Tuesday, October 20, 2020


  • US physicians reported an 84% decrease in hospitalizations, a 50% decrease in mortality among already hospitalized patients (if treated early), and an improvement in the condition of patients within 8 to 12 hours based on Zinc/HCQ/AZ early treatment.
  • Italian hospital doctors reported a decrease in deaths of 66% based on HCQ treatment.
  • A Spanish study found that low plasma zinc levels (below 50mcg/dl) increased the risk of in-hospital death of covid patients by 130%.
  • US physicians moreover reported a 45% reduction in mortality of hospitalized patients by adding zinc to HCQ and azithromycin.
  • Another US study reported a rapid resolution (within hours) of Covid symptoms, such as shortness of breath, based on early outpatient treatment with high-dose zinc.
  • A Dutch study on HCQ published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases found a 53% risk reduction in terms of ICU admission and ventilation of covid patients.
  • Australian Professor Thomas Borody reported an improvement in the condition of covid patients often within hours after treatment with zinc, ivermectin and azithromycin.
  • *************************
  • April 29, 2020:  Remdesivir shows promising results for coronavirus, Fauci says
  • O WHOOPS!!

    OCTOBER 16, 2020  Remdesivir has 'little or no effect' on Covid-19 mortality: WHO study

    The antiviral drug remdesivir, considered one of the most promising Covid-19 treatments, turns out to do little to prevent deaths from the disease, according to a WHO-backed study

Sunday, October 11, 2020


In theory, a randomized controlled study would test the spread of the virus among people wearing masks versus people not wearing masks and possibly scientifically demonstrate the effectiveness of wearing one.

But Fauci balked at the idea.

“I would not want to do a randomized controlled study because that would mean having people not wear masks and see if they do better,” he said.

Fauci suggested he would never ask an individual to participate in a study that would involve not wearing a mask.

“I think that to do the study would be kind of difficult to do because then you’d have to tell people not to wear masks, and I’m not about to tell them that,” he said.

Friday, October 2, 2020


Alas, the Donald had no time for policy. Never has.

His modus operandi is to attack, belittle, insult and smear. Yet even in that modality, he did manage to do a solid for the public good. That is, he smoked out the systemic, relentless and shameless mendacity by which the ruling elites deny and expurgate any an all efforts to expose their malign misdeeds.

In this case, it was with respect to the documented $3.5 million wire transfer from the wife of the ex-Mayor of Moscow and Russia’s richest woman, Elena Baturina, to Hunter Biden. As the Senate committee recently revealed based on actual intercepts from Fedwire:

On Feb. 14, 2014, Baturina wired $3.5 million to a Rosemont Seneca Thornton LLC bank account for a “Consultancy Agreement DD12.02.2014.”

Separately, between May 6, 2015 and Dec. 8, 2015, Baturina also sent 11 wires in the amount of $391,968.21 to a bank account belonging to BAK USA LLC (BAK USA). Nine of the 11 transactions, totaling $241,797.14 were sent from Baturina’s accounts to a Rosemont Seneca Thornton bank account, which then transferred to the money to BAK USA.

As it happened, Hunter Biden was no more of a qualified investment manager than he was an expert on Ukrainian gas production, but he was intimately connected to an apparent Dem schmear. In the case of the above mentioned transfers to BAK USA, it had involved none other than Governor Andrew Cuomo (D., N.Y.), who had recently announced in a press release the grand opening of BAK USA’s new global headquarters, proclaiming,

BAK’s decision to locate its global headquarters in Buffalo is another success story for this city and for START-UP NY….the expansion of the global headquarters, one of the first American firms to produce its own-branded electronic tablets, is complete…

Buffalo has become a leader in high-tech manufacturing and Bak USA’s newly completed expansion in the heart of the city means new jobs, more economic activity and more momentum for a region already on the move. Bak USA’s successful expansion in Western New York is yet another example of companies coming to New York and staying here to grow their businesses in our state.”

Alas, a year or two latter BAK USA was defunct. As Stephen Watson of the Buffalo News reported in 2019, “The company’s recent filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation shows Bak USA has $39.4 million in debts and just $147,000 in assets.”

Quite a hole, that. Or the residue of plunder, as the case may be.

