The Biden campaign and their surrogates have spent all weekend and yesterday trying to convince their big money donors that Biden just had one bad night and that he’ll be okay going forward.
But some of these donors aren’t buying it and are insulted that Team Biden thinks they are stupid, saying they question his fitness to even be president.
Major Democrat donors remain adamant President Joe Biden must step aside as the party’s presidential nominee following his disastrous debate performance against former President Donald Trump.
While Biden’s family members and most avid supporters are pitching that the president just had a bad night in Atlanta, Georgia, on Thursday, many Democrats are concerned about the 81-year-old chief executive’s fitness going forward, Politico reported.
A Suffolk University/USA Today survey released Monday showed nearly one-third of voters are more inclined to support Trump following the first presidential debate, while most respondents believe Democrats should consider replacing Biden as their nominee.
Some Democrat donors appear to be in panic mode.
“For Biden’s own good and the good of the country, he should step aside immediately,” major Democrat donor and former hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson told DailyMail.com.
“The fact that it has now been three days and Biden has done nothing to reassure us confirms my worst fears.”
While Biden’s campaign team insists the debate did nothing to change voters’ minds, some donors disagree.
“They’re p***ing on our legs and telling us it’s raining. It’s insulting. How stupid do they think we are?” Tilson said of the president’s team.
Note: I lived near there for decades. The Duke grads were no different and just as biased and sanctimonious as any Ivy League school. That should have been a compliment, but given the gutter that those schools chose to live in, they offer social indoctrination, not education. At work, if someone started with the college degree talk, we knew to avoid their ideas and input. They’ve let woke ideas ruin both faculty and students under the cabana of social justice.
Stick to basketball, you used to be good at it.
Some precepts are inviolate, non-negotiable, and irreplaceable. America’s preeminent precept was penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: “all men are created equal.” At Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln reiterated this core belief: “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” It justified the Civil War. Equality of its individuals was America’s foundational proclamation. Martin Luther King, Jr. appealed to it in his “I Have A Dream” speech: “When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.”
However, Duke advocates replacing the equality of American individuals for the equality of Americangroups– calling it “equity.” Substituting equity for equality is a paradigm shift and a clash of visions. Individuals are equal, groups are not. The question I posed to Duke setting me at odds with them (and they with me) was: “Please explain why equity is preferable to equality.” Duke refused to answer despite inviting any “questions or concerns” employees had regarding their “Pledge” of allegiance to equity rather than equality. My repeated question given in person and in writing went repeatedly unanswered. Had Duke been forthcoming they would have said something like:
“Duke believes white people are racists. The primary (perhaps only) reason Blacks as a group are less wealthy and have poorer health outcomes is due to the unconscious racism of white people. Duke believes Blacks will never be as well off as white people under the American meritocratic system because it primarily advantages whites. The sole hope Blacks have for obtaining economic and health parity is for it to be given to them. We will know when unconscious racism has been overcome when health and financial outcomes among groups are equal.” That is- you are a racist until outcomes are equal.
For Duke, the supposed deleterious effect of unconscious thoughts necessitates ending the free enterprise system because Blacks cannot compete in a free-market economy given that whites are unconscious racists. It is insuperable. Never-mind the median household income for groups in America from top earners down is: Indians, Filipino, Taiwanese, Sri Lankan, Japanese, Malaysian, Chinese, Pakistani, and then White Americans. America is a success story.
Duke is leading us away from the successful melting-pot vision to the dreadfully unsuccessful socialist vision with this single flash of (pseudo)inspiration- “whites are unconscious racists.” What becomes foundational to Duke is not that people are “created equal” but that whites are “unconscious racists.” Duke cultivates a society where black patients should prefer black doctors (because whites are unconsciously killing them) and everyone else should avoid black doctors if hired under DEI (Didn’t Earn It).
