots. Any government official who advocates it, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, should be fired at once. At a minimum, such fools should certainly not be listened to or used as a guide for establishing any government health policy…”

Posted on

Dennis Prager on masking nonsense

Why Masked, Unmasked Have Disdain for Each Other

“…Among the many unbridgeable divides between Americans is a completely antithetical view of mask wearing.

On one side are those who wear masks almost everywhere outside their homes and who demand that others do so, including young children in class and on outdoor playgrounds, and 2-year-olds on airplanes. On the other side are those who only wear a mask where they are punished for not doing so (most obviously, airplanes). They regard masks as essentially pacifiers for adults.

Generally speaking, these two groups have disdain for each other.

Why the pro-mask half of America holds the anti-mask half in contempt needs little explanation. They believe anti-mask Americans are putting others in grave danger. Pro-maskers believe that even children who do not wear masks put their own lives and the lives of other children and teachers at risk.

Consequently, pro-mask Americans regard those who do not wear masks, let alone those who actively oppose mask wearing, as selfish, anti-science potential killers.

What may be less obvious is why anti-maskers hold pro-maskers in equal contempt. So, this needs explaining in greater detail. After all, anti-maskers don’t believe that maskers are putting people in hospitals. First, anti-maskers regard the charges made against them by pro-maskers as baseless. Therefore, as odd as it sounds, anti-maskers have contempt for the pro-maskers’ contempt.

To wrongly charge people with causing mass death is, to understate the case, immoral. And if this charge is demonstrably wrong, the people who level it are the ones who are anti-science.

Since each side regards the other as “anti-science,” what is the science? Nearly all public health authorities claim that masks are absolutely necessary to save lives. But they have virtually no science to back up the claim.

There is, however, abundant scientific evidence that masks are worthless vis-a-vis viruses and do great harm to society. Here is a fraction of the examples I could give: In February 2020, then-U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams tweeted: “Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus.”

In March 2020, the World Health Organization Health Emergencies Program executive director, Mike Ryan, wrote: “There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any particular benefit.”

A 2010 study in France led by Laetitia Canini (Ph.D. in epidemiology and biostatistics) concluded: “We did not identify any trend in the results suggesting effectiveness of face masks.”

A 2009 study of Japanese health workers led by epidemiologist Dr. Joshua L. Jacobs, of the University of Hawaii Medical School, concluded: “Face-mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.”

As far as I could determine, the only randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of masks against COVID-19 was a 2020 study led by Henning Bundgaard of the Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark. Published in the March 2021 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine, it found that 1.8% of those in the masked group and 2.1% of those in the control group became infected with COVID-19 within a month. The 0.3-point difference is statistically insignificant.

Epidemiologist Vinay Prasad of the University of California at San Francisco, an M.D., buried the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s child-masking recommendation in one sentence: “The CDC cannot ‘follow the science’ because there is no relevant science.”

And what about surgical masks? They are not designed to prevent the spread of viruses, but to prevent medical personnel from accidentally infecting the open wounds of patients on the operating table, and to prevent body fluids from patients spraying up into the mouths and noses of the surgical team.

Dr. Colin Axon, a COVID-19 adviser to the British government, made this point clear: Medics were “unable to comprehend” the minuscule elements involved: “A Covid viral particle is around 100 nanometers, material gaps in blue surgical masks are up to 1,000 times that size, cloth mask gaps can be 5,000 times the size.”

While most studies conclude that masks are essentially useless against COVID-19, not all do. Probably the most widely cited study on behalf of mask efficacy was published in the British Medical Journal in October 2021. But it’s hardly a ringing endorsement. As the authors note, “The quality of current evidence would be graded as low or very low, as it consists of observational studies with poor methods.”

If the only problem with the pro-mask position were that it negates science, it would only be harmless nonsense. But while it is nonsense, it is not harmless…”

Posted on

Biden’s border policies are a disaster. Front line folks recognize it. Watch.

Related: This is the man responsible for the out-of-control border.

Posted on

Tucker Carlson on Biden/Zelensky call

Posted on

DOJ Inspector General Horowitz appears to have withheld or otherwise concealed important data from Special Counsel Durham that may indicate an internal DOJ/FBI coverup.

Durham Court Filing Reveals DOJ Inspector General Horowitz Withheld Key Evidence From Special Counsel

“…A new court filing by special counsel John Durham reveals that Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Michael Horowitz concealed crucial information from Durham in connection with the ongoing prosecution of Michael Sussmann, a former attorney to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The filing also reveals that Horowitz failed to disclose that his office is in possession of two cellphones used by former FBI general counsel James Baker. The phones may contain information that’s important to the Sussmann case, as well as to a separate criminal leak investigation of Baker that Durham personally conducted between 2017 and 2019.

Horowitz first came to public prominence in June 2018 when he issued a report on the FBI’s actions leading up to the 2016 presidential election. Horowitz followed up in December 2019 with another report on the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation and the bureau’s pursuit of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant on Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

Durham’s filing on Jan. 25 involves discovery issues surrounding Sussmann’s upcoming trial for allegedly making a materially false statement to the FBI’s then-general counsel James Baker. As part of Durham’s discovery obligations, the Special Counsel’s Office met with Horowitz and his team on Oct. 7, 2021, and subsequently requested any materials, including any “documents, records, and information” regarding Sussmann that may have been in the possession of the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

On Dec. 17, 2021, Horowitz’s office provided Durham with information that Sussmann had given the OIG information in early 2017, that an OIG “employee’s computer was ‘seen publicly’ in ‘Internet traffic’ and was connecting to a Virtual Private Network in a foreign country.” It isn’t clear what this information was about, why Sussmann would know about this information, or why he would have been interested in the internet activities of OIG employees.

