This is why they keep on indicting Trump. Latest Poll. Trump Beats Biden in Electoral Landslide. Ever wonder why the Progressives don’t want Trump running again? The latest poll sheds some light.
But here’s the really big news. In the key battleground states Trump leads Biden 49% to 41%.
If the election was today, Trump would defeat Biden in an electoral landslide.
Our poll – and other national surveys are confirming a huge turnaround for Trump.
Remember, Donald Trump never won the popular vote in the 2016 and 2020 national popular vote, and almost all polls had him losing the popular vote in both elections. But now our poll and others show him leading.
Who gets the jab. Not I. Just putting this out there. There’s much that I disagree with here, but there are some good points. Overall the article was trying to be fair, but only doctors from the left were included. I’ll highlight some of the good points.
by Kristina Fiore, Director of Enterprise & Investigative Reporting, MedPage Today.
While the FDA and CDC have yet to weigh in on fall COVID boostersopens in a new tab or window, experts in infectious disease and public health are already discussing who should get them, and who may not need to.
High-risk groups get a resounding “yes” — but when it comes to younger, healthy adults, the answer is less clear.
There’s wide agreement that older adults will receive a hearty recommendation to receive the booster, which targets the XBB.1.5 strainopens in a new tab or window, said William Schaffner, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee and a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).
The same goes for people younger than 65 who have chronic conditions, are immunocompromised, or who are pregnant, he said.
“Now for adults who are otherwise healthy and younger than 65, and young adults, adolescents, and children, that’s all going to be debated,” Schaffner noted, anticipating how discussions at CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will go when the group meets on September 12opens in a new tab or window. “Whether they receive a routine recommendation or one for shared clinical decision making … I think there will be some brisk discussion about that.”
Aaron Glatt, MD, of Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, New York, who is also a spokesperson for IDSA, said that people “who have been vaccinated, who are healthy, who are younger, are probably not the first people who should be getting in line to get another COVID booster, especially if they’ve had one.”
In addition, someone who’s recently had COVID probably doesn’t need a booster, he added.
Glatt was a strong advocate for shared decision making when it comes to COVID boosters. He gave the example of a 62-year-old who was boosted 6 months ago and is in good health. “I think for that group, there’s more leeway to say, let’s individualize the decision.”
“The good news is that you’ve had the full primary series of the vaccine and a bivalent booster, or you were vaccinated and infected, you have substantial protection against getting very sick and dying,” Benjamin told MedPage Today. “But the older you are, the greater your risk of getting very sick and dying.”
Paul Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said the goal of the vaccine has always been to prevent serious illness, and on that basis, the highest-risk groups who should be candidates for vaccination include the elderly, especially people over 75; people with multiple chronic conditions; pregnant people; and the immune compromised.
“These four groups will get the most benefit,” Offit said. “We’re just not going to prevent mild disease for a short-incubation-period mucosal infection for any reasonable amount of time.”
Neither Schaffner, Glatt, nor Offit thought children should be strongly recommended to get a COVID booster. Schaffner noted that in young children, Omicron has been less likely to cause severe disease. In addition, he said, doctors are seeing less multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) due to COVID.
“Virtually every child has been exposed to COVID through infection or vaccination or both, so the population immunity, children included, is pretty high,” Schaffner said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the recommendations for these younger healthy populations are in the shared clinical decision-making category.”
“Why does a healthy 12-year-old with three doses of vaccine need another dose?” Offit said. “There would have to be protection against severe disease and I just don’t see that evidence.”
Glatt noted that “an immunocompromised, very sick child is a different story.” But if the child is healthy, “you’d really have to show me [good data] that there’s a reason to [boost].”
Even the U.K. is focusing its booster recommendations on older and more vulnerable people. Its Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) recommendedopens in a new tab or window offering vaccines to those at high risk of serious disease, including adults ages 65 and up, people with chronic conditions, and people who work in care homes for older adults.
Indeed, that recommendation makes sense from a population health perspective that asks who would benefit most from this intervention, said Bob Wachter, MD, of the University of California San Francisco.
But he believes even young people can get an incremental benefit from fall boosters. Wachter, whose wife has long COVID and who himself experienced a trip to the hospital because of COVID — not from respiratory distress, but from a related fallopens in a new tab or window — said he would recommend a booster to his 30-year-old children because the benefits outweigh the minimal risks.
