Our DLH posed the question.
REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVES WILL RUE THE EFFORT TO ‘EXPOSE’ BIDEN THIS FAR AHEAD OF THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION
– The Door Becomes Open For Retracting the Nomination from “Joey Fingers” and Awarding it to, possibly, “The Most Admired Woman in the World (initials MO)” or Andy (“America was Never Great”) Cuomo!
Now, ‘C’mon Man’, don’t misunderstand…The latter two would be no worse than “The Sleepy One”; all three would be totally disastrous for Americans and its Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms (think Adam Schitt as Attorney General), but each would attract enormous far left support (‘News’ and ‘Social’ Media, Hollywood, Academia, LGBTQ, etc) and mountains of money from the very corrupt corporate sources, Silicon Valley, etc). The favorable press would be never-ending! dlh
————————————————————————————–
Tide Begins To Turn On Biden As Media Increases Heat Over Sexual Assault Allegation
“Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden’s fortunes with the mainstream media have started to shift this week as news organizations are beginning to report more and more on the 1993 sexual assault allegation made against him by former Senate staffer Tara Reade.
“Biden had been enjoying relatively little media scrutiny over the allegation when it surfaced late last month during a podcast interview.
“It happened all at once…his hands were on me and underneath my clothes,” Reade said. “Yeah, and he went down my skirt but then up inside it, and he penetrated me with his fingers…”
Joe Dan Gorman at Intellectual Froglegs. I don’t care what you say, this is funny stuff (while also “dead to rights” about the Wuhan fiasco) It is thirty minutes of the best in skewer the liberals humor. First five minutes are worthy errata humor before getting to Joe Dan’s set piece
https://intellectualfroglegs.com/the-end-is-near-again/
Local Iowa Republican voters are receiving a lot of campaign literature emanating from the high profile Second District congressional primary between Bobby Schilling and Mariannette Miller-Meeks. One of the most effective campaign mailings we have seen in a long time hit our mailbox a few days ago. It was a tabloid from the Bobby Schilling campaign.
We have set forth screen grabs of the pages from a PDF rendering. The content may also be available on the Schilling campaign website. In the mean time we recommend you refer your conservative friends here if they have not received the mailing and for general discussion about the race. Using your keyboard you should be able to zoom the content for ease of reading — typically by engaging the command key (aka “bug-splat” key on Mac devices) along with the plus key. The tabloid is effective in laying out Schilling’s persona and record.
Today we received a mailing from the Miller-Meeks campaign and we note from the mailing indicia that Victory Enterprises appears to be involved in her campaign. That outfit is notorious for lining up with desperate campaigns and being part of issuing hit pieces. Today’s mailing was no different. It purports that Bobby Schilling is not supportive of President Trump because of Schilling’s support of a special prosecutor being appointed to investigate allegations of Russian involvement in the 2016 election. The Miller-Meeks’ piece is “gotcha” drivel that could be applied to Mark Meadows, Darrell Issa, Chuck Grassley and other conservative Republicans that have been key to Trump’s agenda in Congress, including Lindsey Graham whose endorsement Miller-Meeks bandies about. Consider:
Special Prosecutor Republicans (Politico)
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) . . . signaled support for the naming of a special prosecutor . . . GOP Rep. Darrell Issa also praised the move . . . Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, also appeared to endorse the move, saying it shows the Trump administration is taking the investigation “seriously.” . . . Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas)
Grassley: Special counsel has “a strong reputation for independence”
After the news of the appointment of the special counsel, Grassley’s office issued a statement praising Mueller as a man with “a strong reputation for independence.”
So by Miller-Meeks’ standards President Trump can’t trust Chuck Grassley.
We challenge her and her “consultants” that come up with such horse manure to tell conservative Chuck Grassley how untrustworthy he is . . . how he “joined Dave Loebsack and Nancy Pelosi” (hell, why not throw in Chuck Schumer) to undermine Trump:
Senior GOP senator rebukes Trump, says whistleblower ‘ought to be heard out’
Grassley, in bipartisan letter, seeks ‘detailed’ explanation from Trump on IG firing
And there is Senator Lindsey Graham whose endorsement Miller-Meeks is so proud of
Graham shows support for Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling
And just how thorough was Miller-Meeks’ fealty to Trump back in the day?
More Republican delegates chosen, more problems for Trump
The final delegate, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, is a former aide to Gov. Terry Brandstad and declined to say whom she would support. That probably means she’ll face intense lobbying by the three presidential campaigns.
