The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Monday, November 30, 2020

Dangerous Inaccuracies

"Team Reality" (h/t: Alex Berenson) has spent time studying the actual science and legitimate statistics associated with COVID-19. As a consequence, it rejects the fantasy "science" that is often referenced by the likes of Joe Biden and other members of Team Apocalypse

Team Reality has opposed many of the dictates and declarations of Team Apocalypse along with almost all of its major catastrophist players (Anthony Fauci, MD comes to mind). In the view of the catastrophists, COVID-19 is a VERY DEADLY virus. If we don't hide in our basements or shutdown the country, close all schools, ruin the livelihoods of those who cannot work remotely, put policies into place that destroy far too many small businesses, or wear masks (that have been proven mostly ineffectiveto the beach, "We're all gonna die!!!"

After all, Team Apocalypse intones gravely, 265,000+ Americans have DIED!!!  And there are MILLIONS of cases, and .. and ... and ... those cases could kill us all. Even as the CFR is dropping by the week.

As many of us on Team Reality have tried to explain, the vast majority of deaths have been among the very old (75+) and the very sick. Among those working age people under 40, the chances of dying from COVID are 0.002%. That's very, very, very low. And among children under the age of 15, the number is even lower. 

So ... instead of focusing on the population in danger from the virus and isolating ONLY the old and sick (if they agree), Team Apocalypse developed policies that unduly impacted the population that has a tiny probability of dying if they get the virus (it's worth noting that the majority of "cases" are asymptomatic). Like everything else about these past 8 months, that makes absolutely no sense.

But ... but ... but ... DEATHS!!! 

The media keeps telling us that it's an abattoir out there with ubiquitous scoreboards trumpeting the mortality count daily. And the public, understandably concerned, moves through fear, uncertainty and doubt into what can only be called hysteria. Not everyone, for sure. In fact, as time passes, people have begun to push back and decided to start living their lives once more. 

But mostly Democrat politicians in mostly blue states won't allow that. Drunk on the near dictatorial power the virus has  bestowed on them, they use "cases" as their metric, re-instituting lockdowns, in some cases literally arrested or fining those who refuse to comply, and all the while, wear the cloak of moral superiority as they cite fantasy science and claim that "empathy" is all that matters.

But ... but ... but ... DEATHS!!! 

Anyone who questions the 'narrative-approved' data on COVID-19 is immediately labeled a "denier" (does that term sound vaguely familiar?) and is accused of facilitating even more deaths. That, in and of itself, is suspicious. If in fact, a COVID-19 claim, study, or article is fallacious, it should be immediately refuted and dismissed using proven scientific fact, and overwhelming scientific data and statistics. But instead, a number of legitimate studies that run counter to the COVID narrative have been suppressed, even censored or de-platformed. Why? Is there not sufficient scientific fact, and overwhelming scientific data and statistics to refute those studies. Apparently not ... and that's also concerning.

Recently, Genevieve Briand at Johns Hopkins University conducted a critical analysis of the impact that COVID-19 had on U.S. deaths. She argues that COVID-19 deaths in the United States should be examined by comparing 2020 death totals and their causes to deaths recorded in past years.

Using CDC data, she agreed that COVID-19 deaths are overwhelmingly concentrated among the elderly. Matt Margolis reports:

Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after [the advent of] COVID-19 [in March 2020]. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.

According to Briand, “The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals.”

Briand’s analysis found that the range of deaths amongst the older population has remained within the range of past years.

So, if COVID-19 has actually had no significant impact on U.S. deaths, why does it not appear that way?

To answer that question, Briand shifted her focus to the deaths per causes ranging from 2014 to 2020. There is a sudden increase in deaths in 2020 due to COVID-19. This is no surprise because COVID-19 emerged in the U.S. in early 2020, and thus COVID-19-related deaths increased drastically afterward. 

Analysis of deaths per cause in 2018 revealed that the pattern of seasonal increase in the total number of deaths is a result of the rise in deaths by all causes, with the top three being heart disease, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia.

What she found was that as deaths attributed to COVID-19 increased dramatically, deaths attributed to heart disease, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia deceased substantially. But how can that be? For the seven pre-COVID years she studied, Briand found a relatively steady-state death rate among the elderly attributable to heart disease, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia. But in 2020, deaths associated with those illnesses dropped without explanation. 

Margolis continues:

The study found that “This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years.” In fact, “the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19.”

Briand concludes that the COVID-19 death toll in the United States is misleading and that deaths from other diseases are being categorized as COVID-19 deaths.

There have been reports of inflated COVID-19 deaths numbers for months. Patients who never tested positive for the disease had COVID-19 as their cause of death on their death certificates. In May, Jared Polis, the Democrat governor of Colorado, disputed official coronavirus death counts, saying even those of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were inflated as the result of including people who tested positive for the coronavirus but died of other causes. In July, a fatal motorcycle accident victim was listed as a COVID-19 death.

On Thursday, Johns Hopkins University explained that they deleted the article on the study because it “was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies."

Hmmm. If there are "dangerous inaccuracies" in Briand's work, real science should point them out and refute them with hard data—well sourced and repeatable. Instead, her work was censored by members of Team Apocalypse. Why?


Not sure whether to laugh or cry as this (mostly accurate) meme spreads across social media (until of course, it's removed or its perpetrators are de-platformed):

Saturday, November 28, 2020

Goodbye to a "Golden Age"

In an odd way, a biased, dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent main stream media did achieve their purpose over the past four years. Their coverage of Donald Trump and his administration was so confrontational and chaotic, and so full of outright lies, distortions and omissions, that it was exhausting to many who spent time with the media's output. As a consequence, it might just be that some (maybe a lot) of voters just wanted it all to stop and voted for a cognitively-challenged candidate who the media would fawn over because ... (1) he's a Democrat and (2) he's woke.

The same media clowns that spent four years making a mockery of journalistic ethics are asking, what now? Now that Trump is soon to be gone, exactly what will the trained hamsters "report" or write op-eds about? After all, there can be no scandals in a Democrat administration. Every policy decision will be brilliant and cannot be questioned. Capitulating to our adversaries will be a sign of nuanced brilliance, not craven stupidity. Economic wreckage precipitated by high taxes that hurt the middle class, minorities, and the working poor will be blamed on "capitalism" and "oppression," never on a leftist ideology that specializes in creating economic wreckage.

And of course there's the virus. COVID-19 will be characterized as an unfortunate pandemic that is being conquered by Joe Biden's brave and empathetic plan. And should Joe's plan not work to reduce "cases" (a ridiculous measure, but since it was pushed by the Dems, they now have to live with it) , it'll all be back-referenced to Trump's "incompetence." No one will mention that Joe's plan is identical to Trump's, and few will note that it was Trump, not a single Democrat, whose Operation Warp Speed resulted in a vaccine long before the :"experts" said it could happen.

And through it all, Joe Biden's obvious early stage demensia will be absolutely off-limits. Questions from the Dems' trained hamsters in the media  will be so gentle they'll be laughable. Nothing even remotely challenging will be asked. And no one will even mention Burisma or the odd anomalies that occurred on election day.

