Any threat especially against law enforcement or politicians will get you banned.
Categories
Corruption Faked news How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Progressive Racism The Courts

Like a clock Snopes got it right twice. Did Conservative Justices Lie About Roe v. Wade? Absolutely not.

Hits: 51

Snopes usually doesn’t get it right, but I know of two occasions that they did. One was about Thomas and the aborted fetus.

In a June 2022 dissenting opinion, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas asserted a debunked claim about the use of aborted fetal cells in COVID-19 vaccines.

Rating

False

False

This is the second one.

Five conservative Supreme Court justices dishonestly suggested, in Senate confirmation hearings, that they thought Roe v. Wade was beyond overturning.

Rating

False

False

Fact Check

In May 2022, after news leaked that the U.S. Supreme Court had provisionally voted to overturn the abortion protections enshrined in Roe v. Wade, the left-wing political action committee MeidasTouch briefly caused “#LyingGOP” to trend on Twitter, with a video that accused five Republican-appointed justices of lying about their intentions to overturn the landmark ruling.

MeidasTouch posted the video on various social media platforms and used it to solicit monetary contributions.

Lying GOP

However, the creators of the video badly misrepresented the full scope of relevant facts in two important ways, and we are issuing a rating of “False.”

First, they engaged in highly selective editing of much longer and more nuanced archival clips of future justices during their U.S. Senate confirmation hearings, in order to grossly misrepresent the substance of what they said.

Second, they appeared to misunderstand or misrepresent the meaning of a Supreme Court precedent. In brief, describing a ruling as an important precedent is not tantamount to giving a commitment not to overturn that ruling, or indicating you believe that ruling cannot be overruled. Therefore, the sweeping allegations of premeditated dishonesty on the part of GOP-appointed justices were as poorly supported by evidence as they were wrongheaded.

The following is our breakdown of what the MeidasTouch “megaviral supercut” video claimed, lined up against what the factual record shows.

Justice Clarence Thomas

Room, Indoors, Person
File photo of Clarence Thomas during his 1991 U.S. Senate confirmation hearings. Source: Bettmann / Getty Images.

The following is how Meidas Touch presented Thomas’s remarks:

Clarence Thomas: I believe the constitution protects the right to privacy. And I have no reason or agenda to prejudge the issue.

Caption: HE LIED

In this section of the video, MeidasTouch mutilated a 1991 quotation from then-Supreme Court nominee Thomas, and grossly misrepresented the substance and meaning of his remarks. In reality, Thomas absolutely did not provide any assurances on how he might rule on the specific case of Roe v. Wade, nor on the question of abortion rights.

The clip of Thomas came from a Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Sep. 11, 1991. Readers can watch the exchange in full, or read a full transcript.

U.S. Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, had been attempting to pin down Thomas’s views on whether the U.S. Constitution protects abortion rights, and had highlighted what he presented as discrepancies in Thomas’s past pronouncements.

In particular, Metzenbaum asked Thomas to resolve an apparent gap between his putative support for a constitutionally-enshrined right to privacy, more broadly, and abortion rights in particular. Metzenbaum put it to Thomas that:

I fear that you, like other nominees before the committee, could assure us that you support a fundamental right to privacy, but could also decline to find that a woman’s right to choose is protected by the constitution.

At the culmination of his remarks, Metzenbaum asked Thomas:

I must ask you to tell us here and now whether you believe that the constitution protects a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy, and I am not asking you as to how you would vote in connection with any case before the court.

In response, Thomas prevaricated, as so many judicial nominees have in recent decades:

I am afraid though, on your final question, Senator, that it is important for any of us who are judges, in areas that are very deeply contested…I think that to take a position would undermine my ability to be impartial…

I am afraid that to begin to answer questions about what my specific position is in these contested areas would greatly — or leave the impression that I prejudged this issue.

When Metzenbaum again attempted to pin down the nominee, Thomas again prevaricated, providing the quotation that would be mutilated and misrepresented by MeidasTouch in their video:

Senator, as I noted yesterday, and I think we all feel strongly in this country about our privacy — I do — I believe the constitution protects the right to privacy. And I have no reason or agenda to prejudge the issue or to predispose to rule one way or the other on the issue of abortion, which is a difficult issue. [Emphasis is added].

As the transcript makes clear, MeidasTouch cut off the second half of Thomas’s sentence, in which he stipulated that he had “no reason…to prejudge” or “to predispose to rule one way or the other on the issue of abortion.”

In reality, Thomas was repeatedly urged and asked to make pronouncements on abortion rights, and refused to do so. The notion, therefore, that in this exchange he somehow gave an assurance that he would not ever vote to overturn Roe v. Wade is utterly without basis in fact.

Justice Samuel Alito

 

Tie, Accessories, Accessory
WASHINGTON – JANUARY 10: U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito answers questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the second day of his confirmation hearings January 10, 2006 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

The following is how MeidasTouch presented Alito’s remarks:

Alito: Roe v Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973. It has been challenged on a number of occasions and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision. When a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed, that strengthens its value.

Caption: HE LIED

Once again, this presentation gives the grossly misleading impression that, in his confirmation hearings, Alito indicated he would not vote to overturn Roe v Wade. In reality, the full scope of his remarks clearly shows that — like most judicial nominees — Alito very carefully avoided giving any assurances about how he might vote on that precedent.

The clip in question came from Alito’s hearings on Jan. 11, 2006. Readers can examine a full transcript of the relevant exchange, or watch a video of it.

Ironically, the starting point for the exchange was the concern expressed by U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., that Alito had “decided to create categories of cases that have been decided by the Court that you will concede have constitutional protection, but you have left in question the future of Roe v. Wade.”

In other words, Durbin was concerned that Alito had not stated, for the record, that Roe v. Wade was no longer open to overturning, and indeed had in the past asserted that “the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.”

So while MeidasTouch presented Alito’s remarks as proof that he thought Roe v. Wade was beyond overturning — “Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court” — what those remarks actually constituted was Alito’s careful avoidance of describing the ruling as such. Here’s the key exchange:

Durbin: Do you believe [Roe v Wade] is the settled law of the land?
Alito: Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973, so it has been on the books for a long time. It has been challenged on a number of occasions, and I discussed those yesterday, and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision, sometimes on the merits, sometimes [as] in Casey based on stare decisis, and I think that when a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed that strengthens its value as stare decisis…
Durbin: Is it the settled law of the land?
Alito: It is a — if settled means that it can’t be re-examined, then that’s one thing. If settled means that it is a precedent that is entitled to respect as stare decisis, and all of the factors that I’ve mentioned come into play, including the reaffirmation and all of that, then it is a precedent that is protected, entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis, in that way.

What Alito is saying here is that Roe v. Wade is clearly a precedent whose conclusions have been repeatedly reaffirmed by the court, and would not lightly be overturned, taking into account the doctrine of stare decisis — the legal principle of deference to precedent expressed in the Latin phrase, which means “let stand what has been decided.”

What Alito is not saying — indeed, what he is scrupulously avoiding saying, despite Durbin’s best efforts — is that Roe v Wade is beyond overturning, like various other landmark precedents he had mentioned elsewhere in the hearings, such as Brown v. the Board of Education.

So the full scope of Alito’s remarks, when viewed objectively and in context, actually show the opposite of what the brief clip, strategically cut away by MeidasTouch, appeared to show.

Justice Neil Gorsuch

Tie, Accessories, Accessory
WASHINGTON, DC – MARCH 22: Judge Neil Gorsuch testifies during the third day of his Supreme Court confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill, March 22, 2017 in Washington. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

The following is how Meidas Touch presented Gorsuch’s remarks.

Gorsuch: Roe v Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy [of] treatment [as] precedent, like any other.

Caption: HE LIED

MeidasTouch badly misrepresented Gorsuch’s remarks in the same way as it did Alito’s. In reality, by describing Roe v. Wade as a precedent “worthy of treatment as precedent,” Gorsuch was assiduously avoiding going any further or categorizing it as beyond overturning.

The pattern should be familiar by now. Gorsuch’s remarks came during a Senate confirmation hearing on March 21, 2017, and can be read and viewed in their proper context.

