This is almost laughable.
JULY 2, 2020
How mainstream media outlets report on things like studies and other “pop-science” research that always seems to confirm progressive narratives – or at least that’s how it might appear to any reader who doesn’t read past the 3rd paragraph (many don’t), or doesn’t take a closer look at the research themselves.
Such is the case with a recent report published by Time Magazine proclaiming that the protests aren’t to blame for the recent resurgence in coronavirus cases in most parts of the country. Of course, a closer look shows that a more appropriate title might be “Nationwide COVID-19 Spike Caused By Protests Not As Bad As Feared”.
Already, local news reports from Texas, to California to New York to Washington DC and Minnesota (where several national guard members tested positive) have confirmed individual case who were likely infected – along with friends and others they knew – at the protests.
Furthermore, public officials across the country – most notably Bill de Blasio – took steps to obfuscate any impact the protests might have had by instructing contact tracers not to ask.
While it’s true that several cities that some major protests haven’t seen major spikes, as Time points out, many others have. In New York, the 7-day average daily case numbers have largely plateaued, but they haven’t continued to shrink like we’ve seen in Europe. PA’s governor just ordered citizens to wear masks in public after the state reported a record daily tally on Wednesday, following an uptick in cases in Philadelphia and the surrounding suburbs.
In what’s considered the first systematic research into the issue, a team of economists determined that only one of 13 cities involved in the earliest wave of protests after Memorial Day saw an increase that would fit the “pattern”
Several cities that saw major protests, including New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia, have not experienced a new surge in cases in the days and weeks following. And in cities and states that specifically set out to test protestors, like Massachusetts, Seattle, and Minnesota, the results have shown that demonstrators were not considerably more likely to test positive compared to the general population.
Of course, as Time points out, just because the resurgence didn’t happen exactly how epidemiologists assumed it would doesn’t mean the protests didn’t contribute to the spike. It just means whatever the impact was, it apparently didn’t conform to epidemiologists’ expectations.
“Mixing in large groups increases the probability of transmission. I don’t think that’s controversial,” says Chad Cotti, a professor of economics at University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh. But, he adds, “how much transmission you get is clearly going to be a function of the environment and the circumstances. Are people wearing masks? Are people physically touching each other? Is it indoors, is it outdoors?”
But this presents another problem as Cliff Mass writes on his Weather Blog. The lack of a surge due to the protests shows that the safety of outdoor air is now incontestable
However, but even in the Seattle’s King County, an early hotspot that was also a hotbed for protests, cases have climbed, though many have attributed this to an increase in testing. Since testing rates have climbed since the early days of the outbreak, it’s difficult to say whether the protests might be responsible for practically all of these new cases: If health officials collected this information, they would be able to say for certain how many infected people had at least attended the protests.
As Time adds: “Mixing in large groups increases the probability of transmission. I don’t think that’s controversial,” says Chad Cotti, a professor of economics at University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh. But, he adds, “how much transmission you get is clearly going to be a function of the environment and the circumstances. Are people wearing masks? Are people physically touching each other? Is it indoors, is it outdoors?”
Another ‘expert’ quoted by Time says the protests “support what we know”
“What I’ve seen supports things that we already knew, which are that if you’re going to gather, being further apart is better than being stuck close together, that being is masked is better than being unmasked, and that being outside is better than being inside,” says Janet Baseman, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington.
This is almost laughable. The protesters were often packed together, and many didn’t wear masks to the events. Those that did frequently had them pulled down around their chin to shout slogans and hurl obscenities at the police.
Finally, Time finishes by noting that everything reported in this ‘study’ was apparently caveated to the point of uselessness. Though many states didn’t see the initial surge in new infections, the creep – both nationally, and in many states – of cases and hospitalizations since the protests is difficult to simply dismiss. Furthermore, the rise in cases and hospitalizations with fewer fatalities is consistent with the demographics of the marchers.
In Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., respectively, several police officers and members of the D.C. National Guard tested positive following the demonstrations; law enforcement groups nationwide have been criticized for failing to wear masks during the demonstrations. Furthermore, smaller protests have continued through June, and it will take time before any spread of the virus at these more recent events shows up in the data.
The notion that we can blame all of the resurgence on bars opening prematurely is specious, though we wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this was, indeed, a major contributing factor as well. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
“I think indoor transmission, events that might be happening at bars, are more important for the trajectory of the virus than the protests were,” says Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease and pandemic preparedness expert at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. “What the protests added wasn’t as impactful as some of the other changes that were going on in society at the same time.”
Bottom line: If pandering public officials had the will to stand up to the woke mob, we’d be collecting more data about whether people reporting new cases attended protests. While correlation and causation are two very different things, it would be a start, at least.
