RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2021/06/16/a-chinese-lab-virus-so-now-what/

For over a year, the American establishment and media borg have ostracized anyone who dared to connect the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic with the Chinese military-sponsored, level-4 biosafety Wuhan Institute of Virology. 

Then, suddenly and without apologies for their past demagoguery, “journalists” and “experts” concede that the nearby Wuhan lab may well be the most likely genesis.

Why the abrupt change? 

Donald Trump is no longer president. 

There is now no need for progressives to declare everything Trump once asserted as truth a lie. And that paradox includes Trump’s spring 2020 insistence that the lab, not a wet market of sliced-up bats, was the source of the outbreak. 

The recent release of Anthony Fauci’s emails, along with the new information about Dr. Peter Daszak’s gain-of-function research, make it indisputable that both were knowingly channeling U.S. taxpayer dollars to the Chinese for coronavirus research in Wuhan.  

So now what? 

We are left with a number of lose-lose scenarios about China’s failed efforts to lie about the origins of COVID-19.

One, will China continually deny what is appearing to be undeniable? Perhaps, if we remember it is a country with a Communist Party hierarchy that once killed 60 million under Mao, and whose present apparat has put over 1 million Muslim Uyghurs into camps. 

A stonewalling Beijing likely will conclude that the risk of appearing guilty for causing one of the greatest “natural” global disasters in a century is not nearly as destructive to its interests as admitting it. 

Will China then wait us out, in O.J. Simpson fashion, denying the obvious facts—until wearied Americans move onto another of their media frenzies?

Or, two, could China confess that its SARS-CoV-2 virus was birthed in the Wuhan lab, but claim its appearance was a “joint” effort with the United States? They would then point to Fauci himself, who approved funds for Wuhan coronavirus enhancement to be channeled by Daszak. The Chinese would further insist their combined efforts were aimed at finding a “cure” for coronavirus epidemics. And thus Beijing should not be blamed—or at least not solely blamed. 

Beijing could retort that it, too, was misled by its own sloppy researchers. Or the communist government might even preposterously answer that its prior code of silence was meant to shield the role of U.S. funders of the pandemic disaster. 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/06/the_fbis_role_in_the_jan_6_capitol_fracas_is_absolutely_disgusting.html

Do you remember how conservatives went out of their way to separate rank-and-file FBI agents from the corrupt actions of Jim Comey, Andrew McCabe, Bill Priestap, James Baker, James Rybicki, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and others as more evidence came to light revealing that the top brass at the bureau had worked to create an “insurance policy” that could be used to overthrow President Trump from office?  Writers and television pundits would always couch any criticism of the bureau in some respectful language like “we’re only talking about high-ranking officials here, not the FBI, itself, which is filled with the best agents in the world who are always looking out for America.”

I think we can dispense with the overly protective pleasantries at this point.  The FBI is a goon squad of un-American thugs who have taken the worst elements of East Germany’s Stasi police state and Cosa Nostra’s organized crime and turned them into a blueprint for exercising and keeping illegitimate power over their enemies.  They aren’t a law enforcement organization, and they certainly don’t give a rat’s rear end about justice.  They’re regime enforcers with badges.

If the stated reason for the FBI’s inception was to pursue federal crimes that might otherwise be unenforced or overlooked in the interstate wilderness separating local jurisdictions, J. Edgar Hoover wasted no time turning the bureau into a personal domestic intelligence force capable of intimidating political enemies and insulating himself from potential removal through the use of blackmail.  Before Jim Comey was secretly leaking to the press and using Hillary Clinton’s “Russia collusion” dossier in an operation to take down President Trump, Mark Felt, the FBI’s second-in-command at the time of the Watergate scandal and the anonymous “Deep Throat” who made Woodward and Bernstein famous, actually succeeded in secretly bringing down President Nixon.  In this way, the FBI has at least as much experience overthrowing American governments as it does any enemy state.

You’d think it was sufficiently clear, as evidence mounted over the last five years, that Comey and Co. had undertaken a mission (with John Brennan at CIA, Bruce Ohr at Main Justice, Nellie Ohr and Glenn Simpson at Fusion GPS, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, James Clapper, and Christopher Steele, the Russia hoax dossier author and former Russia desk head at Britain’s MI6) to frame the sitting president of the United States as a Russian asset by repeatedly filing fraudulent FISA affidavits with America’s secret surveillance court, among other unprosecuted crimes, to spy on Donald Trump and his associates.  But there were also the efforts of Rod Rosenstein, Andrew Weissmann, Robert Mueller, and their army of fifty FBI agents who spent two years trying to entrap President Trump on phony “obstruction of justice” charges during a bogus special counsel witch hunt.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-antitrust-bait-and-switch-11623883196?mod=opinion_lead_pos4

The Senate on Tuesday voted 69-28 to confirm progressive Columbia University law professor Lina Khan as a Federal Trade Commissioner. But some Republicans who voted for her may have regrets after President Biden broke political norms and quickly named her as the new chair.

Ms. Khan is a leader in the “hipster” or neo-Brandeis school of antitrust. These progressives want to scrap the consumer-welfare standard that Robert Bork helped develop in the 1970s. They believe antitrust law should focus on business size rather than how its conduct or acquisitions affect consumers.

In a 2017 Yale Law Journal article, “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox,” Ms. Khan argued that the “consumer welfare” standard is “unequipped to capture the architecture of market power in the modern economy.” Amazon, she said, increased its dominance by charging lower prices and growing its business, thereby undercutting competitors.

Amazon and other tech giants deserve antitrust scrutiny for some of their business practices, such as Amazon’s dominance in e-books. But that e-book dominance was abetted by a Justice antitrust suit that undermined competition from Apple. Killing the consumer-welfare standard would punish companies for reducing prices and innovating.

Some Republicans, frustrated by how companies have silenced conservatives, voted to confirm Ms. Khan to send a message. Yet they may not have done so had they known Ms. Khan would lead the agency. It’s de rigueur for a President when nominating members to independent agencies to announce at the same time if someone will serve as chair.

Mr. Biden didn’t, probably because he was worried it would jeopardize Ms. Khan’s confirmation.