RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/02/19/censored-hunter-biden-laptop-story-comes-back-around-to-bite-twitter-n1426849

The former Delaware computer repair shop owner who gave Rudi Giuliani and the FBI emails alleged to be from Hunter Biden’s laptop has again sued Twitter for defamation. John Paul Mac Isaac claimed that Twitter defamed him by censoring a New York Post story over its alleged use of “hacked materials.” Due to Twitter’s suppression of the story, Americans branded Mac Isaac a hacker, costing him business opportunities and ultimately leading him to shut down his business, the lawsuit claims.

“Plaintiff is not a hacker and the information obtained from the computer does not constitute hacked materials because Plaintiff lawfully gained access to the computer, first with the permission of its owner, Biden, and then, after Biden failed to retrieve the recovered data despite Plaintiff’s reuses, in accordance with the Mac Shop’s abandoned property police,” the lawsuit claims. “Plaintiff, as a direct result of Defendant Twitter’s actions and statements, is now widely considered a hacker.”

Mac Isaac filed a similar defamation lawsuit against Twitter late last year, seeking no less than $500 million in damages, but a judge at the Florida court in which he filed tossed the suit over lack of jurisdiction. The new lawsuit aims to address the jurisdiction issue, The Washington Examiner reported.

The new lawsuit claims defamation damages greater than $75,000 and demands that Twitter “make a public retraction of all false statements and to issue a public apology.”

Last October, The New York Post published a bombshell story that implicated then-candidate Joe Biden in his son Hunter’s notorious foreign business deals. Hunter Biden had notoriously cashed in on his father’s name with lucrative deals in Ukraine, China, and elsewhere — while Joe Biden spearheaded Obama administration policy in Ukraine and China.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/02/critical_race_theory_is_coming_to_your_suburban_community.html

Radicals pushing a Marxist and racist pedagogy called Critical Race Theory (CRT) have achieved their goal of destroying quality education in K-12 school systems in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco and other large, progressive-controlled cities. But if suburban parents think they are safe from these depredations due to the existing quality of their school systems and parental involvement, they are wrong.  CRT has already quietly established residence in affluent suburban communities under the benign-sounding guise of Culturally Responsive-Sustaining Education (CR-S) under the aegis of state education departments, teachers’ unions and the burgeoning CRT industry.

For example, in 2018, the New York State Board of Regents engaged the New York University/Steinhardt Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the Transformation of Schools to develop a “framework for culturally-responsive-sustaining education. As a result of the Regents’ adoption of the resulting guidance document, students and parents in the affluent suburbs in Westchester County, which is immediately north of New York City, are being subjected to efforts to perform “equity audits”, “cultural proficiency training” and culturally responsive educational programs.

While the language of CR-S may seem benign at first sight, these programs are based on CRT, an ideology that seeks educational “equity” by uprooting the biases between the oppressors (white, privileged students) and the oppressed (non-white students). The New York State Department of Education gave its blessing to these efforts in its guidance document, available on the state’s website, which has the starting point that our current educational system has failed the diverse needs of children

New York’s guideline makes no bones about the alleged culprits of performance inequities and where this is headed. “A complex system of biases and structural inequities is at play, deeply rooted in our country’s history, culture and institutions. This system of inequity – which routinely confers advantage and disadvantage based on linguistic background, gender, skin color and other characteristics – must be clearly understood, directly challenged and fundamentally transformed.”

http://carolineglick.com/one-week-in-progressive-america/

The Democrats had a lousy week. It began with former President Donald Trump’s acquittal in the Senate.

Trump’s acquittal was a major blow to the Democrats. It isn’t that anyone believed Trump would be convicted. Whether Republicans love or hate the former president, the fact is that it is unconstitutional to hold an impeachment trial for a former officeholder. And for that reason alone, there was no chance that more than a smattering of Republicans would support the move.

But once their farcical trial ended, public focus moved to the Democrats – who now control both houses of Congress and the White House. True, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is already planning to drag Trump back to center stage with her “January 6 Truth Commission.” But that won’t happen for several months. And in the meantime, for the first time in five years, the Democrats find themselves, and their actions, the focus of public attention.

