Interesting, now Fauci is admitting that that public health officials lied about the effectiveness of masks to preserve supplies for first responders. Of course anyone with any common sense knew they were lying about it earlier this year. Of course, anyone with any common sense knew they were lying about it earlier this year.
TheHill: “[Fauci] also acknowledged that masks were initially not recommended to the general public so that first responders wouldn’t feel the strain of a shortage of PPE. [Fauci] explained that public health experts “were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply.”
The CDC, WHO, and “officials” have been lying from the start. It is just nice (well, maybe not nice, but validating) to hear Fauci say what everyone with above a room temp IQ knew when the surgeon general and all the health officials were saying (among other things), “masks aren’t effective” and then 6-8 weeks later say they are. It wasn’t a question of new data, it was a question of self-serving lying by public officials which undoubtedly cost people their lives.
So, in short, “Fauci lied, people died.”
One wonders how much they were they also lying about in the Coronavirus Task Force meetings to the VP, President etc?
Who orchestrated this lie? Will there be hearings?
Why did the CDC and others lie about it? Why politicize it by lying?
If you look at our history, we’ve been through some terrible ordeals. This is tough. People are suffering. People are dying. It’s inconvenient from a societal standpoint, from an economic standpoint to go through this, but this is going to be the answer to our problems.
April 1, 2020
So economic devastation, food insecurity and depression is merely “inconvenient”.
Dear President Bravman, I am completely disgusted to read that “A professor at Bucknell University tweeted out last week that he wished death on Rush Limbaugh,”(https://www.thecollegefix.com/professor-wishes-death-on-rush-limbaugh-attacks-republicans-on-social-media/ ) particularly after insinuating that a US House of Representatives member should be hanged last year. First as an alumni, seeing Bucknell’s name in the context of Michael Drexler wishing death on someone in a news article that is circulated worldwide is deeply disturbing. Does anyone, let alone a professional, want to have their alma mater brought up in such a manner? Does Bucknell have plans to prevent such events in the future? Do professors have any standards that they must follow, like morality clauses in professional athlete contracts, so as to avoid painting the University in a bad light? When you see patterns of public behavior of a person wishing death on people, there should be a concern on how it reflects upon the institution and professors should, frankly, have better judgement than to do so without the need of contract terms. A second concern is, of course, about current students and faculty at Bucknell. If someone is publicly wishing death to at least several people, I would be concerned about their stability as it relates to on-campus violence against people with whom Drexler disagrees whether they are students, faculty, administrators, or even alumni. What is Bucknell doing in order to promote a safe campus environment that is open to viewpoints, particularly those that are anti-fascist, anti-communist, anti-socialist, – in short anti-authoritarian – and pro-liberty? I am concerned that someone wishing death on people and publicly calling Professor Riley (no relation) a “white supremacist skinhead” (from the article) might be temperamentally unfit to be educating students safely. I have to say that during my four years at Bucknell, not only did none of my professors ever wish death upon anyone or call students or other professors names, neither did the swim coaches, administrators, staff or anyone else with whom I interacted. The head swim coach (Dick Russell) insisted that when we went to swim meets, both home and away, we “look neat and clean” (nice shirt, (often) ties, no scruffiness) because we were “representing Bucknell”. Professors today should have as much sense as he did. Which leads to my next question.
How lax are the current hiring standards that Bucknell is hiring and promoting to tenured professor people who are immature and immorally evil that they would wish death on someone in a public forum where they are associated with Bucknell? Does Bucknell do anything to promote tolerance among faculty members and promote mental health of faculty members who are advocating violence among sitting members of Congress, calling other faculty members vile names and wishing death on public figures? Seeing some of the anti-free speech protests on campus recently makes me concerned about the direction the University has taken, but I do commend the school for standing up for free speech such as allowing Heather Mac Donald to speak last year. A University should be about civil discourse, not vile names, threats and the like whether or not you disagree with someone or not. Thanks,
New Hampshire Democrats prefer Socialist to Clinton – and Clinton to Trump in the 2016 election. So much for “LIVE FREE OR DIE.” Perhaps New Hampshire needs to change their motto to “Free stuff or die”.
One other question about the so-called “New Hampshire Advantage” in trust law. If you are considering setting up a trust in New Hampshire advantage, make sure you have a flee clause in there because if the state goes left, “free money” from trusts domiciled in NH will no doubt be a big target.
Attorneys and clients who want to use NH for their trust, make sure you are prepared.
However, it should be noted that the same philosophy that is behind Warren’s quest for a wealth tax, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s quest for a 70% top marginal rate is the same ‘You work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it’ philosophy that Lincoln fought in the old Democrat South. Likewise, the same promise of ‘free’ stuff was at the base of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, and Hitler’s promises when they came to power. (Obviously not the concentration camps.)
In general if you are voting for freedom, you should not be voting Democrat in Florida 2018.
You have a socialist – you work, I’ll eat – running for Governor and it continues on down the Democrat side of the ticket. The socialists, fascists, and communists – any authoritarian – can’t stand freedom and a President who is rolling back taxes, regulations, and government. It might cut off some of their “free” stuff. Here is a clue, nothing is free, you are either paying for it for yourself or using force to make someone else pay for it for you. The Democrat party fought a civil war to defend that in the old South and are still peddling the same abuse of one group for the benefit of another today.
The collectivist authoritarians – fascist, socialist, communist, it doesn’t matter the label – of the left have one goal and it is power over people and their lives. In short, enslaving people to fund their choices and do their bidding at the point of a gun. Their goal is Venezuela, Cuba, Mao’s China, the USSR, Eastern Europe of the 1950s through 1980s etc: anti-liberty prisons where the masses of people are forced to fund a small elite.
Don’t be one of the Left’s useful idiots. Vote freedom.
“Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.” Abraham Lincoln
“And as I’ve mentioned, we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly.” – sent to Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta by former Clinton administration official Bill Ivey on March 13, 2016.
For years, I’ve watched governments take control of our lives. Their argument is always the same: ‘Fewer costs, greater efficiency.’ But the result is the same, too. Less control by the people, more control by the State — until the individual’s anguishes count for nothing. That is what I consider my duty to resist. The point of a so-called great family is to protect our freedoms.
Your great grandchildren won’t thank you when the state is all-powerful because we didn’t fight.”