RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/07/nigerian_privilege.html

The war on white privilege is permeating the entire world. As a white person, I am anxiously aggrieved by the obsessive persecution of my fellow whites and I’m feverishly in fear that my white privilege will be looted from me like a loaf of bread taken from a New York deli. How will I survive without the constant assistance that this white supremacist system provides me? Out of pure self-preservation, we need to shift the focus of the mob towards another group that has been stealthily benefitting from their privilege unscathed… the Nigerians.   

Perhaps you are unaware, but Nigerians are one of the most successful demographics in the United States. While the average household income in the United States is $61,937, the median income for households of Nigerian ancestry is $68,658.

In fact, 10% of Nigerian headed households earn over $140,000 annually and 25% earn over $90,000 annually.

Nigerian immigrants rank in the top ten for both the percentage of persons 16 and older that are employed and the percentage with college degrees.

Nigerians are also one of the most educated demographics in the country. Of people over the age of 25, 37% of Nigerians hold a bachelor’s degree and 29% hold an advanced degree, compared to 20% and 11% of the total U.S. population respectively.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/who-funds-the-lincoln-project-exactly-whom-you-expect/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=corner&utm_term=fourth

If The Lincoln Project was exclusively campaigning against Donald Trump, one might be tempted to believe it wasn’t merely an arm of the Democratic Party. If one of its co-founders, John Weaver, hadn’t been registered as a foreign agent lobbying for a Russia-owned nuclear-energy company against U.S. sanctions not long ago, one might accept that the group believed the conspiracy theories it spreads. If the group wasn’t working against the moderate Republicans senators for the sin of supporting originalist Supreme Court justices, who will transcend the Trump presidency and help preserve the traditional constitutional order, one might believe that its mission was to preserve the system. If you target moderates like Susan Collins and Cory Gardner — politicians who not only parted with Trump on issues but have quite un-Trumpian dispositions — you’re not working against Trumpism, you’re working against the GOP.

The media can keep calling you “Republicans,” but if you support Democrats, take Democratic Party positions, make voting for Democrats all the way down the ticket a binary choice and moral imperative, and then take most of your money from big Democratic Party donors, you’re a Democrat. That’s fine. You should embrace it.

I’m not really a fan of making a big deal over a group’s funding. Your arguments should stand on their own. I don’t care who pays you. But if you advertise your cause as something it’s not, you’re a fraud. And the biggest funders of The Lincoln Project aren’t distraught Republicans but long-time Democratic Party operatives.

By far the biggest donor has been Stephen Mandel, who gave The Lincoln Project — which, as far as I can tell, produces cheap b-roll-laden ads and takes nearly 90 percent of its budget in “operating expenditures” — a million dollars. His company Lone Pine Capital, it seems, has given the Democratic Party Senate committee $497,000 this year, $248,500 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign committee, and a bunch of money to other left-wing candidates. During the 2018 cycle, Lone Pine Capital doled out $5,893,300 to Democrats. It gave $1,333,333 to Planned Parenthood.

42

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-politics-of-hydroxychloroquine-11594831408?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Hubert Humphrey began his career as a pharmacist before going into politics. Today’s politicians sometimes seem to have the opposite aspiration. President Trump “pushes dangerous, disproven drugs,” Joe Biden declares in his “Plan to Beat Covid-19.” “Our country is now stuck with a massive stockpile of hydroxychloroquine, a drug Trump repeatedly hailed.”

Neither man has any expertise in pharmacology, and Mr. Trump did get out over his skis in promoting the malaria treatment, also known as HCQ, for the novel coronavirus. But since every Trump action prompts a reaction, his political and media opponents launched a campaign to discredit the drug. This politicized environment has produced dubious science and erratic policy.