We are supporting Bobby Schilling because of the proven conservative record he established after winning in a tough Democrat district across the river, a district dominated by union activists. His reelection effort was simply overwhelmed by gerrymandering to make the district impossible for a Republican, at least one as well financed as Cherry Bustos. Schilling had the sense to escape Illinois several years ago for a lot of good reasons.
While we will of course support the Republican nominee against the likely Democrat nominee ultra-liberal Rita Hart, it is clear from Miller-Meeks hedges on key issues that she will be “high maintenance” for conservatives.
We are tired of the Republican establishment (Miller-Meeks is their candidate) defining the key to winning the district as “doing well” in liberal Johnson County. The key to winning the district is a district-wide margin of blue collar voters, especially no-party, and enthusiasm from Republicans. Schilling has proven he can assemble that appeal. The establishment way of thinking brought us Jim Leach. Enough said.
The Schilling campaign website is https://bobbyforiowa.com/ Use the zoom function on your keyboard to expand the print and pictures.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The Miller-Meeks / Victory Enterprises mailed hit piece (front and back) with our annotations:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNuhlLBPR5c
Another good reason to end the shutdown and stop printing money. Via The Daily Wire:
About half of U.S. workers can make more being on unemployment insurance than working after Congress hiked benefits in the aftermath of widespread shutdowns over the coronavirus.
Most governors in the United States have instituted an emergency stay-at-home order in the past six weeks to slow the spread of the coronavirus, shutting down large sections of the economy and forcing businesses to lay off and furlough tens of millions of workers. Businesses are tapping new emergency aid programs to hire back some of their employees, but a recently inflated unemployment insurance program is often beating what employers can offer, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Congress passed a series of emergency aid bills to help people who lost their paychecks and businesses who lost most or all of their customers through the pandemic period. Lawmakers created the Paycheck Protection Program to provide forgivable loans to small businesses contingent on them spending most of the money on fixed costs such as rent and utilities and hiring back or keeping most of their employees.
Many small businesses that have received loans are trying to rehire their employees or take them off furlough, severing their unemployment benefits. For about half of employers, getting their employees back on payroll means cutting off benefits that were better than what the employer can offer.
. . .
“Our interior-cleaning staff are going to have to come back on the payroll rather than making the equivalent of $23 an hour to stay home,” said Tom Hoffman Jr., who owns several car washes in New York. Hoffman said that he typically pays staff $13 an hour, above the state’s minimum wage but far below the roughly $978 a week that unemployment benefits during the pandemic are expected to average.
Employers unable to entice their workers back on payroll may run into a situation where they have accepted a loan through the PPP expecting it to be forgiven, but they are unable to meet the threshold percentage for keeping workers employed.
“The unemployment benefits are so generous that in many places workers are telling their bosses they’d rather be unemployed than return to their jobs,” National Restaurant Association executive vice president Sean Kennedy told The Wall Street Journal. “It’s not that these workers are lazy, they’re just making the best economic decision for their families.”
You wanna see “Fake News”? This is as amateurish an effort as we are likely to see…but it is a New York Newspaper…
The population of New York City is 8.3 million; the New York Metropolitan area is 26.3 million!
“An unusually high number of New Yorkers contacted city health authorities over fears that they had ingested bleach or other household cleaners in the 18 hours that followed President Trump’s bogus claim that injecting such products could cure coronavirus, the Daily News has learned.”
Is that not alarming?!
But get this…
“The Poison Control Center, a subagency of the city’s Health Department, managed a total of 30 cases of possible exposure to disinfectants between 9 p.m. Thursday and 3 p.m. Friday, a spokesman said.
Did you get that…30 cases??!!
The population of New York City is 8.3 million; the New York Metropolitan area is 26.3 million!
And 30 cases is an “unusually high number of New Yorkers”!!
There’s more:
“None of the people who reached out died or required hospitalization, the spokesman said.”
“But compared to last year, the number of cases was worthy of a double-take.”
According to data obtained by The News, the Poison Control Center only handled 13 similar cases in the same 18-hour period last year.
Thirty versus 13 is cause for a ‘double take’ ??? (Well, I guess that is an increase of a “staggering” 43%+”, and for a NY Daily writer that’s ’cause for a double take’.)
But there’s more!
Moreover, out of the cases reported between Thursday and Friday, nine were specifically about possible exposure to Lysol. Ten were in regard to bleach and 11 about household cleaners in general, the spokesman said.
About “possible exposure to”...Nowhere does it say anything about the people “ingesting” anything!!! Only in the headline of the story does it say that “health authorities FEAR…”!