Yet when the Donald brought up this smelly chain of events, Sleepy Joe just stiffly swatted it away as a matter completely untrue and fully debunked.

Well, yes, the recipient of the funds was not Hunter Biden’s personal checking account, but a Rosemont Seneca Thornton LLC bank account and that’s where the Dem spin machine attempted a “gotcha”. It seems that Hunter Biden was indeed a co-founding partner along with Devon Archer, a former staff to John Kerry, and Chris Heinz, the latter’s stepson and billionaire heir to the Ketchup fortune, in a firm called Rosemont Seneca sans the “Thornton LLC” bit.

So according to the Dem spinmeister: Mistaken identity, Fedwire tracking number an all!

Actually not at all. It seems that the Rosemont trio had reached out to a top-drawer partner to extend their global reach. That happened to be a Massachusetts-based consultancy called the Thornton Group, hence the added name on the checking account which received the Moscow wires. Yet that did not stop the Biden spokesman from insisting that Hunter was not a co-founder of Rosemont Seneca Thornton LLC, even though his firm, Rosemont Seneca, was just one lawyer’s document removed.

As it further happened, the Thornton piece of the Russian-money receiving LLC was controlled by one James Bulger. The latter was the son of former Massachusetts state senator and Dem bagman, Billy Bulger, who, in turn, was the brother of the notorious mob hitman James “Whitey” Bulger.

The latter, of course, had famously been a Boston crime lord who turned FBI informant and had been run by none other than, well, Bobby “three sticks” Mueller. That was back in the day when Mueller was perfecting the art of squeezing his targets as he moved up the food chain of purported miscreants.

In any event, James Bulger’s firm had a Chinese counterpart called Solebury Thornton (Beijing) Consulting Co., Ltd. Together Thornton LCC and Solebury Thornton claimed to function as a cross-border capital intermediary whose purpose was to facilitate the strategic vision of its clients by providing advisory services and deal structuring expertise.

Moreover, Bulger’s partner in the China side of the enterprise was Michael Lin, who was also the principle behind BAK USA!

Truly, you can’t make this stuff up.

So it should not be surprising that the Thornton LLC and Solebury Thornton combo positioned itself as a “bridge” between the East and the West by “combining its Western business experience with its unique Chinese local market insight and network.”

Sure thing. But stay tuned for Part 2. The moral of the story is the modern Democratic Party is anchored in this kind of sleaze and grift (think the Clinton Foundation), yet has the audacity to dismiss any and all attempts to expose the truth as unworthy skullduggery based on nothing other than right-wing conspiracy theories.

Hopefully, during the next debate there will be a moderator who doesn’t keep giving Sleepy Joe a hall pass whenever the Donald is asleep at the switch, as he clearly was in this case when after landing the punch he failed to dispatch his opponent.


Tuesday, September 29, 2020

Thursday, September 24, 2020


This in the very rural Hocking Hills area of Ohio, not in some suburb full of Neurotic Karen Democrat Women. 

Wednesday, September 23, 2020

Judge Amy Coney Barrett Recently Approved Democrat COVID-19 Lockdown Policies -- Her decision should raise some eyebrows.

ShaneTrejo writes:

Barrett’s record is troubling on many issues, with a ruling that gives Democrats in Illinois blanket authority to shut down society based on COVID-19 mass hysteria standing out as particularly heinous.

Barrett concurred with the majority in Illinois Republican Party et al. v. J.B. Pritzker, Governor of Illinois to keep the illegal lockdown in place and allow Democrats to rip up the Constitution under the guise of safety. She hid behind the precedent of Jacobsen v. Massachusetts (1905) in an attempt to avoid culpability for her decision.***

While Barrett rolls over to the far left and allows Democrats to rip up the Constitution, other judges are actually living up to their oath, such as the Trump-appointed District Judge in Pennsylvania, William S. Stickman.

In his ruling, Stickman refused to hide behind precedent to allow the constitution to be destroyed by Democrats. He effectively deep-sixed Pennsylvania’s lockdown and obliterated the abominable Jacobson decision.

