Category: How sick is this?

Categories
Child Abuse Corruption Education How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!)

Outrage! Young Girl Forced Into Public Apology and Given Cruel Restriction After A BLM Poster She Made Angers Woke School

Views: 85

Looks like the “Golden State” is actually Iron Pyrite.

In a school discrimination case that could set a precedent for beleaguered parents across the country frustrated with Critical Race Theory-related issues in the classroom, a California woman is set to file suit against her child’s school district after her 7-year-old daughter was punished and humiliated for drawing a Black Lives Matter picture for her friends that also included the sentiment that “any lives” matter. In addition, the school never informed her about the incident or the punishment; she only learned about it after another parent mentioned it to her a year later.

At the time of the incident, Black Lives Matter rhetoric could be seen and heard everywhere, from the news to professional sports and even in the classroom. Jane, who is white, decided to draw a picture of her friends, who spanned the racial diaspora at the diverse elementary school that offers a unique “two-way language immersion” program in Spanish/English.

Chelsea Boyle’s daughter was a first-grader at Viejo Elementary School in Mission Viejo, CA, an Orange County suburb nestled about halfway between Los Angeles and San Diego.  At the time of the incident, Black Lives Matter rhetoric could be seen and heard everywhere, from the news to professional sports and even in the classroom. Jane, who is white, decided to draw a picture of her friends, who spanned the racial diaspora at the diverse elementary school that offers a unique “two-way language immersion” program in Spanish/English.

The picture was meant to represent her closest friends of all different races, and in her uneven, first-grader scrawl, she wrote “Black Lives mater [sic]” at the top, followed by another sentiment, “any lives.” The picture went home with one of Jane’s friends.

The school never informed her about the incident or the punishment; she only learned about it after another parent mentioned it to her a year later.

Boyle said Jesus Becerra, the principal of Viejo Elementary School in Mission Viejo, forced the girl, then in the first grade, to make a public apology. She had to deliver the apology on the playground in front of her fellow students and school staff. To drive home the point that deviation from prescribed language about race is not allowed, the child was “benched” as punishment, meaning she had her recess time revoked and was forced to sit on a bench while her classmates played during their free time.

In an even more infuriating turn of events, Boyle says she wasn’t notified of the incident by school officials. It was not until nearly a year later, in March of 2022, that she heard about the issue from someone who was a mutual friend of both Boyle and the offended family.

All of this had happened without her knowledge, even though Boyle was heavily involved in school activities and volunteered hundreds of hours in the classroom and for school events. She had been kept in the dark, and her daughter, not fully understanding what had happened or what she had done wrong, had kept the incident to herself.

It wasn’t “all lives matter,” it was “any life.” It was something she came up on her own. She just didn’t understand it. It was completely innocent, and that broke my heart.

Boyle said she was shocked to learn what had happened.

My immediate reaction is just…I feel like I got hit by a bus, but I didn’t understand it. And I thought, oh, you know, my daughter has just been discriminated against. And I didn’t even want to contact a lawyer, but I just didn’t know what had happened to us.

When she talked to her daughter, it became clear that she had no idea why she had been punished for the picture. Boyle says her family does not engage in discussions about specific Black Lives Matter issues or other political topics at the moment because her family is still so young. She says her daughter came up with the picture and phrasing on her own, with perfectly innocent intentions, so not only did the punishment seem unwarranted to Boyle, it seemed cruel.

And then when I talked to my daughter — I think she said it was so sad. And and I said, “Well, what did the principal say to you?” and [she said] “I can’t draw pictures anymore. And I can’t write those words.” And I said, “Why did you write [those words]?”

I don’t teach [about] Black Lives Matter, All Lives Matter, [or] anything in my house because I think my children are too young [for politics]. My children see color as a color, as a description. I am trying to raise them the way the world should be, not the way it is. That’s how I’m trying to make my personal change. [H]er best friend is brown — not black, but brown — and she didn’t understand why she didn’t matter, why her friend didn’t matter. She has another friend that is Japanese; she doesn’t understand.

It wasn’t “all lives matter,” it was “any life.” It was something she came up on her own. She just didn’t understand it. It was completely innocent, and that broke my heart.

Boyle says the most concerning part of what she felt was an unwarranted punishment was its effect on Jane’s desire to draw. Jane is challenged with ADHD, and drawing has been her biggest and most therapeutic outlet. She had wondered why her artistic 7-year-old had suddenly stopped drawing when previously it was hard to find her without a marker or crayon in her hands. As it turned out, as a part of Jane’s punishment, Principal Becerra allegedly instructed Jane to refrain from drawing any more pictures for her friends at school.