T. Becket Adams comments on the end of what Vanity Fair (without irony) called "the Golden Age of Journalism." In what will be a 180 like no other 180, the trained hamsters of "the golden age" will no longer be the combative "heroes' only they think they are. Instead, they'll become saccharine pussy cats who will fawn over Joe Biden as he brings us back "from the brink." So along with Adams, let's say:

... goodbye, then, to journalists elevating as worthy of public notice obvious liars and lunatics, including convicted felon Michael Avenatti … and conspiracy theorist Louise Mensch — all because they oppose the administration.

Goodbye to weekly “bombshells” that land with a “splat!” instead of a “boom!”

Goodbye to near-daily input from presidential historians turned political assassins …

Goodbye to White House correspondents pretending as if they are reporting from an active war zone or claiming they feel safer covering authoritarian regimes.

Goodbye to the Holocaust being invoked against the administration on a near-daily basis.

Goodbye to members of the press cheering America's enemies who may have insulted or upstaged a White House official.

Goodbye to the steady flow of news stories covering how reporters feel about covering the presidency.

Goodbye to members of the press pretending as if failed GOP “strategists” have a genuine concern for the future of the country and not just the health of their bank accounts.

Goodbye to news cycles based entirely on unverified gossip from disgruntled former administration staffers.

Goodbye to the seemingly endless stream of palace intrigue stories featuring people no one knows doing things no one remembers.

Goodbye to White House correspondents being celebrated exclusively for their histrionics and activism and not because they serve the public interest. Goodbye also to the pure theatrics of White House press briefings …

Goodbye to journalists pretending as if their lives are in danger because someone in the administration criticized them …

Goodbye to news cycles based entirely on the say-so of anonymous sources, especially those “familiar with the president’s thinking.”

Goodbye to industry-wide meltdowns over innocuous and harmless events, including the renovation of the White House Rose Garden.

Goodbye to wise-ass on-air news headlines, as they have given way already to saccharine and heroic descriptions of the president-elect:

Goodbye to true statements by White House officials being flunked as “false” or “mostly false” because of some tiny technicality cited by fact-checkers. We say goodbye also to fact-checkers being treated as celebrities and heroes.

Goodbye to stories about how the president is "raging,” “unraveling,” and “fuming." We say goodbye to reports about how the president is “isolated” and articles about how it is the “end” for the president.

Goodbye also to news cycles suggesting (or stating outright) that the president is mentally deranged.

Goodbye, but not farewell, because there is high probability that Biden and his emerging Team of 2s will capitulate to the hard-left demands of the new Democratic Party—and face plant on both domestic and foreign policy issues. That just might lead to a GOP election rout in the House and Senate in 2022 and (if protections against "voting irregularities" can be instituted over the next four years) another GOP president who will be the catalyst for yet another "Golden Age" of journalism.

Thursday, November 26, 2020

A Thanksgiving Thought

On this Thanksgiving Day, there's plenty to be thankful for, even with "covidiocy" and roiled presidential politics that have pervaded 2020. So yes, be thankful, but also be wary of those who want to transform our country, not for the better, but for their own considerably less than noble purposes.

Throughout the year and on the political front, we've seen behavior that is so extreme it can be astounding. Any comment that opposes "woke" thought is deemed by some to be "unsafe." Any action that doesn't perfectly conform to woke orthodoxy (an ever-changing target) can evoke outrage. Any person who suggests a different world view is automatically deemed a "racist" or "nazi."  The year has demonstrated that Social Justice Warriors have no sense of humor ... none. They live in a dark world of anger and accusation, hatred and fear. 

Throughout the year and on the public health front, we've seen policies and behavior that are so extreme it is frightening. A form of mass hysteria has gripped a significant percentage of the population, leading weak and stupid politicians to jettison real science and set policy that is at best nonsensical and at worst, destructive to lives and livelihoods. We've seen schools closed, businesses shuttered, and petty tyrants dictating public health policy that is as ridiculous and it is ineffective. Catastrophists are gripped by self-imposed isolation. They live in a dark world of fear, uncertainty and doubt. They are perfectly willing to insist that their self-imposed dread should be a reason to control the lives of those who are less fearful.

Now we hear a president-elect talk about "unity." But as we will surely see in the coming year, "unity" will be defined by the Left as total agreement (a.k.a. capitulation) with their ideas and proposed policies, no matter how ill-informed or ineffective or costly those policies are. But I suppose we can be thankful that Joe Biden has at least used the word "unity."

As Biden and the Woke ascend to a position of power, this Thanksgiving thought is worth heeding ... 

“If you can’t control your own emotions, you’re forced to control other people’s behaviour, That’s why the touchiest, most oversensitive and easily upset must not set the standard for the rest of us.”  John Clease

Wednesday, November 25, 2020


When I was younger, I played on a 4.5 USTA league tennis team. Our team won the local championship, went on the the states and then the regionals.  In the doubles match in the regional finals against a team from RI, we split the first two sets and then played to 6-6 in the third. Oh, BTW, the teams were supposed to be honorable and call the lines, there was no umpire or line judge. It was 6-5 in a tie breaker (ad-in), my serve. 

If we win the point, our team goes on to the national championships. I served to the T (up the middle) for a clean ace. The ball was in by an inch in both directions, close, but unquestionably in. Spectators agreed. The RI team called it out. My partner and I argued, then called an official, who listened, but then asked that we play the point over.

"No," I argued. "The serve was good. The match is over." 

Even though I think he sensed that our opponents cheated, the official cited the rules when disagreement about a line call occurred and said that we had to play the point over. He was hesitant to declare one team a victor. We lost 8-6 in the breaker. Our team did not go the the nationals, RI did.

I refused to shake my opponents' hands, thereby refusing to concede. And even with the wisdom of years, I would do the same thing today.

I know it's an old-school sentiment, but there should be a certain honor to competition—the recognition that an opponent has as much right to win as you do. But also the hard and fast rule that you never cheat, never.

* * * * * * * *

For the most part, I do believe that our recent election was conducted fairly. There were certainly isolated instances of irregularity, but overall the vote was fair. But where it really mattered, in a select number of blue cities in battleground states, I cannot state with certainty that the election was conducted fairly, that the "hard and fast rule that you never cheat, never" was followed by local officials.

With tongue planted firmly in his cheek, J.B. Shurk writes:

Candidate Joe Biden was so effective at animating voters in 2020 that he received a record number of votes, more than 15 million more than Barack Obama received in his re-election of 2012. Amazingly, he managed to secure victory while also losing in almost every bellwether county across the country. No presidential candidate has been capable of such electoral jujitsu until now.

While Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton’s 2016 totals in every urban county in the United States, he outperformed her in the metropolitan areas of Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Even more surprising, the former VP put up a record haul of votes, despite Democrats’ general failures in local House and state legislative seats across the nation.

He accomplished all this after receiving a record low share of the primary vote compared to his Republican opponent heading into the general election. Clearly, these are tremendous and unexpected achievements that would normally receive sophisticated analysis from the journalist class but have somehow gone mostly unmentioned during the celebrations at news studios in New York City and Washington, D.C.

The massive national political realignment now taking place may be one source of these surprising upsets. Yet still, to have pulled so many rabbits out of his hat like this, nobody can deny that Biden is a first-rate campaigner and politician, the likes of which America has never before seen. Let’s break down just how unique his political voodoo has been in 2020 ...

