Month: December 2022

Granted in general there are a lot of things we do not know and we pay them little mind. For instance, “Is it going to rain tomorrow? … “We don’t know.” Okay, whether it rains or not tomorrow is not a big deal.

Whereas, if you needed surgery and asked, “Has the surgeon ever done this surgery before?”, an answer from the nurses of, “We don’t know,” would not inspire confidence. In this situation perhaps you might not sign the consent form until you had been reassured that indeed, the surgeon had done this type of surgery many times before.

What about, “Is the blood I might receive during my surgery tainted?” Think about this personally. If you are unvaccinated and never had Covid would,  “We don’t know.” inspire confidence. Would you just say, “que sera, sera,” cross your fingers and proceed?” Before you answer that question, remember what happened back in the 1980’s with AIDA and blood transfusions.

From the Epoch Times:

“in January 1983, after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed evidence strongly suggesting blood and blood products transmitted AIDS and the disease was sexually transmitted, it recommended blood banks directly question donors about their sexual behavior and run blood donations through a series of screening tests.

The blood bank community issued a statement soon after, stating ‘direct or indirect questions about a donor’s sexual preference are inappropriate’ and not recommending any laboratory screening tests. As noted by Encyclopedia.com:

‘In fact, in the early years of the disease, many of the people who contracted AIDS were infected through blood transfusions. Because it took more than five years to develop a test to check for AIDS in blood before it was used in a transfusion, many people got the disease in hospitals.’”

So back in the eighties “We don’t know,” was clearly not adequate for those who developed AIDS from a blood transfusion. 

According to Steve Kirsch, executive director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, “If there were a safety signal from using vaccinated blood for transfusions, it would have surfaced by now.” 

Kirsch added,

“If they agree to use unvaccinated blood, it could be interpreted as an admission that vaccinated blood is not safe and could lead to everyone requesting unvaccinated blood which would then create severe blood shortages for a dubious benefit.”

Does this argument sound similar to what happened with AIDS and blood transfusions back in the 1980’s? When considering the safety of blood transfusions is “We don’t know” adequate?

For what it’s worth, Dr. Peter McCullough, who is usually not one who typically agrees with the mainstream on Covid, vaccines, masks, etc. thinks that segregating unvaccinated blood donors into a separate group is practically impossible.

12/23/22

I am still seeing young children wearing masks … in church, in Costco, and even in cars. Whereas nearly all of  these young masked children are riding with their parents, one must wonder if these young children are also forced to wear a face-mask at home. Be that as it may, most likely who are the parents of these young children? 

A recent poll from Issues&Insights suggests that these parents are college graduates that identify as Democrats and make  more than $75,000 per year. (Another hint might be that they drive a Prius with a crooked bumper sticker advocating that we all must get along.”) The group least likely to be punishing their young children by forcing them to wear masks are Republican or Independent high school graduates making less than $30,000 a year.

Why are these liberal Democrat parents still forcing their children to wear a mask? The easiest answer is that they have been misled by the Main Stream Media.

From I&I:

In the last three years 3.3 million children under 5 have contracted COVID, and 643 have died. That translates into a death rate of 0.02%.

Those numbers might not matter, since the loss of any child is a tragedy. But the fact is that life is full of risks, and almost anything you can think of poses a greater risk to children than COVID.

Over the same three years, for example, more than 6,000 children in this age group died from preventable injuries — poisoning, falls, choking, drowning, fires, or suffocation. Parental negligence, it turns out, is 10 times deadlier than COVID.

Drowning alone claimed 2,700 children, making water almost five times deadlier than COVID.

Other health problems that most parents would never think about are deadlier than COVID. Nearly three times as many children died of cancer over the past three years. More than twice as many died of cardiovascular disease. Pneumonia and the flu claim twice as many young lives each year. More children die each year from homicides than perished from COVID.

Masks, in other words, target a risk that is minuscule compared with other risks that parents would view as exceedingly rare.

Downsides to masking young children?

Here’s what NPR reported earlier this year:

Numerous scientific papers have established that it can be harder to hear and understand speech and identify facial expressions and emotions when people are wearing masks. These are critical developmental tasks, particularly for children in the first three years of life.

The United States is an outlier in recommending masks from the age of 2 years old. The World Health Organization does not recommend masks for children under age 5, while the European equivalent of the CDC doesn’t recommend them for children under age 12.