Even though people in this age group have a low baseline risk of hospitalization from the disease, a booster would reduce that risk even further, he said. It might also help lower their risk of long COVID, he added.
“I start from the baseline that this is a very safe intervention, and there is potential benefit in almost everybody, including relatively young and healthy people,” Wachter said. “But to the question of who’s most likely to benefit, clearly those are the people at higher risk of bad outcomes.”
He added that this year’s fall booster will probably not be very popular, “because not a lot of people got it when the risk was higher and the public attention on COVID was greater.”
“It’s pretty clear that the national consciousness is over it,” he said. “If you’re a healthy 40-year-old, you’re not making a crazy choice not to get boosted.”
United States Senator Joseph Biden (Democrat of Delaware), right, Chairman, US Senate Judiciary Committee, and US Senator Strom Thurmond (Republican of South Carolina), left, Ranking Member, listen to testimony during the hearing to confirm Judge Clarence Thomas as Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court in the US Senate Caucus Room in Washington, DC on September 10, 1991.
Credit: Arnie Sachs / CNP
Views: 24
Biden Falsely Claims to Have Convinced Strom Thurmond to Vote for the Civil Rights Act.
President Joe Biden made a false claim on Monday when he said that he “literally” convinced former Dixiecrat Sen. Strom Thurmond (SC) to vote for the Civil Rights Act.
The president made his outlandish claim while speaking on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the civil rights legal group, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
“Pause for just a moment. I thought things had changed. I was able to literally, not figuratively, talk Strom Thurmond into voting for the Civil Rights Act before he died, and I thought, ‘Well maybe there’s real progress,’ But hate never dies. It just hides, it hides under the rocks,” he said.
Strom Thurmond, who switched to the Republican Party after years as a Democrat, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 before Joe Biden had entered politics, being that he was just 21 years old at the time. Strom Thurmond also died in 2003, many decades after the passing of civil rights.
Thurmond not only voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he also holds the record for the longest-ever filibuster opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
According to Fox News, a White House spokesperson later said the president was “instrumental in getting Thurmond’s vote for the Voting Rights Act, in 1980.”
Whatever the president meant, it represents yet another serious gaffe in his long string of serious gaffes. For instance, he has often publicly said that his son Beau died in Iraq even though he died of brain cancer after having previously served in Iraq. As Breitbart News reported, the president made a similar claim in 2022 while giving a speech in Colorado to designate Camp Hale as a national monument. He had been discussing the many sacrifices that soldiers make before citing his son Beau as an example.
“I say this as a father of a man who won the Bronze Star, the conspicuous service medal, and lost his life in Iraq,” Biden said.
The following month, the president once again claimed that Iraq was “where my son died.”
In May of this year, the president used the backdrop of a conversation with U.S. servicemen to once again falsely claim Beau died in the Iraq War. The president reportedly made his claim during a visit with troops at Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni in Japan.
“My son was a major in the U.S. Army. We lost him in Iraq,” he reportedly said.
According to the New York Post, the traveling press corps were “kept far enough away that the remarks were inaudible.”
“The White House press office did not put out an official transcript, almost allowing the error to escape public notice,” according to the Post.
In late September 2022, the president appeared to call out for now-deceased Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-IN) when giving a speech at a White House event.
“Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie?” Biden asked.
“I didn’t think she was going to be here,” he added.
The National Archives and Records Administration acknowledged it has about 5,400 emails that potentially show President Joe Biden hid behind phony names while vice president, the agency confirms.
Getty Images
Views: 17
National Archives Has 5,400 Biden Emails With Pseudonyms.
By Jeffrey Rodack
The National Archives and Records Administration acknowledged it has about 5,400 emails that potentially show President Joe Biden hid behind phony names while vice president, the New York Post is reporting.
The existence of the records was confirmed by the NARA and came in response to a June 2022 Freedom of Information Act request by the Southeastern Legal Foundation.
Specifically, the SLF, a nonprofit constitutional legal group, requested emails relating to the accounts of Robin Ware, Robert L. Peters, and JRB Ware — pseudonyms Joe Biden was known to use in the White House during his time as vice president under Barack Obama, the Post said.
