RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/a-tale-of-two-authoritarians

Former Vice President Dick Cheney visited the House of Representatives yesterday. He and his daughter Liz were the only two Republicans present at a moment of silence commemorating the events of last January 6th. It was a touching scene, which perfectly described why the surviving anti-Trump Uniparty of the political mainstream is at least as much of a threat to democracy as the “insurrectionists” they never stop wailing about.

In a story entitled “Dick Cheney returns to the House and receives a warm welcome . . . from Democrats,” the Washington Post wrote that “Democrats put aside their fierce and lasting policy divides with the Cheneys to thank them for condemning the attack and Trump’s continued effort to undermine the 2020 presidential election results with his false claims of fraud.”

(News writing has become a pre-fab profession, like assembling IKEA furniture. All you need is an Allen wrench and a list of the latest clichés. “Trump’s efforts to undermine the 2020 election” has replaced “Trump’s efforts to coordinate with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” and “Trump’s false claims of fraud” has replaced “Trump’s false claims of ‘fake news.’” Part of the significance of January 6th is that it updated popular propaganda stock, which had grown stale.)

I don’t mean to understate the seriousness of January 6th, even though it’s been absurdly misreported for over a year now. No one from a country where these things actually happen could mistake 1/6 for “a coup .” In the real version, the mob doesn’t take selfies and blaze doobies after seizing the palace, and the would-be dictator doesn’t spend 187 minutes snacking and watching Fox before tweeting “go home.” Instead, he works the phones nonstop to rally precinct chiefs, generals, and airport officials to the cause, because a coup is a real attempt to seize power. Britannica says the “chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements.” We saw none of that on January 6th, but it’s become journalistic requirement to use either “coup” or “insurrection” in describing it:

The endless hyperventilating efforts to describe January 6th as a disaster on the order of Pearl Harbor or even 9/11 has been awesome to behold. Huffington Post nitwit S.V. Date even called it “1,000 percent worse” than 9/11, moving the decimal point over on the famous Team America joke*:

The panic inspired convulsions across politics and the media. Ted Cruz made a plea for mainstream recognition by denouncing 1/6 as a “violent terrorist attack” before cowering in retreat on Tucker Carlson Tonight, in the process pantsing himself with audiences in all directions. Meanwhile, podcaster Eric Lendrum, on the pro-Trump site American Greatness, devised the impressively crazy syllogism that because the mainstream caricature of Trump supporters is so incorrect, conservatives should therefore embrace it: “If their aim is to make January 6 their Reichstag Fire, then we should go forward celebrating the events of that day as our Storming of the Bastille.”

https://amgreatness.com/2022/01/07/american-oligarchy/

To observe that the Left and its cheerleading media have treated the one-year anniversary of the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot as a solemn occasion would be to understate the point. For the Left, the (actually) mostly peaceful demonstrations of that day, which for a small percentage of demonstrators did entail illegal trespassing of the Capitol, represented a watershed moment in the history of our “democracy.” January 6 was the day, the narrative goes, where “deplorable” Trumpians attempted to effectuate an “insurrection” and a “coup,” seeking to “overturn” the results of the perfect and pristine 2020 presidential election.

The lead-up to the one-year January 6 anniversary was endlessly promoted by our insular and self-congratulatory Washington press corps as something akin to the one-year anniversary of September 11, 2001. The imbecilic and senile dolt who is our commander-in-chief dedicated his January 6, 2022, remarks to excoriating his predecessor for that predecessor’s alleged incitement of an “insurrection.” Defying parody, a candlelight vigil was held at the National Mall—”in remembrance of the attack on our democracy that occurred on January 6, 2021.”

In fairness, it is true that modern America no longer meets a threshold definition of “democracy.” But the Left is wrong as to why. America in the year 2022 is not a nation bedeviled by a great scourge of right-wing political violence, but it is a nation bedeviled by a monolithic and intellectually homogenous oligarchy that seeks to subjugate dissenting “deplorables” by any means necessary. Consider some examples.

American oligarchy is when a duly elected president of the United States is stymied from day one by cynical ruling class fabulists concocting a false story about that president’s alleged collusion with a foreign power, based on the primary “evidence” of a salacious and unverified “dossier” created in conjunction with the defeated opponent’s presidential campaign. American oligarchy is when the institutional media cheers on not one but two baseless and mind-numbing presidential impeachments based on nothing more than frothing partisan fealty to the oligarchs’ preferred political tribe, the Democratic Party.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/01/07/12-questions-the-justice-department-and-fbi-need-to-answer-about-january-6/

There is a good chance Republicans can take control of both houses of Congress in the 2022 midterm elections. There is an even better chance they will wimp out and betray their supporters . . . again. This open letter is addressed to one especially disappointing group. 