————–
Veritaspac notes:
– The N Y Daily News is a liberal rag…excuse, “tabloid”
– This as close as Trump came to saying anything within a mile of the media slant: “And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? So it’d be interesting to check that.”
– Breitbart’s take: “Trump was far from a model of clarity, but he did not actually propose injecting patients with disinfectant; he deferred to “medical doctors” to figure out how to apply Bryan’s research.”
– As one who actually watched the briefing, even that (‘far from a model of clarity’) doesn’t justify the stretch the media took on the comment, note again, “he deferred to “medical doctors” to figure out how to apply Bryan’s research.”
– This was Victor Davis Hanson’s observation: “Anyone who watches the entire press conference sees the context, and why the president is legitimately upset with the constant “gotcha” attempts while the nation has more serious concerns. But few in the nation do watch all of them. Instead the public gleans bits and pieces of them as carefully edited sound bites delivered by print and television media.”
– Writing in REASON magazine, Elizabeth Nolan Brown notes: “One article making the rounds, from the New York Daily News, is headlined “A spike in New Yorkers ingesting household cleaners following Trump’s controversial coronavirus comments.” But the article makes no mention of anyone deliberately consuming household cleaners. It simply states that 30 people called the city’s poison control hotline “over fears that they had ingested bleach or other household cleaners.”
Fearing that you ingested something doesn’t jibe with having intentionally consumed that substance.” dlh
In addition to the post by dlh yesterday, here is a related article, this from the Wall Street Journal. We set forth two synopsis of the article from other publications due to the WSJ paywall.
The data says shutdowns are not better at saving lives
Do quick shutdowns work to fight the spread of Covid-19?
Joe Malchow, Yinon Weiss and I wanted to find out. We set out to quantify how many deaths were caused by delayed shutdown orders on a state-by-state basis.
To normalize for an unambiguous comparison of deaths between states at the midpoint of an epidemic, we counted deaths per million population for a fixed 21-day period, measured from when the death rate first hit 1 per million—e.g.,‒three deaths in Iowa or 19 in New York state. A state’s “days to shutdown” was the time after a state crossed the 1 per million threshold until it ordered businesses shut down.
We ran a simple one-variable correlation of deaths per million and days to shutdown, which ranged from minus-10 days (some states shut down before any sign of Covid-19) to 35 days for South Dakota, one of seven states with limited or no shutdown.
The correlation coefficient was 5.5%—so low that the engineers I used to employ would have summarized it as “no correlation” and moved on to find the real cause of the problem. (The trendline sloped downward—states that delayed more tended to have lower death rates—but that’s also a meaningless result due to the low correlation coefficient.) . . .
T.J. Rodgers was founding CEO of Cypress Semiconductor Corp authored the above and this analysis that appeared today in the Economic Policy Journal.
T.J. Rodgers, the founder of Cypress Semiconductor, writes in The Wall Street Journal:
Sweden is fighting coronavirus with common-sense guidelines that are much less economically destructive than the lockdowns in most U.S. states. Since people over 65 account for about 80% of Covid-19 deaths, Sweden asked only seniors to shelter in place rather than shutting down the rest of the country; and since Sweden had no pediatric deaths, it didn’t shut down elementary and middle schools. Sweden’s containment measures are less onerous than America’s, so it can keep them in place longer to prevent Covid-19 from recurring. Sweden did not shut down stores, restaurants and most businesses, but did shut down the Volvo automotive plant, which has since reopened, while the Tesla plant in Fremont, Calif., was shuttered by police and remains closed.
How did the Swedes do? They suffered 80 deaths per million 21 days after crossing the 1 per million threshold level. With 10 million people, Sweden’s death rate‒without a shutdown and massive unemployment‒is lower than that of the seven hardest-hit U.S. states—Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Louisiana, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey and New York—all of which, except Louisiana, shut down in three days or less. Despite stories about high death rates, Sweden’s is in the middle of the pack in Europe, comparable to France; better than Italy, Spain and the U.K.; and worse than Finland, Denmark and Norway. Older people in care homes accounted for half of Sweden’s deaths.
We should cheer for Sweden to succeed, not ghoulishly bash them. They may prove that many aspects of the U.S. shutdown were mistakes—ineffective but economically devastating—and point the way to correcting them.
THE DATA ARE IN; STOP THE PANIC AND END THE TOTAL ISOLATION
FIVE FACTS BEING IGNORED BY THOSE CALLING FOR NEAR-TOTAL LOCKDOWN
(Some excerpts; entire article, including details in support of the ‘five facts’, can be found at the link above to The Hill)
Five key facts are being ignored by those calling for continuing the near-total lockdown:
Fact 1: The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19.