The imagined and almost hysterical importance ascribed to unconscious racism [which is unquantifiable and highly suspect] is surely a flimsy pretense for sacrificing your birthright as an American (black, white or any other color). I wouldn’t be bamboozled, cowed or silenced by this tulip bulb mania which is bound to collapse. They claim unconscious racism justifies collectivism and a “fundamental transformation” to the American experiment. But unconscious racism is a modern day witch-hunt: “Prove you are not a witch/racist.” People should be judged by their words and deeds only, not by mental telepathists who presume to read your mind- sheer absurdity.
Duke further promotes group collectivism through social justice. Why do we need “social” justice? Does justice need a modifier? Why not simply treat each individual with justice- period? Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves. But Duke wishes you to think collectively, not individually, therefore they talk of social justice for groups rather than of justice for individuals. Treating each individual justly will ensure social justice. All justice is social. A person on a deserted island can be neither just nor unjust.
Americans don’t want equity, we want equality. We don’t want social justice, we want justice. Socialists, collectivists, and Marxists aim for equity and social justice whose end is poverty and subjugation. Classical Liberalists, free-marketers, and individualists aim after equality and justice whose end is prosperity and freedom.
Resist the collectivists. Resist the socialists. Resist the cultural Marxists (with their oppressor/oppressed model feverishly fomented by Marx in his Communist Manifesto and parroted by Duke). Every time they say “equity,” you say “equality” twice as loud.
Don’t let them use the blighted, unscientific slander of “unconscious racism” to shoehorn socialism into society. Yes, it’s unscientific. When I asked Duke for the clinical/scientific data used for asserting “racism is a public health crisis,” they had none (Zero) despite earlier claims. They backtracked saying they relied on “social science” data. I have social science data Duke probably doesn’t want to hear. Of course there was no clinical data. It’s not a scientifically provable hypothesis but a failed political ideology.
Duke refused to answer because equity is based wholly on their belief in the unconscious racism of white people- a pretentious, dubious, insulting, and risible pretense for wealth redistribution. Here is the last question for Duke on my departure: Is Duke dedicated to the American proposition that all men are created equal, or to the socialist proposition that all groups should be made equal? You can’t serve two masters.
In July 2021, a senior Pfizer board member secretly began working with a Biden Administration operative to suppress criticism of Covid vaccines on X, newly released internal documents from X show.
Top officials at Twitter (now X) viewed the men – Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the Pfizer director, and Andy Slavitt, the operative, who had officially left a senior White House post just weeks before – as speaking for the administration in their censorship demands, the documents show.
The new documents raise constitutional and legal concerns about the Biden Administration’s social media censorship efforts, as well as Pfizer’s role in banning criticism of a product that made up almost half its sales in 2021.
Within days, the Supreme Court is expected to decide Murthy v Missouri, a landmark lawsuit over the administration’s efforts to control debate on social media.
The new documents provide crucial perspective on the Missouri case, showing how far would-be censors went in 2021 to prop up public confidence in the Covid jabs. The documents also show the power the White House had over Twitter, which badly wanted to avoid a confrontation with it.
At the time, the Biden Administration was threatening to “review” a federal law commonly called Section 230, because it was angry social media companies were allowing Covid vaccine skepticism.
Section 230 was crucial to those companies for the near-total immunity it gave them against lawsuits from users. Twitter took threats to it seriously. “We will always be proactive and vigilant about protecting 230,” Lauren Culbertson, the company’s then-head of United States public policy, wrote on July 22, 2021.
—
None of these internal documents has been previously released.
They are part of a tranche of censorship-related material X is making available to me following searches of its internal archives.
Lawyers for X are reviewing the documents before releasing them. But so far only one document they have provided – an email from Jim Baker, Twitter’s then-deputy general counsel – contains any redactions.
In addition, no one at X, including Elon Musk, asked for or placed any restrictions on or had any input into the writing of this article. (Lawyers for X did ask to review it after writing but before publication, to be sure the names of junior employees or their email addresses were not included. Their review did not result in any changes.)
—
The censorship conspiracy by Slavitt and Gottlieb targeted me personally.