Shurk goes on to discuss more specific anomalies, red flags, and hard data that indicate the "miracle" of Bidens' win. Amazing things like:

Proving how sharp his political instincts are, the former VP managed to gather a record number of votes while consistently trailing President Trump in measures of voter enthusiasm. Biden was so savvy that he motivated voters unenthusiastic about his campaign to vote for him in record numbers. 

Julie Kelly notes another out of PA: 

Roughy 2.5 million Pennsylanians voted absentee in the general election; nearly 2 million of those votes were cast for Joe Biden. One analysis found rejection rates for  Pennsylvania mail-in ballots was 30 times lower this year compared to 2016.

That's odd, but yet another indicator of the Biden "miracle." 

But all of the anomalies, red flags, and hard data don't matter, dismissed by a media that has given new meaning to the word 'gaslighting,' and enabled by courts that are understandably hesitant to negate an election.

The Dems understood these realities and called the serve "out," and the server didn't even get a do-over. The rest is (tainted) history.

Tuesday, November 24, 2020

Miracle Worker

The core of the 2020 Democrat campaign for the presidency—a successful one if you discount all of the voting anomalies that the establishment would prefer you ignore—is that Donald Trump is a very, very bad person who has killed 200,000 plus people by not having a plan (don't worry, Joe Biden has a plan*) to combat COVID-19.

According to the four constituencies, everything the Trump administration did relative to COVID-19 was wrong. 

And ... Trump told us that his private-public vaccine development program, Operation Warp Speed, would get us a vaccine by the end of 2020." 

Our betters in the establishment laughed derisively at that. They suggested that Trump was lying, that he was disconnected from reality, that he refused to follow the sage advice of public health geniuses like Dr. Anthony Fauci, who told us a one to two year gestation period for vaccines was a "best case scenario." The establishment's collective lack of imagination, management skill, and optimism was astonishing.

Like everything else they espoused in 2020, the Dems and their allies throughout the media, the #NeverTrump GOP, and the deep state were wrong—very, very wrong.

The NY Post Editorial Board writes:

All the way back in May, after Trump announced that a vaccine by year’s end was a real possibility, the usual media suspects dumped cold water on the idea. One NBC story that month, for example, insisted, “Experts say that the development, testing and production of a vaccine for the public is still at least 12 to 18 months off, and that anything less would be a medical miracle.”

Hmmm. Looks like Donald Trump—the guy who didn't have a plan, who ruthlessly "killed" our citizens by his "mismanagement" of the virus, who rejected the warped reality of Anthony Fauci, MD, who argued that Americans should NOT live in fear, who recommended opening schools and avoiding lockdowns—was a "miracle" worker.


*  This is a direct quote in which Biden struggled to enunciate his "plan" as he addressed the Governor's Conference last week. No words have been changed, added, or deleted with the exception of those in [brackets]. Biden's comments:

“We talked a lot about what the governors about what the immediate needs are.

I’m gonna, we’re gonna impose the, we’re gonna enforce the… excuse me… employ the defense [unintelligible] reconstructive act [he means the Defense Reconstruction Act, you know, the thing that Trump used back in April] to be able to go out there and dictate companies build and do following things.

We need much more testing. We need much more masking. [unintelligible] . We need gloves.

I asked them east to go and asked the national governors association through the Governor Cuomo and the ones on the line to let us know what their shortages are.”

Gosh, that's completely free of any useful detail and in places, borderline incoherent. 

It appears that Joe has memorized the line about more testing and masking (not sure where gloves came from). There have been no reports of shortages of this PPE in months. We're testing at rates that are unmatched anywhere in the world, and there is absolutely no indication that more testing will somehow bend the virus curve.

As every sentient follower of this election expected, Biden's "plan" is to continue work done by the Trump administration. This is my shocked face.

Monday, November 23, 2020

The Payoff

I have been fortunate enough to be able to donate to my alma mater every year since I've graduated, but I'm sure to target my donation specifically to the Engineering school. Even there, the religion of "wokeness" has just begun to pervade an education that emphasizes clear thinking, problem solving, and fact-based analysis. But in other parts of the university, things are very different. Josh Hammer describes what's happening:

It is both terrifying and perverse that America's intellectual gatekeepers—the "elite"-forming, credentialing institutions that separate the "deplorables" from the ruling class—impress self-loathing pablum upon malleable young minds. With some notable exceptions, American higher education today comprises madrasas of wokeness fundamentally hostile to the American regime and the American way of life. Many of the far Left's most toxic ideas, whether moral relativism, socialism, "anti-racism" or multiculturalism, either begin on campus or gain steam there. It shouldn't surprise anyone that one of the more popular policies in conservative egghead circles today is to expand loan access to, and accreditation support for, trade school alternatives to traditional four-year bachelor's degree-granting programs.

Intellectual bankruptcy notwithstanding, there are manifold more tangible problems associated with the failed higher education status quo. Four years spent on campus between the ages of 18 and 22 means four prime years forgone from acquiring vocational skills, advancing a career, and mating and forming families. It also often means, due in part to the federal government's effective monopoly over the student loan industry, four years of willful indebtedness to major in such patently silly "subjects" as "gender studies." Student loans are now the second-largest source of collective American debt, behind only mortgage debt. By some staggering estimates, Americans have over $1.5 trillion in student loan debt.

The new Democratic party relies heavily on wokeness as a key element of their recruiting efforts and its representatives within the professorial corps work overtime to convince college students that the only way to vote is Democratic. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that in order to 'buy' votes, the Dems followed the lead of socialist icon, Bernie Sanders, and have implied that they'll work on a program to eliminate or reduce college debt, voluntarily incurred, that students in programs like gender studies, art history ethnic studies, or any of dozens of BA programs that don't even come close to making a list of those that in most demand in the work force. Graduates of those programs graduate, have difficult finding a decent job (in what is likely to become Biden's recession, it likely they'll have even more difficulty), and then struggle to pay back their college loans.

The Dems, as is their nature, then suggest that those of us who saved and set aside money for our own children's college fund or those college student who worked second and third jobs (as I did in addition to going to school) so they would not incur appreciable debt, should now pay off debt of others.

Hammer continues:

This policy is idiotic in the extreme and brazenly immoral. Republicans and sensible Democrats must unite to defeat it.

The higher education-student loan complex is in desperate need of more transparency and accountability—not more bailouts. A prudent first step would be for creditors, whether public or (ideally) private, to present clear information about salaries and career paths for graduating high school seniors to consider before they commit to taking out hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans to major in "ethnic studies." The worst possible thing we could do would be a mass bailout of this nature, which would initiate a vicious, never-ending cycle of tuition spikes, more indebtedness and more bailouts. It is a quintessential exercise in trying to apply a Band-Aid to a grievously slit artery.

And of course there's the small matter of the millions who have been responsible and paid back their college debt—out of income from jobs their education allowed them to acquire. Are they suckers? Or what about trade people who chose to forgo college. Are they responsible for bailing out graduates who are in debt and can't find work?

But none of that matters to the Dems, particularly when they're recruiting lifetime votes. And why stop with college loans? Why not consider car loans next, then credit card debt, and finally home mortgages. After all, if we can bail out one group, what's wrong with bailing out all of them. 

Plenty ... it turns out.