The legal foundation sued the NARA for the release of the records on Monday. The group claims the records could show Joe Biden may have provided government information to his son, Hunter Biden.
Kimberly Hermann, SLF general counsel, said in a statement: “All too often, public officials abuse their power by using it for their personal or political benefit. When they do, many seek to hide it. The only way to preserve governmental integrity is for NARA to release Joe Biden’s nearly 5,400 emails to SLF and thus the public. The American public deserves to know what is in them.”
Stephannie Oriabure, director of NARA’s archival operations division, wrote the SLF on June 24, 2022, saying: “We have performed a search of our collection for vice presidential records related to your [June 9, 2022] request and have identified approximately 5,138 email messages, 25 electronic files and 200 pages of potentially responsive records that must be processed in order to respond to your request,” according to the lawsuit.
The SLF said none of the emails or documents have been turned over to the group.
On Aug. 17, Rep. James Comer, House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chair, demanded that NARA release records from Joe Biden’s years as vice president from times that overlapped with the activities of his son’s activities in Ukraine, particularly emails that were signed with the pseudonyms “Robert Peters,” “Robin Ware,” and “JRB Ware.”
Comer, R-Ky., in a letter to NARA Archivist Colleen Shogan, also requested that all unredacted documents and communications in which Hunter Biden, Eric Schwerin, or Devon Archer are copied; and for all drafts of a speech Joe Biden delivered to the Ukrainian Rada, or parliament, in December 2015.
GAO to Probe Decision to Keep Space Command in Colorado. Two separate commissions were done and both said that the Space Command should be moved from Colorado. I believe from a choice of five locations the Colorado location was picked either fourth or fifth.
But Biden says that the Space Command stays where it is. rejecting the best location. Now the GAO is going to investigate Biden’s decision.
The Government Accountability Office will investigate the White House’s choice not to move the headquarters for U.S. Space Command from Colorado to Alabama as decided by the previous administration.
In total, the researchers looked at 78 studies involving more than a million people across the world. Results indicated that surgical masks reduced the risk of catching 'Covid or a flu-like illness' by just five percent - a figure so low it may not be statistically significant
Views: 20
Worth Posting again. Masks really don’t work that well.
Just in case you missed it, we did a similar story several months back. With the latest hysteria that’s going on out there with the fanatics about the alleged resurgence of COVID, I thought it best to remind folks on masking up. This from the Cochrane Institute.
Data collection and analysis
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.
Main results
We included 11 new RCTs and cluster‐RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID‐19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID‐19 pandemic.
Many studies were conducted during non‐epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID‐19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high‐income countries; crowded inner city settings in low‐income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high‐income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies.
The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster‐RCTs was mostly high or unclear.
Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks
We included 12 trials (10 cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low‐certainty evidence).
An investigative report from the NY Post discovered that Jack Smith’s office met with staffers for President Joe Biden just weeks before charging former President Donald Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents.
Legal experts have argued there is no legitimate purpose for these meetings to occur during an active investigation into President Biden’s likely 2024 Republican opponent.
Smith’s criminal indictment against Trump has been widely condemned as election interference and political weaponization of the U.S. justice system.
“Jay Bratt, who joined the special counsel team in November 2022, shortly after it was formed, took a meeting in the White House on March 31, 2023, with Caroline Saba, deputy chief of staff for the White House counsel’s office, White House visitor logs show,” the report found.
“They were joined in the 10 a.m. meeting by Danielle Ray, an FBI agent in the Washington field office,” the report added.
Trump was indicted nine weeks later on June 8, 2023.
The White House logs offer no information about what Biden’s office discussed with Smith’s team at the meetings.
The White House logs offer no information about what Biden’s office discussed with Smith’s team at the meetings.
“There is no legitimate purpose for a line [DOJ] guy to be meeting with the White House except if it’s coordinated by the highest levels,” said former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Giuliani says the White House and special counsel were coordinating the prosecution of Trump.
“You’re damn right I do,” he said in response to whether Smith’s office was colluding behind closed doors.
“What’s happening is they have trashed every ethical rule that exists and they have created a state police. It is a Biden state prosecutor and a Biden state police,” he continued.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said, “There is no reason why the Justice Department should not be able to confirm whether this meeting was related to the ongoing investigation or concerns some other matter,” he said.