I am not named in any of the new documents provided so far. Slavitt and Gottlieb used careful – almost coded – language in their outreach to Twitter on July 18 and 19, 2021. They did initially not refer to any particular censorship targets by name. But emails and other internal Twitter documents that have already been released show I was a top target of both men.
, my complaint against Slavitt, Gottlieb, Pfizer chairman Dr. Albert Bourla, and the Biden Administration for conspiring to force Twitter to ban me in 2021. Gottlieb’s lawyers previously argued I had not alleged Gottlieb had had any contact with Twitter officials before August 2021. The documents show otherwise.
In fact, Slavitt introduced Gottlieb to Todd O’Boyle – a senior Twitter lobbyist who handled most of the company’s interactions with the White House – by email on Sunday, July 18, 2021. Slavitt, a longtime Democratic operative, had served as senior advisor to the Biden administration’s Covid response team.
“I wonder if you would be open to a 20 minute call with Scott Gottlieb and me about a policy matter,” Slavitt wrote. Slavitt referred to Gottlieb as “FDA commissioner under Trump” and failed to mention his role on Pfizer’s board.
Although he had officially left the Biden Administration weeks before, Slavitt’s email signature also contained his White House email address, asking that “Government Email” be sent there.
After months of silence, veteran reporter Catherine Herridge has released a shocking report on a military servicewoman who claims she was sidelined by the Veterans Administration after internal memos classified her heart condition as an ailment resulting from the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine.
In a clip of her interview with the soldier, Herridge listens to the heartbreaking story of Army Specialist Karoline Stancik, who blamed the Covid vaccine for a “debilitating heart condition” she said was confirmed by military brass and which has cost her $70,000 in medical bills. Stancik, 23, came forward after saying she was “abandoned” by the Army and National Guard as she sought compensation. Herridge asked the young woman if an internal Army memo represented an acknowledgment that her heart condition was the result of the COVID-19 vaccine
“It one hundred percent is,” she replied.
“Were you left behind by the Army and the National Guard?” Herridge asked as she probed further. “I was left behind and trampled,” she responded.
Herridge’s report, titled “The Cost of Following Orders,” examines a number of instances where mandatory COVID vaccinations in the U.S. military resulted in severe side effects for service members. In August of 2021, the Department of Defense under President Joe Biden ordered all soldiers across all military branches to receive the vaccine regardless of religious objections or health considerations. The policy was rescinded less than two years later but has reportedly left a significant number of veterans saying they suffered detrimental effects as a result of the forced jabs.
Stancik now takes 27 pills per day after suffering a heart attack while on active duty. “I could run 10 miles at a time, play basketball, and now I have trouble just standing up,” she said, adding she had no previously diagnosed heart condition. “The only thing that could have changed was the vaccine. That’s when everything flipped upside down for me.”
What if the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was originally setup as a front group for the pharmaceutical industry, and its legal and scientific processes were fabricated to only benefit specific drug makers?
What if the FDA was intended to be a mafia working on behalf of certain pharmaceutical companies?
What if the agency was nothing more than a false authority that was allotted power because the agency was used to pressure Congress into giving Big Pharma dominance over the people of the United States?
What if the FDA used empty office buildings – no technicians, no equipment, no sampling, no oversight – as an affront of regulatory oversight?
What if testing and regulations for biologics (vaccines) never existed in the first place?
For biologics, the FDA is an affront to the scientific method, a façade of regulatory oversight
A paralegal from Pennsylvania – Katherine Watt – is raising serious questions about the history of the FDA and the NIH. According to Watt, since World War II, the U.S. Congress has been passing legislation that makes it easier for the pharmaceutical industry to destroy people’s lives, using the FDA as a front.
As the lies surrounding the covid-19 scandal continue to be exposed, more people across academia, medicine, government, science and the legal system continue to question the history and the motivations of Big Pharma and the federal government. If widespread medical and scientific malfeasance can be swept under the rug today, what other criminal conspiracies have taken place, with government agencies getting away with fraud and mass murder?