Boyle was heartbroken and immediately reached out to Becerra and other district officials to register her disappointment and try to find some clarity. She says, admittedly she was a bit frenzied.

[I sent] my super angry, all caps email. Within 24 hours, nobody got back to me. So I sent another email, a lot more well-thought-out, took my time, and I said, “Listen, this is what I want. I want a formal apology to me, I want a formal apology to my daughter, and I want a formal apology to this other family, because they didn’t know that you guys didn’t contact me and you made it very uncomfortable for a lot of the parents and students at school, unbeknownst to me. And that’s all I want.”

Haberbush says they essentially told her to “take a hike” and what she was saying was not true.

The Orange County mother said she was hesitant to contact a lawyer but felt strongly that what happened to her daughter was wrong, and the insult was compounded by the terse response from Becerra and relative silence from her school board representatives. Boyle identified one board member, Gila Jones, as responsive and concerned, but in the end, Jones indicated there wasn’t much she or the school board could do in this case.

Interestingly, district disciplinary guidelines provide an apparatus for parents to escalate complaints about disciplinary actions. That apparatus ultimately ends with the authority of the school board.

Not only was Boyle denied the opportunity to lodge her complaints in the timely manner supposedly guaranteed by the official disciplinary procedural guidelines, the school board was not able to provide any resolution either.

Boyle had seen enough. She researched pro-bono civil rights attorneys and found herself connected with The Gavel Project, a Phoenix-based non-profit charity committed to representing civil rights in government overreach cases. From there, CEO and founder Ryan Heath helped her to secure in-state representation by Alexander Haberbush of the LexRex Institute, a “legal and public outreach organization that works to empower private individuals to hold government officials at every level accountable to their sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States and of their various states by informing, persuading, and advocating on behalf of those who have been denied its liberties.”

Haberbush says this is more than a case of one wronged child and her angry mother. It could set a legal precedent for other parents dealing with similar things, creating a legal ripple effect that could have drastic consequences for overreaching public school administrators and districts when it comes to compelled speech. And that is exactly how Haberbush identifies this case…one of compelled speech, which would place the burden of proof on Becerra and the school.

It’s a compelled speech issue; obviously compelled speech is one of the toughest tests that they have to meet, if they want to say that this is valid, “we can do it.” We be believe that there is no way that they can meet that standard and we believe this is an egregious deprivation of her rights and that Chelsea should be vindicated.

He added that he took on the case because he believes Boyle and her daughter were genuinely wronged, and he doesn’t want to see it happen again to anyone else.

She did not call Ryan and did not call my office because she was trying to make a buck. In fact, we will not take clients who are only out to make a buck. What she wanted from the school was an apology, [for them to recognize] they had done wrong, to apologize to her daughter and apologize to her.

Haberbush intimated that while money is not a motivator, his firm does occasionally seek damages and may choose to do so in this case. However, what they really want is a formal apology and a judgment.

Primarily what we want is a judicial determination and recognition that wrongdoing occurred, so that it won’t happen again because nobody should have to go through this.

Boyle hopes that the summer break has given the Viejo Elementary principal some time to relax and ponder the situation.

I’m serious. I don’t want this to happen to my kids. I don’t want it to happen to your kids.

Haberbush says the next step in the process is to file a lawsuit against the district. He feels it is necessary to force the school to respond to his client.

When asked if Boyle had plans to return her daughter to the same school in the fall, the small business owner admitted she did want to send her back but wondered what challenges her family may face as legal avenues are being pursued.

Jesus Becerra could not be reached for comment as of the publication of this article.

Reported first by RedState, as well as The Western Journal.

My advice to Mrs. Boyle would be NOT to send her daughter back to that school. These wokester elitists will increase their harassment of the daughter by several orders of magnitude in retaliation. This IS California, after all, home of Nasty Piglosi and Craven Newscum.

Loading

199
Post Views: 293
Categories
COVID Biden Pandemic Child Abuse Drugs How sick is this? Science

The Fauch lies again: After month-long COVID bout, Fauci claims quad vaxxed status prevented ‘severe’ disease

Views: 30

It’s hard to get my head around the idea that anyone with more than a double digit IQ can still believe anything this man says.

I want to turn your attention to a revealing interview conducted with Dr Fauci this week. It shines a light on his faith-based approach to the mRNA “miracle,” and his overall lack of a data-based thought process regarding his own bout with the virus.

In the interview, Fauci credited getting quad vaxxed with keeping him from having a “much more serious” bout with COVID-19.

