RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://thefederalist.com/2021/07/01/ama-journal-masks-are-bad-for-your-kids-quit-forcing-them-to-wear-them/

A new report published by an American Medical Association journal revealed forcing children to wear face masks leads to adverse health effects. JAMA Pediatrics, a top-rated monthly journal published by the AMA, found wearing face masks increases the amount of carbon dioxide in inhaled air to unhealthy levels.

The study measured carbon dioxide levels in 45 children ages 6-17 while wearing masks. The normal content of carbon dioxide in the air is 400 parts per million (ppm), with anything above 2000 ppm considered unacceptable by the German Federal Environmental Office.

The JAMA report measured averages of 13,120 to 13,910 ppm of carbon dioxide in the inhaled air of children wearing masks, which is over six times higher than the unsafe threshold. The study further pointed out this measurement was after only three minutes of wearing a mask. Children forced to wear masks at school find themselves wearing masks for hours, five days a week.

The JAMA report follows a larger German survey of over 25,000 children, which found 68 percent of them reportedly had problems while wearing facial coverings.

“Most of the complaints reported by children can be understood as consequences of elevated carbon dioxide levels in inhaled air,” the JAMA study concluded. “This is because of the dead-space volume of the masks, which collects exhaled carbon dioxide quickly after a short time.”

“This carbon dioxide mixes with fresh air and elevates the carbon dioxide content of inhaled air under the mask, and this was more pronounced in this study for younger children.” The authors of the study urged those who are forcing children to wear masks to consider the scientific evidence when making that decision.

“Many governments have made nose and mouth covering or face masks compulsory for schoolchildren. The evidence base for this is weak,” the study found. “We suggest that decision-makers weigh the hard evidence produced by these experimental measurements accordingly, which suggest that children should not be forced to wear face masks.”

https://swtotd.blogspot.com/

As we near our nation’s 245th birthday, celebrants could do worse than consider the consequences of an increase in government dependency and a decline in personal responsibility.

Among truths that underly my beliefs are two relevant to this essay: One, life is not fair. We are born into different circumstances, with different attributes and abilities. A brother was born with Prader-Willi Syndrome, a condition that adversely affected his physical, emotional and mental development. While he and I were born of the same parents, his life, in the challenges he faced, was far more difficult than mine. And two, we are not equal (and never can be) in looks, physical prowess, emotional and social skills, or mental acuity. It is unlikely Michael Jordan could have developed the theory of relativity, and it is equally unimaginable that Albert Einstein could have played shooting guard for the Chicago Bulls.  The attempt to mandate equity, a dream of Progressives, is a Utopian nightmare. In his novel He Knew He was Right, Anthony Trollope put it like this: “Each created animal must live and get its food by the gifts which the Creator has given it…” No amount of government coercion will make life completely fair and make us equal. We must each work with who and what we are. In his 1901 autobiography, Up from Slavery, Booker T. Washington wrote: “Few things help an individual more than to place responsibility upon him, and to let him know you trust him.”

Politicians love to compartmentalize the electorate. It is easier to serve up government offerings to a group than to argue the benefits of a particular political philosophy. Thus, we drift toward the comfort of government dependency and away from the more difficult adherence of personal responsibility. A Washington Post article from September 18, 2012, reported: “In 2011, about 49% of the population lived in a household where at least one member received a direct benefit from the federal government.” According to an op-ed in last Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal by John Cogan and Daniel Bell of the Hoover Institute, the American Families Plan, if it were adopted, would add another 21 million Americans to the roles of government assistance programs. Forget what it does to our debt; think of the effect on our national character.

EXCERPTS

Indeed, media outlets don’t have to lie in order to cast aspersions on or present a figure in a less-than-flattering light. All they have to do is shift emphasis by highlighting one set of facts at the expense of another.

But even the most blatant cases of this practice in the Hebrew press never reached the low level displayed in the latest issue of Vogue, America’s top fashion magazine. As if the title of its cover story – “A First Lady for All of Us: On the Road with Dr. Jill Biden” – wasn’t sufficiently sycophantic, its accompanying content reads like a parody of a totalitarian regime’s propaganda sheet.

Those observing the current Orwellian climate in the United States no longer gasp at each new move by “progressives” to control society’s collective mind, but some take occasional breaks from tearing their hair out to laugh at the more egregious examples. Vogue’s Jonathan Van Meter, who penned the lengthy tribute, is an apt target for ridicule in this regard.

Not that he was trying to be funny. On the contrary, he was clearly proud of praising Jill Biden, in all seriousness, for the “several degrees” that earned her the “title [of doctor] that she has every right to.”

Nor did he have trouble mentioning that during a visit to Sauk Valley Community College in Illinois, “there were pink and white flowers set out everywhere, befitting her visit; they even matched her white dress and pink jacket.”

To stress that she’s not just a teacher in girlie garb, he said that during her many trips around the country, “the role she’s fulfilling is, in many ways, neither first lady nor professor but a key player in her husband’s administration, a West Wing surrogate and policy advocate.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/07/01/bidens-white-house-payroll-is-most-expensive-in-american-history/?sh=35c8d591f7f1

If the White House payroll is a leading indicator of the president’s commitment to expand government then taxpayers have a reason for concern.

Projected four-year costs of Biden’s White House payroll could top $200 million. For comparison, inflation adjusted, the Trump administration spent $164.3 million (2017-2020) and the Obama administration spent $188.5 million (2009-2012).

Today, on July 1st, the Biden administration released the annual Report to Congress on White House Office Personnel. President Biden hired czars, expensive “fellows,” “assistants,” and spent on a much larger First Lady (FLOTUS) staff.

The payroll report included the name, status, salary and position title of all 567 White House employees costing taxpayers $49.6 million. (Search Biden’s White House payroll and Trump’s four years posted at OpenTheBooks.com.)