Sunday, November 22, 2020


It's a given that Joe Biden will be sworn in as President of the United States on January 20, 2021. The fact that tens of millions of Americans believe that the vote for Biden in key battleground states was manipulated to ensure his victory taints his presidency from its very first day. But in the end, that doesn't matter. He will wield the power of the presidency and the Democrats have the one thing they have long sought—power.

What does matter is that our country cannot and should not go down a path in which democratic elections can be tainted in the future. Where ballots can be manufactured to ensure a specific outcome, where dead people and non-citizens vote (and only for one candidate), where software that counts ballots is untrustworthy and/or surreptitiously designed to favor one side, where observers whose job it is to ensure a proper vote are frozen out of the process, where people are paid to vote, where dozens of credible anomalies (a.k.a. "red flags") cause citizens to question the result. All of that—and more—is dangerous, and it must be stopped. That's why some of us believe that a full investigation is not only justified, it is imperative. We are under no illusion that it will affect the outcome, but it could make us better prepared to hold fair elections in the future.

* * * * * *

After recounting a news conference in which Donald Trump's legal team described dozens of red flags that indicate possible voter fraud along with sworn affidavits that represent legally appropriate "evidence" of wrong-doing (and also foolishly tacked on a number of 'out-there' conspiracy theories), Peggy Noonan reflects the opinion of many establishment Republicans when she writes:

This isn’t a game. America isn’t your plaything. Doesn’t Mr. Gingrich [who demands a full investigation] realize how dangerous it is to stoke people like this, to rev them up on the idea that holding even the slightest faith in the system is for suckers?

Trump staff and supporters should know at this point that in trying to change the outcome they are doing harm—undercutting respect in and hope for democracy. Republican senators and representatives, in their silence, are allowing the idea to take hold that the whole system is rigged. This lessens faith in institutions and in their party’s reputation. Republicans were once protective of who we are and what we created in this democratic republic long ago.

Now they’re not even protecting themselves; in future years what’s happening now will give their voters an excuse not to take part or show up. What’s the point? It’s all rigged.

The point, Ms. Noonan, is to determine whether the election results were "rigged" in a small number of select blue cities, and to root out the rot, if that in fact is the reality of the 2020 vote. That cannot and will not be done without ruffling some feathers, making a few unfortunate hyperbolic statements, going down a few dead ends, and looking under rocks that establishment types don't want to pick up. 

It appears that Ms. Noonan and her contemporaries are perfectly willing to turn the other cheek and walk off to fight another day. The narrative she, along with every Democrat, far too many establishment Republicans, and virtually all of the media espouse is that it's somehow "dangerous" to question very suspicious election results.

Is it not "dangerous" to dismiss the tens of millions of people* who think that an election was rigged in blue cities in battleground states to ensure a victory by the Democrats? Is it not dangerous for our media to remain willfully ignorant, refusing to investigate any claim of voter fraud independently? is it not dangerous to gaslight the public (as Peggy is doing) by claiming there is "no evidence" when dozens of sworn affidavits have been presented in on-going legal actions? And exactly how dangerous is it if wrong-doing did occur, and we do nothing about it, and hold no one accountable. What will happen in the next election and the one after than if bad actors know that they're home free?

It is the height of hypocrisy to suggest because many voters believe Trump is a bad guy, it's okay to look the other way as an election is (potentially) stolen. It is NOT a conspiracy theory to note that there's sworn testimony indicating that irregularities did occur and that they appear to be significant. It's not unreasonable to think (given both anecdotal and actual evidence) that something bad happened in cities like Philly and Detroit, Milwaukee and Atlanta. It's important to determine the extent of it, even if what we find doesn't change the election outcome. 


* The elites dismiss tens of millions of "deplorables" who they claim will believe any "conspiracy theory" because they are too stupid to know better. But if you give it a little thought, you might come to a different conclusion. 

  • Those "deplorables" watched in 2016 as the establishment gaslighted the public, telling them there was absolutely, positively, unequivocally NO attempt to spy on the Trump campaign and that anyone who believed that the FBI was involved was "crazy."  
  • Those same "deplorables" watched as Democrats and their trained hamsters in the media told the public that there was clear and compelling 'evidence' that Donald Trump was a Russian stooge who colluded with Vladimir Putin and that anyone who thought otherwise was a fool. 
  • Those same "deplorables" watched as SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh was labelled a gang rapist by the best and brightest among the progressive commentariat.
  • Those "deplorables" sat by as a sitting president was impeached using evidence so flimsy that it was laughable. 
Few within the establishment then suggested that any of that was "dangerous to our democracy," yet any attempt to get to the bottom of voting irregularities is now deemed "dangerous to our democracy."

So it's reasonable for the "deplorables" to listen to establishment people who lied through their teeth—repeated, blatantly, and without remorse or apology—and say, "Why should I believe them now?"

Why indeed?


Ever since early reports that election hardware and software developed and integrated by Dominion Voting Systems had a "glitch" that changed Trump votes to Biden votes (apparently corrected after discovery) we've been told by all the smartest people that the software was 100% solid, that there's NO WAY that it could be either externally or internally compromised by nefarious actors who might want to have it bias toward the Democratic candidate, that allegations of Democrat investors in the company may have influenced the algorithms that were implemented are nonsense and irrelevant, that it's all just a "conspiracy theory." Maybe. 

Dominion Software was supposed to appear before PA State Government Committee where it was supposed to answer questions about the "glitches" that occurred during this month's elections. Apparently, the company has lawyered up and refused to appear. That in and of itself proves nothing, but it is an intriguing development.

I've worked in the software world for more than almost five decades and written the world's best selling textbook on software engineering. I've worked with many companies in the Fortune 100 and dozens upon dozen of smaller companies—all focused on software design, software quality, change management, and software process. Given that, any time I hear someone tell me that an app has "no errors," that there's no possibility that external or internal compromise has occurred, that the software is 100% reliable and correct, red flags go up. 

Hmmm. More and more red flags.


As "there is NO WIDESPREAD VOTER FRAUD" gaslighting continues, the uniform narrative coming from the Pro-Biden forces is that "there is no evidence." Amber Athey comments:

The media has been claiming since the election ended that President Trump’s claims of voter fraud are ‘baseless’ and ‘without evidence’. That just is not true. The President’s lawyer gave examples of it during today’s press conference at the Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington DC. But everyone is too busy mocking him to pay attention. 

[This is, of course, a classic gaslighting technique—attack or mock the speaker so that the hard facts he presents are disregarded]

I tried to listen to what Giuliani actually said and not what he looked like or the characterization of him by the rest of the media ... [He] did in fact present evidence of voter fraud today but many people simply didn’t want to hear it. He cited multiple Americans, one by name, who have signed sworn affidavits stating that they witness some type of fraud, whether it was pro-Trump ballots being thrown out without cause, ballots being backdated to before the election, poll workers being told not to ask voters for identification, and more.

As Giuliani helpfully pointed out, affidavits are considered ‘evidence’ in a court case. Whether you agree or disagree with them is a different question. And it’s reasonable that not all of the people who signed their names would be willing to go public. If you want to hear more of the evidence that was presented, just watch the first hour or so of the press conference [begins at 00:16:54 of the video].