He wrote: “Jacobson was decided over a century ago. Since that time, there has been substantial development of federal constitutional law in the area of civil liberties… That century of development has seen the creation of tiered levels of scrutiny for constitutional claims. They did not exist when Jacobson was decided. […]”

Patriotic attorney Robert Barnes has levied additional criticism against Barrett for her unwillingness to stand up to Democrat overreach.

“For example, Barrett, I would oppose her nomination personally. So I would do whatever I can to see her nomination fail. I have no interest in seeing someone like that on the bench,” Barnes explained during an interview on the Viva Frei YouTube channel.

“She comes from the old money corporate South, a world I’m familiar with and the kind of people I’d never want to see in positions of power… That’s the world she comes from. Her dad was a big Shell oil corporate lawyer,” he continued.

Barnes explained how Barrett’s history working as a Clerk for deceased former Justice Antonin Scalia is giving the false impression that she shares his staunch originalist beliefs when that is not in fact the case. He explained that her rise is similar to that of Chief Justice John Roberts, whose record of extreme cowardice on the bench has harmed the nation immeasurably.

“This is how Justice Roberts got on the bench. You do two things if you’re on the Republican side of the aisle: You let people know that you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned even if you don’t believe that… And you play the corporate side of the equation,” he said.

“But most importantly, you get that Justice and his extended intellectual heavyweights to lobby for you to be appointed to the judicial bench down the road… That’s why people are pushing Barrett,” Barnes added.

Barnes highlighted some of Barrett’s worst decisions in a blistering Twitter thread.




U.S. District Judge in Pennsylvania denies the state's motion to stay (postpone) the impact of his ruling declaring most of the lockdown illegal

This proves my contention that the lawyers in all the previous losing lockdown cases were incompetent weenies. THEY NEEDED TO FIRMLY PLEAD that that virus was treatable and that the government was suppressing information about the successful treatments.  They needed to firmly plead that young people were at almost no risk from the virus, treatments or no treatments. And they needed to demand a trial or evidentiary hearing with witnesses to demonstrate that the state had NO FACTS and no argument in support of the lockdowns.  The lawyers for these plaintiffs did not get involved with treatments or preventatives.  But by having the evil doers testify, they showed that they were shooting with blanks with no understanding whatsoever of the original source materials regarding the virus.  

Hon. William S. Stickman IV, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-677: 

First, it is important to note that the Court's judgment did not arise out of proceedings on a temporary restraining order or even a preliminary injunction, but rather, the parties had the opportunity to develop a full evidentiary record under Rule 57. Despite this opportunity, Defendants did not proffer any specific evidence to differentiate between the danger allegedly posed by gatherings governed by specific numeric limitations and gatherings governed by occupancy limitations. The appellate court will be bound by the same record upon which the Court premised its decision. Despite Defendants having every opportunity to make a record, there is simply no evidence that would justify, from a constitutional perspective, the disparate treatment of gatherings.

Defendants' Brief in Support of Stay cites to several newspaper and magazine articles that purport to show the justification for limitations on gatherings. Some of these articles predate the evidentiary hearing in this case, but they were neither discussed nor used as exhibits. Defendants never moved to supplement the record to submit the articles to the Court (as Plaintiffs did on multiple occasions). These articles are not part of the record. Defendants cannot rely upon them to buttress or supplement the record that was properly before the Court and which will be before the Third Circuit on appeal.

Indeed, despite having an opportunity to adduce testimony and exhibits in support of their position, Defendants did not adduce any evidence that would explain and justify treating social, cultural, political and other similar gatherings differently from the commercial gatherings covered by a percentage of occupancy-based limitation. Mr. Robinson testified that there was concern about large gatherings, like conventions, causing "mega spreading events." (ECF No. 75, pp. 55- 56).           But neither Mr. Robinson nor any other witness proffered by Defendants explained the specific need to limit size of some gatherings by a numeric cap, rather than a limitation on occupancy. For example, nobody explained why hundreds may gather indoors to shop (the larger the facility, the more people permitted), dozens may dine in a restaurant (again, the larger the restaurant, the more will be permitted), but no more than twenty-five may attend an indoor lecture, a speech or a wedding.  Defendants failed to adduce evidence that would explain why they made distinctions  between  gatherings  limited  by  number  and  those limited by occupancy.          

