bamak

[Victor Davis Hanson @VDHanson]

Dr Fauci and Mr. Science

The Fauci files reveal not just a sociopathic narcissist, but also a pathological schizophrenic.

For years, Fauci was assuring the public of Covid narratives that he either knew were untrue, or knew little about.

He posed as a non-partisan, even as he collaborated with the leftwing cable news grandees and liberal columnists to hound his enemies and magnify his godhead.

From the virus’s origins and effects of the lockdowns, to the efficacy of the mRNA vaccinations to the always changing 0/1/2 masks wearing protocols, Fauci used his massive government agency, and sycophantic media, to promote his always fluid narratives by punishing enemies and rewarding friends—on the basis of their loyalty to Dr. “I represent science”.

He seemed to be obsessed with firing White House Covid advisor Scott Atlas, and demonizing Jay Bhattacharya, Sunetra Gupta and Martin Kulldorff—for the crimes of questioning the Fauci party line.

These critics were not radical “let it rip” herd immunologists as the Fauci camp caricatured them, but circumspect, cost-to-benefit doctors and savvy health policy analysts.

Their views, if embraced, might have avoided a multibillion-dollar global shutdown that wrecked economies—especially derailing the booming 4th quarter 2019 Trump economy—increased the death toll, destroyed millions of livelihoods, harmed perhaps permanently the education of millions U.S. children, and was hardly based on the “science”.

And what exactly were the so-called extremist views of Atlas, Bhattacharya, and others?

Healthy children were not at great risk from Covid—but keeping them isolated drained away key resources from the elderly and sick who certainly were vulnerable.

And the nationwide school closures had profound negative effects on children and teens as did the lockdowns on the general population.

Substance and familial abuse soared, small businesses were ruined, and children’s formative educational years were lost.

24/7 mask wearing was neither practical nor necessary as opposed to their beneficial use by health care workers in close proximities.

The experimental mRNA vaccinations may have initially saved lives, but they were not, as billed by Fauci and the pharmaceutical companies, lasting protection from either infectiousness or being infected.

And certainly the repeated booster regimens for some could pose serious health risks.

Herd immunity was not some crank idea, as the Fauci school libeled these experts, but, along with the initial vaccinations, were time-tested medical realities that would mitigate the toxicity of the pandemic.

We have seen a lot of obscene hoaxes recently that changed national events: the loony Jussie Smollett caper; the phony “Steele dossier”; the “51 intelligence authorities” and the Russian-produced Hunter Biden laptop con; and the media fabricated effigy of Joe Biden as “fit as a fiddle”.

But Fauci’s effort to attribute the virus to a bat or pangolin publicly, while privately accepting from his own consultants that it likely was birthed in the Wuhan lab’s gain of function research—which he had helped to support via Peter Daszak—and the policies that resulted from that initial lie, proved literally for thousands a matter of life and death.

[The Chosen @thechosentv]

The most famous conversation in the Bible still leaves us speechless. You?

[Jeremiah J. Johnston, PhD @_jeremiahj]

This is my new book The Jesus Discoveries. The evidence for Jesus is stronger than most people realize. Linked in my bio.
I spent years researching 10 of the most significant historical finds connected to the life of Christ — and I wrote them all down in The Jesus Discoveries so YOU could see what I see: Jesus face-to-face.
It’s full of pictures. It’s built for skeptics AND believers. And it’s dedicated to my 9-year-old son Abel — because I want the next generation to know the truth.

Get your copies today. Share it. Give it away. The world needs this.​​​​ Link: https://t.co/vWrYWf1DIs

[NASA @NASA]

We're going around the Moon. Come watch with us. Artemis II's four-astronaut crew is lifting off from @NASAKennedy on an approximately 10-day mission that will bring us closer to living on the Moon and Mars. The launch window opens at 6:24pm ET (2224 UTC). https://t.co/X27QJejNDt

[Nick Freitas @NickJFreitas]

I am told that as a state representative this is the moment where I'm supposed to express my heartfelt condolences and then stand in solidarity with those on the other side of the aisle as we condemn political violence and stand unified as one people.

But we aren't "one people" are we?

The truth is we haven't been for some time now, and there is really no point in pretending anymore, if there ever was.

We are two very different peoples. We may occupy the same piece of geography, but that is where the similarities seem to abruptly end.

I convinced myself for a long time that whenever the left called me a racist, a bigot, a sexist, a fascist, a "threat to democracy" for even the most innocent of disagreements, that it was simply hyperbolic rhetoric done for effect.

And now the "effect" is a widow and two orphaned children, because the left couldn’t bear the thought of a peaceful man debating them and winning.

I don’t think they realize it yet, but murdering Charlie is going to be remembered as the day where we finally woke up to what this fight really is.