The simple reality is that there is no amount of evidence, however compelling, that will cause a stir among the Democrats' trained hamsters in the media. They're perfectly happy to look the other way. After all, what's a little fraud or a bogus election result when you've defeated the worst person on earth.


There appears to be a hint of desperation in the establishment's combined condemnation and plea to let allegations of voter fraud go. It's as if they can't understand why their gaslighting hasn't worked to convince tens of millions that there's nothing to see there, move along.

Richard Fernandez tweets:

Throughout 2020, there has been "widespread irrationality," but it has nothing to do with allegations of voting fraud. The four constituencies have worked very, very hard over the last four years to debase themselves. Their arguments and assertions are no longer considered credible by many, and they're so self-important and out-of-touch, they have no idea why that is.

Saturday, November 21, 2020

Masking Up

When people become gripped by fear, uncertainty and doubt (driven by media hype, dishonest reporting and lack of context), they can and often do give in to mass hysteria. And when they get to that place, they grasp at any "solution" to their perceived problem, no matter how questionable, ineffective, and intrusive. 

As they grasp at the "solution," they'll intone "science" as their justification, insisting that anyone who questions their weak or non-existent interpretation of "science" is putting people "at risk" and is a danger to society.

Enter masks and mask mandates.

The conventional wisdom of 2020 is that masks are a key element in "slowing the spread" of COVID-19. In fact, masking up has now become an article of faith, mandated in many states. Should Joe Biden ascend to the presidency as expected, it's likely we'll have a national mandate.*

Masks have also become a sign of "wokeness." If you wear a mask, it's a not-so-subtle signal that you care, that you're a member of a select, morally superior group that truly understands the danger of COVID-19 and wants desperately to protect society from it. In many locales, a person can and will be criticized if they're not wearing a mask (even outside) with the clear implication they're an uncaring person.

There's only one problem—masks do little if anything to "stop the spread."

Over the past few months the results of a major scientific study (in Denmark) on the efficacy of masks in combating the spread of COVID-19 have, in effect, been suppressed in the scientific literature. Yes, political correctness has begun to pervade scientific journals. Finally, those results are coming out. Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson summarize the findings:

... The ‘Danmask-19 trial’ was conducted in the spring with over 3,000 participants, when the public were not being told to wear masks but other public health measures were in place. Unlike other studies looking at masks, the Danmask study was a randomized controlled trial — making it the highest quality scientific evidence.

Around half of those in the trial received 50 disposable surgical face masks, which they were told to change after eight hours of use. After one month, the trial participants were tested using both PCR, antibody and lateral flow tests and compared with the trial participants who did not wear a mask.

In the end, there was no statistically significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did not when it came to being infected by COVID-19. [Emphasis mine] Of those wearing masks, 1.8 percent caught COVID, compared to 2.1 percent of the control group. As a result, it seems that any effect masks have on preventing the spread of the disease in the community is small.

Some people, of course, did not wear their masks properly. Only 46 percent of those wearing masks in the trial said they had completely adhered to the rules. But even if you only look at people who wore masks ‘exactly as instructed’, this did not make any difference to the results: 2 percent of this group were also infected.

When it comes to masks, it appears there is still little good evidence they prevent the spread of airborne diseases. The results of the Danmask-19 trial mirror other reviews into influenza-like illnesses. Nine other trials looking at the efficacy of masks (two looking at healthcare workers and seven at community transmission) have found that masks make little or no difference to whether you get influenza or not. [Emphasis mine]

Hmmm. But Joe Biden and his cadre of woke supporters tell us that masks make all the difference, that they'll stop the spread, that "science" supports their position—except it doesn't ... not even a little.


*  At the same time Joe Biden advocates a mandatory mask mandate (because he's following science that doesn't exist) he's also advocating a much less stringent border policy with Mexico. Consider for a moment that Mexico currently has the highest COVID-19 mortality rate in the world at 9.8 percent. Is it wise to encourage illegal border crossings over the six month or year? Is it just possible that a non-trivial percentage of those making the crossing might have the virus and transmit it to others inside the USA? Oh ... never mind. The wokeness of open borders will trump the wokeness of masks every time.

Friday, November 20, 2020


The editors of Issue and Insights labelled Joe Biden's budding administration as "A Potemkin Presidency." No term could be more accurate. 

The new Democratic Party has veered so far left that the few adults remaining in the room recognized, wisely it turned out, that hard left or socialist policies would never appeal the the broad American electorate. Sure, they might be well received in CA, OR or WA. They might even do well in MA, DC and a few other big cities, but that's about it. 

So Joe Biden, a cognitively disabled "moderate" became their version of a Potemkim village. On-line dictionaries provide three definitions for the term, all apt:

-- Something that appears elaborate and impressive but in actual fact lacks substance.

-- A false front or facade.

-- (idiomatic) Any false construct devised to disguise a shortcoming or improve appearances.

Bathing the naive and willfully ignorant in broad platitudes that provide the appearance of moderation, Biden's handlers have already set about constructing an administration that is hardly moderate. A facade of moderation is there, but behind that there's hard-left intent that will be moderated only if the GOP holds a majority in the Senate.

During Donald Trump's presidency, I noted on many occasions that although his words were often bombastic, combative, and downright objectionable, his actions benefitted the American people in tangible ways and resulted in often moderate, middle of the road policies. When he did veer to the right (most notably in SCOTUS picks), it was to balance the increasingly leftist-tilt of virtually every other American institution—the media, the deep state, academia, the arts and entertainment, the broader commentariat, and a majority of the courts.

In comparison, Biden's words are often gentle and his requests for "unity" seem innocent enough. The problem is that Biden is like a Potemkin village—what you see on the surface is a false front—not so much because Biden is a hard core leftist. He is not. But because Biden will not be in charge—his cognitive challenges simply won't allow that.

So who will be "in charge?" His cabinet picks will provide a few clues, his Justice Department will give us a few more, but realistically, it will be the unelected people inside the west-wing—his close advisors and other party insiders—who will define the Biden presidency.

The editors of the NY Post note the potential for foreign policy missteps:

Will Joe Biden throw President Trump’s Middle East achievements in the dirt, betraying a host of US allies to fecklessly chase after the goodwill of the Iranian regime? If not, he needs to choose carefully as he names his Cabinet and White House staff.

For starters, many retreads from Team Obama will want to bribe Tehran back into that dangerous nuclear deal — a slap in the face to Israel and most Arab states.

They’ll also push for a return to anti-Israel policies such as funding the Palestinian Authority even as it pays off terrorists and their families, and to allowing anti-Israel UN resolutions to pass.

One potential bad sign: If Biden yields to pressure from far-lefties like Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her anti-Israel Squad and brings back Obama’s worst idiots, such as ex-security adviser Ben Rhodes.

The bottom line—watch the people around the Biden presidency. If "far-lefties like Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her anti-Israel Squad and  ... Obama’s worst idiots" hold sway, we're in for a rough four years. 

