RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/wheres-the-science-behind-cdcs-6-foot-social-distance-decree-11616358952?mod=opinion_lead_pos7

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released new guidance on Friday about how far apart children ought to be while in school. The old standard of 6 feet has been replaced by a 3-foot minimum, which will make it much more feasible for many schools to reopen for full-time instruction in person.

The adjustment applies only to schools, not society more broadly, and only when prevalence is low and schools are taking other measures, such as keeping kids in social “pods.” The preconditions may preclude the guidance from having its full intended effect. The World Health Organization has allowed 1 meter of distance (around 39 inches) both in and out of school. China, France, Denmark and Hong Kong, among others, went with this spacing. If the CDC’s guidance were applied universally—to include work and retail—that one adjustment could restore substantially more commercial activity.

More distance is always better when it comes to contagion. But the 6-foot directive might have been the single costliest measure CDC has recommended, which have been largely followed over the past year. So what science went into making—and, more important, sustaining—the recommendation?

Nobody knows for sure. Most agree the guideline derives from a belief that Covid is largely spread through respiratory droplets, like flu. Old studies suggest that larger respiratory droplets are unlikely to travel more than 6 feet, and therefore close contact with an infected person is the primary mode of exposure. This research was hardly conclusive, but by most accounts it formed the basis for the initial Covid recommendations. More-recent research shows that the novel coronavirus can also spread through airborne particles, known as aerosols, especially indoors.

http://goudsmit.pundicity.com/25228/the-collapsing-american-family

   http://goudsmit.pundicity.com and website: http://lindagoudsmit.com

What explains the radical leftist attack on the American family?

To answer this question we must understand the combatants in terms of competing ideologies. Leftism is rooted in Marxist collectivism and loyalty to the state. Conservatism is rooted in individualism and loyalty to the family. Consider the communist revolution in China. Thousands of years of venerating the family was extinguished and replaced with loyalty to the Communist Chinese Party (CCP).

Maoists instituted a national cancel-culture campaign that burned books, demolished statues, erased history, destroyed culture and cultural norms in a re-education campaign that replaced traditional Chinese culture with Maoist slogans and loyalty to the state.

In contemporary America, the radical leftist Democrats are following the Maoist cancel-culture model. They are targeting the three supporting pillars of American society; the American family, our Judeo-Christian faith, and the U.S. Constitution symbolized by our American flag. Cancel-culture is asymmetric warfare used by the advancing enemy to prepare the population for a replacement ideology.

How is this possible in the United States of America?

Hitler tried it in Germany. Hitler removed the children from their parents and indoctrinated them with Nazi re-education lessons that demanded loyalty to the state. Hitler’s youth actually turned in parents who rejected Nazism.

Marxist cancel-culture is ripping out the foundations of America’s constitutional republic that guarantee decentralized government, individual rights, and states rights. It is leftist preparation for a Marxist-style centralized, federalized, collectivist replacement ideology. According to Karl Marx, the father of Communism, an ideal communist society would have centralized banking, centralized education, and centralized labor. All infrastructure facilities, all agriculture, and all industries would be government-owned. There would be no private property, no inheritance rights, and the government would levy high taxes on everyone to support its programs.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/03/19/who-is-kristen-clarke-and-why-does-she-matter/

Joe Biden’s choice to lead the Department of Justice’s enormously powerful civil rights division has a long and troubling history of pushing a radical, anti-white, and anti-police agenda.

Kristen Clarke has shared “crackpot theories” about black supremacy, defended unrepentant cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, partnered with anti-Semites, pushed Jussie Smollett’s absurd hate crime allegations, and called for defunding the police—and that’s just for starters.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson brought to light the bizarre racist views espoused by Clarke while she attended Harvard as an undergraduate in the 1990s. Her arguments pushing black supremacy were so offensive, even the famously left-leaning Harvard Crimson had to push back.

As the president of the Black Students Association, Clarke wrote a letter to the Crimson in 1994 detailing her unorthodox views on race science. “Please use the following theories and observations to assist you in your search for truth regarding the genetic differences between Blacks and whites [sic],” Clarke wrote:

One: Dr. Richard King reveals that the core of the human brain is the ‘locus coeruleus,’ which is a structure that is Black, because it contains large amounts of neuro-melanin, which is essential for its operation.

Two: Black infants sit, crawl and walk sooner than whites [sic]. Three: Carol Barnes notes that human mental processes are controlled by melanin—that same chemical which gives Blacks their superior physical and mental abilities.

Four: Some scientists have revealed that most whites [sic] are unable to produce melanin because their pineal glands are often calcified or non-functioning. Pineal calcification rates with Africans are five to 15 percent [sic], Asians 15 to 25 percent [sic] and Europeans 60 to 80 percent [sic]. This is the chemical basis for the cultural differences between blacks and whites.

Five: Melanin endows Blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities—something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards.