During his questioning of the Trump nominee, Judiciary committee chairman U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, asked Gorsuch whether he thought DC v. Heller, a landmark 2008 decision in which the court reaffirmed the Second Amendment right to bear arms, had been correctly decided. Gorsuch said:

Senator, I would respectfully respond that it [DC v Heller] is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court, and as a good judge, you do not approach that question anew, as if it had never been decided. That would be a wrong way to approach it. My personal views, I would also tell you, Mr. Chairman, belong over here. I leave those at home…Part of being a good judge is coming in and taking precedent as it stands, and your personal views about the precedent have absolutely nothing to do with the good job of a judge.

Gorsuch then effectively reiterated the same response in relation to several other landmark precedents, including Citizens United, Hosanna-Tabor, Gideon v. Wainwright and Roe v. Wade. On the latter case, Gorsuch said:

Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy [of] treatment [as] precedent like any other.

Did Gorsuch indicate that Roe v Wade was particularly or unusually vulnerable to being overturned? No. Did he suggest it was immune to overturning? Absolutely not.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh

Person, Human, Room
Brett Kavanaugh speaks at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, USA, 27 September 2018. (Photo: Pool / Getty Images).

The following is how MeidasTouch presented Kavanaugh’s remarks.

Kavanaugh: As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. By “it” I mean Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey. Been reaffirmed many times. Casey is precedent on precedent.

Caption: HE LIED

The clip in question came from Kavanaugh’s Senate judiciary committee hearing on Sep. 5, 2018, during questioning by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Readers can consult the relevant transcript and video.

Feinstein had been attempting to pin down Kavanaugh about his views on the status of Roe v. Wade as a precedent, and whether it “could be overturned.” Kavanaugh, stating the obvious, acknowledged Roe was a precedent and described Planned Parenthood v. Casey as “precedent on precedent” but declined to go further, despite repeated invitations by Feinstein.

Feinstein: …It has been reported that you have said that Roe is now settled law. The first question I have of you is what do you mean by “settled law”? I tried to ask earlier do you believe it is correct law? Have your views on whether Roe is settled precedent or could be overturned, and has your views changed since you were in the Bush White House?

Kavanaugh: Senator, I said that it is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.

Feinstein followed up one last time, asking “What would you say your position today is on a woman’s right to choose?” and Kavanaugh again prevaricated on the future sustainability of Roe v Wade:

As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. By “it,” I mean Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. They have been reaffirmed many times. Casey is precedent on precedent, which itself is an important factor to remember.

As we have pointed out in other cases, acknowledging that a ruling is a precedent, or even “precedent on precedent,” is not the same as saying you would never overturn it.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett

amy coney barrett opinion supreme court
In this Oct. 14, 2020 file photo, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett speaks during a confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, Pool)

The following is how MeidasTouch presented Barrett’s remarks.

Barrett: Roe is not a superprecedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased, but that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled.

Caption: THEY ALL LIED

This is perhaps the most egregious example of all, and comes from the second day of Barrett’s Senate confirmation hearing, Oct. 13, 2020. An official transcript was not readily available in this case, but readers can consult video footage.

U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., was questioning Barrett about various Supreme Court landmarks, and the concept of the “superprecedent” — a somewhat ambiguous term coined by former Sen. Arlen Specter.

In a 2013 paper, Barrett wrote “Superprecedents are cases that no justice would overrule, even if she disagrees with the interpretive premises from which the precedent proceeds,” and included the following more detailed explanation from law professor Michael Gerhardt:

[T]he point at which a well-settled practice becomes, by virtue of being well-settled, practically immune to reconsideration is the point at which that precedent has become a superprecedent. Nothing becomes a superprecedent, at least in my judgment, unless it has been widely and uniformly accepted by public authorities generally, including the Court, the President, and Congress.

In that 2013 paper, Barrett also explicitly listed a handful of Supreme Court cases — including Brown v. the Board of Education — which were typically cited as superprecedents.

Earlier in her confirmation hearing, during questioning by judiciary committee chairman U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Barrett had said that, in the context of legal scholarship, a superprecedent was a “precedent that is so well established that it would be unthinkable that it would ever be overruled” and Barrett would also similarly tell Klobuchar that the term described a precedent that was “so widely-established and agreed-upon by everyone [that] calls for its overruling simply don’t exist.”

That was the background against which Klobuchar asked Barrett whether Roe v. Wade was a superprecedent, and Barrett explicitly excluded Roe v. Wade from the small handful of cases to which that term applies. She said:

The way that [“superprecedent”] is used in the scholarship, and the way that I was using it in the article that you’re reading from was to define cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category. And scholars across the spectrum say that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled, but descriptively it does mean that it’s not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn’t call for its overruling.

…As Richard Fallon from Harvard said, Roe is not superprecedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased, but that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled. It just means that it doesn’t fall on the small handful of cases like Marbury v Madison and Brown v the Board, that noone questions any more.

Reading Barrett’s remarks in their proper context clearly demonstrates that she directly and explicitly exploded the frankly laughable claim, made by MeidasTouch, that she had indicated Roe v. Wade was immune to overruling. In fact, she did just the opposite.

Sources:

– CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF HON. BRETT M. KAVANAUGH TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115shrg32765/html/CHRG-115shrg32765.htm. Accessed 5 May 2022.

Alito Confirmation Hearing, Day 3 Part 1 | C-SPAN.Org. https://www.c-span.org/video/?190503-1/alito-confirmation-hearing-day-3-part-1. Accessed 5 May 2022.

Barrett Confirmation Hearing, Day 2 Part 1 | C-SPAN.Org. https://www.c-span.org/video/?476316-1/barrett-confirmation-hearing-day-2-part-1. Accessed 5 May 2022.

Barrett Confirmation Hearing, Day 2 Part 2 | C-SPAN.Org. https://www.c-span.org/video/?476316-4/barrett-confirmation-hearing-day-2-part-2. Accessed 5 May 2022.

Becker, Jo, and Charles Babington. “No Right to Abortion, Alito Argued in 1985.” Washington Post, 15 Nov. 2005. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2005/11/15/no-right-to-abortion-alito-argued-in-1985/bcbd4e02-0c2e-4dac-8caf-0d252c5630a0/.

“Exclusive: Supreme Court Has Voted to Overturn Abortion Rights, Draft Opinion Shows.” POLITICO, https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473. Accessed 5 May 2022.

GOP Judges EXPOSED as Liars in Megaviral Supercut. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jbHMHN_mfo. Accessed 5 May 2022.

Gorsuch Confirmation Hearing, Day 2, Part 1 | C-SPAN.Org. https://www.c-span.org/video/?425138-1/supreme-court-nominee-stresses-independence-calls-criticism-judges-disheartening&airingid=61108104. Accessed 5 May 2022.

“Hunting for ‘Super Precedents’ in U.S. Supreme Court Confirmations – National Constitution Center.” National Constitution Center – Constitutioncenter.Org, https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/hunting-for-super-precedents-in-u.s-supreme-court-confirmations. Accessed 5 May 2022.

Judiciary, United States Congress Senate Committee on the. Nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas to Be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, First Session … U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993.

“Stare Decisis.” LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis. Accessed 5 May 2022.

Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. “Roe Is ‘Settled Law,’ Kavanaugh Tells Collins. Democrats Aren’t Moved.” The New York Times, 21 Aug. 2018. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/us/politics/kavanaugh-collins-abortion.html.

Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, Day 2, Part 1 | C-SPAN.Org. https://www.c-span.org/video/?449705-1/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-hearing-day-2-part-1. Accessed 5 May 2022.

Thomas Confirmation Hearing Day 2, Part 1 | C-SPAN.Org. https://www.c-span.org/video/?21115-1/thomas-confirmation-hearing-day-2-part-1. Accessed 5 May 2022.

23
Share
Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Pandemic COVID Politics Polls Progressive Racism Reprints from others. Science

Moral Blinding: How the COVID-Prevention Fetish Killed Critical Thinking

Hits: 36

This article was written by Susan Dunham.

Feeling the fuzzies

Our first lockdown was like a great war effort. It was the closest we’ve come to the home-front experience of the World Wars, when people set aside every selfish thought in favor of the collective wellbeing. We ground our lives to a halt in a powerful rebuke against an emerging threat. Heroes emerged, along with new rituals to honor them as we banged pots for frontline workers and decorated our neighborhoods with messages of thanks. Meanwhile, the rest of us did our part: we stayed home. And it all felt good.

Months later, rising COVID cases have plunged us into another lockdown, which in short order has become a practiced routine. After a lax summer and fall season, we slip back into the usual stay-at-home restrictions. We triple our vigilance: we keep our distance, follow the masking rules, and sanitize compulsively. “Be safe,” we wish each other in lieu of the customary farewells. Even the fearless pitch in, because staying safe means preventing yourself from becoming a threat to others.