The recent Stanford University antibody study now estimates that the fatality rate if infected is likely 0.1 to 0.2 percent, a risk far lower than previous World Health Organization estimates that were 20 to 30 times higher and that motivated isolation policies.
In New York City, an epicenter of the pandemic with more than one-third of all U.S. deaths, the rate of death for people 18 to 45 years old is 0.01 percent, or 11 per 100,000 in the population. On the other hand, people aged 75 and over have a death rate 80 times that. For people under 18 years old, the rate of death is zero per 100,000.
Fact 2: Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding.
Even for people ages 65 to 74, only 1.7 percent were hospitalized. Of 4,103 confirmed COVID-19 patients with symptoms bad enough to seek medical care, Dr. Leora Horwitz of NYU Medical Center concluded “age is far and away the strongest risk factor for hospitalization.” The vast majority of younger, otherwise healthy people do not need significant medical care if they catch this infection.
Fact 3: Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.
We know from decades of medical science that infection itself allows people to generate an immune response — antibodies — so that the infection is controlled throughout the population by “herd immunity.” Indeed, that is the main purpose of widespread immunization in other viral diseases — to assist with population immunity. In this virus, we know that medical care is not even necessary for the vast majority of people who are infected. It is so mild that half of infected people are asymptomatic, shown in early data from the Diamond Princess ship, and then in Iceland and Italy. That has been falsely portrayed as a problem requiring mass isolation. In fact, infected people without severe illness are the immediately available vehicle for establishing widespread immunity. By transmitting the virus to others in the low-risk group who then generate antibodies, they block the network of pathways toward the most vulnerable people, ultimately ending the threat. Extending whole-population isolation would directly prevent that widespread immunity from developing.
Fact 4: People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections.
Critical health care for millions of Americans is being ignored and people are dying to accommodate “potential” COVID-19 patients and for fear of spreading the disease. Most states and many hospitals abruptly stopped “nonessential” procedures and surgery. That prevented diagnoses of life-threatening diseases, like cancer screening, biopsies of tumors now undiscovered and potentially deadly brain aneurysms. Treatments, including emergency care, for the most serious illnesses were also missed. Cancer patients deferred chemotherapy. An estimated 80 percent of brain surgery cases were skipped. Acute stroke and heart attack patients missed their only chances for treatment, some dying and many now facing permanent disability.
Fact 5: We have a clearly defined population at risk who can be protected with targeted measures.
The overwhelming evidence all over the world consistently shows that a clearly defined group — older people and others with underlying conditions — is more likely to have a serious illness requiring hospitalization and more likely to die from COVID-19. Knowing that, it is a commonsense, achievable goal to target isolation policy to that group, including strictly monitoring those who interact with them. Nursing home residents, the highest risk, should be the most straightforward to systematically protect from infected people, given that they already live in confined places with highly restricted entry.
The appropriate policy, based on fundamental biology and the evidence already in hand, is to institute a more focused strategy …
Scott W. Atlas, MD, is the David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and the former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center.
POTUS? in a mushroom hat
Aw No! Say it ain’t so, Joe.
Republicans, Trump supporters, conservatives… be warned!
‘Sleepy Joe’ is ‘our guy’ for the Democrat nomination. Don’t show America what he really is until he is ‘for sure’ their nominee! Via PJ Media:
– “There’s a lot of reasons why Democrats might want to substitute a different person for Joe Biden as the nominee,” said (Briahna) Gray, (Bernie Sanders former campaign press secretary); “…plenty of reason(s) for Democrat insiders to be whispering about a Plan B for the convention”.
And Veritaspac says: “Just who might be that “Plan B”…could ‘her’ initials be “MO” ? dlh
This gal is more effective and a truer conservative than Tomi Lahren* Well worth the few minutes.
Here is another COVID related commentary by her, now almost a month old. The questions here were/are key and are now being answered, and not to the verification of lock-down strategy that has been implemented.
*Tomi who? Now relegated to asteriskville here anyway, she was the young celeb of a couple of years ago who lost credibility with conservatives when she announced she was a “pro-choice libertarian” which translated means — indifferent, hostile to or a denier of the rights of unborn members of the human family, unable to comprehend human frailty and dependence, a cultural nitwit prone to arguments created in a theoretical bubble, not someone you would trust your kids to because by their standards actions creating dependency by others are voidable by them at any time in a logical extension of their logic framework visa-vi begotten children.
