3/21/2021

Politico: "In 2018, Diplomats Warned of Risky Coronavirus Experiments in a Wuhan Lab. No One Listened"

More evidence that the Coronavirus came from a Wuhan lab. From Politico:

 On January 15, in its last days, President Donald Trump’s State Department put out a statement with serious claims about the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic. The statement said the U.S. intelligence community had evidence that several researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology laboratory were sick with Covid-like symptoms in autumn 2019—implying the Chinese government had hidden crucial information about the outbreak for months—and that the WIV lab, despite “presenting itself as a civilian institution,” was conducting secret research projects with the Chinese military. The State Department alleged a Chinese government cover-up and asserted that “Beijing continues today to withhold vital information that scientists need to protect the world from this deadly virus, and the next one.”

Labels: ,

3/16/2021

The Washington Post grossly misquotes Trump's conversation with the Georgia Secretary of State


Washington Post admits it misquoted Trump's call to Georgia elections investigator when newly released recording revealed he DIDN'T urge her to 'find the fraud.' Trump DIDN'T say she'd be 'a national hero.'  

The Post story is gutted. But will most people ever know they published made-up quotes? Why isn't this correction front-page news? Will the rest of the media give this the same coverage that they gave the original fake quotes?  

These false quotes are just like the misrepresentation of Trump's telephone call with the Ukrainian president. Major news stories are now written based on one anonymous source that again turns out to be a lie. Did the Post's one anonymous source lie to them, or did they lie and make things up?  

Because the Post will never reveal this anonymous source, even though the best of them is that this single source lied to them, we will never know whether the source lied to them or the Washington Post simply made up the false quotes.

Labels: ,

3/15/2021

Democrats refuse to work with Republican members of Congress who questioned election, but did Republicans do that in 2017 and 2018?

 NBC News headline:  "House Democrats draw the line: No bipartisan cooperation with Republicans who questioned the election"

Freshman Rep. Jake Auchincloss, a Democrat, has begun turning to an unusual source when trying to decide whether he wants to work with a Republican he thinks makes a good point during committee hearings: Google.

The Massachusetts lawmaker says he knows his constituents want him to work across the aisle, but he's drawing “a sharp red line” at working with Republicans who voted not to certify the Electoral College results as part of then-President Donald Trump's failed bid to overturn his election defeat.

If a quick search produces evidence that one of his Republican colleagues refused to acknowledge President Joe Biden's win, he said, “I kind of throw cold water on the whole thing,” adding that while he doesn't like political litmus tests, "insurrection against the United States government qualifies.

But here is a question, in 2017, all the Democrats in the Senate claimed that Trump was illegitimate and none of them condemned the riots that occurred at Trump inauguration.

Labels:

2/18/2021

Senator Joe Manchin is largely into symbolism about being a moderate

The 50-50 split in the Senate all depends on Manchin, but he is largely into symbolism about being a moderate. When his vote makes a difference he always votes with his party. Manchin makes all sorts of noises about wanting the Keystone XL pipeline built, but when he actually can force it to be done, he backs down.

"Manchin, alongside fellow Dem Sen. Jon Tester, MT, joined Republicans in a budget resolution supporting the pipeline. But they later voted for an amendment from Chuck Schumer, D-NY, to kill that resolution"

Senate Dems approved a budget resolution that will allow them to pass coronavirus relief without GOP support.. Despite  Sen. Joe Manchin  making noises about demanding a bipartisan bill ("Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said he wants Biden's agenda to pass with Republican support"), he NEVER goes against his party when he would be the decisive vote.

When the vote came up for Kavanaugh, Manchin waited until Collins had already come out for Kavanaugh and his confirmation would already go through. Manchin would never be the decisive vote against what his party wants.

"It now appears that there will be 51 votes in favor of Kavanaugh, because Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia came out minutes after her [Collins'] speech in favor of the nominee, the only Senate Democrat to back Trump's pick."

2/13/2021

131,000 people of the 220,000 deaths that were classified as Coronavirus deaths already had life ending diseases

 The Coronavirus is rarely the actual cause of death among patients who are classified as Coronavirus deaths. Video from OAN is available here.

Labels:

2/02/2021

Biden WH reportedly screening press secretary's briefing questions

 From Fox News:

A new, eyebrow-raising report suggests the White House communications team has attempted to screen questions for press secretary Jen Psaki in advance of daily briefings, as media watchdogs caution that the Biden team will have to walk a fine line given the way reporters treated President Trump's spokespeople.

Spectator USA editor Amber Athey, who used to be a White House correspondent for The Daily Caller, never experienced anything resembling what Biden’s communications staff has been accused of.

"The Trump administration certainly never asked me for questions in advance and I suspect there would have been universal outrage from reporters if they had done so," Athey told Fox News.

2/01/2021

Democrats using inflammatory language to incite violence

12/26/2020

Left wing groups brag that "The Coronavirus Bill Contains ‘The Most Significant Climate Legislation’ Ever"

 "The Coronavirus Bill Contains ‘The Most Significant Climate Legislation’ Ever"


The left wing National Resources Defense Council says, “This is perhaps the most significant climate legislation Congress has ever passed.”
Why is this massive environmental regulation in the Covid bill?