Their suggestion of irreparable harm because of the inability to impose set-number restrictions is not supported by the evidentiary record. They did not demonstrate why their limits on some activities by occupancy is reasonably safe but will pose irreparable and imminent danger for other activities. From a different perspective, not only does the record not support the suggestion of immediate and irreparable harm if Defendants may not impose numeric limitations on certain gatherings, but their actions actually show the opposite-that they do not believe that gatherings exceeding their numeric caps will necessarily cause such harm. For example, to avoid litigation in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, Defendants entered a Confidential Settlement Agreement permitting a large event to take place in Carlisle, Cumberland County-Spring Carlisle, a large gathering featuring an automotive flea market and auction. (ECF No. 64-1).6 Defendants agreed to allow the event to proceed with an indoor occupancy of "the lesser of 250 individuals or 50% of the maximum building occupancy." (ECF No. 64-1, Section 2a). This limit is ten-times higher than the 25-person cap on gatherings imposed by Defendants' July 15, 2020 Order. Defendants imposed an outdoor limitation on the event of "no more than 20,000 individuals, which is 50% of its capacity." (ECF No. 64-1, Section 2b) (emphasis added).  This is nearly 100 times the permissible outdoor gathering limit of 250. The Confidential Agreement also required the event's sponsor to "enforce all applicable social distancing, masking, area cleaning and hygiene requirements." (ECF No. 64-1, Section 2c).

The protests that swept across the Commonwealth throughout the summer are another example of where the record dispels Defendants' suggestion of immediate and irreparable harm if they cannot impose specific numeric limitations. While the plain language of Defendants' orders makes no allowance for protests, Defendants' own actions and the statements of their witnesses show that they do not view that type of gathering as posing a risk of immediate and irreparable harm. Governor Wolf, for example, personally participated in a large protest. The photo of that protest does not indicate that social distancing requirements were honored or enforced. (ECF No. 42-100). Ms. Boateng averred that there have been gatherings that exceeded the numeric caps in Defendants' orders and that "no official action was taken in regard to public entities holding board meetings, town hall meetings, public protests or public rallies that exceeded these numbers." (ECF No. 37, 113). " Rather, individuals attending such events were encouraged to wear a face covering and practice social distancing."

 When pressed for details, Mr. Robinson was unable to offer any actual examples of mega spreading events that occurred at any of the activities limited by numeric caps. He was asked, for example about weddings: "[d]o you know of the existence of a single wedding reception or wedding celebration, a single one in Pennsylvania, that can be identified as a source of the spread of either COVID or the virus, of the SARS virus?" (ECF No. 75, p. 55). He responded "I am not aware. But again, that would be a question that might be better answered by my colleagues in the Department of Health." (ECF No. 75, p. 55). Ms. Boateng, who testified for the Department of Health, did not offer any more details.


 AND NOW, this 22nd day of September 2020, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants' Motion to Stay (ECF No. 84).



UPDATE:  Attorney Viva Frei from Montreal just LOVES THESE DECISIONS.  He points out that they are different from the other dumb ass rulings BECAUSE THEY HAD A HEARING WITH ACTUAL WITNESSES, including the lying government numbnuts.  




Monday, September 21, 2020


In consideration of all participants’ safety and following local guidelines, please wear a face mask and socially distance yourself from others not in your group; six feet is recommended. Face masks and hand sanitizer will be available for attendees. If you are not feeling well, please stay at home.

Dear Michigan Libertarians,

Libertarian Presidential candidate Dr. Jo Jorgensen will be appearing in Detroit on Monday, September 28. She will be speaking at Riverside Park, near the Ambassador Bridge, at an event from 5:45-7:00 as part of her 'Real Change For Real People' campaign tour.

Come hear Dr. Jo's fresh and bold vision for America - and remember to bring a friend! Following remarks, she will take your questions. She will also be available for media interviews prior to the event.

Admission to the event is free however the campaign is offering a VIP Experience package for those wishing to meet one on one with the candidate. If you select the VIP Individual add-on, you will get one-on-one time and a selfie with Dr. Jo, an autographed photo, and priority seating and VIP line, where possible.

You can RSVP and learn more about the tour stop on Eventbrite


Please arrive on time. This event will last no more than one hour. This is an outdoor, open-air event. Plan to bring a chair if needed and we recommend you keep an eye on the weather. Restrooms will not be guaranteed, so plan accordingly.

