Some of the Reasons Why Public Health Officials Have Completely Lost my Trust

I never used to think about vaccines. I trusted public health officials and I willingly let them put 3 COVID shots into my arms. But now I regret that. In fact I'm furious that we were all lied to and misled by an artificially concocted false consensus that the COVID vax was "safe and effective." Now it is clear that our public health officials lied about almost everything and are still withholding the data about all-cause mortality. Lied about EVERYTHING? That sounds like hyperbole, but here's a starter list.

To me the most concerning issue is a lot of what was considered misinformation was and is true:

    • vaccines don't halt transmission

    • the virus came from a lab

    • cloth masks don't work

    • closing schools is a bad idea

    • toddlers shouldn't masks

    • natural immunity exists

We could add many other items to this already-disturbing list.

And then I learned about this shocking insurance industry data:

The man giving this Congressional testimony isn't some random person. As you can see from the chyron, Edward Dowd was formerly a senior investment advisor at Blackrock.

My mistrust is made even worse thanks to revelations like this on by John Leake, in an article he titles: "The Greatest Coverup in History: NIH Director Francis Collins on EcoHealth Alliance/WIV partnership: "There's a lot more to this story than we have been able to talk about." Here's an excerpt: [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingSome of the Reasons Why Public Health Officials Have Completely Lost my Trust

The MSNBC Division of the DNC

This is a post those people who think there is no media bias on the left.

"BREAKING: @MSNBC Producer Admits MSNBC Is 'Doing All They Can to Help’ the Harris Campaign.

During an undercover date with an OMG journalist, Basel Hamdan ( @BaselYHamdan), a writer and producer for MSNBC’s show “Ayman,” (@AymanMSNBC ) was asked what the network has done to assist the Kamala Harris campaign. Hamdan revealed on hidden camera that “what her [Harris’s] message of the day is, is their message of the day,” as MSNBC actively pushes Harris’s narrative to help her win. He admitted that MSNBC is doing “all they can to help,” Harris get elected, with the network operating as an extension of the campaign.

He went on to say, "MSNBC is indistinguishable from the party," further highlighting their partisan agenda.

In discussing the relationships between the MSNBC hosts and Democratic politicians, Hamdan reveals, ”The anchor and the politician are just in total agreement about everything.” He adds, “If you watch an interview with a Democratic politician, they just finish each other's sentences.”

Hamdan also didn’t shy away from criticizing the network’s audience, stating, “They’ve made their viewers dumber over the years,” and explaining that MSNBC is “too cozy with Democratic politicians.”"

Continue ReadingThe MSNBC Division of the DNC

About Fires in Crowded Theaters and Empty-Headed Candidates for National Office

"VANCE: You yourself have said there’s no First Amendment right to misinformation. Kamala Harris wants to use…

WALZ: Or threatening. Or hate speech.

VANCE: …the power of the government to use Big Tech to silence people from speaking their minds. That is a threat to democracy that will long outlive this political moment… Let’s persuade one another. Let’s argue about ideas and come together afterwards.

WALZ: You can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. That’s the test. That’s the Supreme Court test!"

Walz is almost completely wrong. He has no working knowledge of one of our nation's most important principles. His wanna-be boss Harris is equally ignorant. Despite his recent rhetoric, Trump falls far short too. The fact that the two major political parties are floating candidates of this caliber is proof of a failed legal system.

Matt Taibbi explains the First Amendment test here:

The “You can’t yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” saw is not only wrong, it’s the most overused anti-speech argument of our era, surpassing even the Karl Popper “Paradox of Tolerance” cartoon that was once meme legend. In 2012, the ACLU’s Gabe Rothman wrote that the “Fire!” bit was “worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech.” Lawyers and civil liberties activists are in danger of self-harm every time it’s mentioned. “My head hits my desk every time the ‘shouting fire’ canard is trotted out. I think I have a permanent bruise on my forehead because of it,” says Nico Perrino of the Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression, who adds the damage might prevent him from knowing how many times it’s happened.