A visibly ill Fauci told the interviewer:

“I’m really fortunate that I’ve done very well, and I keep telling people … is that I was vaccinated (with first two doses) and doubly boosted, and I believe that if i did not have that degree of background protection, I would have had a much more serious course. My course was relatively light. Minor symptoms. And right now i am completely without symptoms.”

video
play-sharp-fill

Notably, Fauci did not mention the fact that he took two full rounds of Pfizer’s oral antiviral pill, against the guidance of his own government health agencies. So was it the pills or the vaccines, or maybe even his mask and lockdown advocacy that “saved” him? Fauci did not elaborate.

-After-month-long-COVID-bout-Fauci-claims-quad-vaxxed-status-prevented-‘severe-disease

Fauci’s messaging on the miracle cure continues to change as pharmaceutical companies recommend more and more doses of miracle cure. At first, Fauci claimed the primary series of mRNA shots would effectively immunize people from COVID-19 and work as a sterilizing agent. Then, Fauci claimed that three doses was the optimal regimen. Now, he has endorsed seasonal injections of miracle cure.

Moreover, Fauci’s change in tone is striking from his previous interviews concerning his bout with COVID-19. In late June, while on his second course of the Pfizer bill, Fauci claimed to be feeling “really poorly,” and credited the second course of the pill with reversing his troubling symptoms.

There is no evidence that these shots serve any benefit to children, but the loyal pharmaceutical salesmen stayed on message.

All together, Fauci has claimed to have been sick for almost a whole month, after testing positive in mid June. This is hardly evidence that a quad vaxxed and double antiviral pilled regimen somehow saved Fauci from a worse outcome, as his bout with COVID was much worse than the statistical norm. 

At the end of the interview, Fauci expressed disappointment that his friends at Pfizer and Moderna have only been able to inject a small percentage of the infant and toddler population with the experimental mRNA injections. There is no evidence that these shots serve any benefit to children, but the loyal pharmaceutical salesmen stayed on message.

“We’ve gotta do better on the numbers because we’ve still got a relatively small fraction of those children who are eligible, and we need to get them vaccinated,” said the NIAID’s chief drug pusher.

Sprinkling in the usual evidence-free fear mongering, he added: “Children can get severe disease. There’s no doubt about that.”

The interview ended with Fauci recommending that everyone make sure to get another dose of miracle cure, endorsing Pfizer and Moderna’s latest injection for when it receives another rubber stamp FDA authorization in the fall.

 

Loading

210
Post Views: 264
Categories
How funny is this? How sick is this? Opinion Politics

How Joe Biden is like America’s founding fathers — and yes I’m kidding.

Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Joe Biden (Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images)

Views: 19

I saw the Salon article yesterday and I finally stopped laughing long enough to write this little diddy. Washington was a military leader who led us to victory. Biden led us to the Afghanistan retreat. Jefferson was one of the authors of the Declaration of Independence. Biden was a plagiarizing author.

Now if the author just showed the defeats between the three, and how Washington and Jefferson owned slaves and Joe had KKK friends, I could see common ground. But to compare Joe’s destroying of the Trump economy with some of the great things the founding fathers did? Laughable.

Loading

318
Post Views: 416
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.

Image via Erin Schaff-Pool/Getty Images)

Views: 53

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.

Loading

309
Post Views: 409
Categories
Back Door Power Grab Corruption Crime Faked news How sick is this? Reprints from others. The Courts

Proud Boys Proven INNOCENT in Newly Released VIDEO Hidden from Public! — DOJ Tried to Hide This Evidence! BLOWS UP DOJ and Liz Cheney’s Bogus SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY Charges

Not a "far-right militia", "neo-fascists", or anything the leftists are painting them as. (Check out the Wikipedia entry to see what I'm talking about)

Views: 59

Five of these indicted men currently sit in pre-trial detention. They include Proud Boy Chairman Enrique Tarrio and his pals Joseph Biggs, Ethan Nordean, Dominic Pezzola and Zachary Rehl.

This recorded Zoom meeting was leaked by an Indicted Proud Boy that had viewed it live.

The Department of Justice had confiscated this video from the phone of Proud Boy Chairman Enrique Tarrio and hidden it from the public.

Luckily, these DOJ geniuses did not realize it still lived on a hidden YouTube link or they surely would have forced their minions at YouTube to take it down.

In the video, Proud Boy Chairman Enrique Tarrio said:

“We are never going to be the ones to cross the police barrier, or to cross something in order to get to somebody… We’re always going to be the ones standing back, right? We are always going to be the ones to f**king defend.”

The group then proceeds to discuss how they will defend themselves against Antifa attackers and avoid getting stabbed by not wearing their normal uniforms of black and yellow so they blend in.