Labels: ,

11/30/2020

Remember how the FDA delayed the Coronavirus Vaccine until after the election by requiring the strictest standards ever for a vaccine

A month before the election the FDA changed the rules on approving vaccines. The motivation was that they needed stricter rules this time for approval because people were concerned that this vaccine would be particularly dangerous. Just something to remember:

The most notable guideline to emerge from the FDA’s new advisory stipulates that data from phase 3 studies of any potential COVID-19 vaccine should include a median follow-up duration of at least two months after patient’s receive their final dose.

This guidance ensures that no COVID-19 vaccine is likely to be approved before the US presidential election, which is taking place on 3 November. US president Donald Trump has said a number of times over the last few months that a vaccine for COVID-19 could come before election day ...

9/20/2020

Joe Biden used to be fearful of vote fraud

Back in 1977, Biden wrote:

“Should Voters Be Allowed To Register On Election Day? No,” Biden wrote in an op-ed to a now-defunct Wilmington, Del. newspaper in 1977. He even chided President Carter for proposing it.

A “reservation I have and one that is apparently shared by some of the top officials within the Department of Justice is that the president’s proposal could lead to a serious increase in vote fraud,” Biden wrote. . . .

Labels: ,

9/17/2020

Billings Gazette: Bullock's pharmaceutical claim misguided

 I have an op-ed about the Senate race in Montana.

Steve Bullock’s Senate campaign is targeting greedy pharmaceutical companies and demanding that the government negotiate drug prices. It misleadingly claims that Sen. Steve Daines “gave billions in tax breaks to [big drug companies], while blocking lower prices to you.”

If Bullock wants to be altruistic, he ought to raise taxes to subsidize the costs of these drugs. Making the companies that develop these drugs pay for his altruism will mean fewer life-saving new treatments in the future.

Americans are understandably upset that Canadians buy drugs at a far lower price than Americans do, especially since nearly all of their prescription drugs are made in the U.S. in the first place. Canadians and Europeans are able to enforce price controls because they threaten the pharmaceutical companies with the loss of their patents. If pharmaceutical companies don't accept the price that these governments are willing to pay, they can't sell their drug there.

Under World Trade Organization rules, if the drugs aren't sold, for example, in Canada within two years of when they hit the U.S. market, the company loses its patent and Canadian companies can copy the drug. The company that created the drug is left with absolutely nothing.

These foreign countries use the threat of stealing patents to free ride on our investments. U.S.-based drug companies spend vast sums to develop new drugs, and Americans pay market prices for them to cover the R&D costs. Once developed, drugs are reasonably inexpensive to produce, and foreign countries force companies to sell the medicines at a price that is little more than the cost of manufacturing and distribution.

The American consumers thus cover the R&D costs. Over the long haul, companies will not keep developing new drugs unless they can recoup the massive costs of research and regulatory approval. In effect, the U.S. underwrites the cost of a critical chunk of the world's health care. If Americans paid the same price as Canadians, new drugs wouldn’t be made.

While American consumers would get the short-term windfall of lower prices under Bullock’s price controls, they would end up suffering and not living as long as they could have if promising new therapies had been developed.

Drug-price controls are particularly pernicious. While controls on oil and other products tend to be short-lived — voters eventually object to the resulting shortages — the effects of drug regulations are more difficult to observe since they prevent new medicines from being invented. Even if people realized that controls were preventing new drugs from being developed, it’d be hard to convince them to pay higher prices for benefits coming years down the road. Pharmaceutical companies would also have to be convinced new controls wouldn’t not be imposed as soon as the new drugs are released. 

The average cost of developing a new drug and overcoming the regulatory hurdles and bringing it to market are enormous: $2.87 billion. Even then, only 3 in 10 drugs that are brought to market generate enough revenues to cover these average costs.

In 2018, U.S. pharmaceutical R&D totaled $80 billion. Despite the high risks of not recouping these costs, drug companies in the past 30 years have developed powerful new therapies for conditions such as high cholesterol, sepsis, depression, Alzheimer's, HIV/AIDS, and asthma. These conditions had previously been difficult or impossible to treat.

Politicians such as Bullock like to promise cheap things that others have to pay for. The problems may not appear for many years, but they will be real. If you think we have all of the breakthrough drugs that we will ever need, Steve Bullock is your candidate.


Labels: ,

9/11/2020

Kamala Harris lauds Jacob Blake and his family, prejudges police as being wrong in shooting

 


From the New York Post:

The officer who took her statement said she “had a very difficult time telling him this and cried as she told how the defendant assaulted her.”

The alleged victim said Blake “penetrating her digitally caused her pain and humiliation and was done without her consent” and she was “very humiliated and upset by the sexual assault,” the record states.

Add to it that Jacob Blake

-violated restraining order

 -resisted arrest 

-Ignored orders to drop knife

Even if Kamala Harris thinks that the police somehow behaved improperly, why would she say that this is such "an incredible family"? Regarding Jacob Blake, why say "I'm proud of you"?  The father has a "long history of racist, antisemitic, and anti-Christian" comments.

Among his comments choice comments:

“A jew can’t tell me shit period”

“The same pink toe Jewish people that control the interest rate control the media the control Minds and money”

“The Jewish media picks and chooses who is a terrorists  and is not”