In consideration of all participants’ safety and following local guidelines, please wear a face mask and socially distance yourself from others not in your group; six feet is recommended. Face masks and hand sanitizer will be available for attendees. If you are not feeling well, please stay at home.

The campaign is asking for volunteers to serve in a few roles before, during, and after the event.

These roles include setting up, cleaning up, attending the information table, distributing campaign supplies, crowd control, and possibly a runner or two with a clean legal vehicle on standby. Those interested in volunteering should reach out to Greg Stempfle, gregstempfle@gmail.com, 313-929-1789.

Depending on what you volunteer for, you may need to arrive early. You can also select the "volunteer" ticket option when you RSVP online.

For more information, you can reach out to event manager Mike Saliba, themikesaliba@yahoo.com, 586-201-3535.

Media contacts should be sent to Scotty Boman, scotty@hotmail.com, 313- 247-2052.


Justice Ginsburg Preferred South Africa’s Constitution To The US Constitution - By Ilana Mercer, February 17, 2012

Ilana Mercer wrote:

I would not look to the US constitution,” said US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in an interview with Al-Hayat TV. “If I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012, I might look at the constitution of South Africa, Canada … and the European Convention on Human Rights.”

The American Constitution is by-and-large a charter of negative liberties, as President Obama once described it derisively.

A positive right is state-manufactured, usually at the behest of political majorities. Rights to a job, water, clothes, food, education and medical care are examples. Some of the European covenants canvassed by Bader consider “freely chosen” desirable work as a human right. Ditto adequate “rest and leisure.” Once these needs are recognized as rights, they become state-enforceable, legal claims against other, less-valued members of society (“the rich”). Someone who hasn’t had a vacation, or has not reached his career apogee, gets to collect on such claims.

In the case of natural rights—the only founding truths the nation’s fathers could have conceived of, given their classical liberal philosophical framework—the duty is merely a mitts-off duty. My right to life means you must not murder me. My right to liberty means you dare not enslave me. My right to property means you can’t take what’s mine—not 35 percent of it, or 15 percent. Nada. And you have no right to stop me from taking the necessary acquisitive action for my survival, so long as I, in turn, respect the same restrictions.

As an instantiation of a constitutional democracy governed in accordance with state-minted rights, take the new South Africa, where almost everyone knows someone who has been raped, robbed, hijacked, murdered, or all of the above, in violation of natural law.

Sunday, September 20, 2020


Amy Wax of the U. of Pennsylvania law school wrote an article about RBG earlier this year for the Claremont Review of Books.  Bland conservative analysis. Basically, RBG was your typicall know-it-all totalitarian boss-you-around evil Democrat. 

And though she is frequently billed as a pragmatist, Ginsburg in her writings reveals an optimistic, idealistic vision of harmoniously egalitarian families, political precincts, and workplaces. Without ever confronting the question deeply or directly, she implicitly accepts the basic premises of blank-slate progressivism: that the present realities of gender, including women’s and men’s differing preferences, choices, capacities, and desires, are the remnants of a benighted and oppressive past that can be vanquished and eliminated by getting law and policy right. She has often asserted that such reforms would benefit both sexes, so that her quest for women’s rights is also one for human rights. But this win-win conception carries limitations and creates blind spots. Fueled by her own fortunate situation and the insular elite domains she occupies, Ginsburg has failed to confront the real tradeoffs that might be entailed in expanding women’s rights. She has never stopped to consider that the nature of womanhood and the intricacies of family relations might impede equality of outcomes, or that interchangeable roles for men and women might not be attainable, or even desirable, for the great majority of people of either sex.

In recognition of these insights, there emerged in the 1980s a different strain of feminism from the one Ginsburg championed. Designated “difference feminism,” this alternative philosophy acknowledges women’s unique vulnerabilities, traits, and needs, calling upon society to recognize, accommodate, and even cater to the ways in which women are not exactly like men. Within the legal profession itself, the contrast between equity and difference feminism was presaged, strikingly, by the government’s argument in the VMI case. The state proposed that a separate military education program be developed at Mary Washington College as a gentler and less “adversative” substitute for the rigorous demands of a VMI education. In his counterargument, Deputy Solicitor General Paul Bender cast aspersions on the state’s assertion that women couldn’t handle the harsh regime at VMI. On the very same logic, he suggested, “a new women’s law school” would have to be set up with “a much warmer, a much more embracing environment”—a notion, he implied, both risible and demeaning.