They discuss the importance of organization, group leaders and formation. They drill in the importance of staying sober as to stay out of trouble. They pledge to stay away from women and avoid “normies” (non-Proud Boys) so they can march in an actual straight line and avoid losing each other on the day of the march. They discuss the danger of wandering off alone to “take a leak”. They mention how charming they are. They insult a female that irritated them at a past rally. They chat about going to the Dollar Tree store to purchase cutting boards to put in their shirts to act as stab-proof vests in case of an Antifa attack (multiple Proud Boys were stabbed at a rally only a few weeks prior to this meeting by Antifa infiltrators). They talk about “beer tax” and poke fun at each other. They barely mention the Capitol or President Trump.

There is no evidence pointing to a group planning on taking over the government.

Yet, the maniacal prosecution and January 6th Selective Misinformation Committee have literally alluded to a baseless conspiracy theory that a drinking fraternity (the Proud Boys) and Oath Keepers somehow magically assisted President Trump in an “insurrection”. The government, Liz Cheney and Merrick Garland’s DOJ have been planting these seeds in the minds of their minions in the fake news and spreading this misinformation everywhere.

In fact, prosecutors stated on the record that the Proud Boys began planning the Capitol Attack on December 19th, 2020, directly after President Trump tweeted to his followers to come to Washington DC on January 6th.

Yet, this video was taken eleven days after that and shows NO CONSPIRACY TO EVEN ENTER THE CAPITOL.

The Indicted Members of the Proud Boy Drinking Fraternity, now know to the Biden Regime as “Seditious Conspirators”. A new video proves innocence.

“This video should prove once and for all to your liberal and moderate friends what demonic liars these people are,” said Tina Ryan of Citizens Against Political Persecution.

“They conscientiously FRAMED INNOCENT MEN- innocent American Citizens- for political power and gain. This will go down in history as one of the most organized attacks on the American people by their own Government.”

Apparently, a reporter at the New York Times was also able to view the video after the very recent leak. We assume he was very surprised (to say the least) by its contents. Only a few days prior the New York Times had published a hit piece on the Proud Boys, including a video called “How the Proud Boys Breached the Capitol on Jan. 6: Rile Up the Normies.”

“After viewing this new evidence that the government withheld from the media and manipulated in court documents, perhaps this particular journalist realized the media has been misled by the Department of Justice.” said Ryan. “It seems he is fair in this new piece.”

See the blurbs below in italics from Alan Feuer’s New York Times article:

“The meeting, on Dec. 30, 2020, marked the founding of a special new chapter of the Proud Boys called the Ministry of Self-Defense. The team of several dozen trusted members was intended, Mr. Tarrio told his men, to bring a level of order and professionalism to the group’s upcoming march in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, that had, by his own account, been missing at earlier Proud Boys rallies in the city.

Over nearly two hours, Mr. Tarrio and his leadership team — many of whom have since been charged with seditious conspiracy — gave the new recruits a series of directives: Adopt a defensive posture on Jan. 6, they were told. Keep the “normies” — or the normal protesters — away from the Proud Boys’ marching ranks. And obey police lines.

The prosecution has claimed that the Proud Boys began to plan their assault as early as Dec. 19, 2020 — the day that President Donald J. Trump posted a tweet announcing his Jan. 6 rally and saying it would be “wild.” But the video conference shows that, just one week before the event, when Mr. Tarrio and other Proud Boys leaders gathered their team for a meeting, they spent most of their time discussing things like staying away from alcohol and women and taking measures to ensure their own security.

The recorded meeting makes no mention of any planning that might have occurred in the week directly before the Capitol attack. And while Mr. Tarrio suggests during the meeting that the complex structure he created for the Ministry of Self-Defense was meant to be self-protective — not offensive — in nature, prosecutors have claimed that the group’s “command and control” design was instrumental in facilitating the Capitol attack.

Lawyers for the Proud Boys say the recorded meeting is a key piece of exculpatory evidence, contradicting claims by the government that a conspiracy to attack the Capitol was hatched several weeks before Jan. 6.” 

YES- that was from the New York Times. Liberals read that.

The January 6th Committee is panicking as their lies are finally being revealed in the mainstream media.

*Please see the entire UNEDITED version of the video here. We want to give you the option of seeing the video in its entirety so you know that nothing of importance was edited out.

Warning-this video may incriminate these men for having filthy mouths and offensive speech habits, but NOT of Seditious Conspiracy!

This video has been mentioned in court hearings but was not available to the public.

The prosecution had viewed the recording in its entirety, and cherry-picked out bits to misconstrue evidence to incriminate the defendants.

“These sick demonic people literally knew the Proud Boys were never planning on going inside the Capitol,” said Tina Ryan of Citizens Against Political Persecution. “They saw this tape. Yet they made the conscious decision to manipulate the contents of this video and present it to the judge and the public with the malicious intent to smear these men and jeopardize their lives and fair trails.”

