RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/03/biden-intel-report-reboots-russia-hoax-censor-daniel-greenfield/

Democrats never give up beating a dead horse until it’s lying in pieces in the gutter. Senate Democrats are back to demanding that the FBI investigate Justice Kavanaugh’s high school years, and the Biden admin is rebooting the Russia hoax to protect Hunter and the Big Guy.

Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines presided over the release of the latest report, which claims to offer an intelligence analysis, but reads like a synthesis of Biden campaign talking points, right down to its absurd insistence that, Putin was helping Trump because he “probably also considers President Biden more apt to echo the idea of American Exceptionalism.”

Finally we’re getting an intel product that makes the Steele dossier seem credible.

The intelligence analysis also claims that the Hunter Biden thing is a Russian smear and that while the Russians tried to interfere in the election, nothing they did changed the outcome.

That’s convenient. Really convenient.

But Haines isn’t an intelligence professional. She’s an Obama lawyer who was brought in to politicise intelligence at the CIA and then as a legal adviser to the National Security Council.

“To safeguard the integrity of our intelligence community, the DNI must insist that, when it comes to intelligence, there is simply no place for politics ever,” Haines had told the Senate.

But that was her confirmation hearing. This is the reality of the job that she was picked to do.

“Foreign Threats to the 2020 US Federal Elections” is a stew of Democrat leftover talking points which never veers from its political agenda even if the result is self-contradictory gibberish.

The report’s first judgement insists that no “technical aspect of the voting process” was altered, while its second judgement contends that Putin authorized “influence operations aimed at denigrating President Biden’s candidacy and the Democratic Party, supporting President Trump”, but then backtracks to clarify that “unlike in 2016, we did not see persistent Russian cyber efforts to gain access to election infrastructure.”

If Putin wanted President Trump to win and Biden to lose, why didn’t he hack the election? If he could do it in 2016, why couldn’t he do it in 2020? Did he develop carpal tunnel syndrome?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/03/slandering-the-u-s-military-again/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first

The accusation that the military is full of racists and extremists is false, and damaging.

During the 1960s and ’70s, those of us who fought in Vietnam became accustomed to having many of our fellow countrymen slander us as, at best, victims of a government that sent its poor to fight a criminal war and, at worst, war criminals ourselves, complicit in the routine commitment of atrocities. But the pendulum began to swing back the other way in the 1980s, and continued in the same direction through the Gulf War and 9/11 until, by the time of George W. Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers had been elevated to the status of “secular saints.”

My fellow Vietnam veterans and I would no doubt have preferred such reverence to the chilly reception we received after the war, but secular sainthood has created its own set of problems — isolation from American society at large, unequal burden sharing, and a belief in the moral superiority of those who serve over those who haven’t — that threaten to undermine the bond between service members and veterans on the one hand and American society at large on the other. After all, healthy civil-military relations depend on mutual trust between soldiers and the society they serve.

Now, the pendulum seems to be swinging back to the bad old days of slandering the military, as part of broader claims that Donald Trump normalized “white supremacy” and other forms of right-wing extremism. The fact that there were veterans among the rioters who unlawfully entered the Capitol on January 6, the persistent claim that Trump appealed to extremist groups, and Trump’s popularity with the military form the basis for proliferating allegations that the military has become a friend to racism and extremism.

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/03/22/joe-biden-will-always-tell-you-the-truth-except-about-covid-vaccine-economy-border-crisis/

Almost exactly a year ago, then-candidate Joe Biden promised something that many apparently believed. “I’ll always tell you the truth,” he said. “This is the responsibility of a president. That’s what is owed the American people.”

So how is Biden doing on that promise?

Not very well, when you consider his inability to tell the truth about the COVID-19 vaccine, the economic rebound already underway, or the border crisis. Biden won’t tell the truth about the first two because he’d have to credit President Donald Trump. And he won’t tell the truth about the border crisis because he himself is entirely to blame for it.

Biden has repeatedly claimed that when he got to the White House, there was no plan in place to distribute the vaccine and that the credit for the widespread distribution all belongs to him. In his prime-time address earlier this month, for example, Biden said that “I have as president of the United States put us on a war footing to get the job done. Sounds like hyperbole, but I mean it, a war footing. Thank God we’re making some real progress now.”

But the former head of Operation Warp Speed, the program created by Trump to speed development and production of COVID-19 vaccines, told NBC’s “Face the Nation” over the weekend that “90% of what is happening now is the plan that we had.”

Of course, all you have to do is look at the data to see that rollout of the vaccine had nothing to do with Biden. By the time Biden took office, daily doses were well above 1 million – for a vaccine that nobody, including Biden, thought would be approved by then.

Biden isn’t telling the truth about the economy, either, or his $1.9 trillion plan to “rescue” it.

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.