The “Fire” saw is one of those unkillable nuggets of received wisdom blurted out by people with at least three drinks in them, repeated as fact by a Vice Presidential candidate. Why? It feels like Democrats are intentionally fumbling the issue:

“‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” was never law, nor was it ever a “Supreme Court test,” as Walz insisted. The quote is from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who in a 1919 case called Schenck v. United States argued, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” ...

“‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” not only isn’t law, it’s a symbol of one of the darkest chapters in our history, when we passed the aforementioned Espionage Act of 1917 and the similarly heinous Sedition Act of 1918, punishing utterance of “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States.” This was when Attorney General Mitchell Palmer terrorized Americans with deportations, mass arrests, even torture. “Clear and present danger” cast a shadow over expression for decades. Not until the 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio, which established the current standard barring incitement to “imminent lawless action,” was America free of the stain of the case.

The fact that Walz thinks that abomination is still law and also hasn’t corrected his belief that “hate speech” isn’t protected is odd. He first coughed up the latter hairball in a December 2022 interview with MSNBC’s Maria Teresa Kumar . . .

Continue ReadingAbout Fires in Crowded Theaters and Empty-Headed Candidates for National Office

Michael Shellenberger Offers Three Questions to Ask Those who Those who “Oppose” Free Speech

What is a good way to get a real conversation going with someone who claims that free speech is a bad thing? Michael Shellenberger offers three questions. His article at Public is titled, "Why These Three Questions Change People's Minds About Censorship." An excerpt:

How you approach the topic will depend on whether you’re talking with a friend or relative or moderating a presidential debate, but it should include affirming shared values. You might say, “There’s been a lot of debate about censorship and misinformation. Most of us, myself included, care a lot about protecting vulnerable people and countering bad information while protecting people’s right to free speech. I’m curious how you think about these issues, and I wondered if I could ask you how you think about them.”

Assuming you get permission to go further, here are the three key questions I would recommend:

First, “Can you think of examples where free speech helped past movements for political independence, civil rights, and human rights succeed?”

This immediately will slow many people down. They’ll be forced to reflect on what they know about those movements. Some will say they don’t know. But it’s unlikely that many people will respond that those movements succeeded thanks to censorship since so few cases exist.

Second, “Can you imagine a future government ever abusing its powers to censor hate speech and misinformation for political reasons?

A recent Australian poll found that voters were evenly split, 37% to 38%, on whether they agreed or disagreed with the question, “Freedom of speech should be protected online, even if this means wrong, inaccurate or false information may be published.”

However, when pollsters asked voters, “How concerned are you that if ‘misinformation’ laws were to be passed, government officials would use these powers for political purposes (for example, to limit public debate and censor certain opinions)?” between 61% and 78% of voters said they were concerned. And it was young people ages 18-24 who said they were most concerned.

The first question required people to think about what they know, and the second asked people to imagine the future. For various reasons, most people do not have a hard time imagining governments abusing their power for political reasons.

Third, “Is the best solution to hate speech and misinformation free speech or censorship?”

Acknowledging that bad guys have used censorship more than good guys throughout history and that future governments might censor for bad reasons, this last question slows people down further to assess the evidence on both sides. People who endorsed censorship a few minutes earlier may have second thoughts and even reversing themselves.

I would add one more question to this list. "If we decide that censorship is OK, who should be in charge of determining what is true?" That often stops people cold, but not always. Two years ago, a law professor (to my dismay) told me that in the case of COVID, the public health officials would get to decide what is true. It didn't seem to bother him that these "experts" got almost everything wrong about COVID. I asked, "What about non-medical issues," and he (I swear he said this) the FBI and CIA should be in charge.

I like Shellenberger's suggested questions. I'm going to start using them in my free speech conversations.

Continue ReadingMichael Shellenberger Offers Three Questions to Ask Those who Those who “Oppose” Free Speech