Proud Boy Pals and Drinking Buddies Enrique Tarrio and Joseph Biggs at a rally before they were charged with Seditious Conspiracy by the Biden Regime.

The January 6th Select Committee undoubtedly knew about this video as well- yet they still decided to move forward during their first hearing and nail the Proud Boys to a cross by knowingly accusing them of tremendous false crimes.

These Committee members hid exculpatory evidence from the American people after looking into the cameras and promising to tell the American people “the truth about January 6th”.

Proud Boy Ethan “Ruffio” Nordean before his pre-trial detainment.

“The January 6th Hearings have made it impossible for the Proud Boys on this indictment to ever get a fair shake at a trial,” said Ryan. “They demonized the Proud Boys and accused them of seditious conspiracy in a ‘special video presentation’ before their trials. The Proud Boys charges should be dropped and these Congresspeople held liable for conspiring to falsify evidence.”

This is the perfect example of how the government continues to withhold important information from the people of the United States about a day as important as January 6th.
This is one of hundreds of unreleased videos that can potentially exonerate defendants.

“The court of public opinion will decide the fate of these men,” said Ryan.

Ryan ended with this:  “It is completely unethical that this type of evidence has been held from the public and manipulated to frame these men for the ‘crime of the century’. These prosecutors and Congresspeople must be held accountable.”

Loading

262
Post Views: 380
Categories
COVID Child Abuse Drugs How sick is this?

Handing over America’s youth to the mRNA mafia…

Pfizer shot being administered to an infant.

Views: 17

America is now the only country in the world that allows for experimental mRNA injections for kids under 5 years old, and sadly, rather unsurprisingly, a significant portion of my country is celebrating this insanity.

By Jordan Schachtel

The Dossier

America is now the only country in the world that authorizes COVID shots for infants

It appears that the United States just became the only country in the world to “vaccinate” babies and toddlers with COVID injections.The Dossier is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber…

Read more

3 days ago · 169 likes · 94 comments · Jordan Schachtel
The chief pharmaceutical propagandist in the White House has described these shots as “lifesaving,” encouraging the shots for a population that remains entirely unaffected by COVID-19. Whose lives are being saved exactly, when the shots have zero benefit, don’t prevent infect or transmission, and can only increase risks to a vulnerable population?
Yes, you guessed it: Big Pharma is the beneficiary…
And Biotech and Pfizer are trumpeting this in ads promoting that everyone get a booster (and/or the original shots) no matter what their age is and that seems to come from the CDC — until you listen to the tag line at the end.
See also:

Loading

178
Post Views: 300
Categories
Education Child Abuse How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Progressive Racism

Sickening. Oak Park and River Forest High School to implement race-based grading system in 2022-23 school year

implement race-based grading system in 2022-23 school year. West Cook News.

Views: 44

Oak Park and River Forest High School outside of Chicago will now grade you not on how smart you are, but on what color of skin you have. Also Blacks can no longer be docked for missing class, misbehaving in school or failing to turn in their assignments, according to the plan.

Oak Park and River Forest High School administrators will require teachers next school year to adjust their classroom grading scales to account for the skin color or ethnicity of its students.

In an effort to equalize test scores among racial groups, OPRF will order its teachers to exclude from their grading assessments variables it says disproportionately hurt the grades of black students. They can no longer be docked for missing class, misbehaving in school or failing to turn in their assignments, according to the plan.

Advocates for so-called “equity based” grading practices, which seek to raise the grade point averages of black students and lower scores of higher-achieving Asian, white and Hispanic ones, say new grading criteria are necessary to further school districts’ mission of DEIJ, or “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Justice.”

Loading

244
Post Views: 416
Categories
Sexual Abuse Child Abuse How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!)

Get Woke, Go Broke: State Farm Exec Makes Panicked Promise as Trans Support Blows Up in Company’s Face

Views: 25

By Jack Davis  May 25, 2022 at 9:55am

Facing an uproar for its support of the transgender agenda, State Farm Insurance says it is dropping its alliance with a transgender group that wanted to supply indoctrination materials aimed at children to schools and libraries.

State Farm had said it would support a group called GenderCool, which was targeting children as young as 5 with books titled “Being Transgender,” “Being Inclusive” and “Being Non-Binary.”

On Monday, the conservative group Consumers’ Research responded with a video titled “Like a Creepy Neighbor.”

“State Farm tells us they’re a good neighbor,” the narrator begins. “But would a good neighbor target five-year-olds for conversations about sexual identity? That’s what State Farm is doing.”

On Tuesday, State Farm surrendered.