“The above is not an editorial from the Final Call, Louis Farrakhan’s free newspaper,” Carlson noted. “That is a direct quote from the person Joe Biden is about to put in charge of this country’s civil rights laws.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/03/rand_paul_calls_out_a_slippery_evasive_anthony_fauci.html

Ever since getting a big spotlight in the public eye, the National Institutes of Health’s Dr. Anthony Fauci, billed by a fawning press as America’s foremost expert on infectious diseases, has revealed himself a slippery chameleon or magician of sorts, constantly changing his recommendations and positions on public health in a bid to extend the coronavirus crisis as far out as possible.

He’s pretty well burned up all of his credibility with the public as a result, as New York Post columnist and Instapundit-himself Glenn Reynolds notes here, but he doesn’t seem to know it. He continues his role as snake-charmer, or snake-oil salesman, assuming a fawning media will continue to carry him through.

He got called out. By probably the sharpest guy in the Senate, (and my favorite), Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who questioned his ever more elaborate mask mandate recommendations. According to the New York Post:

“You’ve been vaccinated and you parade around in two masks for show,” Paul told Fauci. “You can’t get it again there’s almost zero percent chance you’re going to get it.”

“And you’re telling people that have had the vaccine who have immunity — you’re defying everything we know about immunity by telling people to wear masks who have been vaccinated,” he continued.

“You want to get rid of vaccine hesitancy? Tell people to quit wearing their masks after they get the vaccine,” Paul added.

In response, Fauci quipped, “Here we go again with the theater.”

“Let me just state for the record that masks are not theater, masks are protective,” Fauci said.

Paul snapped back: “If you have immunity they’re theater. If you already have immunity you’re wearing a mask to give comfort to others.”

“I totally disagree with you,” Fauci responded.

What Fauci revealed in that exchange is that he has a stake in continuing the coronavirus lockdowns and maskings forever. That’s his source of power and influence and he’s not ready to leave the spotlight or go back to his former obscurity. Fauci essentially told Paul that the vaccine is a nothingburger, COVID-19 will never end (despite the evidence seen in Texas and Florida) and masks are to be a way of life.

https://www.city-journal.org/mayor-tasks-nypd-to-investigate-noncriminal-hate

Amid a staggering wave of gun violence in New York City, with shootings this year measuring 42 percent higher than the same period in 2020, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that he plans to deploy the NYPD to track down and question people who have expressed “hate,” albeit without committing any crime or violation.

Speaking to reporters about anti-Asian attacks that have occurred around the country, the mayor encouraged people who have “witnessed or experienced any act of hate” to report it. “Even if something is not a criminal case,” the mayor explained, “a perpetrator being confronted by the city, whether it’s NYPD or another agency, and being told that what they’ve done was very hurtful to another person and could if ever repeated, lead to criminal charges, that’s another important piece of the puzzle.”

Asked how the NYPD would confront someone who has done something “hateful” but committed no crime, de Blasio enlarged on his prescription. “One of the things officers are trained to do is to give warnings,” he said. “If someone has done something wrong, but not rising to a criminal level, it’s perfectly appropriate for an NYPD officer to talk to them to say that was not appropriate. . . . I assure you if an NYPD officer calls you or shows up at your door to ask about something that you did, that makes people think twice.”

The mayor did not go into detail about the kind of behavior he was talking about, but we can surmise—since he explicitly stated that it wouldn’t rise to the level of criminality—that it must involve speech. Racial slurs or negative references to racial or ethnic identity, while nasty and rightfully unacceptable in civil society, are generally not prosecutable. Promising to involve the police in pursuing people who make intemperate, obnoxious remarks seems like an odd way to prioritize public-safety concerns.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17189/should-anything-be-off-limits-to-debate

The fact that we even have to ask these questions demonstrates the precarious state of freedom of speech and the marketplace of ideas in the cancel culture….

Professors are being fired for private discussions of grades and race. Students are terrified of expressing politically incorrect views, especially about race, sex, sexual orientation and even politics. Even silence is not always an option.

There are several exceptions to this cancel culture rule. You can say almost anything negative about Jews, as evidenced by the recent Grammy awards, during which three overt anti-Semites were honored. These bigots did not even try to disguise their anti-Semitism behind the facade of anti-Zionism.

There has never been a time when respectful and nuanced debate has been more needed, especially about race and other taboo subjects— taboo unless you toe the line of political correctness.

Slate’s decision to suspend Peska strikes a blow against diversity. Yes, diversity! —which includes diversity of views about every issue including how best to deal with racism and how best to achieve equality.

Slate should end Peska’s suspension, apologize to him, and encourage debate about the issue over which he was suspended.

Slate — the online magazine known for its provocative content—has indefinitely suspended one of its star podcasters, Mike Peska, for debating with a colleague, on an inter-office messaging platform, whether it is ever appropriate for a non-Black person to use the N-word in the context of a discussion about race. It is not clear whether in the course of the discussion Peska actually uttered the word itself or just used the term “n-word.”

In defending Slate’s decision, a Black staffer argued that “For Black employees, it’s an extremely small ask to not hear that particular slur and not have debate about whether it’s OK for white employees to use that particular slur.” Not have debate?