Thursday, November 19, 2020


All of us know Democrats (and they almost always are progressive Democrats) who have completely isolated themselves from society for the past 9 months. Gripped by a form of hysteria that has been fostered by a corrupt and dishonest media, these fervent members of Team Apocalypse have been battered by fear, uncertainty and doubt and as a result, have taken truly extreme measures (with little, if any, scientific basis) to protect themselves.[1]

Out of irrational fear of COVID-19 they have metaphorically hidden in their basements, venturing out (if they do so at all) only to buy food and other absolutely necessities. They have banned friends and families from visiting their homes, and would never go anywhere that has more that just a few people. They refuse to allow even their relatives or children to make physical contact, and in a fit of moral preening, condemn and criticize anyone who does. They are strong, strong proponents of mandatory masking, generally support indefinite lockdowns, and have regularly questioned the safety and efficacy of vaccines (mainly because they were developed under the leadership of the evil Donald Trump). 

It might surprise you to learn that I have no problem with any of that—up to a point. If progressive Democrats want to remain in their basements, wear masks in the backyard, lock down themselves and their families, and refuse to take the vaccine, good for them. It's their decision to lose months or years of their lives, even if science (oh, yes, even as they insist that they're "following the science") tells us the benefits of these measures are questionable at best and the threat of death from the virus for most them is vanishingly small.

But when these fervent members of Team Apocalypse project their hysteria (there is no better way to describe it) outward and demand that all of us should be forced to mask-up everywhere, and even worse, that the nation be locked down yet again, I draw the line. 

But why? After all, the science tells us ... wait ... the science? There is considerable scientific evidence that masks do relatively little to stop the spread of COVID-19 (despite the dishonest media and public health hype). Masks do, unquestionably, make some people feel safer, but in reality, their efficacy in stopping the spread is estimated between 2 and 5 percent. That's not a lot.

And lockdowns? They are demonstrably bad. In fact, catastrophically bad. But then again, at least some of us recognized that back in March and April

But not the petty tyrants who run some blue states and cities. Just yesterday, Mayor Bill DeBlasio of NYC, a progressive's progressive, yet again closed schools, because ... "cases!!!" No matter that the CDC notes that children are at close to zero risk from COVID-19 and student-to-teacher transmission of the virus is very, very low. It seems that progressives just love lockdowns, the actual science be damned.

I cringe when highly educated remote workers, or government workers who will be paid for not showing up during a lockdown, or people of means who have fled the cities for second homes, or those who are retired come out in favor of yet another lockdown. They tell us that it's all about "stopping the spread," about overrun hospitals (there are few if any, despite the dishonest media and public health hype) and about "caring." Yeah, always about "caring" and empathy for their fellow citizens.

No ... actually it isn't about caring or empathy ... it about selfishness. If that seems harsh, think of it this way. There are tens of millions of people who cannot work out of their homes, who do not have the luxury of not working at all (i.e., they are not retired) and don't have the means to escape to a "safer" place. They are under enormous financial pressure already—rent or mortgages that are past due, little money to buy the necessities they need, their children unable to go to schools that blue state government bureaucrats refuse to open, difficulty in getting health care for conditions that have nothing to do with the virus ... it never ends.

They are factory workers, food service employees, gig workers, waiters and waitresses, employees of small businesses that have been deemed to be "non-essential," small landlords who cannot collect rent from out-of-work people who cannot pay it, millions of service employees who are out of work, the working poor, and yeah, the shrinking pool of taxpayers who have been asked to provide trillions in "stimulus money" to keep those tens of millions from starving, and will now be asked to provide trillions more.

Those people are hurting big time and every time you hear someone like Joe Biden or his emerging Team of 2s suggest that another lockdown might be considered, it's a clear indication that he and the people who support his lockdown strategy simply don't care. 

Sure, Joe and his cadre of remote workers, people of means and retirees will weather another  lockdown just fine. But the rest, well screw 'em. It's all about fear and "stopping the spread" ... even if the science and recent history indicates that lockdowns do little if any good and the consequences to lives and livelihoods will be ruinous. 

Actually, mandates and lockdowns are all about allowing petty tyrants at the local, state and federal level to exert power over their subjects. Supporting these petty tyrants isn't an act of "caring," it's an act of selfishness, but don't say that to fearful progressives who are hiding in their basements.


[1] There are obvious exceptions. People with suppressed immune systems (e.g., cancer patients) and those with significant health risks (e.g., severe asthma, COPD, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, other pulmonary and heart problems) do need to be very careful (as they would for any SARS-like illness) and in their case, isolation is justified.

Tuesday, November 17, 2020


The narrative slowly morphs by the day. First it was "unity." The Democrats appear to have won the presidential election despite so many anomalous data points (indicating voting irregularities) that only fools and the willfully ignorant can accept the trope that "there was no voter fraud." Then, the narrative moved toward "civility," even as mobs of antifa/BLM thugs attacked elderly Trump supporters eating dinner in Washington, DC and elsewhere (as Democrats said nothing to condemn those actions and claimed the attacks "were taken out of context"). Now, we hear that because Trump refuses to concede (completely understandable, given the voting anomalies and on-going court cases) the "transition" is somehow in trouble, and poor Joe Biden won't be able to release his fantasy plan for eliminating COVID-19. What a joke.

Donald Trump and his administration deserve enormous credit for eliminating red tape and establishing a private industry - government partnership that got viable vaccines developed in record time. As I recall, Trump demanded and got logistical planning for vaccine distribution started months and months ago (prescient) even as the Democrats and their trained hamsters in the media ridiculed him for stating (correctly, it turns out) that vaccines would be available by the end of this year. 

Joe Biden tells us that he needs to get national security briefings so he can plan for vaccine distribution. Uh, Joe ... a plan has been developed, competent people are working on it, the military and big pharma are involved—just take a step back and let the adults do the work they've already started. And should you become president, don't muck it up with bureaucratic red tape and big government nonsense that demands a "diverse" distribution as opposed to an effective one.

And now, in an effort to denigrate the truly remarkable job that Trump did on COVID vaccines, Biden is telling us that it's "not enough to have the vaccines, it's all about vaccination." Deep, Joe, really deep.

If things play out as expected, Donald Trump will be President of the United States for two more months. I know that galls the Democrats, but maybe they should work on a little "unity" and "civility" and accept the notion that competent people don't need their hands held for months in order to transition into the presidency.

In that regard, it's worth noting that in 2016 during the Obama-Trump transition, the Obama Team of 2s did everything possible to sabotage the incoming administration. Julie Kelly comments:

[Just this week, Barack Obama] told a swooning Scott Pelley on “60 Minutes” that “there are a set of traditions that we have followed in the peaceful transfer of power. The outgoing president congratulates the incoming president, instructs the government and the agencies to cooperate with the new government coming in.”

If those remarks don’t make your eyes roll all the way back in your head and prompt a loud guttural guffaw, nothing will. Between Election Day 2016 and Inauguration Day 2017, Barack Obama and Joe Biden may have given a public impression of the peaceful transfer of power, but they were working behind the scenes to sabotage the incoming president and his team. Obama, on his way out the door, set in motion four straight years of internal insurrection. 

It was sedition, not transition.

At the very moment Barack Obama welcomed Trump to the Oval Office on November 10, 2016 for a kumbaya photo op, his FBI was spying on Trump campaign advisor Carter Page, and by extension, Donald Trump. Barack Obama’s FBI, under the corrupt leadership of James Comey, used fabricated political opposition research to convince a secret court that Page was a Russian agent and had conspired with the Russians to rig the election. Comey and Sally Yates, Obama’s deputy attorney general, signed the initial FISA warrant on October 21, 2016.