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization on March 28, allowing hospitals to treat Covid-19 patients outside clinical trials using HCQ donated by manufacturers to the national stockpile. But on June 15 the agency rescinded the authorization. “In light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects,” the FDA announced, “the known and potential benefits of . . . hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

But the scientific basis for the revocation now appears faulty. Most studies didn’t adjust results for confounding variables such as disease severity, drug dosage or when patients started treatment. Two new peer-reviewed studies find that HCQ can significantly reduce mortality in hospitalized patients. With hospital beds filling up across the American South and West and a limited supply of Gilead Sciences ’ antiviral remdesivir, the FDA should reinstate its emergency-use authorization for HCQ.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/07/14/dr_scott_atlas_slams_hysteria_over_reopening_schools_i_feel_like_im_living_in_a_kafka_novel.html

Dr. Scott Atlas, senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and former chief of neurology at Stanford University Medical Center appeared on Martha MacCallum’s FOX News show to discuss the “hysteria” of opening schools in the fall despite the coronavirus pandemic.

MACCALLUM: The latest political divide appears to be going back to school with Democrats mostly urging caution and Republicans mostly, starting with the president, saying that kids need to get back into the classroom or risk a learning loss that maybe irreparable.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Going back to school presents the biggest risk for the spread of the coronavirus. They ignore science and they ignore governance in order to make this happen. If there are CDC guidelines, they should be requirements.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: Dr. Scott Atlas, senior fellow at Stanford University Hoover Institution and former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center. Doctor, welcome back to the program. Good to have you.

SCOTT ATLAS, PROFESSOR AND CHIEF OF NEURORADIOLOGY, STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER: Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: She says, Nancy Pelosi says that this is the biggest risk to the spread of the virus if the kids go back in September.

ATLAS: I think we have a different scale because that’s just completely wrong and contrary to all the science. And when I say, when I say all the science, I’m talking about signs all over the world not just in the United States but Switzerland, Sweden, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Australia, Asia.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/07/14/nevertrump-parasites-wont-give-up-on-destroying-their-host/

“And yet without this president, NeverTrump will go back to the political wilderness, loathed by the Right and ignored by the Left.”

The past several days have been filled with accolades and attention for NeverTrump, the wee collection of self-proclaimed “conservatives” working against the president, in the corporate media. The Washington Post published a lengthy puff piece on two new nonprofits that are targeting not just President Trump but Trump-supporting Republican senators up for re-election. Post reporters, without evidence, referred to NeverTrump as a “sudden campaign force” that should make Team Trump shudder with fear.

Frank Bruni, far from a conservative or anything close to one, swooned over NeverTrumpers in his latest New York Times column. “That’s why, when I look at them, I see patriotism,” Bruni cooed.

That’s funny—most people on the Right, when they look at NeverTrump, see a sad collection of losing campaign managers, failed magazine editors, and third-rate pundits hanging on for dear life by giving the false impression a big chunk of Republicans oppose Donald Trump.

When President Trump looks at them, he sees “human scum.” And when Democrats see NeverTrump, they see useful idiots.

As I write in my new book, “Disloyal Opposition: How the NeverTrump Right Tried and Failed to Take Down the President,” NeverTrumpers have aided and abetted Democrats at every turn during the Trump era. From first seeding the imaginary Russian collusion ruse to backing impeachment, NeverTrump acts as the Democratic Party’s waterboys, cheering from the bench and wiping down sweaty brows hoping for a few atta boys on MSNBC.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/07/how_to_end_the_covid19_epidemic_in_the_us.html

Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin (HCQ + AZ), with optional Zinc, given upon early symptoms, is a cure for COVID-19. This combination is a strong antiviral against the Wuhan coronavirus, quickly reducing the viral load and risk of transmission to other persons. It is a cure both for the treated patient and the epidemic in the country when it adopts this treatment widely, including middle age and young adult population.