It also isn’t known why Sussmann, a private citizen, would have been seeking out the OIG shortly after he was pushing information detrimental to Trump to both the FBI and the CIA.

At the time of the Dec. 17 disclosure, “the OIG represented to [Durham’s] team that it had “no other file or other documentation” relating to this cyber matter.” However, last week, Sussmann’s attorneys informed Durham that there was additional information, including the fact that Sussmann had met with Horowitz in March 2017 to personally pass along the information about the OIG employee’s computer VPN use. This meeting between Horowitz and Sussmann hadn’t been disclosed by Horowitz to Durham during their previous meetings and interactions.

It isn’t known why Horowitz would have taken a personal meeting from Hillary Clinton’s campaign lawyer. According to Bill Shipley, a former federal prosecutor, “[y]ou don’t generally just call the IG and get a meeting with him personally.” It also isn’t clear why Horowitz chose not to inform Durham of the meeting—particularly as it pertained directly to information that Horowitz’s office had been specifically requested to relay to Durham’s special counsel probe.

Sussmann’s attorneys further informed Durham that the VPN information had come from Rodney Joffe, a computer expert with close connections to the FBI. This was another material fact that hadn’t been disclosed by Horowitz. Joffe is of great import to Durham’s case against Sussmann and to the wider investigation into the origins of the Russia collusion investigation, since he was alleged to have provided Sussmann with falsified data about contacts between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank.

Those alleged contacts were used by Hillary Clinton and her campaign to push the narrative that Trump was compromised by the Kremlin. Durham had noted in a previous filing that “[Joffe’s] goal was to support an ‘inference’ and ‘narrative’ regarding Trump that would please certain ‘VIPs.’” A subsequent filing by Durham noted that these VIPs were “individuals at the defendant’s [Sussmann’s] law firm and the Clinton Campaign.” Joffe also is alleged to have been offered a high-ranking position in a Clinton administration.

The omission of information by Horowitz didn’t end with his meeting with Sussmann or the information on Joffe. Durham’s office has since discovered that the OIG “currently possesses two FBI cell phones” that belonged to Baker, the former FBI general counsel. Durham’s discovery of Horowitz’s possession of Baker’s two phones does not appear to have come through Horowitz or his office.

According to Durham’s filing, “in early January 2022, the Special Counsel’s Office learned for the first time that the OIG currently possesses two FBI cellphones of the former FBI General Counsel.”

Sussmann is alleged to have lied to Baker when he tried to push incriminating data about Trump and Alfa Bank to the FBI; that data later turned out to be false.

That makes Baker, and his cellphones, central to the case against Sussmann.

There’s also another matter that relates directly to Baker and his undisclosed phones. Baker had been the subject of a criminal leak investigation for “unauthorized disclosures to the media” that was being conducted by Durham when he was the U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut.

During this investigation, Durham or a member of his team reportedly questioned Baker’s credibility. That memo is currently being sought by Sussmann’s attorneys. Although it’s not known with certainty, it’s believed that the leak investigation into Baker ultimately was closed without any charges. The disclosure about Baker’s cellphones would appear to be material not only to the Sussmann case, but also to the Baker leak investigation…”

Posted on

The Democrats are — and always have been — the Party of Race. Founded by slave owners, run by segregationists and now those who are into the son of segregation known as identity politics, using racism to win votes is what they do

The Big Lie of Biden’s ‘Black Woman’ Court Promise

JEFFREY LORD:

“…The Justice Stephen Breyer retirement announcement hits the headlines, and the media and Democrats are gushing over a Biden promise. To wit: he will nominate a “black woman” to Breyer’s Court seat.

Let’s be clear. What’s about to unfold is decidedly not about nominating a black woman. To refresh, recall the case of Clarence Thomas.

In June of 1991, Justice Thurgood Marshall announced he was retiring from the Supreme Court. Justice Marshall had been an appointee of Democrat President Lyndon Johnson — and notably was the first black to sit on the Court.

Thus it was that the moment Marshall announced his retirement the New York Times was writing that Republican President George H. W. Bush was now under “pressure to appoint a black justice.” Indeed he was. With that, he turned to the young Federal Appeals Court Judge Clarence Thomas, a black man, for the nomination. And in a blink the American Left and Democrats went crazy.

Former Bush Vice President Dan Quayle, writing in his memoirs Standing Firm, said the moment the Thomas Nomination was announced:

[W]e knew that the long knives of “political correctness” were being sharpened for use against this strong, independent man who did not fit the liberals’ idea of what a black jurist — in fact, any black man — should stand for. 

… But the forces lining up against Thomas were considerable, and the nature and rhetoric of their opposition was sometimes almost sickening. (Washington Post African-American) Columnist Carl Rowan said that “if you gave Thomas a little flour on his face, you’d think you had [KKK leader] David Duke talking.” A leader from the (leftist) National Organization for Women said, “We’re going to ‘Bork’ him. We need to kill him politically,” while one black (Democrat) Congressman declared that “a black conservative is a contradiction in terms.”

All of them refused to accept that black men and women could make a rational decision, for the good of their race and the good of their country, to leave what some have called “the liberal plantation.” Even so, the administration was surprised by the number of civil rights groups, including the NAACP, who wound up opposing the nomination. I had hoped it would split the black community right down the middle and inject some freshness into the national debate. But the black civil rights leadership, bent on maintaining political correctness and their own political clout, became some of Thomas’s strongest opponents.

In short, Dan Quayle got right to core of the issue with the Clarence Thomas nomination. It is an issue that has arisen often enough in different venues. In short: if you are black and conservative, you are not really black.

There is a reason for this. The Democrats are — and always have been — the Party of Race. Founded by slave owners, run by segregationists and now those who are into the son of segregation known as identity politics, using racism to win votes is what they do…”

Doug Santo