Comey’s FBI also was investigating three other Trump associates including his former campaign manager and Lt. General Michael Flynn, the incoming national security advisor.

After Trump won, Obama continued to stoke the fantasy that Trump’s election was illegitimate due to Russia’s “attack” on our democracy. On December 9, 2016, Obama amplified the farce by instructing his intelligence community to conduct a “full investigation” into the 2016 election.

Maybe Biden et al ought to focus on being sure that (unlike the first administration Biden worked in) the new Biden administration makes a "transition" to a governance model that isn't rife with scandal, incompetence, and dishonesty.

If past history serves, my guess is that Trump will accomplish more in his remaining two months than Joe Biden and his emerging Team of 2s will accomplish in their first two years.


The Biden era (predictably, a near-repeat of the Obama era) is likely to begin in late January. It would behoove Biden's handlers to consider this tweet:

None. At. All.

Monday, November 16, 2020


It just keeps getting worse and worse. Over the past three decades the mainstream media has evolved (possible 'devolved' is a better word) from a moderately objective journalistic enterprise that at least gave the appearance of objectivity to out outright propaganda arm of the Democratic Party. They have become the equivalent of Pravda—completely untrustworthy on a wide variety of political subjects, completely in the tank for the Democrats, and completely devoid of any journalistic ethics. Nothing exemplifies this behavior more than the media's treatment of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal (and the implication the Joe Biden was involved in a pay-to-play arrangement with the Chinese, the Ukrainians, and others).

Glen Greenwald, one of the few remaining true journalists of the left side of the political spectrum, has written a scathing critique of his media colleagues, using the Biden scandal as it's centerpiece. You won't see Greenwald (a progressive) on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, or read his work in the NYT, WaPo, or LAT or any of dozens of left-wing media rags—and that in itself gives him a level of credibility that is noteworthy.

Greenwald writes:

Congressman Adam Schiff, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and, not coincidentally, the single most shameless pathological liar in the U.S. Congress by a good margin, appeared on CNN with Wolf Blitzer on October 16 to discuss The New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s emails ...

Schiff stated definitively that it is: “we know that this whole smear on Joe Biden comes from the Kremlin,” adding: “clearly, the origins of this whole smear are from the Kremlin, and the President is only too happy to have Kremlin help in amplifying it.” 

... Schiff, as he usually does when he moves his mouth, was lying ... As he also usually does when he publicly lies, Schiff was merely echoing the propaganda of current and former operatives of the CIA and other arms of the intelligence community who abuse their power to interfere in U.S. domestic politics: the very factions over which the Intelligence Committee run by Schiff is supposed to exercise oversight supervision, not serve as their parrot ... 

Adam Schiff is an inveterate, proven, liar and an embarrassment to the Congress, but this isn't really about him. It about a wholly credulous media that parrots his lies, amplifies them, never, ever challenges his mendacious assertions, and tries to produce a narrative from them that protects their chosen party and candidate. That's beyond dishonest—it's propaganda, and it's absolutely toxic to our democracy.

After providing example after example of propaganda emanating from once-respected major news sources (e.g., WaPo, NYT), Greenwald concludes:

Journalism, in its minimally healthy form, requires evidence before spreading inflammatory accusations about a nuclear-armed power [Russia] and, even more so, speculation designed to discredit evidence of possible misconduct by the front-running candidate [Biden] for the U.S. presidency. But here we have yet another case where purported news outlets — knowing that there is no price to pay professionally or reputationally for publishing evidence-free intelligence agency propaganda as long as it benefits the Party and advances the ideology which they all embrace — casually spread disinformation without the slightest evidentiary basis.

Yet again we find that the most prolific propagators of Fake News and disinformation are not the enemies of the mainstream U.S. media. It is the mainstream U.S. media itself that deceives, propagandizes and spreads disinformation on behalf of the coalition of the intelligence community and the Democratic Party far more than any other faction or entity.

Where is the evidence that Russia was involved in this New York Post story? And how can media outlets who endorsed and spread this and now refuse any self-critique expect anything but distrust and scorn from the public when they do this?

Among Donald Trump's many real, measurable accomplishments, as he (provisionally) is about to leave office, is his continuing critique of what he calls, "The Fake News Media." He is NOT wrong in that characterization nor is he wrong that the Pravda-like behavior of the mainstream media is a real "threat to our democracy."


The mainstream propaganda media speaks with one voice and promulgates only one narrative—the one that makes their Democrat masters happy. Don't believe me? Take a look below:

After Joe Biden's (provisional) victory, the Left decided that four years of #Resistance were enough, and that anyone who might disagree with a pronounced leftist tilt that will assuredly accompany a Biden administration (along with all of the disastrous policies and decisions that accompany that) must capitulate—"HEAL." Hence, the word was send out across the nation. Nah, there's no approved narrative—just look at the diversity of headlines above.

Sunday, November 15, 2020


In the interest of "unity," our better angels tell us, we should accept the results of an election that has been exemplified by many, many red flags indicating, but admittedly not yet proving, that there have been rather substantial voting irregularities in blue cities within battleground states. We should shrug our shoulders and think that any irregularities that occurred wouldn't effect the outcome. We should capitulate to the gaslighters who tell us that there has been absolutely no "widespread" voter fraud and that anyone who wants to investigate the subject is a "sore loser" or a "conspiracy theorist." We should "move on" because all of this isn't good for the country. 


But it's even worse for the country to have tens of millions of voters believe that their vote has been compromised, that mail-in ballots were manipulated, that same-day registrations were bogus, that thousands of dead people voted, that turnouts within blue cities in battleground states inexplicably outpaced voter turnouts in blue cities in places like NYC or LA, that software errors (for software used in 30 states) oddly seemed to benefit only Joe Biden in vote count, and much more. And that the denials that any of these things happened by government officials and corporate chieftans should be believed when the same categories of people blatantly lied and told us, for instance, that there was no spying on or any attempt to disrupt the Trump administration in 2016 - 2018.

Had Joe Biden won by the landslide that his media pollsters predicted, none of this would be an issue. But he didn't—his margins in many battleground states are razor thin.

Given the red flags and the thin margin of victory, wouldn't it be better to conduct a brief, but thorough investigation where evidence of wrong-doing is presented? If there is no evidence of wrong-doing or blatant violations of law, the courts will dismiss any lawsuits and we can all move on, satisfied that the election is clean. In fact, why would the Democrats object to this? Voter fraud is something that everyone should oppose—everyone.

During the past week across the entirety of the media, we've heard calls for "unity." The implication is that anyone who has questions resulting from all of the red flags is against unity.

David Harsanyi comments:

What “unity” really means, of course, is capitulation. America is once again being subjected to the inane brand of pseudo-patriotic sloganeering we saw during the Obama years. Now, as then, the media will pretend that the moral fabric of the nation must be mended after Republican rule. It’s pretty transparent. When Democrats win the presidency, we are treated to solemn calls for national restoration and political harmony, and to the expectation that, for the good of the nation, the opposition will embrace decorum and pass legislation they oppose. When Republicans win elections, grown women put on knitted hats depicting their reproductive organs and stomp around Washington protesting, all to a hero’s welcome.