How are government agencies used to protect criminal organizations, and how might regulators be used by Big Pharma mafias to destroy the lives of whistleblowers and truth-tellers? If the head of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease can change the definition of gain-of-function research to develop bioweapons offshore, then what other acts have occurred where government officials tortured the language and used legalese to coverup crimes against humanity?
In reviewing the many different government actions taken during the COVID epidemic aimed at slowing the spread of the virus, scientists have found that none of these policies accomplished anything.
No matter how we approached these questions, the primary finding was lack of definitive patterns that could support claims about governmental policy impacts. About half the time, government policies were followed by better Covid-19 outcomes, and half of the time they were not. The findings were sometimes contradictory, with some policies appearing helpful when tested one way, and the same policy appearing harmful when tested another way. No claims about the relationship between government responses and pandemic outcomes held generally. Looking at stay-at-home policies and school closures, about half the time it looked like Covid-19 outcomes improved after their imposition, and half the time they got worse. Every policy, Covid-19 outcome, time period, and modeling approach yielded a similar level of uncertainty: about half the time it looked like things got better, and half the time like things got worse.
…Yet scientists used these data to make definitive conclusions.
Claims that government responses made Covid-19 worse are not broadly true, and the same goes for claims that government responses were useless or ineffective. Claims that government responses help reduce the burden of Covid-19 are also not true. What is true is that there is no strong evidence to support claims about the impacts of the policies, one way or the other.
The bottom line — which has been obvious from day one of the panic — is that any claims of certain knowledge and success by any government official was a lie. This was especially true — and noted here and in numerous conservative news sites repeatedly — when government agencies like the CDC would willy-nilly change its guidelines even though there had been no additional published research justifying those changes.
The best example was the CDC’s guidelines on masks. For decades health agencies clearly stated, based on actual research going back almost a century, that masks were not only useless but a risk for those with heart and lung conditions. Suddenly, with no further data, the guidelines were changed and masks were the best thing since sliced bread.
Similarly the guidelines on social distancing would change over and over again, even though there was literally no data to support that measure, and continues to be none (as now admitted by Anthony Fauci this week when pressed during congressional hearings). In fact, no research was ever done, and it appears the idea of social distancing actually came from a high school science fair project that the entire edifice of government petty dictators glommed onto in glee.
All of this raises a more fundamental question: Why do so many people so quickly accept government claims, on anything? And why do so many people continue to assume these same dishonest government officials can fix any problem?
Government officials generally know little about anything, other than how to tell others what to do. Such people are the last people we should ask for advice.
Like several other Hamas Caucus members, Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) has had a primary target on his back thanks in no small part to his position on the Israel-Hamas war, where he has demanded a ceasefire, claimed — without evidence — that Israel is committing genocide, and was also exposed as a Hamas rape denier.
In the first primary battle involving the so-called “Squad” of anti-Israel Democratic Socialists in Congress, Rep. Summer Lee (D-PA) survived against her center-left challenger, winning handily in April while vowing during her victory speech to help other Squad members like Bowman and Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) cross the finish line.
Unlike in Lee’s case, Bowman’s polling numbers against his primary opponent, Westchester County Executive George Latimer, have on balance not been good. The most recent poll taken ahead of the early voting period, which started Saturday, showed Latimer with a comfortable lead, though many are undecided according to the poll:
A survey by Emerson College Polling/PIX11/The Hill released Tuesday found Latimer leading Bowman in the primary for New York’s 16th Congressional District with 48 percent support to 31 percent, with 21 percent of respondents undecided.
The poll found that 51 percent of respondents have a favorable view of Bowman, compared to 43 percent who have an unfavorable view of the House Democrat. In comparison, 65 percent said they have a favorable view of Latimer, while 23 percent had an unfavorable view of the county executive.