State Farm spokesman Roszell Gadson told The Washington Post that the partnership ended after it had “been the subject of news and customer inquiries.”

“Conversations about gender and identity should happen at home with parents,” Gadson said in a statement. “We don’t support required curriculum in schools on this topic. We support organizations providing resources for parents to have these conversations. We no longer support the program allowing for distribution of books in schools.”

“As a result, we have made the decision we will no longer be affiliated with the organization,” the company said on its website.

According to a report from RedState, Rand Harbert, State Farm executive vice president and chief agency, sales and marketing officer, sent out a voice message to agents and others about the book project.

The outlet, citing a transcript it obtained, reported that Harbert said, “First and foremost, I want you to hear directly from me that we made a mistake with our involvement in this program — and we’re sorry. As soon as we fully understood the issue Monday morning, the first decision we made was to cease our involvement with this organization.

“Let me be clear, our position is that conversations with children about gender and identity need to happen at home.”

Harbert then made it appear as though State Farm was not fully aware of to whom it was giving money and what would be done with the cash.

“As much as we would like to be aware of every program and involved in every decision, it’s simply not possible as most of these gifts are small. In this case, it was $40,000,” Harbert said, according to RedState.

“However, we recognize even small decisions can have a big impact, and we’re taking the necessary steps, so nothing like this happens again,” he said.

RedState also reported that a source at State Farm’s corporate offices said all of its philanthropic ventures are being reviewed.

The outlet described conversations it had with agents whose names were not used.

“We’re an insurance company who’s known to be conservative,” one agent from the Midwest was quoted as saying. “That is why this is so shocking. I can assure you (I’m on a private Facebook page for agents only at 4,000 members) that 99 percent of us are beyond pissed.”

“A big ‘why’ that was circling among agents and in private Facebook groups Monday night was: ‘How in the world was something like this green-lighted and not run by agents’ groups for vetting?’” RedState quoted another agent as saying.

“No way this would have ever been green-lighted had this been run by agents.”

Loading

245
Post Views: 437
Categories
COVID How sick is this?

New Study Finds mRNA Vaccines Actually Hurt Long-Term Immunity to Covid Compared to the Unvaccinated

COVID-19 vaccine maker says it's time to jab up.

Views: 41

A new study conducted by scientists from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Moderna Inc. showed that mRNA vaccines hurt the long-term immunity to Covid-19 after contracting infection compared to unvaccinated people.

Researchers performed a placebo-controlled vaccine efficacy trial published at medRxiv last month, to evaluate anti-nucleocapsid antibody (anti-N Ab) seropositivity in Moderna vaccine efficacy after Covid-19 infection.

“To evaluate for evidence of prior infection in a person with a history of COVID-19 vaccination, a test that specifically evaluates anti-N should be used. Past infection is best determined by serologic testing that indicates the presence of anti-N antibody,” according to the CDC.

The study analyzed data from 1,789 participants (1,298 placebo recipients and 491 vaccine recipients) with Covid-19 infection at 99 sites in the US during the blinded phase (through March 2021).

The study concludes that anti-nucleocapsid antibody (anti-N Abs) may have lower sensitivity in patients vaccinated with Moderna who become infected. The study also mentioned that the anti-N Ab response in unvaccinated persons has been reported to be durable, with half-life estimates ranging from 68 to 283 days.

Among the participants with confirmed Covid-19 illness, only 21 out of 52 (40%) of people who received the Moderna shots had antibodies compared to the placebo recipients, 605 out 648 (93%).

Alex Berenson posted an in-depth analysis on his Substack:

Unvaccinated people are much more likely to develop broad antibody immunity after Covid infections than people who have received mRNA shots, a new study shows.

Researchers already knew that many vaccinated people do not gain antibodies to the entire coronavirus after they are infected with Covid.

 

Unvaccinated people nearly always gain antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, which covers the virus’s core of RNA, as well as its spike protein, which allows the virus to attack our cells. Vaccinated people often lack those anti-nucleocapsid antibodies and only have spike protein antibodies.

 

The researchers examined the development of anti-nucleocapsid antibodies in people who had been part of Moderna’s clinical trial and were infected with Covid. As they expected, the scientists found that the vaccinated people were far less likely to develop the anti-nucleocapsid antibodies. Only 40 percent of people who received the shots had antibodies, compared to 93 percent of those who did not.

 

But they then went a step further. Because the infected people had been in the trial, their viral loads had been precisely measured when they were found to have Covid. So the researchers were able to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated people who had the same amounts of virus in their blood.

 

Once again, they found that unvaccinated people were far more likely to develop anti-nucleocapsid antibodies than the jabbed. An unvaccinated person with a mild infection had a 71 percent chance of mounting an immune response that included those antibodies. A vaccinated person had about a 15 percent chance.