Never forget. The killing of 13 American Military Personal at the hands of the Biden Administration. It’s been two years now that 13 American soldiers and almost 200 civilians died because of Joe Biden.
Bragging about his success in Afghanistan. FOX Photo.
Remember that the suicide bomber was released from Bagram Air Base prison. If we had not abandoned that airbase the deaths would not have happened. And how about the testimony from our sniper?
Sgt. Tyler Vargas-Andrews, a U.S. Marine Corps sniper who served in Afghanistan during the surrender to the Taliban forces, testified before Congress earlier this year. Vargas told Congress that he was denied permission to shoot the suicide bomber in Afghanistan.
Over the communication network we passed that there was a potential threat and an ID attack imminent. This was as serious as it could get. I requested engagement authority while my team leader was ready on the M110 semiautomatic sniper system. The response: Leadership did not have the engagement authority for us. Do not engage. I requested for the battalion commander, lieutenant Colonel Brad Whited, to come to the tower to see what we did. Wile we waited for him psychological operations individuals came to our tower immediately and confirmed the suspect met the suicide bomber description.
He eventually arrived, and we showed him our evidence, the photos we had of the two men. We reassured him of the ease of fire on the suicide bomber. Pointedly, we asked him for engagement authority and permission. We asked him if we could shoot. Our battalion commander said, and I quote, “I don’t know,” end quote. Myself and my team leader asked very harshly, “Well, who does? Because this is your responsibility, sir.”
He again replied he did not know, but would find out. We received no update and never got our answer. Eventually, the individual disappeared. To this day, we believe he was a suicide bomber. We made everyone on the ground aware operations had briefly halted, but then started again. Plain and simple, we were ignored. Our expertise was disregarded. No one was held accountable for our safety.
Anti-imperialist website Mint Press News has had its TikTok account deleted without warning or explanation. This comes after it had previously between de-platformed from PayPal and had its money withheld, with apparent involvement from the US and British governments.
So far I’ve heard crickets from the so-called “left” and from the “free speech absolutists” on the right about this TikTok ban. It’s incredibly depressing that nobody gives a shit about free speech anymore, unless it means free speech for people who think exactly like them.
You shouldn’t have to agree with Mint Press News on any issue to understand how wrong this is. In a free society, everyone gets the opportunity to speak and you get to decide what you do and do not agree with. If people are taking it upon themselves to decide on your behalf, you should be concerned.
As Christopher Hitchens famously said:
“To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful, or who is the harmful speaker? Or to determine in advance what are the harmful consequences going to be, that we know enough about in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job? To whom are you going to award the task of being the censor?
“To whom you would give the job of deciding for you? Relieve you from the responsibility of hearing what you might have to hear? Do you know anyone? Hands up, do you know anyone to whom you’d give this job? Does anyone have a nominee?”
Imagine being such a child, you think someone should be assigned the role of deciding what information you are and are not exposed to. Imagine thinking the best people to decide are the people who jailed Julian Assange for exposing their war crimes. Imagine accepting that war criminals should be your censors.
If I achieve one thing with my insignificant blog, it’s to remind my readers just how important free speech is (something we used to understand) and how you only empower the establishment when you passively accept their censoring.
Now I don’t know about you, but the moment the government tells me I’m not allowed to read something, that’s exactly what I’m going to read because I want to know what they’re hiding from me.
You might argue a TikTok ban is not government censorship, it’s a private company imposing its rules, but in the case of the Censorship Industrial Complex, the government and corporations go hand in hand. They are parts of the same establishment.
If you doubt this, just look at the Twitter files and the Facebook files which show how the US government pressured these companies to censor information it acknowledged was true.
Do you need to be protected from the truth now? I don’t know about you, but I’m more concerned about the lies of the government, and there is no legal obligation for the government to tell the truth. There are no consequences when they lie. It’s okay for them to lie and it’s not okay for us to tell the truth. Don’t you love living in a free society?
Left wing voices are being picked off, and it’s not just the so-called “hard left” who are being targeted, it’s the “soft left” too.
Dr Julia Grace Patterson, who is not remotely hard left by any stretch of the imagination, has pointed out how much harder it is for progressives to reach their audience now. Same goes for all of us on the left.