It’s not a civil dispute among fellow countrymen. It’s a war between diametrically opposed worldviews which cannot peacefully coexist with one another. One side will win, and one side will lose.

Charlie tried to win that fight through argumentation, through discussion, through peaceful resolution of differences.

And the other side murdered him.

Not because he was “extreme” or “inciting violence” or any other hyperbolic slur they hurled at him. They murdered him because he was effective. Because he was unafraid. Because he inspired others and made them feel like they had a voice, that they were not alone. And he did it at the very institutions which have fomented so much hatred toward conservatives.

I don’t want to “stand in solidarity” with the other side of the aisle. I want to defeat you. I want to defeat the godless ideology that kills babies in the womb, sterilizes confused children, turns our cities into cesspools of degeneracy and lawlessness…and that murdered Charlie Kirk.

Social media is aflame right now with leftist celebration of Charlie’s death.

I wonder if any among them understand what has just happened. If there is a Yamamoto somewhere in their midst warning, that all they have done is awoken a sleeping giant.

I doubt it. I think they gave up such introspection and self-awareness long ago.

I don’t know exactly what will happen next. I just know that it won’t be the same as what has happened in the past.

There will be thoughts and prayers…Charlie would have wanted prayers. Not for himself but for those left behind and for the country that he loved.

But then there will be a reckoning.

My Christian faith requires me to love my enemies and pray for those who curse me. It does not require me to stand idly by in the midst of savagery and barbarism...quite the opposite.

So every time I feel tired, every time I feel discouraged or overwhelmed, I am going to watch the video of a good man being murdered in Utah…I will force myself to watch it…and then I will return to the work of destroying the evil ideology responsible for that and so much more.

Rest with God Charlie, your fight is over.

Ours is just beginning.

[Russell Johnson @russellbjohnson]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

[JD Vance @JDVance]

Yesterday, Donald J. Trump nearly lost his life. An armed gunman waited for him in the bushes. He brought a go-pro camera to record it. A secret service agent spotted the barrel of a gun through a fence and shot at the gunman. The gunman fled. He was caught. And now we slowly learn about him and his motive.

President Trump is my running mate, and my friend, but he is more importantly a father and grandfather to people who love him very much. I want him to have many more years with his family. (And selfishly, I'd like many more with my own.)

I admire the president for calling for peace and calm. The rhetoric is out of control. It nearly got Steve Scalise and many others killed a few years ago. It nearly got Donald Trump killed twice. But I want to say something about yesterday's news, and how it illuminates the difference between vigorous debate and violent rhetoric.

Here is what we know so far: Kamala Harris has said that "Democracy is on the line" in her race against President Trump. The gunman agreed, and used the exact same phrase. He had a Kamala Harris bumper sticker on his truck. He was obsessed with Ukraine's "fight for Democracy" and absorbed many unhinged views about the Russia-Ukraine war. HIs name is Ryan Routh, and he donated 19 times to Democrat causes and zero to Republican ones.

How do you think the Democrats and their media allies would respond if a 19-time Republican donor tried to kill a Democratic official? It's a question that answers itself. For years, Kamala Harris's campaign surrogates have said things like "Trump has to be eliminated." And how have their media allies responded to the second assassination attempt on Donald Trump in as many months?

NBC News called the attempted assassination a "golf club incident." The LA Times told us "Trump Targeted at Golf Club." The USA Today's top of the fold headline is "Hope in America," and they published a preposterous letter to the editor arguing that Trump "brings these assassination attempts on himself." CNN's Dana Bash--who just yesterday bizarrely accused me of inciting a bomb threat--said today that Harris campaign rhetoric didn't motivate Routh even though he echoed their rhetoric explicitly.

PBS's weekend show perfectly illustrates the double standard of Kamala Harris's media friends. After spending 30 seconds on the second assassination attempt on President Trump, they then focused on the real danger: me and President Trump, who are, according to them, personally responsible for bomb threats against Springfield. Of course, I repeatedly condemend those threats. And reports today suggest they came from a foreign country, not--as the media suggested--a deranged Trump fan.

The double standard is breathtaking. Donald Trump and I are, by their account, directly responsible for bomb threats from foreign countries. Why? Because we had the audacity to repeat what residents told us about the problems in their town. Meanwhile, Harris allies call for Trump to be eliminated as the media publishes arguments that he deserved to be shot.

This seems like a double standard. But at a deep level, it is entirely consistent.

Consider Springfield. Citizens are telling us that there are problems. These include the undeniable truths of higher car accidents, unaffordable housing, evictions of residents, overcrowded hospitals, overstressed schools, and rising rates of disease. They also include the infamous pet stories--which, again, multiple people have spoken about (either on video or to me or my staff).