Not helping matters for the bombastic Bowman in advance of the June 25th primary was the confirmation earlier this month that he is a rather two-faced individual who will say whatever it takes to stay in the good graces of his fellow socialists:
In a statement published on the OPEC website Thursday, Secretary General Haitham Al Ghais said the concept of “peak oil demand” is nowhere to be seen in the cartel’s projections for future global crude oil demand.
“[A]s we look to the future it is the very versatility of oil that ensures that we do not see peak oil demand on the horizon,” Al Ghais said.
“Just as peak oil supply has never transpired, predictions of peak oil demand are following a similar trend.”
In my own research, I have been able to trace predictions for the world reaching so-called “peak oil” all the way back to the 1880s.
From that distant beginning through around 2010, peak oil theory was always about the world having somehow reached a peak in crude oil supply as all the big reserves had supposedly already been discovered.
For about 125 years, constant advances in technology and a creative and innovative industry invariably proved such pronouncements wrong, often laughably so.
With the ramping-up of the climate alarmist movement in the first decade of this century, narratives surrounding this always-wrong theory began to shift over to the demand side of the equation. Some anti-oil-and-gas activist groups even adopted the theory as a means of promoting the equally silly notion that the world’s remaining oil resources could simply be left in the ground as demand for them would soon be overwhelmed by rising demand for alternatives.
A decade later, that theory has also been proven laughably wrong, despite the “investment” of many trillions of dollars in debt-funded subsidies.
OPEC’s statement stands in stark contrast to the projection by the International Energy Agency that the world will somehow achieve peak oil demand by 2030. Al Ghais alludes to this preposterous notion, calling it a “dangerous commentary, especially for consumers,” that “will only lead to energy volatility on a potentially unprecedented scale.”
Should we worry more about the cost of energy than a very small rise in temperature over 100 years? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge via email. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Al Ghais’ statement comes in the wake of revised oil-demand growth projections from the IEA and OPEC, along with Goldman Sachs and the US Energy Information Administration for the remainder of 2024 and into 2025. Where the IEA revised its 2024 projection downward to 1 million barrels per day for 2024, even it projects a more robust 1.5 million bpd in growth for 2025.
The EIA raised its own growth estimate for 2024 from a very conservative 900,000 bpd to 1.1 million bpd.
Goldman Sachs comes in at a stronger 2024 estimate of 1.25 million bpd, based on strong global economic growth. The bank cites robust growth in jet fuel, petrochemical-driven LPG and naphtha, and gasoline and diesel demand as key drivers of this growth.
A recent study by researchers from Princeton University and USC suggests that Meta’s algorithms for presenting educational ads exhibit signs of racial bias, particularly in the delivery of ads realated to for-profit universities and those with a history of predatory marketing practices.
The Register reports that the research paper, titled “Auditing for Racial Discrimination in the Delivery of Education Ads,” is set to be presented at the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (ACM FAccT) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The authors, including researchers from Princeton and USC, found that Meta’s algorithms disproportionately show ads for for-profit colleges and universities with historically predatory practices to black users compared to ads for public universities.
more
of course they are biased, not just for some groups but against others. They are against white, christian, male, heterosexual patriots.
One can only take so much BS before you’ve had it. Even true blue liberals are tired of being wrong most of the time.
Anyway, another get woke, go broke.
Washington Post publisher and CEO William Lewis had a blunt message for his staff during a tense meeting following the sudden ouster of executive editor Sally Buzbee, according to the paper’s own reporting.
“We are going to turn this thing around, but let’s not sugarcoat it. It needs turning around,” Lewis told the paper. “We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”
Sally Buzbee steps down as Washington Post executive editor
Washington Post executive editor Sally Buzbee has stepped down from her position, the news outlet announced Sunday.
Why it matters The first woman to lead the newsroom in the Post’s 144-year history is leaving as the news outlet prepares for a shakeup of newsroom operations.