All of the prescribed safety practices have become part of a new social ritual. Participation demonstrates one’s commitment to the collective wellbeing, which the pandemic has taught us is not an individual game but a group effort. Masking, sanitizing, distancing, and isolating are not only safety measures in the traditional sense but they have also become the new signs of caring. And they are fast becoming a prerequisite for societal participation. No mask, no service says many signs in store windows, big and small.

As Canadians, long-renowned for politeness, compliance under these terms is practically built into the national DNA. Save for some pockets of protests in our larger cities, we have demonstrated a willingness to give up a little bit of our personal freedom for the greater good, and we embrace whatever is asked of us if it can save a life.

But is that really such a good thing? Could it be that our impassioned acceptance of drastic new norms makes us a little too willing to compromise on everything if we can be convinced it’s the righteous thing to do? And has our conscience been hijacked so that we consent to new norms that actually dismantle the progress we’ve made towards a free and open society?

I argue that the COVID crisis has turned a once liberal society into a cult of compliance and that we have sold off an open marketplace of ideas in a bid to secure our safety. In its place we have built a new social operating system that coerces consent and could one day render us incapable of seeing the true effects of policies that masquerade as public good..

Creating tunnel vision

While we were placing “Stay at Home” badges on top of our Instagram selfies, congratulating ourselves for staying inside, The World Food Program — an agency of the UN — was reporting that 130 million more people in developing nations would face starvation by the end of the year as a direct result of the global economy which we ground to a halt. That means tens of millions of additional deaths in developing countries because of lockdown.

At home we knew that suicide numbers must have skyrocketed and that countless unstable home lives turned dramatically worse, while food bank lines extended longer than we had ever seen them.

But rather than these realities sobering us out of our moral stupor, they instead inspired us to double-down on the categorical importance of lockdown, even as we were learning that most people are not at serious risk of severe illness. No cost was too high to prevent one more COVID case.

Months later, with better perspective on the costs of lockdown, we find ourselves in yet another one. Although we entered it with reduced appetite for the same kind of stringency we saw last spring, we have dutifully complied with everything that the case numbers have demanded. We’ve thrown out every skeptic thought, because the unquantified concerns of mental health, childhood developmental delay, economic collapse, and mass death by starvation the world over do not hold an audience more powerfully than the running tally of COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.

The constant beat of daily broadcast COVID briefings and the bombardment of public health messaging play no small part in constructing our perception of the coronavirus threat. Reshaping our lives to avoid a virus seems logical and inevitable when the only metric we’re allowed to hear is the COVID numbers. How naturally all other facets of life seem to fall away when we are properly obsessed over a single problem to the exclusion of all others.

This curation of concern single-handedly drives our collective reaction to the emergent coronavirus. Our laser focus on all things COVID creates a kind of team spirit in the wellness effort, encouraging our embrace of the pain-loving self sacrifice of lockdown — and blinding us to both its costs and its alternatives.

Affirming the course

By now we should have heard from our public health policy-makers that instead of blanket lockdown, we might opt for a model that is business-as-usual with the exception of a full marshaling of resources aimed at those who self-identify as vulnerable and full support for only their isolation. We don’t question the absence of this suggestion because we have been so locked onto the altruistic idea of self-sacrifice for the greater good that any kind of debate would seem selfishly motivated.

Instead we indulge in the joy of pitching-in and doing good, while remaining guiltlessly ignorant of the fact that history might look back upon lockdown as a devastating mistake. Meanwhile, we collect our CERB cheques and boast about the moral virtues of remaining indefinitely couch-bound. Thus we are placated by a public health policy that we should be debating at the very least.

The great opiate of public health stewardship makes us feel so assured of our righteousness that questioning health regulations is morally suspect. We look unkindly at the oppositional thinker, the lockdown skeptic who threatens to upend the whole care-making experience of the COVID era. Whereas normally we would give skeptical voices vital consideration, especially before embracing the drastic new normal we’ve been handed, we instead condemn them out of hand because we are pre-conditioned to despise their very premise.

Much analysis is given to the pandemic response on the government level, but it is our pandemic response on the social level which will prove the most significant to history, because that is where the true forces of lasting change carve out their legacies.

The on-the-ground tensions between the majority of us who embrace policy and those who don’t is the effect of a social phenomenon which has demonstrated an enormous capacity to reshape our world. What we are gripped by is a peculiar kind of collective blindness disguised as goodwill and righteousness that turns us against all forms of debate on public policy so long as it is positioned correctly.

Dehumanizing the rebel

Toronto’s first lockdown protest in April drew the ire of a vocal majority who denounced participants as selfish, small-minded, ignorant, and reckless. These were anti-science bigots whose ideas literally endangered lives. They thumbed their noses at the new rituals which were meanwhile bringing the city together. The protests grew in number and in frequency into the summer months. Demonstrators were spared no ill will by the court of public opinion. Many commentators openly wished they see their comeuppance in the form of a hospital bed, and such tidings were met with all round applause.

There is no moral standing, as we see it, from which to question the edicts of the health experts. Our enthusiastic focus on the wellness effort has morphed into a complete intolerance for debate on the issue. We are so emboldened by our collective struggle that we feel morally justified in throwing all opposition into the fire.

Thus we’ve become locked into a radical, all-in moral defense of new and unprecedented rules. Such a rabid mode of categorical compliance establishes a dangerous low in our capacity for critically, rather than emotionally, perceiving the issues we face. We now despise rebellious thinking, even if those deviant ideas might be our life raft out of dangerous waters.

While the Coronavirus is often said to have brought out the best in us — with our pot-banging and our well-wishing — all of this team-building has produced, almost by necessity, a dark response to doubting voices.

Silencing doubt

SARS-COV-2 has changed our reaction to voices that oppose the crowd. Whereas in the past, outlier thinking, skepticism of mainstream messaging and policy makers, nonconformity in the face of social pressure were all tolerated if not welcomed, now we deem these things dangerous, not stimulating.

The pain of the pandemic, which has shown us what can happen when people adopt the wrong kinds of opinions, has made us hypersensitive to regressive views on other global issues like climate change, vaccination, social justice, even politics, in which the actions of the individual can affect the group. We have seen the consequence of too much freedom of thought in the form of lockdowns and packed ICUs, and we bristle to think what future crises might unfold if the wrong opinions gain traction again.

So we put extra effort into vilifying harmful views. If we have to contend with freedom of speech and freedom of thought, then we get around that obstacle by making unsafe views so socially toxic that they’re more dangerous for the speaker than they are for society. Be caught courting an unsanctioned idea and get branded an enemy of the public good. Suddenly yesterday’s eccentric thinker is today’s ignorant, selfish, uneducated bigot.

The ideological cooling effect of such a social mechanism is an effective tool for steering opinion and, as the pandemic has demonstrated, behavior too.

Saving face

Universal masking and protocol compliance has been so effectively adopted precisely because it has become socially untenable to do otherwise. To be caught without a mask, that brilliant piece of cloth that shows you care, is to forfeit your status as a well-meaning member of society.

And so we have it that much of the moral fetishization of COVID protocols — the excessive displays of complying well beyond the public guidelines — has become a way of signifying ideological affinity. So repellent is the image of the COVID skeptic that COVID compliance has become as much about self-image as it is about public safety — if not more.

We find ourselves trapped within a new social formula in which conformity is social currency. The more one over-performs the prescribed duties and rituals of the good citizen, the more approval is bestowed, and the more distance the performer creates between themselves and the looming image of the social monster.

In this paradigm, independent thinking — synthesizing available data into more nuanced or perhaps contradictory conclusions — is taboo. The social rewards of conformity far outweigh the immoral stink of rebellious thought. It simply becomes no longer worth the shame, stigma, self-doubt, and the bother of holding and sharing a competing idea.

There is no end in sight to this new model now that we have set it into motion. It has been embraced during pandemic and the gears are already turning to point this machinery towards other global efforts. It is our new social operating system — and it has already proven its capacity to reshape society without limitation. Consider how absurd the notion would have been just over a year ago that it would be reprehensible to be caught barefaced in a grocery store. What absurdities today will we reconstruct as the moral obligations of tomorrow?

