Exploring what can happen when people think for themselves.
At one point, according to the Judicial Watch lawsuit noted in this press release, Las Angeles county had a voter registration rate of 112% of eligible voters.
There are those who claim that no evidence of voter fraud exists. I say that if we don’t look for voter fraud – even when the potential is right in front of us – we’ll never find it.
It’s officially a race to the bottom, folks.
Nancy Pelosi allegedly said this during a CNN interview with Anderson Cooper when asked about the President’s admission that he, in consultation with his doctor, was taking hydroxychloroquine as a prophylactic against the coronavirus [1]:
“As far as the president is concerned, he’s our president and I would rather he not be taking something that has not been approved by the scientists, especially in his age group and in his, shall we say, weight group — what is it, morbidly obese they say. So I don’t think that’s a good idea”
Two problems here:
1) I don’t think that Nancy has obtained a medical degree, so whether she thinks it’s “…a good idea…” or not is irrelevant. However, even if she is an MD it is not up to her or her scientists to override Trump’s doctor. Science can provide input, but the doctor is the one who makes the final decision (particularly when doctors and scientists disagree [2]).
2) ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? She’s so childish and petty that she actually called the president FAT during a national interview?!? THIS from the leader of the House of Representatives of the United States?
Maybe Nancy should see a doctor about adjusting her medication….
Editor’s note: Nancy, some disagree with your assessment of hydroxychloroquine as a prophylactic against the coronavirus. From a recent NPR article: [3]
“Although researchers have been skeptical of hydroxychloroquine’s role in treating COVID-19, there is more enthusiasm about its potential to prevent infection. That’s because multiple studies have shown that the drug can prevent coronavirus replication.”
[1] Wilfsohn, Joseph A. “Nancy Pelosi Digs at Trump, Calls President ‘Morbidly Obese.’” Fox News, 18 May 2020, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nancy-pelosi-calls-president-morbidly-obese.
[2] Morin, Rebecca. “Trump Aide Peter Navarro Says ‘second Opinion’ Needed on Fauci’s View of Anti-Malaria Drug.” USA Today, 6 Apr. 2020, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/04/06/coronavirus-navarro-fauci-second-opinion-hydroxychloroquine/2953155001/.
[3] Palca, Joe. “Despite FDA Caution, Trump Says He Is Taking Hydroxychloroquine As A Preventive.” NPR, 18 May 2020, https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/18/858335915/despite-fdas-caution-trump-says-he-is-taking-hydroxychloroquine-preventatively.
If states insist on following their own rules with respect to the coronavirus pandemic, then why should the federal government be responsible for bailing out their economies? And how would pushing a states coronavirus debt onto the federal government (i.e. – onto everyone equally) be fair to those states who managed the crisis well?
The fair way to distribute costs associated with the coronavirus pandemic is for each state to absorb its own. This will spur innovation and sensible budget management during the crisis. States spending what they believe to be someone is else’s money, on the the hand, will only result in wasteful spending on pet projects and causes that could not otherwise be funded.
Franky, I don’t want to pay for California’s progressive wish list or New York City’s failure to implement reasonable social distancing guidelines early in the pandemic.
People! Put on your damn masks and let’s get back to work!
Coronavirus infections would plunge if 80 percent of people wore masks, study says
There is now officially no reason for the U.S. to remain closed for business. Well, except for the fact that the referenced study has not yet been peer reviewed.
This still looks like the best course of action going forward. Yes, there will be some coronavirus infections, but if our goal is a zero infection rate then we will be closed forever.
NPR shows its bias once again by providing a salacious headline that all will quote before reading the actual article:
Replace Trump And Bolster The CDC, A Leading Medical Journal Urges [1]
What the headline does not say is that the “leading medical journal” is actually The Lancet, an old and formerly well-respected journal that has taken some controversial positions in recent years that have negatively impacted its reputation [2] – including a now discredited and retracted research paper linking autism to certain vaccines [3]. The headline also does not indicate that the article referenced is actually an editorial – worse, an unsigned (essentially anonymous) non-peer-reviewed editorial (aka: an op-ed) [4]. It is nothing more than anonymous political propaganda given weight by the (now questionable) reputation of the journal in which it is carried.
I’m not a fan of anonymous editorials because they are so hard to defend against. How do we know that the author has sufficient knowledge to make their claims? How do we know whether or not the author has ulterior political motives, or a conflict of interest with those whom they attack? Unfortunately, the inability to defend against an unnamed attacker is what makes anonymous editorials so valuable as political hit-jobs, such as the NPR-referenced unsigned editorial.
Shame on you NPR for your misleading headline, and for not noting in your article the controversies with which the Lancet has been involved in recent years.
Editor’s note: I find it interesting that the NPR article is dated 5/15/20 11:18am (updated 2pm ET), while the DOI link to the file indicates that it was published 5/16/20. Is the fact that the media had it before it was published evidence that the piece is nothing more than political propaganda? Food for thought…
[1] Chappell, Bill. “Replace Trump And Bolster The CDC, A Leading Medical Journal Urges.” NPR, 15 May 2020, https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/15/856733300/replace-trump-and-bolster-the-cdc-a-leading-medical-journal-urges.
[2] Russell, Ben. “‘Lancet’ Back at Centre of Controversy.” Independent, 12 Oct. 2006, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/lancet-back-at-centre-of-controversy-419683.html.
[3] Park, Madison. “Medical Journal Retracts Study Linking Autism to Vaccine.” CNN, 2 Feb. 2010, https://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/02/lancet.retraction.autism/index.html.
[4] “Reviving the US CDC.” The Lancet, 16 May 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31140-5.
…to set prices for private services! If prices are too high, a free market will correct through the development of new competition.
Cities Crack Down On Food Delivery App Fees As Restaurants Struggle To Survive
Would you be so quick to condone this behavior by government bureaucrats if it was your price (wages) that the government was limiting?
And, once again, here’s proof:
Former Cleveland Clinic Researcher Allegedly Failed To Disclose Ties To China
Judges must follow the law – not bend it to their political will. Exhibiting political bias in any way should be strongly admonished, and this judge seriously needs to be reprimanded:
It’s simply not a fair arrangement. The can lie to you, but you can’t lie to them. And even of your intent is to be truthful, their goal might be to trip you up any way they can just so that they can charge you with lying.