Kamala Harris's first strategy was to ignore these people and their concerns. Yes, she had prevented the deportation of millions of illegal aliens, and some of them made their way to Springfield. But it was a small town with no voice. Some of the local leadership even loved the cheap labor. So the suffering of thousands of American citizens went ignored.

Their next move with these stories is censorship. In Springfield, a psychopath (or a foreign government) calls in a bomb threat, so they blame that on President Trump (and me). The threat of violence is disgraceful of course, yet the media seems to relish it. They cover a bomb threat, but not the rise in murders. They cover the threat, but not the HIV uptick. They cover the threat, not the schools overwhelmed with new kids who don't speak English. They cover the threat, not rising insurance rates or the car accidents that caused them. They cover the threat, not the failures of Kamala Harris's leadership.

The purpose is not to turn down the rhetoric. If anything, covering the bomb threats gives whoever makes them exactly what he wants: attention. The purpose is distraction and shame. How dare you talk about the problems of Haitian migration in Springfield? You're endangering people, simply by discussing the problems of Kamala Harris's policies. It's a form of moral blackmail, designed not to make anyone safe but to shut everyone up.

Springfield is the most recent, but hardly the most egregious example. There was the Hunter Biden laptop story, censored by BigTech. And who can forget that anyone who didn't support Kamala Harris's Ukraine policy was drenched in the blood of Ukrainian children. That last one appears to have had some effect on Routh--the most recent would-be assassin. The message is always the same: don't you dare express an opinion on the public affairs of your nation. The message is: shut up.

This is the difference between debate--even aggressive debate--and censorship. It is one thing to attack Kamala Harris for "destroying the country" and quite another to say that President Trump should be "eliminated." It is one thing to criticize overheated rhetoric, and another to say that a former president has invited an assassination on himself. It is one thing to say that Donald J. Trump's arguments about the election of 2020 are wrong; it is another thing to attempt to remove him from the ballot over it.

It is one thing to say that pets are not, in fact being eaten, and another thing to say that anyone who disagrees is trying to murder people. Dissent, even vigorous dissent, is a great tradition of the United States. Censorship is not.

For the next 7 weeks of this campaign, I will vigorously defend your right to speak your mind. I believe you have every right to criticize me and Donald J. Trump, even if you say terrible or untrue things about us. But when I ask you to "tone down the rhetoric" it's not about being nice--our citizens have every right to be mean, even if I don't like it--or empty platitudes.

Instead, I'm asking all of us to reject censorship. Reject the idea that you can control what other people think and say. Embrace persuasion of your fellow citizens over silencing them--either through the powers of Big Tech or through moral blackmail.

I think this will make our public debate much better. But there's something else. Reject censorship and you reject political violence. Embrace censorship, and you will inevitably embrace violence on its behalf.

The reason is simple. The logic of censorship leads directly to one place, for there is only one way to permanently silence a human being: put a bullet in his brain.

[Steve Deace @SteveDeaceShow]

Trump is actually abusing his earnest supporters (real patriots truly trying to save America not the grift corps) who will defend this stuff. This is him treating them like useful idiots or pawns. That he can just use and offer up anything to them under the assumption they will consume it and fulfill is ambitions. It's not actually populism, it's elitism. He's just the elite. He does whatever he wants, and he expects you will support it, because he thinks he's more important to you than you are.

It was their small businesses Trump's lockdown cancelled forever. It was their jobs Trump's poisonous jab they were mandated to take to keep. None of which he is apologetic for. None of which they even want him to be. Despite the fact they suffered much more from Trump's Covid collapse he's lying about now than the average I can work-from-home-forever progressive suburbanite who voted for Biden in droves. Trump's existential mistakes punished his own voters, not the opposition's.

In the Bible I know, have read/studied many times, and devoted my life to, God never blesses "movements" like this. And if it seems as if He is, that's not a blessing but the opposite. Please understand the LORD chastens those whom He loves. He judged Israel. He crucified His Son. He permitted the martyrdom of His saints.

When a rebellious culture or movement that calls upon His name while ignoring/violating it seems to be getting by with no accountability, you at that point have been given over. You are not being rewarded for your schemes, quite the opposite. You are being permitted to suffer under the laws of sowing and reaping. They are and will remain undefeated, and also have a way of fulfilling themselves right at the time you're confident you've gotten away with it.

[Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 @julie_kelly2]

The outrage is not allegations of attempts to delete video.

The outrage is a DC federal judge (Obama) working hand-in-glove with Biden/Garland/Monaco DOJ and Democratic DC grand jury authorized a subpoena to get camera footage from inside Donald Trump's home.