 

The chart that should worry the vaccinated: the yellow line shows the odds that an unvaccinated person will develop anti-nucleocapsid antibodies to Sars-Cov-2, stratified by viral load. The blue line shows the same odds for a person who received an mRNA shot.

An unvaccinated person has an almost 60 percent chance of developing antibodies even with an extremely mild infection; a vaccinated person needs almost 100,000 times as much virus in his blood to have the same chance.

As the Gateway Pundit previously reported, a new report released earlier this year by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revealed that unvaccinated people who recovered from COVID-19 were better protected than those who were vaccinated and not previously infected during the recent delta surge.

The researchers evaluated the data from 1.1 million Covid-19 cases among adults in California and New York (which account for 18% of the U.S. population) from May 30 to Nov. 20, 2021.

“When looking at the summer and fall of 2021, when Delta became predominant in this country, however, surviving a previous infection now provided greater protection,” CDC epidemiologist Benjamin Silk said.

The study confirmed something that we’ve known for a long time that “natural immunity” acquired through previous infection of COVID is more potent than experimental vaccines.

Here is the abstract from the above referenced study:

Abstract

Importance The performance of immunoassays for determining past SARS-CoV-2 infection, which were developed in unvaccinated individuals, has not been assessed in vaccinated individuals.

Objective To evaluate anti-nucleocapsid antibody (anti-N Ab) seropositivity in mRNA-1273 vaccine efficacy trial participants after SARS-CoV-2 infection during the trial’s blinded phase.

Design Nested analysis in a Phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled vaccine efficacy trial. Nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing were taken from all participants on Day 1 and Day 29 (vaccination days), and during symptom-prompted illness visits. Serum samples from Days 1, 29, 57, and the Participant Decision Visit (PDV, when participants were informed of treatment assignment, median day 149) were tested for anti-N Abs.

Setting Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at 99 sites in the US.

Participants Trial participants were ≥ 18 years old with no known history of SARS-CoV-2 infection and at appreciable risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or high risk of severe Covid-19. Nested sub-study consists of participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection during the blinded phase of the trial.

Intervention Two mRNA-1273 (Moderna) or Placebo injections, 28 days apart.

Main Outcome and Measure Detection of serum anti-N Abs by the Elecsys (Roche) immunoassay in samples taken at the PDV from participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection during the blinded phase. The hypothesis tested was that mRNA-1273 recipients have different anti-N Ab seroconversion and/or seroreversion profiles after SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to placebo recipients. The hypothesis was formed during data collection; all main analyses were pre-specified before being conducted.

Results We analyzed data from 1,789 participants (1,298 placebo recipients and 491 vaccine recipients) with SARS-CoV-2 infection during the blinded phase (through March 2021). Among participants with PCR-confirmed Covid-19 illness, seroconversion to anti-N Abs at a median follow up of 53 days post diagnosis occurred in 21/52 (40%) of the mRNA-1273 vaccine recipients vs. 605/648 (93%) of the placebo recipients (p < 0.001). Higher SARS-CoV-2 viral copies at diagnosis was associated with a higher likelihood of anti-N Ab seropositivity (odds ratio 1.90 per 1-log increase; 95% confidence interval 1.59, 2.28).

Conclusions and Relevance As a marker of recent infection, anti-N Abs may have lower sensitivity in mRNA-1273-vaccinated persons who become infected. Vaccination status should be considered when interpreting seroprevalence and seropositivity data based solely on anti-N Ab testing

Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04470427

Question Does prior mRNA-1273 vaccination influence anti-nucleocapsid antibody seroconversion and/or seroreversion after SARS-CoV-2 infection?

Findings Among participants in the mRNA-1273 vaccine efficacy trial with PCR-confirmed Covid-19, anti-nucleocapsid antibody seroconversion at the time of study unblinding (median 53 days post diagnosis and 149 days post enrollment) occurred in 40% of the mRNA-1273 vaccine recipients vs. 93% of the placebo recipients, a significant difference. Higher SARS-CoV-2 viral copy number upon diagnosis was associated with a greater chance of anti-nucleocapsid antibody seropositivity (odds ratio 1.90 per 1-log increase; 95% confidence interval 1.59, 2.28). All infections analyzed occurred prior to the circulation of delta and omicron viral variants.