The first casualties of the scrutiny have been the Democrat governors of the most populous Democrat-run states in the Union – Andrew Cuomo of New York and Gavin Newsom of California.

After a nearly a year in which Cuomo was lavished with adulation for his leadership of the coronavirus pandemic in New York; upheld as the future of the Democratic Party; touted as a possible candidate for Attorney General; and even won an Emmy for his press conferences, the truth has caught up with “America’s governor.”

Last March, as the number of COVID-19 patients hospitalized in New York hospitals mounted and fears that hospitals would be overwhelmed rose, Trump ordered the Army to set up a field hospital at the Javits Center and sent the Navy’s USS Comfort floating hospital to New York harbor. Not wanting to give any credit to Trump, Cuomo ordered nursing homes to take in COVID-19 patients from hospitals. The result was disastrous. COVID-19 spread like wildfire among the most vulnerable population and thousands of elderly New Yorkers died.

Republicans and conservative journalists long pointed out that Cuomo’s move was lethally misguided. But protected by the media, Cuomo indignantly denied the allegations.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/02/18/politicized-science-is-not-science-at-all/

Most middle schoolers or high schoolers in America are taught a mode of empirical inquiry and knowledge attainment usually referred to as the “scientific method.” Although the discipline has origins dating back to classical antiquity, the term emerged in the 19th century and took on sustained life in the 20th century. The multistep “scientific method,” as it is generally formulated, amounts to something along the lines of: 1) problem; 2) research; 3) hypothesis; 4) experiment; 5) data collection; 6) analysis; and 7) conclusion.

Rational empiricism and a skepticism of the status quo inhere in the very process; they are baked into the entire enterprise. The purpose of the scientific method is to constantly contest and, when necessary, disprove flawed hypotheses and mistaken conclusions previously deduced about the workings of the natural world. A basic thought experiment is instructive: Imagine what sort of world we might have today had Copernicus, Galileo and all subsequent astronomers blindly accepted the erroneous, then-dominant belief in a geocentric universe.

True, as the conservative icon Edmund Burke taught, epistemological humility is a defining trait of political statesmanship. But science is not, contra the Left’s frequent hysterical shrieks, synonymous with politics. On the contrary, any scientist worth his salt must approach his discipline with something resembling the opposite of epistemological humility—skepticism, that is, of the legitimacy of the inherited status quo and an insatiable desire to challenge the status quo’s underlying precepts. Only through such intellectually unconstrained, methodologically rigorous testing can we approach confidence in the validity of any claimed scientific knowledge.

Alas, the Democratic Party, America’s would-be “party of science,” whose leading lights bellow, “Trust the science!” as an authoritative command akin to the tablet-bearing Moses’ descent from Mount Sinai, missed the memo. Whether the issue is climate change, COVID-19 mask mandates, pandemic-era school reopenings or any other number of issues, the Left browbeats its political opponents with the faux mantle of science and accuses those who have the temerity to ask questions as science “deniers.” Flat-earthers no doubt nod with approval, but Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein scowl from the grave.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/02/covid_therapies_versus_covid_vaccines_who_benefits.html

“Yes, they were feverishly working on a vaccine. But why were they not as frantically looking for a cure or treatment? And why were they continuous knocking down every possible treatment that was suggested? ”

I knew something was amiss when the pandemic hit. I have four degrees in the field of psychology including a PhD. My years of training and experience were telling me something wasn’t right. My BS detector as all the best psychologists would call it kept going off. I just kept wondering why our National health leaders kept putting the burden of handling the spread on us? 

Yes, they were feverishly working on a vaccine. But why were they not as frantically looking for a cure or treatment? And why were they continuous knocking down every possible treatment that was suggested? 

So, I did what any good academic would do. I started trying to figure out the answer to my questions. In my search I uncovered a trail of corruption, monetary incentives, secrecy, and lies. 

In 2018 Congress questioned the NIH (Anthony Fauci leads the NIH’s infectious disease research institute) and the CDC about ethical issues with both the CDC and NIH Foundations between 2014 and 2018 with regard to their collection of money from anonymous donors. 

For the CDC one of the donors turned out to be Coca Cola. They gave money for research involving whether unhealthy foods caused type 2 diabetes and obesity.