That was NPR, for Pete’s sake! It goes on to quote Manfred Spitzer, a psychiatrist and a cognitive neuroscientist in Germany, who said:

“When speech no longer happens, when communication is interfered with, I think if that happens for a week, that’s OK. But if that happens for half a year, that’s eternity when it comes to brain development, at a very young age.”

Now I would think that a lot of dem Democrat parents who are forcing their young children to wear masks also listen to NPR. Why the disconnect?

12/22/22

“… this vaccine is not completely safe, and has unprecedented harms.”

This was said by British cardiologist, Dr. Aseem Malhotra, who initially encouraged the widespread use of COVID-19 vaccines until his father passed away suddenly of cardiac arrest after receiving the jab. 

His father’s death prompted Malhotra to begin researching the safety profile of the vaccines. Based on his findings, he no longer believes the theoretical benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the very real risks. 

Dr. Malhotra is not alone.

In June 2022, the FDA’s Tom Shimabukuro, M.D., M.P.H., M.B.A., identified as part of the CDC COVID-19 Vaccine Coordination Unit, reported that: “Current evidence supports a causal association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccination and myocarditis and pericarditis.”

Six months later, as of Dec. 2, 2022, there have been a total of 35,718 cases of myocarditis/pericarditisreported to the government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System.

This skepticism is not confined to Britain and the U.S.

After witnessing as many as 70 cases of vaccine-related heart conditions, Australian Cardiologist Dr. Ross Walker is now saying publicly that he believes there should be a ban on the use of mRNA booster vaccines.

According to Walker, the mRNA vaccines are “very pro-inflammatory,” he told Daily Mail Australia. “ He contended that The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunization should never have mandated mRNA vaccines.

Even the politicians are jumping onto the bandwagon.

On Dec. 7, 2022, Senator Ron Johnson led a roundtable discussion called Covid-19 Vaccines: What They Are, How They Work, and Possible Causes of Injuries.  

The next day, the House voted for an $858 Billion Defense Bill that included a repeal of the vaccine mandate for the military.

Among the doctors who have called for the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns to be halted is Japanese cardiovascular surgeon Dr. Kenji Yamamoto. In a letter published in the peer-reviewed journal Virology, Yamamoto argued that the COVID-19 booster shots are not safe.

How many more educated voices do we need to hear before the brakes are applied?

12/21/22

This is the third part of a scientific treatise about the different facets of “global warming,” taken from a long piece on Rip’s Newsletter, written by Terry M. Campbell, an actual expert in this field.

Campbell continues:

“Our atmosphere (air) is made up of five major gases (nitrogen, oxygen, argon, carbon dioxide, and water vapor) plus 12 measurable trace gases.  Not all of these gases are greenhouse gases. There are four major greenhouse gases, they are water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide.  The fact that greenhouse gases exist is a good thing.   Without greenhouse gasses to lock in the energy from the sun, the global temperature would be -459% F, and we would all freeze and die or would have never existed. The following is the make-up of the naturally occurring greenhouse gases:95% of it is water vapor and 4.964% is methane, nitrous oxide, and other trace gases; .036% is the naturally occurring trace gas carbon dioxide, with 97% produced by nature and only 3% attributed to man, which is less than 0.001% of the carbon dioxide in the total atmosphere is attributed to man’s use of fossil fuels. All Trace gasses are measured by parts per million (ppm).  Currently, the average global carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere is slightly over 400 ppm with a minuscule amount attributed to man (<.004 ppm).  The figures of the UN’s political non-scientific “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (IPPC) are different and very wrong.  In Europe, they have been using heavy sulfur coal for heat and to cook for thousands of years and to produce electricity for the past hundred years.  This has contaminated the entire continent with high carbon and sulfur ash.  Any readings taken in Europe are not representative of the rest of the globe.  I tend to believe NOAA and NASA. They are not political organizations (yet) and have far more accurate equipment and much better-trained engineers and technicians than any political global organization. In short, we know a lot about the earth’s atmosphere and climate.  We also know a lot about long-term predictive climate models.  And we know they don’t work. They haven’t worked in the past.  They don’t work now.  And it’s hard to imagine when, if ever, they’ll work in the foreseeable future. There’s a common-sense reason for this.  Aside from the human brain, the climate is the most complex thing on the planet. The number of factors that influence climate; the sun, the earth’s orbital properties, oceans, clouds, and, yes, industrial man; are huge and enormously variable.  Climate change and air pollution are two different subjects with very little relation to each other and should be treated separately.  Air pollution is from emissions of Sulfur Dioxide, Nitric Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide (CO), Ozone (O3), Methane, etc. located in very localized-industrialized areas, not globally.  We can and should work on air pollution.  CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) IS NOT A POLLUTANT.”