Should anything be off limits to debate and discuss? Is this issue not reasonably debatable? Can only Black people debate this issue, as my colleague Randy Kennedy brilliantly did in his book whose title is the actual word—spelled out? Can the issue be discussed in racially mixed classrooms? Should that depend on the race of the teacher? Must a teacher who wants to have such a discussion issue a trigger warning? Is a trigger warning enough? Must he obtain permission from Black students in the class to discuss the use of the word even if the word itself is not uttered? Do these restrictions apply only to this word and only to slurs against Blacks, or do they apply as well to derogatory words against other groups.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/18/watch-rep-byron-donalds-says-bidens-tax-increases-will-hurt-low-income-americans/

Freshman congressman Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., blasted President Biden’s for hinting at tax increases during his recent “Good Morning America” interview Wednesday.

Speaking to Jan Jeffcoat on The National Desk Thursday, Donalds explained why raising taxes hurts even lower-income Americans.

“If you take money away from people, even the quote-unquote rich, what happens is they have less money to spend. If there is less money to spend, there is less money flowing through the economy. If there is less money flowing through the economy — who does that hurt? It hurts middle-income Americans and poor Americans,” Donalds said.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/03/what_weird_contradiction_will_anthony_fauci_spin_next.html

Fauci is his name, and deception his game.

Various questions remain, even a few months after the emergency use authorization of vaccines designed to target the enigma that is COVID-19.

Is the ultimate purpose of the non-FDA-approved vaccines to stop the spread of infection, or is it primarily to lessen the symptoms and severity of COVID-19?  If viral spread is at least partially attributed to asymptomatic carriers, how will a lessening of symptoms via mass vaccination prevent further spread?  And if a majority of those infected don’t have symptoms, why should they take the vaccine?  How is herd immunity achieved if the vaccines offered only lessens the symptoms?  These are just a few of the questions that Dr. Fauci has thus far insufficiently addressed.

Thankfully, Mexican comedian Eugenio Derbez is doing the job our compromised media are paid not to.  (See here, with excellent audio commentary at the 27 minute mark.)

Fauci is a living, breathing barrage of circular reasoning and manufactured confusion.  He is the Tasmanian devil of doublespeak, a tireless truth-spinner with a shameless capacity to contradict himself at every turn.  His expertise in immunology pales in comparison to his mastery of duplicity.  The scope and magnitude of his contradictory affirmations astound as Fauci continues to promote the same molecular tests he admitted are set to CT levels that produce the majority of false positives, which in turn are used to establish the perception that asymptomatic infection is the default catalyst for mass viral spread despite the fact that Fauci himself claimed that “in all the history of respiratory-borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks” as recently as January of last year.  

https://amgreatness.com/2021/03/18/mixed-messaging-and-silencing-campaign-fuel-vaccine-skepticism/

It took a Mexican comedian to do the job the American news media refuses to do.

During a series of pointed questions, Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted the COVID-19 vaccines won’t stop people from contracting the virus; the shots only lessen the symptoms if a recipient is later infected with SARS-CoV-2.

“There’s a 95 percent chance you will not get a symptomatic infection,” Fauci told Eugenio Derbez last week. “We are unsure right now what the protection is against infection because it’s conceivable you could get vaccinated, get exposed, get infected, not know it . . . but you could have virus in your nasal pharynx.”

Fauci continued spinning. Since no one knows whether the vaccine prevents transmission, Fauci warned, even vaccinated people must wear a mask if “they’re around people who are vulnerable to infection.” It will be at least a few more months before researchers know for certain the risk level of a vaccinated person infecting someone else, Fauci said.

Derbez clearly made the deified public health expert—you can now buy a t-shirt telling the world you received your “Fauci ouchie,” referring to the vaccine—squirm. Accustomed to softball interviews by swooning American journalists, Fauci was unprepared to face tough questions.

But his responses exposed the confusing, and frankly unconvincing, promotional campaign for COVID-19 vaccines. Americans generally understand vaccines to be a safeguard against getting a harmful virus, not an immunity booster to make the resultant disease more manageable. This is especially true of a highly contagious virus that can be lethal to the elderly, obese, or immuno-compromised. No one expected the vaccine merely would act as an injectable version of DayQuil or a vitamin pack but with unknown side effects.

Legitimate Questions

After a year of hyperbolic fear-mongering and warning life only could “return to normal” after widespread immunizations, the COVID chicken hawks are finally coming home to roost. Questions abound.

How will “normalcy” return when someone can still contract and transmit the virus after vaccination? What’s the point of getting the shots if you, and everyone else, must still wear a mask? If mask-wearing and social distancing must continue until we have more solid answers about vaccine efficacy, why not delay the program until more is known? If getting the vaccine doesn’t protect my family or neighbor, why bother? What about stories and data showing moderate to severe side effects, which in some cases are more debilitating than the disease itself?

Unfortunately, those rational inquiries apparently make you a dreaded “anti-vaxxer.” Americans are instructed not to doubt anything coming from the very same authorities who’ve been wrong on everything since the start of the pandemic. Suspicions are silenced rather than honestly addressed. And it all looks very familiar.