We now have a framework for coercing total compliance to new and changing rules and rituals, which need no backing by logic or sense. How many truly contradictory public protocols do we now follow for the sake of optics alone? We jump into the street to give space to fellow pedestrians even though there is no realistic concern for transmission in this way. Proof and reason become redundancies — at most, formalities. If the Coronavirus ever ceases to be a concern, how many people will truly abandon masking when it has become so ingrained as a symbol of prudence and altruism? Compliance becomes its own end when its made synonymous with moral good.

And thus a moral blinding has stricken society. COVID-19 has gathered us so tightly around the bonfire of cooperation, either by conversion or coercion, that we have found no better place to be, and we have lost our tolerance for anyone refusing to join. We’ve completely annexed our capacity to judge what is being asked of us dispassionately, leaving open an unguarded pathway to our consent through both our heartstrings and our self-image.

Losing Control

The foundation is laid for future incursions into our daily normal, which have no hope of encountering resistance. The next radical social change need only be positioned as the next good thing, and even in the mind of the conflicted individual, doubt will be set aside in favor of appearance. Woe to anyone with the misfortune of disagreeing, because an intense, scapegoating hatred for those who do not comply will justify any manner of policy, punishment, and correction against them. And social spoils will await the loudest and most zealous followers and enforcers of whatever new normal the future cooks up.

We have burned our safety net against tyranny. Rather than doing the hard thing, respecting an individual’s right to self-direction even at a marginal expense of safety, we wage war on thought, between right-think and wrong-think, good action versus bad action so that we may burn every deviant in our path.

Sealing our fate

Through a system of self-adulating social rituals, single-minded public messaging, and stigmatization of the uncooperative, we have lost our capacity to see the shades of gray between extremes and to recognize the fundamental merits of debate and the freedom to dissent. We now prefer that every last skeptic be shamed into compliance, as if the benefit of that is worth the cost of forcing a free society into a hive mind.

We have so easily forgotten that it is in the dialectic of competing views — some for this side, others for that side — that we prevent any one extreme from over-dominating. And it is precisely by the moral exclusion of oppositional views that a population finds itself one day in a world it doesn’t recognize.

So while the world stampedes in lockstep towards new extremes of safety protocols, we are in danger of a well-intentioned agenda breaking away from itself and running ahead of its own mandate if there is no one left to one day challenge it.

And yet the average person shakes their head to learn of the latest citizen to defy protocol.

In just a few short months, the old liberal mindset that would have called for a balance between safety and liberty, that would have rejected the idea that science offers only one way through a crisis, that would have accepted the foundational need for some dissent, has eroded into a culture of compliance. To obey is to care. That is the equation that has reprogrammed our social order. And if it might benefit us today, it could more easily hurt us tomorrow, the next time something to which we wouldn’t normally consent finds that tested appeal to our hearts.

14
Share
Categories
Biden Pandemic COVID Politics Reprints from others. Science Uncategorized

Pfizer quietly admits it will never manufacture original FDA approved COVID vaccines Company claims it is manufacturing Comirnaty product with new formula.

Hits: 41

This article is from The Dossier.

The August 23, 2021 FDA approval of Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine was a cause for celebration. Marked as a turning point in the battle against COVID19, the announcement was highly publicized by the Biden Administration with the clear intention to extinguish “vaccine hesitancy” and boost uptake.

It was celebrated as a cause for national relief, and many Americans arrived at their local pharmacies under the impression, via government and pharmaceutical propaganda, that they were receiving an FDA-approved COVID vaccine. Yet that legally distinct product, as we know it, never existed. And now we know, via Pfizer, that it will never exist.

 

For the uninitiated:

Comirnaty is a legally distinct product from the emergency use authorization (EUA) shots, and It has never made its way to market. For months on end, no such vaccine has ever become available. Those who received the “Pfizer shot(s)” have been injected with the emergency use authorization (EUA) version of the shots. See my piece in The Dossier for more info:

 
Shell Game? There remains no FDA approved COVID vaccine in the United States
I fact checked the fact checkers and couldn’t believe what I found. Despite the corporate press, Big Pharma, and the federal government telling us otherwise, it is absolutely true that there is no FDA approved COVID-19 vaccine available in the United States today. And there are no plans to make one available any time soon…

Read more

The information operation succeeded. There was indeed an FDA approved vaccine, at least on paper, but you couldn’t get it.

When originally confronted with this ordeal, Pfizer labeled this issue an inventory question that had nothing to do with the legal distinction between an experimental EUA product and an FDA-approved vaccine. Up until just weeks ago, this was the statement up on the CDC website via Pfizer:

“Pfizer received FDA BLA license on 8/23/2021 for its COVID-19 vaccine for use in individuals 16 and older (COMIRNATY).  At that time, the FDA published a BLA package insert that included the approved new COVID-19 vaccine tradename COMIRNATY and listed 2 new NDCs (0069-1000-03, 0069-1000-02) and images of labels with the new tradename.

At present, Pfizer does not plan to produce any product with these new NDCs and labels over the next few months while EUA authorized product is still available and being made available for U.S. distribution.  As such, the CDC, AMA, and drug compendia may not publish these new codes until Pfizer has determined when the product will be produced with the BLA labels.”

In May, Pfizer updated its statement to mention a December 2021 licensed Comirnaty product, which was granted a license four months after the highly-publicized August FDA press release.

And just last week, Pfizer finally acknowledged that its original licensed product will never be distributed. In an unreported update on the CDC website, Pfizer told the agency:

“Pfizer received initial FDA BLA license on 8/23/2021 for its COVID-19 vaccine for use in individuals 16 and older (COMIRNATY). At that time, the FDA published a BLA package insert that included the approved new COVID-19 vaccine tradename COMIRNATY and listed 2 new NDCs (0069-1000-03, 0069-1000-02) and images of labels with the new tradename. These NDCs will not be manufactured. Only NDCs for the subsequently BLA approved tris-sucrose formulation will be produced.”

The key distinction between the originally approved formulation and the tris-sucrose formulation is that — according to manufacturers — the latter can be held for a much longer period of time outside of an ultra cold freezer. These freezers cost over $10,000 a piece and each unit uses as much energy per day as an average American household. Improper storage can render the mRNA unstable.

Notably, the clinical trials for the Pfizer shot were conducted without the modified tris-sucrose ingredient. Given the partisan nature of Pfizer, the corporate media, government health bureaucracies, and your correspondent’s lack of expertise in this area, it is unclear whether this is significant.

Another notable thing to look out for in the coming days and weeks is the possibility that the subsequently FDA approved product finally becomes available in the United States. In recent days, the CDC removed the language of “not orderable at this time” above the description of both Comirnaty and Moderna’s Spikevax.

Additionally, as reported by Uncover DC, the Defense Department appears to be in the early stages of ordering what it has interpreted as a legally required minimum of Comirnaty in order to continue its mRNA mandate of American service members.

7
Share
Categories
Biden Pandemic Corruption COVID Just my own thoughts Opinion Politics

CNN commentator attacks CNN medical expert for being truthful.

Hits: 58

In case you haven’t heard, the CNN medical expert went on a podcast of a Conservative blogger. There he admitted that the medically prescribed medicine that he took wasn’t the horse dewormer, but a dose of medicine that was given under a doctor care.

Well the affirmative leftist on CNN lost it. How dare someone from CNN tell the truth on a Conservative venue. Now Gupta did not back up what he said earlier, but continued the attack on the medically prescribed drug in a human dose.

 

Here’s what Gupta said before the backtrack.

Rogan confronted CNN’s chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta over the network’s coverage of his bout with the virus, falsely claiming Rogan used “horse dewormer” instead of the common human form of ivermectin, something Gupta conceded his CNN colleagues should not have said.

“Does it bother you that the network you work for out and out lied, just outright lied about me taking horse dewormer?” Rogan grilled Gupta.

“They shouldn’t have said that,” Gupta admitted. “Why did they do that?” Rogan asked. “I don’t know,” Gupta responded. “You didn’t ask? You’re the medical guy over there!” Rogan exclaimed. “I didn’t ask,” Gupta said. “I should’ve asked before coming on this podcast.”

 

 

 

 

 

11
Share
Categories
Biden Pandemic Corruption COVID Crime Economy Education Opinion Politics

My two cents. So where’s the normalcy Joe promised us?

Hits: 26

So where’s the normalcy Joe promised us? Joe said he would bring us back better. He brought us back alright, but he left out the better. He was going to create millions of new jobs, get rid of COVID, end the war in Afghanistan with his 300,000 man army, and fix what he saw as a broken economy. So how did this work out?