That last phrase in boldface is worth repeating … “CO2 Is not a pollutant.”

If this is indeed the case, then the entire postulate of the global warming religion goes out the window!

12/20/22

“Potentially, the biggest financial crisis ever!” 

This was not tweeted by some ignoramus, but by someone who is a pretty smart guy … Elon Musk. But to what is he referring to? 

This tweet was in response to:

@CathieDWood,

@ARKInvest

 and 

@GuyDealership

and it was concerning the potential upcoming used car financial crisis.

The automotive market may be under stress as several experts call for a massive wave of repossessions in early 2023.

The genesis of this potential crisis is nicely summarized nicely in the following from the Epoch Times:

“Reports by the anonymous Twitter account CarDealershipGuy revealed an “extremely alarming” trend among auto lenders. The CEO behind the account claimed that many lenders are ignoring red flags associated with loan applicants who are already “underwater” on a prior auto loan.

‘This morning I discovered something *extremely* alarming happening in the car market, specifically in auto lending,’ CarDealshipGuy, who authors a newsletter for auto market insights, wrote on Twitter, catching many people’s attention.

‘I’m now convinced that there is a massive wave of car repossessions coming in 2023.’

He went on to explain that many people had no choice but to buy a costly car during the pandemic. He said car values have been falling recently, with some dropping by nearly 30 percent year on year.

‘And these same people that took out these big loans are now ‘underwater.’ Basically, they owe banks more on these cars than they are worth,’ he stated, adding that the banks are well-aware of the problem.”

Without going into further detail, the situation is more complicated as is further detailed in the Epoch Times article. Suffice it to say if you are going to need another car in the near future, perhaps you should wait, as when the s**t hits the fan, car prices, especially used car prices, are going to drop … perhaps the biggest drop ever.

12/19/22

Those of you who are familiar with my Sunday modus-operandi realize that the individual written about is someone who is to be admired for having principles and standing up for and acting on these principles. The honoree today is Lauren Handy, who tried to stop the abortions of unborn babies at an abortion clinic in 2019. Now she’s spending 45 days in jail.

A Michigan judge sentenced Handy [and three other pro-life activists with the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising (PAAU)] in mid November for impeding abortions from taking place at a Michigan abortion clinic (PAAU has described such blockades as “nonviolent direct action”).

Handy was also charged with obstructing a police officer for going “limp” during her arrest. PAAU says this “ is a decision often made by nonviolent social justice activists who refuse to assist in their own unjust arrest.”

(Parenthetically, as similar activist tactics are also employed by groups like ShutDownDC as they block traffic over climate protests or RiseUp4AbortionRights activists who chained themselves to the Supreme Court fencing over the summer, I wonder why “going limp” is the equivalent of “resisting arrest” in Handy’s case.)

From The Daily Signal:

“My time in jail has been used to further the mission of loving and serving others wherever I am placed,” Handy said in a message to The Daily Signal from the Flint, Michigan jail. “I have created friendships that will last beyond bars. Many girls have shared their stories of pregnancy loss and abortion and I have in turn shared the message of hope and healing.”

“I am right where I need to be during this Christmas season,” Handy added. “I am at peace and thankful for this opportunity to reach the abandoned of the abandoned.”

Now whether you agree or disagree with Lauren Handy’s position on abortion, she certainly is one who is to be admired for standing up for her principles.

12/18/22

This is a blog I wrote on 7/20/20 – well before the election. Enjoy!

What If ? 

As some of you may know I like to write and I recently had an idea upon which I could write my next novella. Let me first set up the basic plot:

What if in the year 2032 there was a close presidential election which was won by the older candidate, Joseph Delaware, and what if Mr. Delaware had specially chosen his running mate in order to appeal to various specifics  portion of society. 