The not-so-smart Harvard grad Claira Janover is now blaming Trump supporters for being fired from a job she says she “worked really hard for”…
Janover had posted a video to Tik Toc, where she threatened to stab anyone who said: “all lives matter” (see below).
The video was posted on Twitter by Ann Coulter and then went viral.
In the video below, a crying Janover blames Trump supporters for being fired instead of blaming herself for putting out a threatening video:
Harvard’s Claire Janover graduated in May with a degree in psychology and government, but you’d never know it.
She put out a threatening video on Tik Tok saying she would stab anyone who said “all lives matter,” and now she’s surprised by the negative reaction. She has since taken the video down because she’s getting death threats.
She has posted updates to the “insane” reaction to the viral video in which she threatens:
“I’ma stab you, and while you’re struggling and bleeding out, I’ma show you my paper cut and say, ‘My cut matters too.’”
Some of the responses to the video are from people who are concerned about the threat from Janover:
“This woman is threatening people, who knows what she is capable of.”
“Does this not count as violent speech? I guess it only counts when it fits the narrative.”
The New York Post reports that Janover commented about the responses she had received on social media where she even blamed Trump fans for the backlash:
Janover said she blames Trump fans for their inability to “understand analogies”:
“I will not be silenced, shamed, or threatened into silence by bigoted trump fans who don’t understand analogies.”
The Harvard-educated woman is shocked at the response to her threatening video:
“And people are like reporting me for domestic terrorism, tagging the FBI, Harvard, Cambridge police.”
“Apparently, I’m threatening the lives of people…unlike cops.”
Anyway, so If I get an email from the Department of Homeland Security or I get kicked out of Harvard or I get arrested or whatever — or I get murdered, according to the many death threats that I’m receiving right now…know that I appreciate you guys standing up for me.”
It’s hard to believe this person graduated from Harvard and that she doesn’t realize her actions were seriously threatening.
Lawyer surprised Epstein co-conspirator left relative safety of Paris.
by Paul Joseph Watson – 7/2/2020
Criminal defense lawyer Jonathan Turley expressed surprise that Epstein confidante Ghislaine Maxwell left the relative safety of Paris to return to America, while noting that her arrest was “bad news” for Prince Andrew.
Maxwell was arrested by the FBI in New Hampshire and immediately charged by federal prosecutors, leaving open the possibility that damning new details about Epstein’s global sex trafficking pedophile network could be exposed.
According to Turley, it’s a surprise that Maxwell decided to leave Paris and travel to the U.S. given that extradition laws in France would have largely protected her from prosecution.
“Frankly, as a criminal defense lawyer, I am surprised that Maxwell risked returning to the United States,” writes Turley. “She was believed to be living in Paris. It was well-known that the Justice Department was pursuing the case, including demands to interview Prince Andrew.”
Prince Andrew was pictured with both Maxwell at her London home and a 17-year-old Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who alleges she was sexually abused by the Royal and other members of Epstein’s network. Prince Andrew has denied ever meeting Roberts and suggested during an interview with the BBC that the photograph could be fake.
Turley says Maxwell’s arrest is “bad news” for Prince Andrew because Maxwell’s testimony would bolster Roberts’ allegations against the Royal. That is of course if Maxwell doesn’t suddenly “commit suicide” like Epstein.
“Her arrest may be unnerving for figures like Prince Andrew,” writes Turley. “She would be the ultimate cooperating witness if she decided to cooperate on broader criminal inquiries. Giuffre and others have alleged that she was the primary procurer of young girls for Epstein to abuse.”
“Such prosecutions are not easy given the passage of time. However, the government clearly has live witnesses like Giuffre who might have a significant impact on a jury. The government would have to show more than her mere presence at these homes or parties.”
By Hannah Bleau – 7/1/2020
The New York Times has set its sights on Mount Rushmore as protesters demand the removal of historic monuments in the name of racial justice, citing its location on “Indigenous land,” the sculptor’s purported ties to white supremacy, and two of its subjects’ slave ownership.
“Mount Rushmore was built on land that belonged to the Lakota tribe and sculpted by a man who had strong bonds with the Ku Klux Klan. It features the faces of 2 U.S. presidents who were slaveholders,” the New York Times wrote, linking to a news article detailing complaints against American landmark:
The Times piece lists three broad grievances with Mount Rushmore, beginning with the sculptor, Gutzon Borglum, who was previously involved in “an enormous bas-relief at Stone Mountain in Georgia that memorialized Confederate leaders.”
“It was eventually completed without him, but Mr. Borglum formed strong bonds with leaders of the Ku Klux Klan and participated in their meetings, in part to secure funding for the Stone Mountain project,” the Times wrote, adding that Borglum “also espoused white supremacist and anti-Semitic ideas, according to excerpts from his letters included in ‘Great White Fathers,’ a book by the writer John Taliaferro about the history of Mount Rushmore.”