But ironically, quite similar proposals were advanced in the same year by feminist Lani Guinier, now a Harvard Law professor, in a University of Pennsylvania Law Review article. According to Guinier, the Socratic method, with its emphasis on logic, rigor, fine analytic distinctions, and public performance, was personally intimidating and psychologically traumatic for women. Male-oriented pedagogical techniques interfered with women’s ability to learn and accounted for the then-measured gaps between males and females in law school performance, class participation, and subjective self-evaluations. Guinier urged law schools to adopt more “female-friendly” educational methods that were better suited to women’s wants and needs. Unlike Ginsburg, who demanded entry to male precincts and permission to perform on men’s terms, Guinier asked that the contours of the field, and the playbook for the game, be radically revised. This same impulse has now motivated calls to revise basic rules in politics, science, the entertainment industry, the military, journalism, and other male-dominated workplaces.

The future of women in American society will undeniably be shaped by how it responds to these demands, and how that response affects men’s and women’s lives. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for her part, has mostly avoided grappling with difficult questions about the nature and source of sex differences, their malleability or intransigence, and their implications for the world of work, sexual relations, and family. Despite RBG’s many successes, these questions remain her legacy for future generations to address. They will be with us for a long time.

Amy L. Wax is the Robert Mundheim Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Saturday, September 19, 2020


Damon Root writing in Reason: 

On March 24, 2009, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart told the Supreme Court that the federal government possessed the lawful power to ban books if those books happened to mention the name of a candidate for federal office and were published by a corporate entity in the run-up to the federal election in which that candidate was competing.

"It's a 500-page book, and at the end it says, so vote for X, the government could ban that?" asked an incredulous Chief Justice John Roberts during that day's oral arguments in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Yes, the deputy solicitor general conceded. Under the government's theory of the case, that's precisely what he was saying. "We could prohibit the publication of the book," Stewart declared.

Ten months later, a majority of the Supreme Court rejected that view, overturning the campaign finance regulations at issue for violating the First Amendment. Among the dissenters was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was apparently untroubled by the censorious implications of the government's stance. Two years later, Ginsburg urged her colleagues to hear a new case that would give "the Court the opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates' allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway."


Damon Root writing in Reason:

In 2005, when the city of New London, Connecticut, wanted to broaden its tax base by bulldozing a working-class neighborhood and handing the land over to private developers, Ginsburg dismissed the homeowners' constitutional objections out of hand. "The critical fact on the city side," she told Institute for Justice lawyer Scott Bullock, lead attorney for the homeowners, during oral arguments in Kelo v. City of New London, "is that this was a depressed community and they wanted to build it up, get more jobs." Ginsburg went on to join Justice John Paul Stevens' majority opinion, which upheld the city's eminent domain scheme on the grounds that government officials should enjoy "broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power."

Select almost any case that has divided the Supreme Court along ideological lines in recent years and you'll find Ginsburg firing similar salvos from the left.

Thursday, September 17, 2020



Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was isolated from feces of a patient in China with coronavirus disease who died. Confirmation of infectious virus in feces affirms the potential for fecal–oral or fecal–respiratory transmission and warrants further study.


Tuesday, September 15, 2020


Here's a quote from the new opinion striking down some of Pennsylvania's lockdown rules. One good thing here was that they actually TOOK TESTIMONY which demonstrated that the government thugs are noodle-brains. The thugs admitted that they contemplated that these restrictions could last FOREVER with no end in sight.  There needed to be harsh cross examination of these creeps relating to their opinion about the nature of the virus, who is vulnerable and the basis for their claims that masks, lockdowns and even social distancing are a solution. Ask them about preventatives, cures, treatments and herd immunity.  They would stammer and collapse in a puddle. Further, THE MEDICAL RECORDS RELATING TO THE DEAD AND THE ILL WOULD NOT PASS MUSTER AS RELIABLE PURSUANT TO THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION RULE!. Those records should not be admissible in court.  