The  VP-elect was Hispanic (Yes, Mr. Delaware did get the Hispanic vote.) The VP-elect was a female. (Yes, Mr. Delaware did overwhelming win the female vote.) The VP-elect was gay. (Yes, Me. Delaware did win the gay vote.) The VP-elect was born in New York, and presently lived in California. (Yes, Mr. Delaware did win the vote in both New York and California.) The VP-elect was a Harvard educated lawyer. (Yes, Mr. Delaware did win both the Harvard vote and the lawyer vote.) What if no one really knew much about the VP-elect other than she was an Hispanic gay lawyer who had been in Congress. (Actually not that much different from the VP candidate from about ten years prior.)

What if in 2032 there were no Presidential debates and no VP debates, because many years prior it had been decided that these debates were giving an unfair advantage to one of the candidates.

What if between the election in November and the inauguration in January the President-elect was said to have supposedly suffered a mild stroke which only affected his cognitive abilities. There were no other signs of a stroke, but Mr. Delaware now had an Alzheimer’s-like condition. Would he then be able to function as the President? Would he be sworn in, and then immediately step down? What if it became apparent that while the VP-elect was a nice person, she was in fact, a bit ditzy? Would his VP-elect be then immediately sworn in as the President?

Even though I think that this would be a terrific storyline for a novella, I decided not to embark on writing this because . . . who would believe that this could actually happen? After all is there anybody that could believe that the President-elect developed an Alzheimer’s-like condition between the election and the inauguration? Would anybody swallow the fact the neither the President-elect or the VP-elect were not asked some difficult questions because there had been no debates? Would anybody believe that the country would elect a VP that was not actually qualified to be the President?

The scary  thing is that something very similar could happen this year if the Dems can come up with a reason not to go through with the debates.

7/20/20

12/17/22

While reading this morning, I began to ask myself if there are different degrees of hypocrisy. I knew that I would not read about either of these situations in my local ‘newspaper” for obvious reasons. Remember back last year when Rep. Nancy Pelosi was able to go to her hairdresser to get her hair done while no ordinary person was allowed to do the same. Likewise at about the same time, the Governor of California, Gavin Newsome, went to a fancy Napa restaurant, while mandating that the rest of us ordinary people could not go to a restaurant. Was one of these two elites few merely a hypocrite, while the other was a HYPOCRITE? 

Hmmm!

The two following situations are obviously hypocritical, but is one  ‘Hypocrisy’ while the other is HYPOCRISY?

First, let’s consider Pete Buttigieg, the Transportation Secretary of the United States, who has made climate change his main focus. To him apparently climate change is an existential threat and that we better do something about it. 

However, this same Pete Buttigieg who is telling us common folk to get rid of our gas guzzling cars (“You gotta stop driving around in your big, gas-guzzling SUV,”  Buttigieg has said.), is flying on private jets to the tune of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars? I know that Buttigieg is important, and most likely will say that is time is too important to have to fly commercial, but come-on man! Hypocrite or HYPOCRITE?

From BlaseMedia:

Meanwhile in Detroit the School Board voted in November to remove Dr. Ben Carson’s name from the Benjamin Carson High School of Medicine and Science. Democrat school board member Sherry Gay-Dagnogo said that community members complained about the name and its link to the Trump administration. (Right away, her hyphenated last name tells you all that you need to know!) … Gay-Dagnogo asked the board to scrap the name.

Carson High School opened in 2011 and was named as such because the doctor ‘was widely held up as a role model for Black youth.’

For having accomplished so much and inspiring a generation of black doctors, a public high school was named after Carson in the city where he grew up and in the school system where his education first started.

While the Detroit School Board engages in partisan theatrics, the rate of chronic absenteeism amongst its students continues to spin out, having risen to 79% last year.

According to Public School Review, Detroit public schools have an average math proficiency score of 13% and a reading proficiency score of 21%.

The city’s schools have an average ranking of 1 out of 10.

So here we have a hyphenated member of the Detroit School Board who apparently is not concerned about the extremely poor job that the Detroit schools are doing in educating the Detroit youth, but rather is playing politics with a school’s name.

FYI: In response, Dr. Carson thanked those who voiced their support for not changing the school’s name, but noted, “I don’t care what any school is named so long as every child gets an equal chance at becoming what they aspire to be.”

Dr. Carson is truly a class act, whereas Sherry Gay-Dagnogo is a truly a hypocrite … or is she a HYPOCRITE?