It is not just the sculptor critics take issue with but the faces featured in the landmark located in South Dakota’s Black Hills. Their grievances even extend to Abraham Lincoln, signer of the Emancipation Proclamation:
Critics of the monument have also taken issue with the men whose faces were etched into the granite. Mr. Borglum chose Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt, he said, because they embodied “the founding, expansion, preservation and unification of the United States.”
But each of these titans of American history has a complicated legacy. Washington and Jefferson were slaveholders. Roosevelt actively sought to Christianize and uproot Native Americans as the United States expanded, Professor Smith said. “He was a racist,” he added.
And although Lincoln was behind the Emancipation Proclamation — a move some have characterized as reluctant and late — he has been criticized for his response to the so-called Minnesota Uprising, in which more than 300 Native Americans were sentenced to death by a military court after being accused of attacking white settlers in 1862.
The Times piece also laments the location of the landmark, writing that it is “built on land that had belonged to the Lakota tribe.” It goes on to quote Nick Tilsen, a member of the Oglala Lakota tribe and leader of the Indigenous activist group NDN Collective, who stated that Mount Rushmore “needs to be closed as a national monument, and the land itself needs to be returned to the Indigenous people.”
This terrorist violence was organized courtesy of Facebook.
By Shane Trejo – 7/1/2020
Tech giant Facebook provided the platform that allowed ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter terrorists to foment a riot in Provo, Utah that resulted in gunfire striking one unfortunate motorist who encountered the mob.
Far Left Watch made the discovery that Facebook allowed the terrorists to collaborate and promote violence on their platform:
The organizers of the event, the Salt Lake City Antifascist Coalition, used a Malcolm X quote that explicitly endorses gun violence: “Sometimes you have to pick the gun up to put the Gun down.” It seems one of their activists took that message to heart when he picked up a gun and fired it at an unsuspecting motorist, wounding him. The Facebook event page has been archived here.
The ANTIFA organizers urged participants to “come stand with us” and refuse to accept blatant acts of “discrimination, racism, and unethical acts toward people of color.” They also advised demonstrators to “please wear all black,” “wear your masks,” “bring water,” and “wear protective eye gear if you got it.” They scheduled the event to challenge peaceful pro-police protesters with violent and combative street action.
Big League Politics reported on the ANTIFA/BLM terrorist who has been charged for shooting the motorist in the streets of Provo:
A Utah man has been arrested and charged with attempted aggravated murder following a shooting incident at a rioter’s roadblock where a man was caught on camera firing two shots at a motorist crossing through the formation.
Jesse Taggart, 33, was arrested and charged Tuesday with attempted aggravated murder, aggravated assault, rioting, and firing a weapon near a highway.
Journalist Andy Ngo has reported that Taggart’s social media accounts are filled with content in support of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Footage of the event in question reveals a man firing two shots from a semiautomatic pistol at a motorist who was inching through an illegal roadblock set up by Black Lives Matter protestors.
Reports indicate that an unnamed victim was in fact shot during the rioting event, a 60-year old man who is currently being treated at an area hospital for his injuries.
John Geyerman, deputy chief of the Provo Police Department, summarized Taggart’s alleged crimes. “The male protester ran toward the SUV on the passenger side, pointed a handgun at the driver, and shot one round through the window. The driver, who was struck by the bullet, accelerated, trying to leave the situation. The same protester ran after the vehicle and fired a second shot that went through the rear passenger window.”
By refusing to ban ANTIFA and BLM thugs from their platform, Facebook is condoning and sharing in the responsibility for the explosion of left-wing terrorism that is overtaking America.
By John Carney – 7/1/2020
Joe Biden told Wall Street donors to his campaign that he planned to reverse most of President Donald Trump’s tax cuts.
“I’m going to get rid of the bulk of Trump’s $2 trillion tax cut,” Biden said during a fundraising conference call, Fox Business Network reported. “And a lot of you may not like that but I’m going to close loopholes like capital gains and stepped-up basis.”
The former vice president said he would raise the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent, which he estimated would raise taxes by $1.3 trillion over the next decade, FBN reported.
Biden said the tax cuts were “irresponsible, sugar-high tax cuts.” He claimed, without evidence, that cutting taxes made it “harder to foot the bill” for pandemic relief. In fact, interest rates have declined while government spending on pandemic relief programs has skyrocketed.
“We have to think as big as the challenge we face. But this is America, there is nothing we cannot do if we do it together,” Biden said, according to CNBC. “But I think the country is ready.”
The event raised at least $2 million, CNBC reported.