—The Editors

Dear Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans:

Happy New Year! Hope you are ready and rested for the big political fights ahead in 2022. Republicans across the country are counting on you to stand tough against the Biden regime and your Democratic counterparts in advance of a potentially power-shifting election this November.

Just kidding.

Alas, informed Republicans know that even with all the uncertainties in the world, we can be certain that the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee will always disappoint us. Even when you controlled this important committee for four years under a Republican president, you failed to fulfill one empty promise after another.

Remember all the promises to “get to the bottom” of Russiagate, the biggest political scandal and abuse of government power in history? (Well, until January 6.) 

Remember how you let Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Democratic activists hijack the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, which led to a humiliating and divisive showdown between the Supreme Court nominee and his half-baked accuser? 

Oh, and remember that lengthy investigative report you issued a few months later that accused people of lying to Congress and referred them to the Justice Department (which you purportedly oversee) on criminal charges but nothing ever happened?

Good times.

During the first year of the Biden Administration, you made nary a peep as Biden filled his cabinet with Obama loyalists and left-wing radicals. My favorite moment was when every member of the committee voted to advance the nomination of Lisa Monaco—Barack Obama’s hyperpartisan homeland security advisor, Russiagate architect, and former chief of staff to FBI Director Robert Mueller—to serve as deputy attorney general. She is what Andrew Weissmann was to Mueller when he was special counsel; the vengeful, Republican-hating prosecutor calling the shots behind the grandfatherly veneer of Attorney General Merrick Garland.

But don’t feel bad. Every Republican senator, except two, voted to confirm Monaco last April. As I wrote after her confirmation, “rather than act as any sort of barrier to protect America from the arsonist-in-chief hellbent on burning down every tradition, constitutional guardrail, and notion of common decency owed to fellow Americans, Senate Republicans are handing Joe Biden the matches.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/winsome-sears-education-key-black-success-virginia-governor-charter-school-choice-crt-critical-race-theory-11641574129?mod=opinion_lead_pos7

You don’t need a doctorate in futurology to be convinced that when Republican Glenn Youngkin is sworn in as governor of Virginia next Saturday, he’ll take his oath alongside someone who could likely be, four years hence, the first black woman elected chief executive of an American state.

The woman in question is Winsome Sears, Virginia’s lieutenant governor-elect and Mr. Youngkin’s running mate in the Republican sweep of the state’s highest offices in November. (A third Republican, Jason Miyares, won election as attorney general.) Virginia’s Constitution bars consecutive gubernatorial terms, and should Mr. Youngkin prove a success in office, Ms. Sears would be nearly certain to secure the Republican nomination for 2025. Mr. Miyares would also be a contender to succeed Mr. Youngkin as governor, but he’s a decade younger than Ms. Sears and will likely have to wait his turn.

Born in Jamaica’s capital, Kingston, some months after her father emigrated to New York in 1963, Ms. Sears is quick to acknowledge a political debt to her native island, from which she, too, emigrated as a child. She claims descent from Nanny of the Maroons, an 18th-century leader of runaway slaves who fought Jamaica’s British rulers in a guerrilla war. “Nanny was an African princess, and my mother comes from those people,” Ms. Sears tells me from her home outside Winchester, Va. Less dramatically, she ascribes her own political confidence—and her belief that there are “no limits to what black people can achieve”—to her quotidian experience of Jamaica, where “the generals are black, the lawyers are black, the doctors are black, the Rhodes scholars are black.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-race-based-covid-treatment-white-hispanic-inequity-monoclonal-antibodies-antiviral-pfizer-omicron-11641573991?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

New York state recently published guidelines for dispensing potentially life-saving monoclonal antibodies and oral antivirals like Paxlovid to people suffering from mild to moderate symptoms of Covid-19. These treatments are in short supply, and they must be allocated to those most in need.

According to these guidelines, sick people who have tested positive for Covid should be eligible to receive these drugs if they have “a medical condition or other factors that increase their risk for severe illness.” These include standard criteria like age and comorbidities like cancer, diabetes and heart disease—but, startlingly, they also include simply being of “non-white race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity,” which “should be considered a risk factor, as longstanding systemic health and social inequities have contributed to an increased risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19.”

Consider the following cases: A middle-aged investment banker born in Colombia shows up at a physician’s office in Manhattan; a laid-off middle-aged worker of Italian ancestry shows up at a doctor’s office in Rochester, N.Y. Neither has medical risk factors, but both have mild to moderate symptoms of Covid-19. The wealthy Colombian-American could be given Paxlovid; the laid-off auto worker would be turned away. You can construct thousands of these comparative cases using well-off Hispanics, Asians or blacks and working-class whites.