(BTW: if anyone is looking for a truly inspiring book to give to a child for Christmas, the life story of Ben Carson should be high on that list.)

12/17/22

Recently it seems that there has been a number of First Amendment free-speech cases that have been or are in the process of being decided. This morning I read about another one that I found unusual and interesting, because of its novel circumstances. For sure I will not be reading about this case in my local “newspaper,” as it is not something that will garner any attention from the political left.

From what little I know of the details, it appears that back in 2020, the soccer coach of the women’s team at Virginia Tech, in essence, said to a player, “you acted in a way that I do not agree with, and so consequently, you will be punished.”

From BlazeNews:

Kiersten Hening was a starting defender and midfielder for the Virginia Tech Hokies from 2018 to 2020. As a freshman, Hening appeared in all 22 games and started in 19 of them. As a sophomore, she appeared in all 19 matches, was a starter in the last 18 contests, and had the second-most minutes played among field players, according to the Hokies women’s soccer website.

However, Hening claims that the relationship with her coach changed after she refused to participate in a social justice demonstration. Hening refused to kneel before the team’s season-opening game against the Virginia Cavaliers on Sept. 12, 2020.

The Richmond Times-Dispatch reported, “While her teammates knelt during the pregame reading of the Atlantic Coast Conference’s unity pledge — a show of support for the social justice movement and Black Lives Matter — Hening and one other unidentified player remained standing.”

Hening accused Hokies head coach Charles Adair of launching a “campaign of abuse and retaliation” after she refused to participate in the pregame social justice demonstration.

The lawsuit claims, “He singled her out and verbally attacked her, pointing a finger directly in her face. He denounced Hening for ‘bitching and moaning,’ for being selfish and individualistic, and for ‘doing her own thing.'”

The lawsuit alleges that Adair’s actions violated Hening’s First Amendment rights. The lawsuit stated that Hening “supports social justice and believes that black lives matter,” but she “does not support BLM the organization,” because of its “tactics and core tenets of its mission statement, including defunding the police.”

Federal Judge Thomas Cullen ruled on Dec. 2 that the case can proceed to trial, according to Fox News. Cullen noted that Adair slashed her playing time.

“While the U.S. Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit may not have addressed the novel factual circumstances presented here—i.e., a college coach allegedly retaliating against a player for refusing to kneel with her coaches and teammates in support of perceived unity and social justice—the core constitutional principle is both clearly established and fundamental to a free society, and especially to an institution of higher education,” Cullen wrote.

I will attempt to follow up on this suit, however, it will not be easy, since my local “newspaper” does not seem to have much interest in free-speech. In addition, the fact that “Chugger” Adair is a local favorite makes it all the more likely that the facts and the outcome of this case will  not be reported locally, especially if Kiersten Hening prevails.

12/16/22

 Covid is on the decline. Is it gone? No, but Covid is but a shadow of its former self. (For the week ending Dec. 4, 407.3 thousand cases were reported, a decline of 93% from the peak. Meanwhile, deaths from the pandemic have likewise trended sharply downward. From a peak of 23.4 thousand weekly deaths in mid-January of 2021, the most recent week shows just 2.3 thousand deaths, a drop of 90%.)

At what point should we have a cogent discussion about Covid and our country’s reaction to it?

From Issues & Insights:

Recent studies have raised questions over the efficacy of mRNA “vaccines” and their inherent dangerto those who take them, leading to skepticism about vaccines among the public. Notable respected voices in medical research, such as Stanford University’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, have claimed that the “emergency declaration” and other policies that stifled debate have harmed science and the American public.

“We needed to have a discussion, an open scientific discussion about the right policies for COVID,” Bhattacharya, a co-author of the pro-science Great Barrington Declaration, said in a lengthy interview. “Imagine how different all the small businesses who stayed open, all the people that wouldn’t have missed their cancer screenings, all the kids that wouldn’t be depressed and suicidal, all the learning loss that could have been avoided if we just had an open scientific discussion.”

Wow! “An open scientific discussion!” What a novel idea! A discussion without politics involved. In today’s world, this could not happen, because those on the left would never allow it. 

That leads me to a related topic … when are we going to have an open scientific discussion about climate change, aka global warming?  Since liberals are basically in charge the world over, the answer is … not until the general populace says, “enough!” This open discussion will not occur in my lifetime as I am not Methuselah.

12/15/22