Inflation, price increases, begging OPEC for oil, ( since he froze drilling and shut down the pipeline ). Oh and more people tested positive for COVID this holiday than last year. And there was no vaccine this time last year.

10
Share
Categories
Biden Pandemic Corruption COVID Economy Opinion Politics

Joe lies and what did you think would happen?

Hits: 23

Joe lies and what did you think would happen? What happened 8-26-2021 will go down as a day that Americans must never forget. Joe lied and our soldiers died. Is this the icing on the cake?

We’ve had one major screw up after another. The opening of our southern border. The loss of thousands of good paying jobs with the closing of the pipeline and banning of fracking and drilling. The out of control inflation. COVID mess, begging OPEC to produce more oil. And the deaths of our soldiers in Afghanistan.

What do all of these screw ups have in common? Biden saying the buck stops with me. But it’s Donald Trumps fault. SMH.

6
Share
Categories
Education Opinion Politics Uncategorized

My two cents. Who are the folks that support CRT?

Hits: 69

Who are the folks that support CRT? Besides the usual Union teachers, I see very few Minorities. Why is that? This CRT is supposed to make things right. Get rid of white supremacy. So what’s the dirty little secret? Those who are supporting CRT are mostly white progressives who are elderly and have no children in our school system.

6
Share
Categories
Biden Pandemic How funny is this? Opinion Politics

How sad that Joe would forget History.

Hits: 15

How sad that Joe would forget History. Sorry Joe, CBS indirectly says that you lied. First, did you forget what happened on 911?  Also how about five other attacks on the capitol? One of them we had Five congressmen — Republicans Alvin Bentley and Ben Jensen, and Democrats Clifford Davis, George Hyde Fallon and Kenneth Roberts — were injured by gunfire. Bentley was the most seriously injured and required numerous surgeries.

 

One was Obama’s old friends from the Weather Underground. But Joe for some reason forgets history. Below are the dates. All after the Civil War.

Three sticks of dynamite — July 2, 1915

Puerto Rican nationalists attack Congress — March 1, 1954

Bombing in protest of U.S. military in Laos — March 1, 1971

Armed Resistance Unit bombing — Nov. 7, 1983

On July 24, 1998, Russell Eugene Weston, Jr. burst into the Capitol and opened fire, killing two Capitol Police officers, Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson. Weston’s motives remain unknown and he faced murder charges for the shootings. However, he was committed in a mental institution with paranoid schizophrenia.

 

For some reason the MSM just let’s Joe say these loony tune things.

11
Share
Categories
Biden Pandemic Opinion Politics Reprints from others.

Reprint. Tracking all of Joe Biden’s false or misleading claims – updated on April 16.

Hits: 34

This is a reprint from The Geller Report.

The Washington Post said they won’t fact check Joe Biden. He routinely says things that aren’t true, and someone has to do it. Therefore, The Geller Report will fact check false statements President Biden makes repeatedly.


April-16 – U.S. Intel shows Biden lied in his Claim Russians Put Bounties on American Troops

During the campaign Biden claimed Russia put bounties on US soldiers. Trump called the claim a hoax. Biden now admits Trump was right.

It was a huge election-time story that prompted cries of treason. But according to a newly disclosed assessment, Donald Trump might have been right to call it a “hoax.”


April-15 – President Joe Biden announced creation of a commission to explore expanding the Supreme Court after he spoke out against it.

President Joe Biden announced creation of a commission to explore expanding the Supreme Court (“Court Packing”), which would allow him to appoint additional justices and shift the balance of the Court.

But when Republican Ronald Reagan was president in 1983, then-Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware) declared the concept of court-packing a “bonehead idea” and a “terrible, terrible mistake.”

 


April-8 – “You go to a gun show, you can buy whatever you want, and no background check.”

In a Rose Garden event, President Joe Biden announced several actions his administration will take to address what he called an “epidemic” of gun violence (actually, he will ignore the epidemic because it takes place in Democratic run cities where guns are strictly controlled)

Biden said: “Most people don’t know it, you walk into a store and you buy a gun, you have a background check. But you go to a gun show, you can buy whatever you want, and no background check.”

The fact: Gun shows can include either licensed dealers or private sellers. So at a gun show, the licensed sellers need to run a background check on buyers, and the non-licensed sellers don’t. So Biden’s blanket statement that if you go to a gun show, you can avoid a background check, is wrong. It depends on who you buy from.

It’s also worth noting something that Biden’s statement ignores: A number of states have implemented additional background check requirements that cover at least some private sales. The states include some of the nation’s most populous, including California, New York and Illinois.

These states’ specific laws vary, but at least in the states with the strictest additional requirements, you will have to pass a background check for any gun you buy at a gun show, contrary to what Biden said.

Biden’s statement is mostly false and misleading.


Biden Exaggerate Projected Job Gains in Infrastructure Plan

Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

“Independent analysis shows that if we pass this plan, the economy will create 19 million jobs — good jobs, blue-collar jobs, jobs that pay well,” Biden said in remarks at the White House on April 2.

  • In fact, President Joe Biden’s infrastructure proposal, called the American Jobs Plan, is projected to add – maybe – 2.7 million jobs over 10 years, according to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics.
  • Biden and members of his administration have cited the Moody’s analysis to mislead the American people and giving them the impression that the nearly $2.3 trillion plan would add 19 million jobs to the U.S. economy.
  • But that includes 16.3 million jobs that Moody’s projects would be added even if the president’s infrastructure proposal never comes to pass.

Our conclusion: it’s a huge lie designed to bring America closer to socialism, by increasing the size of the government and the amount of money it spends, increasing unemployment, which in turns increases the dependence of the people on welfare.

Unfortunately, being born in socialist France, I have “some kind” of advantage: I have seen first hand, in reality, and not in theory, the government making exactly the same decisions from the 70’s onwards, and this has given exactly the consequences that the Democrats want: 10% official unemployment, with 25% for young people, an average individual income around $2300, very high taxes, and a population that lives on state aid, one way or another.


April-4 – FactChecking Biden’s Claim that Assault Weapons Ban Worked (it doesn’t)

President Joe Biden claims the 10-year assault weapons ban that he helped shepherd through the Senate as part of the 1994 crime bill “brought down these mass killings.” But the raw numbers, when adjusted for population and other factors, aren’t so clear on that.

  • Eight years ago, when the gun debate was again raging in Congress, We wrote that a three-part study funded by the Department of Justice concluded that the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed”, and it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime.”
  • A RAND review of gun studies, updated in 2020, concluded there is “inconclusive evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings.”
  • And a Criminology & Public Policy in Criminology & Public Policy in January 2020 concluded that assault weapons bans “do not seem to be associated with the incidence of fatal mass shootings.”

April-4 – FactChecking Biden’s First Press Conference

In his first press conference since being inaugurated 64 days ago, President Joe Biden got some facts wrong:

  • Biden claimed that former President Donald Trump “eliminated” over $700 million in aid that Biden helped get for Central American countries. That didn’t happen, but the Trump administration did reallocate some money and temporarily suspended other funding.
  • The president used the wrong statistics when saying that “nothing has changed” regarding “children” trying to enter the U.S. at the southern border. The truth is, there was a huge 63% uptick in unaccompanied children being apprehended from January to February.
  • Biden said, “We’re sending back the vast majority of the families that are coming.” But in February, 41% of those in a family unit apprehended at the southern border were expelled.
  • The president said “over 50%” of Republican voters supported the American Rescue Plan Act. Some polls show that but others show a majority opposed the COVID-19 relief legislation.
  • He repeated two familiar talking points on taxes, including the misleading claim that “83%” of the benefits in the GOP’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are “going to the top 1%.” That only becomes the case in 2027 when most of the individual income tax cuts are set to expire but corporate tax cuts remain.
  • Biden got it wrong when he said there were five times as many cloture motions “last year alone” than there were “between 1917 and 1971.” There were twice as many motions filed last year than there were from 1917 through 1970.

April 2 – Four Pinocchios for Biden’s lie about Georgia

In the aftermath of the massive fraud that gave President Biden’s suspicious victory in Georgia, Republicans in the state enacted a law imposing voting rules and restrictions.