Brazilian authorities are inclined to agree that early chloroquine / hydroxychloroquine treatment helps to “bend the curve”:

“There is evidence that in some cities and some states early drug treatment was applied and that was exactly what contributed to the decrease in this curve, in this evolution of the epidemic curve in these states,” he [Executive Secretary of the Ministry of Health, Élcio Franco] said at a news conference. The use of chloroquine in the treatment of covid-19 patients with mild symptoms has been recommended by the Ministry of Health since May 20.  [translation via Google Translate]

If a large fraction (30%–70%) of COVID-19 patients receive HCQ-based treatment early and isolate themselves for 5–7 days (until the viral loads drops to a reasonably safe level), the virus reproduction rate R drops below 1. The number of cases drops exponentially, and the epidemic ends. This has happened in Italy, Spain, and other countries that adopted this treatment when the infection was already widespread. When the epidemic ends, COVID-19 will likely remain endemic, but easily treated disease, like a common cold or flu. On the other hand, if presumed COVID-19 patients are not treated early, the coronavirus is free to replicate and spread as now, with the risk that it will mutate into something horrible.

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/07/15/covid-19-shows-how-to-create-a-pandemic-panicand-keep-it-going/

This week, California, which has a death rate that is less than half the national average, is rolling back its reopening amid an increase in coronavirus cases. Elsewhere, we’re awash in stories about how states have reopened “too soon.” Why the continued panic when we know that the disease is far less lethal than originally feared?

If nothing else, the coronavirus pandemic is a textbook example of how to create fear and anxiety that is out of proportion to the threat, and spur panic-induced policies that needlessly kill people (like seniors in New York nursing homes). It also demonstrates how to keep the panic going, even as evidence piles up that the initial fears were wildly exaggerated.

Before anyone accuses us of being indifferent to COVID-19 deaths, or of being conspiracy mongers, we feel the need to point out that we aren’t saying that the coronavirus isn’t a serious public health threat. It obviously is. The question is whether the risk is being exaggerated and whether public policies enacted in the wake of it are necessary or effective.

Here are five steps that the got the coronavirus panic started and why it continues to this day.

1. Wildly exaggerate the deadliness of the disease. Most perceptions of the coronavirus were formed when the World Health Organization announced that the fatality rate was above 3%. If true, there would be millions of people dead. But it wasn’t even close to accurate. Based on ever greater amounts of data, we know that that the death rate is more like a bad flu season than the plague. Then there was the report from the Imperial College of London in March that claimed that even with draconian lockdowns in place, a million people in the U.S. would die from the coronavirus. That model has since been debunked, but the combination of the two extremely dire forecasts set the public’s perception of the disease and acceptance of draconian control measures.

2. Overcount deaths and undercount cases. These perceptions have continued because of the way cases and deaths are counted. On the one hand, the number of “confirmed” cases is a fraction of the actual number of people who’ve contracted the disease. That’s because many have symptoms that are minor or nonexistent, and so they never bother to get tested. In fact, one reason for the increase in “confirmed” cases is the fact that testing is more routine, even for those who are asymptomatic.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16239/district-attorneys-investigate-presidents

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that presidents are exempted from certain laws that are applicable to the rest of us. They cannot be prosecuted while serving in office. That, too, is the law.

The argument against allowing state prosecutors to rummage through a sitting president’s papers and documents is that there is no limiting principle…. A president who received subpoenas from hundreds or thousands of local jurisdictions could become overwhelmed by the task of assisting his lawyers in thoroughly vetting them for claims of privilege. This is not a fanciful prospect in our current age in which the criminal justice system has been weaponized by both parties seeking partisan advantage.

So the Supreme Court’s decision…. may also constitute a setback for the power of the presidency and our system of separation of powers and federalism.

Despite the unanimity of the justices, I think the case was wrongly decided. If a sitting president cannot constitutionally be tried for a crime, it should follow that he should not be compelled to be a defendant in a civil case, since civil cases can be brought by anybody for nearly anything. I think the recent case was wrongly decided as well. No sitting president should be burdened by an unlimited number of subpoenas from an unlimited number of local district attorneys, at least some of whom may be motivated by partisan or self-serving considerations.

It is a truism that no person is above the law, but under our Constitution certain office holders are exempt from certain laws. That does not place them above the law. That is the law.