Meaning Conclusions about the prevalence and incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in vaccinated persons based on anti-nucleocapsid antibody assays need to be weighed in the context of these results.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases through grants UM1AI068635 (to H.E.J.), UM1AI068614 (to L.C.), 3UM1Al148575-01S2 (to H.M.E.S.), and UM1AI069412 (to L.R.B.). The mRNA-1273-P301 study is sponsored by Moderna, Inc. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Loading

223
Post Views: 366
Categories
Biden Pandemic Corruption COVID Crime Drugs Economy Education Elections Faked news How funny is this? How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Opinion Politics Progressive Racism Reprints from others. Stupid things people say or do. The Courts

Ding Dong the wicked witch is gone.

Gif. tigerdropings.com

Views: 48

Friday the 13th was Jen Psaki’s last day as the Bagdad Ali of the White House. I want to thank Joel B. Pollak for this list.

Yes some — particularly in the establishment media — have called her the “best ever,” perhaps because the job of explaining Joe Biden’s failures is simply so difficult. Here are some of the most memorable moments of her tenure, for better or for worse:

17. COVID and masks. Despite sanctimonious lectures about pandemic precautions, Psaki somehow managed to contract COVID twice. She also struggled to explain the White House’s double standards on wearing masks on federal property.

16. “Circle back.” Psaki drew mockery from conservatives over her repeated promises from the podium to “circle back” with reporters when she did not know the answer to questions — or perhaps when she knew, but preferred not to answer.

15. Hoaxes. Psaki repeated some — not all — of the famliar liberal hoaxes about Trump, most notably the “bleach” hoax, insisting — despite glaring evidence to the contrary — that he had told Americans to inject bleach to cure COVID (he did not).

14. Defaming Kyle Rittenhouse. In the midst of the Rittenhouse trial, Psaki criticized “vigilantes with assault weapons.” After Rittenhouse was acquitted, she refused to walk back Biden’s false claim that Rittenhouse was a “white supremacist.”

13. War on “misinformation.” Psaki vowed her briefings would fight “misinformation,” and defended — to her last week — the Biden administration’s “disinformation” office. But she herself spread disinformation about Russia, and Hunter Biden.

12. Space Force snub. Psaki appeared to snub the sixth branch of the U.S. armed forces when she mocked a reporter’s query about whether Biden intended to continue Donald Trump’s addition to the military. She later clarified that she supported it.

11. Major dog cover-up. When Biden’s dog, Major, was accused of biting a Secret Service agent, Psaki downplayed the incident. Later, documents suggested that Psaki misled the public about the real threat the dog posed to agency staff.

10. Border denial. Psaki made it clear she did not want reporters to ask about the crisis at the southern border, chastising reporters for “maddening” questions about it. She claimed Biden’s policy was more “moral” and “humane” than Trump’s.

9. Refusing to condemn protests at Supreme Court justices’ homes. It took Psaki days to condemn violence after a draft opinion reversing Roe was leaked, and she actually encouraged the arguably illegal protests outside the homes of justices.

8. Dismissing the idea of free COVID tests. Psaki initially scoffed at the idea of sending free COVID tests to every American as too costly to undertake. A few days later, mid-omicron wave, the administration belatedly began doing so.

7. “Don’t Say Gay’ demagoguery. It was Psaki who started the false — yet effective — claim that Florida had passed a law that literally prohibited people from saying “gay.” The law actually restricts sexual instruction of any kind to K-3 children.

6. Doocy. Among many examples of the Biden administration failing to respect the press, one of the worst was Psaki saying that Fox News made Peter Doocy — one of the few critical voices in the press corps — sound like a “stupid son of a bitch.”

5. Defending inflation. Psaki test-drove several excuses for inflation, first claiming that it was transitory (“inflation is going to come down next year”), then trying to put a positive spin on it as the by-product of an otherwise wonderful economy.

4. Admitting Biden skipped D-Day. Among other clean-up jobs, Psaki had to explain Biden’s unfortunate failure to commemorate the anniversary of D-Day in 2021. She told reporters that the historic occasion was still “close to his heart.”

3. Vacationing while Afghanistan fell. Psaki and many other members of the administration had to be called back from summer vacation when Afghanistan began to fall to the Taliban, a failure that has since defined perceptions of the president.

2. Hunter Biden dodges. Psaki repeatedly (and successfully) dodged questions about Hunter Biden, his laptop, and his connection to his dad’s finances, claiming they were a private matter or the under the purview of the Department of Justice.

1. Baby formula. Psaki’s advice, when asked what parents should do if worried about their babies amid a national shortage of baby formula, was to “call their doctor.” Neither she nor the White House had any solace to offer American families.

One example when Psaki called it right: she did, finally, admit that communism is a “failed ideology,” as Cubans protested in the streets against their oppressive regime. But that, sadly, is all the Biden administration was willing to do to help them.

Loading

260
Post Views: 435
Verified by MonsterInsights