  • The law restricts the distribution of food and water to people standing in line. They made it a misdemeanor crime for anyone beside a poll worker to give food or drinks to voters waiting in line. They don’t want Democrats or Republicans giving people stuff and encouraging them to vote their way. Seems fair to me.
  • Allows local officials to begin processing, but not counting absentee ballots two weeks before the election. You just put them in a bin so they’ll be counted on Election Day, preventing shenanigans.
  • Reduces the number of drop boxes for mail ballots, to reduce the risk of fraud,
  • Bars mobile voting places for the same reason,
  • Requires absentee ballots to be printed on special paper so it makes it more secure to cast absentee ballots.
  • The precinct name, the voting place that you’re attached to has to be on the paper along with your I.D. or your Social Security number so they know you’re a real person.
  • Expands early voting access for most counties, adding an additional mandatory Saturday, formally codifying Sunday voting hours is optional. So, you get more days to vote, with the polls opening from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m as before.

Biden called it “outrageous.”

“It’s sick. It’s sick … deciding that you’re going to end voting at five o’clock when working people are just getting off work,” Biden said at a news conference March 25.

The next day, the White House issued a written statement in Biden’s name that said the Georgia law “ends voting hours early so working people can’t cast their vote after their shift is over.”

Therefore, there are more days to vote, not less. The net effect of the new law is to expand the opportunities to vote for most Georgians, not limit them.

The law clarifies that counties may conduct early voting during the 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. workday, but that’s the minimum and in fact the measure would extend hours in counties that had fewer than eight hours of early voting a day. The law also allows counties to have early voting from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. if they choose.

For his lie, Biden earned Four Pinocchios from The Washington Post.

March 20 – Joe Biden criticized Trump for sanctioning Turkey and now wants to sanction India for the same reasons

  • Joe Biden criticized Trump for sanctioning Turkey for buying Russian missiles, but now threatening to sanction India if they buy the same Russian missile systems.Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin urged India to reconsider its potential purchase of a Russian missile system, hinting to its longtime ally that the move could trigger U.S. sanctions.

“We certainly urge all our allies and partners to move away from Russian equipment … and really avoid any kind of acquisitions that would trigger sanctions on our behalf,” Austin said in New Delhi on Saturday, responding to a question from a reporter about India’s plans to buy the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft weapon system.


March 17 – Biden Makes False Claims About Border Crisis: ‘We’re Not’ Holding Children ‘In Cells,’ Separating From Parents

  • President Joe Biden made numerous false claims during excerpts of an ABC News interview that aired last Tuesday evening about the border crisis that he created.During the interview, host George Stephanopoulos pressed Biden about the crisis, which Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas confirmed this week is projected to hit the highest level ever recorded by DHS.When asked about the thousands of unaccompanied minors who are flooding the southern border, Biden responded,

“Do you repeat what Trump did, take them from their mothers, move them away, but hold them in cells, etc.? We’re not doing that.”

  • That is a false claim. Biden is lying.The New York Times reported that thousands of unaccompanied minors are being kept in “facilities akin to jails as the Biden administration struggles to find room for them in shelters.”
  • The Times reported this week that “children are being forced to sleep on gym mats with foil sheets and go for days without showering” and that “many children” had “not been allowed outdoors for days on end.”
  • USA Today reported during the first week in March that “the Biden administration is still sheltering children separated from close family members in federal facilities for weeks on end.”

March 15 – Joe Biden rooted his candidacy in the promise that America will return to normalcy

  • 50 days without a press conference?Biden has already broken an embarrassing milestone: 100 years for not holding a solo press conference. Without being even busy. Even CNN, who is not in the news business but the business of making Biden look good, starts asking questions.
  • Gas up 36 centsGas prices bottomed out at $1.87 a gallon in late April 2020 under President Trump. Since Biden’s inauguration, thanks to his decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline, the moratorium on oil and gas leasing on federal lands, oil companies had no choice but to increase their cash reserve and raise price.According to GasBuddy.com: price was $2.41 on Jan. 19 and $2.77 on March 7 — an increase of 36 cents, and it’s not going south any time soon.
  • Then there’s H.R. 1. by which the federal government takes over election laws previously left to the states. No voter ID, same-day voter registration, with no time to verify that the information provided by registrants is accurate, two provisions that will make voter fraud much easier.

March 12 – Biden lied again about vaccine: Thursday, Biden falsely claimed the U.S. vaccinated almost 3 million people in one day last week

“On Saturday, we set an all-time, single-day record: nearly 3 million Americans vaccinated,” Biden claimed. “A pace seen nowhere else in the world.”

  • However, the CDC reported the actual number is closer to 1.5 million, according to AP Fact-Check
  • Biden officials were also caught lying about vaccinating the elderly. They claimed 60 percent of the demographic had received the vaccine.

“In terms of protecting the most vulnerable, our core duty as a nation, when we came into office 8 percent of people over 65 were vaccinated,” Biden aide Andy Slavitt stated. “Today, 60 percent are vaccinated and, according to the CDC’s new guidance, vaccinated parents can now visit and hug their grandchildren.”

  • In reality, only 31 percent of Americans aged 64 and older are fully-vaccinated.
  • This comes as Biden tried to take the credit for developing vaccines away from President Trump.

March 8 – Biden lies about vaccine. Again: “When I came into office, the prior administration had contracted for not nearly enough vaccine to cover adults in America.”

Biden lives in the shadow of President Trump. This is one of the things he is still aware of. His criticism of the Trump administration has no limits, and it is not bound by reality or facts.

During a March 2 news conference on the COVID-19 pandemic, President Joe Biden claimed that former President Donald Trump’s administration did not ensure there would be enough vaccines for the American public.

“When I came into office, the prior administration had contracted for not nearly enough vaccine to cover adults in America,” said Biden. “We rectified that.”

It’s been a common political lie since the Biden took office, that the initial vaccine rollout under Trump was “chaotic.” PolitiFact previously rated this claim as Mostly False. Now he claims Trump did not order enough vaccine.

Here are the facts:

Trump administration’s initial order to drug makers:

That’s 800 million doses. Enough for 400 million people. Either Americans grow overnight from 330 million to 500 million, either Biden is lying to make Trump look bad and to boost is own job approval by presenting himself as the savior.

And by the way, about 255 million are older than 18, and vaccines are not yet authorized for children. If you deduct the people who don’t want to be vaccinated (One third as of today), Trump ordered twice as many vaccine as needed, knowing that not all drug makers would deliver on time.

Joe Biden, you are a lier!


March 1st – Biden says Hispanic are the fastest-growing population in the United States – it’s not true

Before a meeting with Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Biden highlighted the two nations’ historical ties by noting that many Americans have Mexican ancestry. The goal is obvious: the Left hates America and the American people. For them, any under-advance country is better than America.

“As you know, the fastest-growing population in the United States is Hispanic,” Biden said on March 1. “And 60% of the Hispanic population is Mexican American. They’re an integral part of our history.”

But none of this is true.

According to Census Bureau data:

  • The ethnic group with the fastest growing population are the Asian Americans: +28.7% from 2010 to 2019.
  • The Hispanic population ranks second, at 20%.
  • The Native Hawaiian-Pacific Islanders, right behind them at 19.6%.
  • Sadly, the White are last, lamenting their own inability to keep a position they see diluting.


February 24 – Biden repeats the often debunked lie that Trump told people infected with the coronavirus to drink bleach

  • Joe Biden took a cheap shot at President Trump during a remote White House event for Black essential workers about the COVID-19 pandemic co-hosted with White House domestic advisor Susan Rice.
  • Biden said in a veil reference to Trump:

“I think there’s a growing awareness that, uh, um, you know, uh, injecting bleach into your system doesn’t do it for you.”

  • No, Trump didn’t tell Americans infected with the coronavirus to drink bleach, Politifact confirmed on July 11, 2020.

February 23 – Biden declared that white supremacists are the “greatest terror threat” to the country.

  • In 2020, the Department of Justice brought exactly five criminal cases against “white supremacists.” 14 individuals were charged.
  • In 2019, another five cases. 75 people charged. Many of them members of the “1488s”, a vicious Nazi-type group that deals narcotics and assaults people.
  • It’s a similar situation on the state level. Last year in all 50 states there were only three prosecutions tied to “white supremacy.” Nine individuals were charged. Nine. In 50 states.
  • In 2019, the number of white racists charged: eight.

“So, what exactly are Joe Biden and his far left supporters talking about?” asked Bill O’Reilly.


February 20 – Joe Biden claims to have traveled 17,000 miles with President Xi, Washington Post notes this is untrue

  • Washington Post investigator Glenn Kessler awarded President Joe Biden “Three Pinocchios” Friday for claiming he traveled 17,000 miles with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
  • Biden has made this claim several times in recent years.