No Matter How Much You Hate Tony Fauci, It Isn’t Nearly Enough
It’s tempting when writing about Anthony Fauci to chronicle all of his diabolism. From his deadly failures managing the AIDS crisis to unnecessarily cruel experiments on puppies; from flip-flopping on virtually every topic related to Covid to denying the efficacy of ivermectin; from his god complex and churlish declaration that “I represent science” to working with companies like Moderna to develop Covid “vaccines” years before the virus popped up…in a “wet market.”
And then there’s his resting smug face.
YouTube screencap.
It’s not merely tiring, it’s exhausting. Which is why The Manhattan, and by extension, CDMedia, love us some L, aka Lauren, aka @SomeBitchIIKnow. L is the host of Big Dig Energy, a podcast that takes deep dives into the vilest rabbit holes of our time.
L’s knowledge of Fauci is encyclopedic, and don’t get her started on “Dr.” Peter Daszak. So it was no surprise that she drew attention to the tweet below. Two days ago, Fauci was the keynote speaker at one of Columbia University’s medical colleges. Odd choice for an institution already tarred with controversy. Even worse in retrospect, considering that Fauci (through the NIH) finally admitted that taxpayers funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan…one day later. After denying it for years.
Our president and his press secretaries seem to lie with every word they say and deny facts that anyone with a pair of eyes can see for himself.
Scientists and doctors, formerly among the most trusted members of our society, lie to foster popular environmental theories and get government grants, or to promote Big Pharma and deter people from effective treatments.
Our news media no longer report the news; they shape the news as instructed.
Here is just a sample of commonly promoted lies starting in 2020.
I’ve donated over 5 gallons until I wasn’t eligible anymore. I don’t even want blood from someone who got jabbed. Along with the HIV, you can keep the Spike Protein also.
After letters to my senators and an American Thinker article, Why is the FDA Contaminating America’s Blood Supply? it is the United Kingdom that finally comes clean:
Britain’s ‘day of shame’ as full scale of infected blood scandal revealed
‘The result of this inquiry should shake our nation to its core. This should have been avoided. It was known these treatments were contaminated; warnings were ignored repeatedly.
‘Time and again people in positions of power and trust had the chance to stop the transmission of those infections. Time and again they failed to do so.’
Patients “died or suffered miserably” as a result of being given contaminated blood products between 1970 and 1998 because medics and successive governments “did not put patient safety first.” When the scandal was exposed, “the response of those in authority served to compound people’s suffering.”
You see, the UK has their very own “deep state.”
How did this happen?
Medicines for hemophiliacs, including one called Factor VIII, were imported from the US in the 1970s and 1980s [emphasis added] and prescribed by the NHS. However, the treatments were made from blood plasma donations which often came from groups at high risk for HIV and hepatitis C such as gay men, sex workers and prisoners and were often contaminated.
Once again, the privileged and their urchins are thinking they rule the world. Someone needs to teach them about real life.
The anti-Israel, anti-American, anti-western, anti-capitalist, pro-Hamas, ‘by any means necessary’ campus protests and Tentifadas are not a working class movement.
But you knew that, because we have covered dozens of these protests and even casual observations reflect that, with some exceptions, this is a movement of elite kids at elite schools. Those casual observations are substantiated by a deep analysis by the lefty Washington Monthly (WM).
Nate Silver comments on the WM analysis:
“Of course the stereotype was that these protests were concentrated at expensive elite colleges but I didn’t realize the rather extreme extent to which that’s actually true.”
We at the Washington Monthly tried to get to the bottom of this question: Have pro-Palestinian protests taken place disproportionately at elite colleges, where few students come from lower-income families?
The answer is a resounding yes.
Using data from Harvard’s Crowd Counting Consortium and news reports of encampments, we matched information on every institution of higher education that has had pro-Palestinian protest activity (starting when the war broke out in October until early May) to the colleges in our 2023 college rankings. Of the 1,421 public and private nonprofit colleges that we ranked, 318 have had protests and 123 have had encampments.