Time magazine, the same publication that helped erode trust in our electoral system with conspiratorial covers of the White House morphing into the Kremlin, now offers a commemorative cover featuring Joe Biden and Kamala Harris with the words, “A time to heal.” Unlike some of our progressive friends, I don’t believe in enemies lists or censorship ... 

In 2016, the Democratic party was considerably less than gracious in defeat. It investigated specious (and ultimately disproven) claims of Russian collusion not for two months, but for two years, conducted a soft coup within the federal government to unseat an elected president, and called for "resistance and impeachment" immediately after the 2016 election. There was NO unity.

Maybe, just maybe, in a show of "unity" that they tell us they want so badly, the Dems should encourage a brief and thorough investigation into the vote count in PA, GA, WS, MI, AZ, and NV. And not just a "recount," but an audit that might uncover fraudlent votes that were either submitted (by say, dead people) or manufactured. Joe Biden can take the lead, because as he tells us, "there are no red and blue states, just the United States." Inspiring words no doubt, but at the end of the day, it's actions—not words—that matter.


The Democrat drumbeat for "unity" is accompanied by relentless calls for "civility." I am in agreement with both sentiments, until I think about how the Democrats recently acted when they were not in power. George Neumayr comments:

Joe Biden’s campaigns have rested on the most rancid racial politics. In 2020, he routinely accused his opponent of racism and support for white supremacism, drawing on nothing but his own libelous twisting of Trump’s words after the rioting in Charlottesville. In 2012, Biden had accused Republicans of planning to put blacks “back in chains.” His venom came out also on non-racial matters ...

But now Biden’s thoughts turn to civility. He promises to lead us out of a “grim era of demonization.” Biden is not the first Democrat to peddle this claptrap. Indeed, it is a standard hypocrisy of Democrats: out of power, they extol incivility; once they regain power, they denounce it ...

In times of political exile, Democrats countenance all manner of incivility. They cheered as John Lewis and company boycotted Trump’s inauguration. They defended a play in Central Park that depicted a Trumpian figure stabbed to death. They laughed as comedienne Kathy Griffin held up a mock-severed head of Trump. More recently, they found nothing to condemn in the monstrously uncivil rhetoric of Black Lives Matter.

After four years in which not only Donald Trump, but tens of millions of his followers, were accused of racism, misogyny, traitorous activity, and general bigotry, it is the height of hypocrisy for the Dems to now call for "civility." But maybe they've seen the error of their ways and truly want a more civil political discourse. After all, the Left and the new Democratic party are known for that, aren't they?

Friday, November 13, 2020

Joe's Masks—Part II

The centerpiece of the Democrat presidential campaign was to imply that Donald Trump somehow dropped the COVID-19 ball by failing to adequately plan and/or manage the national response to the virus. That's nonsense, but it was effective, at least among the fantasy thinkers who populate much of the Democratic party and plenty of independents who the media scared to death vis-a-vis COVID-19.

Joe Biden has won the election (provisionally). So now he must demonstrate that: (1) he has a superior plan to "defeat the virus," (2) his plan includes steps not taken by the outgoing administration, and (3) he cares, really, really cares, about all of us. The problem for Biden's "virus task force," is that deep down they all understand the science (a cognitively impaired Biden most certainly does not). What that means is that they realize that most of what Trump's people did was on target, reasonably well-organized, and appropriate. The only thing the task force has left is to continue the Trump plan (renamed, of course!) and announce meaningless gestures that will do little if anything to actually stop the spread, but which Biden's trained hamsters in the media can sell as a major advance in the handling of COVID-19. 

Enter Biden's mask mandate—the ultimate in meaningless gestures.

Pandemic viruses are an act of nature. They spread according to known statistical models, and have been enormously difficult to stop.

Suggesting that masks can stop the spread of a virus is like arguing that sandbags can stop a tsunami. 

Both might give the uninformed or hysterical a feeling of security, but neither will provide real safety.

The Wall Street Journal presents a critique of yet another flawed IMHE study, that suggests that masks can save over 100,000 lives through 2021. The study is deeply flawed, using obsolete data and poor assumptions to make its case. Yet, it has been widely referenced by the media without analysis or critique. The intent is to provide cover for Biden as he demands that masks be worn everywhere.

In reality, the virus is gonna virus, and there's relatively little we can do to stop it.  With the exception of highly destructive lockdowns that have done more harm than good, the only effective way to stop the spread is to wait until the virus burns itself out as it passes through the population or until an effective vaccine is available. That's the real science, but the catastrophists among us refuse to accept it. 


And now for comic relief, the nation's chief catastrophist, charter member of Team Apocalypse, and one of the few people who refused to consider the unintended consequences of a national lockdown, the sainted Dr. Anthony Fauci, has declared contemporaneously with Joe Biden's ascendancy to the White House that ... get ready ...

"Certainly it’s not going to be a pandemic for a lot longer because I believe the vaccines are going to turn that around."

That's amazing. Joe is provisional president-elect for a little more than a week and he's conquered the virus. Given that the vaccines were developed in record time under the Trump administration's program, Operation Warp Speed, Fauci probably could have made this statement a month ago, but at that time (in the middle of the election run) he was saying (incorrectly, I might add) that there would be no vaccine until mid 2021. Hmmm.

Had Donald Trump been re-elected, the virus, I am sure, would have remained "virulent, deadly and uncontained"—indefinitely. Any vaccine would have been "unproven, potentially dangerous, and rushed to market with little concern for safety."

But now, with Joe at the helm, the Dem's trained hamsters in the media will trumpet "it’s not going to be a pandemic for a lot longer." In a way, at least, that's a silver lining for Joe's (provisional) win. I just wonder how ol' Joe is going to pull off an obligatory mask mandate and at the same time have his media flunkies tell us that everything is getting better. I've got it ... it's not the vaccine, it's the masks. Joe has saved us all!


It's far too early to characterize Biden's advisors as a Team of 2s, but it sure looks like that's the direction he's heading. The Wall Street Journal writes:

Did you enjoy the days at home from mid-March to May? The 22 million lost jobs, the shuttered storefronts, the neighborhood shops out of business, the kids unable to attend school, and the near economic depression? Well, congratulations, a reprise may be coming your way if Joe Biden heeds his Covid-19 advisory team.

We’ve told you about Ezekiel Emanuel, the advisory committee member who wanted new lockdowns during the summer flare-up in the Sunbelt states. Lucky for the country that his only power then was appearing on MSNBC.

Then there’s Michael Osterholm, also a member of the Biden Covid committee, who now wants a new nationwide lockdown for as many as six weeks. Dr. Osterholm is director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. CNBC quoted him as suggesting that we are about to enter “Covid hell” and the government should lock everyone up as we await a vaccine.

Hopefully, cooler, more pragmatic heads will prevail, but it's possible that in addition to a meaningless mask mandate, Joe might opt for another lockdown, let the catastrophic economic consequences (not be mention the awful health and educational consequences) be damned. After all, Joe spent the majority of 2020 in his basement. He might think that there's no reason you shouldn't do the same thing as well.


And for those catastrophists who will exclaim, But ... but ... but ... "cases" are up ... way up! There's this little factoid: Cases may be up, but deaths are down ... way down. In fact, in IL, a place where "cases" are way up, a person has a higher probability of being killed by a gunshot that they have of dying from COVID-19. Just sayin'.