I traveled 17,000 miles with him, the President of China … we went around the world together, to the United States and China,” he said during the January 2020 campaign.

On February 7, 2021, he said:

“My point was that when I came back from meeting with him and traveling 17,000 miles with him when I was vice president and he was the vice president — that’s how I got to know him so well.

 

The Washington Post has verified and concluded that Biden’s statement is false and misleading, intended to make it appear that it knows President Xi well.

“Biden’s mileage number has kept us puzzling till our puzzler was sore.

As far as we could tell, the only time Biden and Xi appear to have traveled together was when they visited Qingchengshan High School in Dujiangyan. In theory, one could add in the trip from Beijing to Chengdu, a distance of about 1,000 miles. But when Xi came to the United States, Biden and Xi did not even follow a parallel route to Los Angeles.”


Feb. 19 – Biden says Trump had no vaccination plan – he’s lying

  • Just over four weeks ago, America had no real plan to vaccinate most of the country,” said President Joe Biden in remarks at a Pfizer manufacturing site.
  • “President Joe Biden made misleading claims while boasting about his administration’s progress in getting Americans vaccinated against COVID-19” concluded Factcheck.org.
  • Trump had a plan, which was complicated by the various policies of state governments.
  • The truth is that Trump’s “Warp Speed” operation not only developed vaccines in record time, but also developed plans to distribute the vaccine throughout the country.
  • Trump’s Secretary of Health and Social Services presented its distribution plan in September 2020.

FactChecking Biden’s Town Hall: not good

President Joe Biden got some facts wrong and spun others in a Feb. 16 town hall that aired on CNN.

  • He said it was “not true” that he had revised his 100-day school reopening goal, saying it “was reported” that he meant a majority of schools only need to be open one day a week.That’s exactly what his press secretary had said.
  • Biden left the false impression that the preceding administration had contracted for fewer COVID-19 vaccines than it actually had.
  • The president wrongly claimed that Federally Qualified Health Centers would now receive 1 million vaccines per week. That’s the total number of vaccines that they will receive, not the weekly amount.
  • He claimed, without evidence, that racehorse owners receive tax breaks worth almost $9 billion.
  • Regarding his $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief plan, Biden said there is “consensus among economists left, right, and center” that “we can’t spend too much.” Some center-left economists say the plan may be too large. In fact, there is no consensus.
  • The president wrongly said the federal minimum wage of $7.25 would be $20 if it had been indexed for inflation; he instead meant if it had been indexed for worker productivity.
  • Biden wrongly claimed the “vast majority” of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally are not “Hispanics,” but “people who came on a visa … and didn’t go home.”Most of the unauthorized population came to the U.S. illegally from Mexico and other Latin American nations.
  • Biden talked about how he met with China’s now-President, Xi Jinping, while Biden was vice president, and then returned to the US and mused about China’s demographic challenges.

    He said, “And I came back and said they’re going to end their One China — their one child policy, because they’re so xenophobic they won’t let anybody else in, and more people are retired than working. How can they sustain economic growth when more people are retired?”


    It is not even close to true that more people in China are retired than working — even today, let alone when Biden was vice president and the Chinese workforce was younger. China reported having about 775 million employed people at the end of 2019; China had a reported 254 million people aged 60 or above, the normal retirement-benefits age for men.”The working aged population has peaked and is now declining and retirees are growing rapidly, so the ratio of workers to retirees is becoming less favorable. But the ratio is still greater than 1,” said David Dollar, an expert on the Chinese population who is a Brookings Institution senior fellow.

The Proud Boys exchange

  • Biden said:
“You may remember in one of my debates with the former President, I asked him to condemn the Proud Boys. He wouldn’t do it. He said, ‘Stand by. Stand ready.’ Or whatever the phrasing exactly was.”
  • Not true: After debate moderator Chris Wallace asked Trump if he was willing to condemn white supremacists and militia groups, and Biden interjected to mention the Proud Boys in particular, Trump said:
“Proud Boys, stand back and stand by.”

Q Mr. President, can you explain what you meant last night when you said that the Proud Boys should “stand back and stand by”?

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know who the Proud Boys are. I mean, you’ll have to give me a definition, because I really don’t know who they are. I can only say they have to stand down, let law enforcement do their work. Law enforcement will do the work more and more. As people see how bad this radical, liberal, Democrat movement is and how weak — the law enforcement is going to come back stronger and stronger.

But again, I don’t know who Proud Boys are. But whoever they are, they have to stand down. Let law enforcement do their work.

Q So, Mr. President, did you misspeak when you said “stand by”? That’s my — my first question. When you said —

THE PRESIDENT: Just “stand by.” Look, law enforcement will do their work. They’re going to stand down. They have to stand down. Everybody — they have to stand — whatever group you’re talking about, let law enforcement do the work.

Now, Antifa is a real problem, because the problem is on the left and Biden refuses to talk about it. He refuses to issue the words “law and order.” And you saw that last night when he choked up. He can’t say the words because he’ll lose the rest of the left. So he’s got to condemn Antifa. Antifa is a very bad group.

  • Then, in an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, Trump explicitly condemned the group:

“I’ve said it many times, let me be clear again, I condemn the KKK [Ku Klux Klan]. I condemn all white supremacists. I condemn the Proud Boys.

“I don’t know much about the Proud Boys, almost nothing, but I condemn that.”


February 17 – Biden lies when he says there was no vaccine when he took office

  • President Joe Biden falsely stated during the two hall meeting organized by CNN on Tuesday evening that his administration had no vaccine when he took office.

“We didn’t have a vaccine when we came into office.”

 

Fact check: Biden is a liar.


February 13 – Biden promises to “follow the science” against the pandemic, then follows the unions… against the science

  • The Biden administration has made it a point of pride to have science drive their pandemic response after the Trump administration was accused to downplay the virus and clashed with its own health experts (when they abused their position to meddle in subjects that are not in their area of expertise).
  • During his campaign, Joe Biden regularly accused President Trump of not “following the science” and the recommendations of scientists in the fight against the Chinese coronavirus.

“We will let the science do the talking,” Biden repeated in his speech on Tuesday, January 26, 2021, about his administration’s approach to the pandemic.

  • And Biden did just the opposite. Scientists immediately noticed that Biden did not keep its promise to put science first in pandemic policy.Under pressure from teachers’ unions, the White House distanced itself from Rochelle Walensky, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), who said that “schools can safely reopen without vaccinating teachers”.White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Dr. Rochelle Walensky was speaking “in a personal capacity” – a lie – because she made her statement at a White House briefing for reporters.

    Biden said [he] wouldn’t interfere with scientists, but that’s what this walk back is,” Joseph Allen, associate professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said over Twitter. “Undermining new CDC Director 3 weeks in is not a good look.”

 

  • Chris Christie also said: “Biden should follow the science, not teachers.”

Restoring the morale of diplomats: a big missed opportunity

  •  During his first visit to the State Department as president on February 4, Biden attempted to restore American diplomatic and moral leadership, who had often been viewed with suspicion by Trump’s White House.

“You are at the center of everything I intend to do,” he told them before his keynote address. “You are the heart of it. We will rebuild our alliances.

  • And instead, Biden filled the senior administration positions with former Obama State Department officials who had gone into the private sector – leaving out the current administration officials, whom he had just told he was “at the center of everything he intends to do,” blocking them from promotion internally.

“It was a major missed opportunity,” said Brett Bruen, a member of the Obama administration’s National Security Council. adding that “the Biden administration was filling senior ranks with former State Department officials returning from the private sector — rather than promoting from within.”

  • Moreover, his fine speech was deemed hollow. Policy specifics were few. Instead, Biden laid out how getting the process right would translate into action. Mr. Biden showed that he is more focused on getting the right diplomatic processes than on concrete results, a return to traditional diplomacy.

“This administration is going to empower you to do your jobs, not target or politicize,” he told diplomats, in a slightly veiled jab at Trump. “We want a rigorous debate that brings all perspectives and makes room for dissent. That’s how we’ll get the best possible policy outcomes.”

  • There were few surprises in the speech, said Dominic Tierney, professor of political science at Swarthmore College :

“One of the hallmarks of the Biden doctrine is the clarity on the means of foreign policy as much as the ends,” he said. “So although there wasn’t a huge amount of precision on exactly what he was going to do about Russia and so on, there was clarity on the process — that we’re going to work with allies.”

  • Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy agrees:

“The Biden approach certainly can’t be characterized as ‘America first,’” said Gaffney before Biden’s speech. “If this president puts America last, our national decline will be his lasting legacy.”


February 11 – Biden’s promise to reopen schools meets with a messy reality

  • During the campaign, President Joe Biden pledged to reopen most American schools within his first 100 days in officeWe have just learned that this promise was made of thin air, without any intention of keeping it.On Tuesday, February 9, when asked what Biden meant by “open schools,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki  said Biden was committed “to ensuring schools are open five days a week”For the record, Catholic schools have been reopened since September. It is true that their operating costs are three to four times less than public schools, and their results are four to five times better.

February 5th – Biden lies again, telling a false war story that he was shot at in Baghdad

  • Joe Biden continues to lie about his past. He has repeated a story, which has been disproved by the fact checkers, that he was shot while he was in a conflict zone.In a 2007 debate, Biden claimed that he was targeted in Baghdad’s Green Zone. He was avait dû se rétracter his statement after receiving criticism from veterans. But, either because he is out of his mind, or because he is a serial liar and is not used to being called by the media, he just did it again.Biden reiterated his lie when he spoke to State Department employees on Thursday :

 

“You have great personal courage. I was with some of you when we were shot,” Biden told a group of diplomatic assistants in Washington.

  • Patrick Campbell, then legislative director of the Veterans of America for Iraq and Afghanistan, told  The Hill at the time :

“Veterans don’t like it when people mischaracterize their service, people who overstate what happens to them,” he said. “We have names for them.”


On February 3rd, Biden repeats the lie about the “kids in cages” under President Trump

  • Joe Biden lied again about the accusation that Trump put illegal migrant children in cages. This accusation has been dbunked a multitude of times by all the fact checkers – which are left-wing. It was under Obama that these cages were built and it was under Obama that these children were locked in cages.
  • Biden said, when signing an executive order :

“We’re going to work to undo the moral and national shame of the previous administration that literally, not figuratively, ripped children from the arms of their families.”

The following photo, which has been widely circulated to prove that Obama, not Trump, built the cages, shows Jeb Johnson, Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary, visiting the border detention centers.

 


February 3 – the $2,000 stimulus cheque became $1,400.

  • On January 4, Biden told the public during a speech in Atlanta that if the Democrats regained control of the Senate by winning Georgia the next day, a $2,000 stimulus check would be mailed to the American people as soon as possible.

“Their election will put an end to the block in Washington — that $2,000 … would go out the door immediately, to help people who are in real trouble”.

  • On January 10, Joe Biden reiterated that $600 stimulus checks proposed by Congress are too little money.

 

  • By January 30, Biden broke his promise to voters who may have been expecting $2,000 checks. The $2,000 had melted under the sun when the Democratic Party announced in a tweet that the president would send only $1,400.

@POTUS will build on the $600 down payment provided by Congress last year, sending an additional $1,400 to households across America, totaling direct payments to $2,000 per person.

 

  • Biden’s lie was to consider the $600 in aid voted in December as a down payment. He never said, on January 4 in his speech, that he would send $1,400, but $2,000. By playing with words, he misled the public.

February 1 – Biden jabs that foreign company contracts went up 30% under Trump

“Under the previous administration, the federal government contracts awarded directly to foreign companies went up 30 percent. That is going to change on our watch” said President Biden, in remarks during the signing of an executive order on U.S. manufacturing, Jan. 25, 2021.

  • On January 27, 2021, Biden made this comment at a “Made in America” ceremony to announce new rules to encourage federal agencies to buy more U.S.-made products.In fact, Biden misled the Americans who listened to him. So much that he received a three Pinochios from The Washington Post!SAM.gov’s Fact Checker revealed an increase of only 8.4% in spending on foreign contracts between FY 2017 and FY 2020. Overall, this represents a three-year average annual growth rate of 3%, far from the 30% announced by Biden.The consequence of this lie is that he is going to be able to dramatically increase spending with foreign entities (guess which one, it’s a communist country), while at the same time making it look like he’s lowering it.

January 29th – “those who govern by decree are dictators”

      • There are “Things you can’t do by executive order unless you’re a dictator. We’re a democracy. We need consensus”, said Biden in October.
      • He has now signed more executive orders than any president in his first week.

January 26 – Biden closes borders after calling Trump “xenophobic”

      • On February 2, 2020, after Donald Trump’s decision to ban flights from China, Joe Biden accused him of being “hysterical and xenophobic”:

We are in the midst of a crisis with the coronavirus. We need to lead the way with science — not Donald Trump’s record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering. He is the worst possible person to lead our country through a global health emergency.

 

      • And what is Biden doing on Monday, January 25th? Same as Trump (except that no media calls him xenophobic). US President Joe Biden maintained Monday travel restrictions on dozens of countries due to health concerns amid the COVID-19 pandemic, issuing an executive order as the world discovers new coronavirus variants.Biden’s widely-expected order leaves in place restrictions on travel from the 26- country Schengen Zone in Europe, as well as the UK, Ireland, and Brazil, while adding South Africa. Former US President Donald Trump had moved to lift the Europe and Brazil bans on his second to last full day in office.

 


January 24 – Biden Promises to Solve the Pandemic …

      • On October 23rd, 10 days before the elections, Biden declared: “I am going to shut down the virus, not the country”.

      • But on January 21st, he said: “There is nothing we can do to change the trajectory of the pandemic in next months”

      • During his inauguration speech, Biden repeatedly stated that he wants to unify the nation. He is lying.If he wanted to unify the nation, he would have publicly asked Congress not to pursue Trump’s impeachment. He would have started a process that would benefit the country by appeasing the 75 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump. And I would have applauded his decision.
      • Last August, Biden said, “I will not ban fracking. Let me say it again. I will not ban fracking, no matter how many times Donald Trump lies about me.

      • Tuesday night, White House press secretary Jen Psaki confirmed that President Biden will ban new fracking on federal lands: “President Biden promised to end all new oil and gas leases on federal lands when he was a candidate,” she said.

      • Biden signed an executive order requiring masks on federal property… and he broke his own mask mandate on first day of his presidency, at the Lincoln Memorial, where he was seen without a mask : Edit. All wore masks but Joe


11
Share
Categories
Biden Pandemic Opinion Politics Reprints from others.

Joe Biden ‘Will Always Tell You The Truth’ (Except About COVID Vaccine, Economy, Border Crisis …)

Hits: 38

Joe Biden ‘Will Always Tell You The Truth’ (Except About COVID Vaccine, Economy, Border Crisis …). So what has he lied about?

His inability to tell the truth about the COVID-19 vaccine, the economic rebound already underway, or the border crisis. Biden won’t tell the truth about the first two because he’d have to credit President Donald Trump. And he won’t tell the truth about the border crisis because he himself is entirely to blame for it.

Biden has repeatedly claimed that when he got to the White House, there was no plan in place to distribute the vaccine and that the credit for the widespread distribution all belongs to him. In his prime-time address earlier this month, for example, Biden said that “I have as president of the United States put us on a war footing to get the job done. Sounds like hyperbole, but I mean it, a war footing. Thank God we’re making some real progress now.”

But the former head of Operation Warp Speed, the program created by Trump to speed development and production of COVID-19 vaccines, told NBC’s “Face the Nation” over the weekend that “90% of what is happening now is the plan that we had.”

How about how all the economists support his 1.9 trillion fiasco?

But as the Cato Institute’s David Boaz points out, “major economists from left, right, and center (are) opposing the plan as proposed and passed.”

Like Greg Mankiw, chief economic adviser to President George W. Bush. And Olivier Blanchard, former chief economist of the IMF. Michael Strain of the American Enterprise Institute. David Henderson and John Cochrane of the Hoover Institution. Constance Hunter, chief economist at KPMG, and the vast majority of business economists. Tyler Cowen of George Mason University. Nobel laureate Eugene Fama. Even Jason Furman, former chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, while saying he would support the plan on a ‘yes or no’ vote, warned that it risked triggering inflation and should be better designed.

And of course we could write a book on what’s happening on the border.

Biden won’t be held to account for his failure to live up to that bold promise about being a truthteller. The mainstream media has, after all, already decided that Biden is as honest as the day is long, and they aren’t about to let anything like his blatant falsehoods get in the way of that narrative.

What say you?

15
Share
Share
Share
Any threat especially against law enforcement or politicians will get you banned.