By matching that data to percentages of students at each campus who receive Pell Grants (which are awarded to students from moderate- and low-income families), we came to an unsurprising conclusion: Pro-Palestinian protests have been rare at colleges with high percentages of Pell students. Encampments at such colleges have been rarer still. A few outliers exist, such as Cal State Los Angeles, the City College of New York, and Rutgers University–Newark. But in the vast majority of cases, campuses that educate students mostly from working-class backgrounds have not had any protest activity. For example, at the 78 historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) on the Monthly’s list, 64 percent of the students, on average, receive Pell Grants. Yet according to our data, none of those institutions have had encampments and only nine have had protests, a significantly lower rate than non-HBCU schools.
Several whistleblowers have provided explosive testimony during an official inquiry, revealing that hospitals were euthanizing patients during the pandemic and blaming their deaths on Covid.
The patients were reportedly given a lethal drug combination before their deaths were listed under “COVID-19” in an apparent effort to boost the number of fatalities from the virus.
The bombshell testimonies were provided during the ongoing Scottish COVID-19 Inquiry.
On May 16th, 2013, Barack Obama famously tweeted that “97% of Scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Every word of this tweet was a lie. The 97% Consensus figure came from a May 15th, 2013 study by John Cook – which Obama linked to in his tweet. If 97% of scientists really thought “climate change is real, man-made and dangerous” that would be quite troubling. But nowhere in the study was anything said about global warming being dangerous.
Additionally, while the 97% figure was widely quoted, the criteria by which Cook achieved his figure was totally lacking in scientific clarity – or honesty. To be counted as affirming the global warming consensus question, scientists only needed to agree that “carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent”. That’s it. If, as a scientist, you agreed that human activity had some portion – any portion – of responsibility for global warming you were included in the 97% consensus. We’re shocked the figure wasn’t 100% based on the actual questions.
The reason “the experts” are always “baffled” is because the narratives they are paid to push—from “Covid”, to “safe and effective”, to “anthropogenic climate change”—are not only wrong, but outright lies.
The reason "the experts" are always "baffled" is because the narratives they are paid to push—from "Covid", to "safe and effective", to "anthropogenic climate change"—are not only wrong, but outright lies. pic.twitter.com/prEpKcJEv5
— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) May 21, 2024
Adam Carolla Shreds Schwarzenegger, Stern for Insane COVID Rants.
Adam Carolla is doing a victory lap, and it’s hard to blame him.
The “Mr. Birchum” star took to X Sunday to remind everyone what he said during the recent pandemic.
Don’t believe Dr. Anthony Fauci
Airline masking rules make no sense
The virus overwhelmingly affects the old and immunocompromised
The media wants to scare you
For that he was tarred and feathered in the public square. And, as we now know, he was right on all of the above.
Carolla shared a 2020 article from the liberal TheWrap.com that noted his unwillingness to “apologize” for sharing those views at the time.
The podcaster targeted Stern and Arnold Schwarzenegger for their extreme pandemic rhetoric.
The “Predator” star famously said, “screw your freedom” when it came to pandemic rules. He later apologized.
Stern became a recluse during the pandemic, refusing to leave his home and shunning his social life. He also blasted those who refused to take the vaccine, a medicinal treatment less effective than we were initially told.
The audacity of this guy is endless. They are pretty much saying they are going to waste the cash and solve nothing other than lining their pockets with taxpayers money.
Squeezing the global economy dry to solve a fake problem.
The $13.6 trillion question: how do we pay for the green transition?
The public sector will have to provide about 30 per cent of climate finance globally, and the heat is building on governments to come up with ways of doing that.
…
The bill will be immense. If average global temperature rises are to be limited in line with the 2015 Paris Agreement, climate finance globally will need to increase to about $US9 trillion ($13.6 trillion) a year globally by 2030, up from just under $US1.3 trillion in 2021-22, according to a report last year from the Climate Policy Initiative.
…
Former US presidential candidate John Kerry, who stepped down from his role as the US special climate envoy in March, puts the challenge of meeting this bluntly: “We don’t have the money.”