“Why is it getting harder and harder for progressive campaigners to speak to people on Twitter? Many of us are losing followers or some of our posts aren’t visible.”
Dr Patterson is the founder of Every Doctor, an organisation founded to fight NHS privatisation, and therefore an enemy of both Labour and the Tories. You don’t have to be one of those scary “hard left” types who are accused of supporting dictators in order to become a target. You just have to give a shit.
We’re being shadow-banned for demanding better and pointing out inconvenient facts. There is no room for people who want positive change on social media. The only positivity that’s allowed is the positivity where you pretend everything’s more or less fine.
Neoliberals are ensuring their critics are disappearing from the internet because they’re losing the argument and the establishment will never accept losing the argument. Once it feels the narrative is slipping from its grasp, it will resort to authoritarian measures to regain control.
If you use Substack Notes, you might be familiar with CJ Hopkins, a satirist who was recently prosecuted in Germany for using a swastika on his book cover. The swastika was not used to promote nazism as you might assume, it was used to mock the government on the cover of his satirical book.
While it’s illegal to use the swastika in Germany to promote nazism, there are many books in Germany with swastikas on their covers. This is because it’s fine to use swastikas when you’re educating people or criticising nazism. It’s just not fine when you’re comparing government officials to nazis. If you were to apply this standard in the US, just think how many Biden supporters would go to jail for comparing Republicans to nazis.
I understand Hopkins has been given the option of paying a €3,600 fine or spending 60 days in prison for political satire. If you’re not concerned about this, I’m afraid you are your own worst enemy.
The Censorship Industrial Complex has sprung up to ensure we don’t see political change across the western world. The billionaires must remain in control, the mass privatisation (looting) must continue, and the so-called left-wing parties must lower the public’s expectations until we accept staying poor forever. It’s the faux left’s role to convince the public it’s unrealistic to want better than austerity. Sir Keir Starmer would be a perfect example of this.
The neoliberal argument relies on easily disprovable lies and every time an anti-establishment voice is censored, it makes neoliberal lies harder to challenge.
A problem on the left is that if someone doesn’t meet our purity test, we don’t speak out. There is this weird thing where unless we’re in full agreement with someone, we accept that censoring them is fine, or at least not serious enough for us to care. This mindset is exactly what is enabling us to be picked off.
I have highlighted three individuals/organisations in this article and guess what? I don’t agree with them on some issues, but that doesn’t matter! It wouldn’t matter if I agreed with them on zero issues. In a free society, everyone has the right to speak, even the people you dislike.
You should always be more concerned about people doing the silencing than you are about the people speaking. History shows us the censors are never on our side.
Loretta Mester, president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, during a Bloomberg Television interview at the Jackson Hole economic symposium in Moran, Wyoming, US, on Friday, Aug. 26, 2022. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell signaled the US central bank is likely to keep raising interest rates and leave them elevated for a while to stamp out inflation, and he pushed back against any idea that the Fed would soon reverse course. Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Views: 13
Inflation Staying Above 2% ‘Well Beyond 2025’ Is ‘in the Cards Now in Terms of the Forecast.
During an interview with Bloomberg on Friday, Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank President Loretta Mester stated that she doesn’t want to entertain inflation remaining above 2% for longer than needed due to under-tightening and she wouldn’t want to see the timeline for inflation getting back to 2% “pushed out well beyond 2025, which is kind of in the cards now in terms of the forecast.”
Mester said, “We’re going to get more data in before September, of course. But when you think about sort of what has changed between June and now, we have a bit stronger growth than a lot of us had thought. We have gotten inflation down. But, as the chair said, two months’ data is not enough to be convinced that it’s coming down. And, then we have higher long-term rates, which is going to put some downward pressure on inflation. That said, in my view, I think that really under-tightening would be a worse mistake than over-tightening a little bit, because we can course-correct that. Under-tightening means that inflation could remain higher for longer than 2% for a little bit longer. And I don’t think that’s something I would want to entertain. The way I think about it is, I look at sort of our time path for getting inflation back to 2%, I wouldn’t want to see that pushed out well beyond 2025, which is kind of in the cards now in terms of the forecast. So, I’m going to be very cognizant of that when I put in my new forecast for the next meeting.”
162