This is unfair and possibly illegal. With these kinds of regulations, the Democrats who control New York reinforce the racial and ethnic divisions that grew during Donald Trump’s presidency. These state officials have been abetted by social scientists who collect survey data in a manner that, intentionally or not, confirms their presuppositions.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/01/new_study_of_pfizers_covid_vaccine_has_some_disturbing_findings.html

I just read a disturbing study of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine’s efficacy by the Canadian COVID Care Alliance.  This organization comprises over 500 independent Canadian doctors, scientists, and health care practitioners.  The title of the article, “The Pfizer Inoculations for COVID-19: More Harm Than Good,” is disturbing. The article itself, which discusses the many nuances of this study, is even more distressing.

You may recall the much-reported “95% efficacy” of the vaccine against COVID-19.  We all assumed that if we were vaccinated, we would then only have a 5% chance of becoming infected.  Sounds great, but the statement is misleading.  In the Pfizer study, only 8 out of 18,198, or 0.043% of participants who received the vaccine, contracted COVID, while 162 out of 18,325, 0.884% in the control group who received injections of saline became infected.  Therefore, while there was a Relative Risk Reduction of 95%, the Actual Risk Reduction was a mere 0.84%.

This disparity certainly changes one’s perspective on just how effective the vaccine is.  Everyone in the study, including the control group, had a less than 1% chance of infection.  Of course, as the virus spread throughout the population, a higher percentage of people became infected.  The conclusions of the study remain the same insofar as the likelihood of the vaccine preventing infection in any given controlled group of persons.

The article also asserts, among other things, that the study was conducted on relatively young and healthy persons but was then recommended to be used first on old, less healthy individuals.  The trials did not follow scientific protocols, owing to the desire for rapid deployment.  Follow-up studies were made virtually impossible because as subjects were unblinded — made aware of whether they had received the vaccine or the placebo.  The unvaccinated largely chose to receive the vaccine.  Thus, there is no control group remaining to study

The most damning findings concerned lack of disclosure of possible, or even likely long-term health risks on vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals.  These findings revealed significant increases for the vaccinated.  It also pointed out that for adolescents and children, the vaccine posed all risk with virtually no benefit, since those young individuals, even if they became infected, had a near universal good outcome.  Myocarditis and other afflictions are a substantial health hazard facing vaccinated young people.

https://www.city-journal.org/defund-progressive-prosecutors

Mayors and city councils are increasingly exasperated with “progressive prosecutors,” but they have little leverage to control them. It may be time to exercise a traditional check on underperforming public agencies: the power of the purse.

Displeasure with progressive prosecutors has been simmering for a while but is starting to boil over. San Francisco mayor London Breed, seeing the chaos unleashed by District Attorney Chesa Boudin, recently said, “It’s time the reign of criminals who are destroying our city, it is time for it come to an end.” Philadelphia’s city council president and mayor took turns bashing the lack of leadership and cooperation from District Attorney Larry Krasner, even as the city set a new record for homicides. Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot traded barbs with Cook County state’s attorney Kim Foxx over Foxx’s decision not to charge violent criminals, in a year when Chicago topped 800 homicides.

But very few tools exist to stop a rogue prosecutor. A prosecutor seeking convictions must get through an arrest, preliminary hearing, pre-trial motions, trial, and appeals. A prosecutor who doesn’t want to prosecute criminals can simply announce that he or she is not prosecuting. The criminals will then walk free; there is no oversight and no appeal. In the 1980s and 1990s, when the United States saw a tremendous surge in violent crime, legislators and prosecutors worked together to figure out solutions. Today, certain prosecutors seem intent on fueling the violence rather than trying to stop it.

How, then, can these radical prosecutors be curbed? Voters may eventually catch on and send them packing, of course, though both Foxx and Krasner were recently reelected handily in low-turnout elections. But officials could also cut funding. Local prosecutors’ offices, like other agencies, get funded from municipal and state coffers. The progressive prosecutor movement has made much about arresting less, prosecuting less, incarcerating less: in short, doing less work than traditional prosecutors. District attorneys’ offices can accordingly see their budgets adjusted to reflect that diminished role. Progressive candidates in the Manhattan district attorney’s race explicitly promised to cut the size of the office in half because the office would be doing less prosecuting under their leadership. If Chesa Boudin is only prosecuting or convicting half as many people in San Francisco, then shouldn’t his budget be cut by half? The remaining funds could be repurposed to provide other city services.