The 80-year-old is now planning to turn his attention to climate finance to prepare for the phaseout of fossil fuels. “We have to put in place more rapidly the funding mechanisms that are going to actually fuel this transition at the pace it needs to be,” he says.
To do that, governments around the world are weighing up options from wealth taxes to levies on shipping. The US is planning to fund the IRA by raising $US300 billion over the decade by requiring large corporations to pay a 15 per cent minimum tax on their profits, as well as through a stock buyback tax, among other measures.
John Kerry Pushes Massive Tax Rises to Meet the $13.6 trillion Climate Finance Challenge
This week AstraZeneca recalled its COVID-19 vaccine after admitting that it caused a ‘rare but serious’ clotting.
Then we find that former CNN host Chris Cuomo has been taking Ivermectin, after mocking people for taking ‘dewoming medication,’ leading one to wonder how many dead Americans were dissuaded from taking it during the pandemic.
And in the fullness of time, we’ve learned that vaccine maker Moderna employed a former FBI analyst to secretly police ‘vaccine misinformation,’ while the Biden White House directed virtually every social media platform to censor those questioning vaccinations. Hell, the NY TimessuggestedZeroHedge was spreading misinformation for suggesting, in December of 2020, that vaccine cards would be used to track people and limit their freedom.
And now people like former NY Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) are playing the whole thing off like he wasn’t a complete iron-fisted authoritarian during the pandemic – suggesting that masks were optional.
Or Deborah Birx, who admitted she and Dr. Anthony Fauci pulled all sorts of pandemic-era lockdown protocols out of their asses, and has now remade herself into some sort of vaccine freedom advocate.
🚨Compilation of the insane amount of rewriting & 180s around COVID & COVID vaccines the past week! 👇👇 pic.twitter.com/jM3FdQpuds
“Martha Pollack was the architect of Cornell’s disastrous race-focused DEI initiative that balkanized the campus, and inevitably led to targeting of Jewish and pro-Israel students. While I wish her well in her personal life, it is time for the Cornell Trustees to turn the ship around, to eliminate DEI programming as is taking place elsewhere, and to refocus the campus on the inherent dignity of each individual without regard to group-identity.”
… The campus has become balkanized by an aggressive focus on racial, ethnic, religious, gender, and other identities through an “anti-racist” and “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” agenda imposed on the campus by the senior administration. The “anti-racism” initiative was launched in the summer of 2020, and has included or is moving towards mandatory training, education, and programming that forces everyone to view their lives and relationships through their identities.
Almost everything now is viewed through an identity lens, pitting groups against each other, pitting colleagues against one another, and pitting students against their peers. There is substantial evidence that such DEI programming makes race and other relations worse, not better. We are seeing that play out in real time in the Cornell community.
This has led to an unhealthy environment at Cornell in which multiple surveys show that high percentages of students are afraid to express their viewpoints. DEI as practiced at Cornell is damaging to freedom of expression, and makes the current year of free expression theme on campus inconsequential, if not nearly satirical.
FAFO again, woke and DEI ruin everything it touches.
A shadowy virus is spreading with unknown frequency and risk to humans. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wants to distribute rapid tests nationwide so consumers can see if they are infected.
It’s not 2020, but the deep distrust engendered by federal public health agencies’ sometimes botched and seesawing response to SARS-CoV-2 is hanging over their response to H5N1, more commonly known as bird flu.
Dairy farms are resisting cooperation with the CDC to track and contain the spread of the flu in their cows, and state and local leaders are chafing at what they perceive as public health agencies marginalizing the Agriculture Department’s experts, Politico reported early Monday.
Texas said none of its dairy farms was willing to participate in CDC epidemiological field studies, and a potential USDA commissioner in a second Trump administration, Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller, said the feds need to “back off.”
Brown University epidemiologist Jennifer Nuzzo, a vocal critic of the CDC’s one-size-fits-all approach to COVID-19 boosters, said the resistance wasn’t surprising because of federalism and lack of incentives for farms to play ball with the CDC.
Delusions of Adequacy 