Here is a nice quote from the judge's opinion: 

"In other words, while not currently being enforced, Pennsylvania citizens remain subject to the re-imposition of the most severe provisions at any time. Further, testimony and evidence presented by Defendants does not establish any specified exit date or end date to the emergency interventions. Rather, the record shows that Defendants view the presence of disease mitigation restrictions upon the citizens of Pennsylvania as a "new normal" and they have no actual plan to return to a state where all restrictions are lifted. It bears repeating; after six months, there is no plan to return to a situation where there are no restrictions imposed upon the people of the Commonwealth. Sam Robinson, a Deputy Chief of Staff to the Governor, testified as much when asked if there was a phase of reopening beyond the "green phase" where there would be no restrictions:

Q.  You can't  move from  green to no restrictions  whatsoever?  There's no way to do that under this system, right?

A. So there are a number of options for, you  know, what  post green  potentially could look like, and that could just be entirely removal of all restrictions or replacement with other restrictions, maybe not a color­ coordinated system. There are certainly other options on the July 15th order that we've referenced from last week, certainly an approach that was a change that was not strictly speaking within the red/yellow/green framework as originally contemplated.

And we are doing our best to respond to the pandemic nimbly and not being locked into a specific approach but to target areas where we see spread and things that we can do to balance the need to reopen the economy and continue moving Pennsylvania back towards the new normal that the governors and others have talked about while at the same time taking targeted mitigation steps to prevent the spread of the virus, which is what's embodied in that July 15th order.

Q. What is the new normal? What does the governor  mean by the new normal? What's that mean?

A. Well, we're still  evolving  into  it, but obviously it's more consciousness about steps to prevent the spread of COVID and ways that Pennsylvanians are having to be more conscious of those mitigation efforts and take steps to be responsible individually to protect fellow Pennsylvanians.

(ECF No. 75, pp. 70-71). Even when the existing restrictions are replaced, it appears to be the intent of Defendants to impose and/or keep in place some ongoing restrictions. Mr. Robinson testified that "early on it was sort of just assumed that beyond green was no restrictions, and that may be ultimately where we get." (ECF No. 75, p. 75). However, the position is now less clear in that Mr. Robinson hedged on whether any future period of no restrictions can be foreseen. (ECF No. 75, p. 76) ("at the point that we are ready to remove all of the restrictions, we will have a discussion about how specifically to do that. IT MAY BE THAT THE WHOLE-YOU KNOW, THAT WHOLE SYSTEM IS REPLACED WITH JUST VERY LIMITED RESTRICTIONS.") (emphasis added)."



Karl Denninger writes:  


We have done science for 40 years related to masks and their impact on viral transmission.  It's at best a zero, because a virus is a fraction of a micron in size and the pores in a mask are larger and, more-importantly, anything less than an N95 does not seal at all around the face.  Basic flow dynamics give you the rest; a mask forms "jets" around the gaps and an enormous amount of the airflow bypasses the filtering element entirely as a result.  Your unobstructed nose directs viral particles at the ground where they harm nobody, said jets if you're wearing a mask may direct that outflow of breath at someone else's face, hands, or a surface another person will contact.  A study from almost 40 years ago showed that in an operating room, where you can control everything but the one variable in an experiment, masks not only didn't work the infection rate went down when they were removed from the operating theater, likely due to the above causes of cross-contamination. 

But just in the last few months, after a review of the literature published at the CDC's web page itself published in May found no evidence for anything less than respirators, that is, N95s, being effective against viruses, people started running computer simulations and claiming masks worked to stop viruses based on computer simulations and artificial mock-ups.

These "studies" and "simulations" and those running them were and are all frauds.  Every one of them intentionally ignored every element of the real world except the passage of breath through the mask.  They ignored jets formed around the edges of said masks; the unsealed portion.  They ignored the fact that a mask is a filter, and thus what it traps flowing in either direction it collects.  They ignored that a mask on a person who is going from one place to another transports what it collects and thus takes the risk of infection from wherever it is encountered and by definition spreads that risk to other places and persons. They ignored that the mask is likely not sterile when put on (definitely not if it is reused) and that without soap-and-water hand-washing available at the time of putting it on or removing it contamination of the wearer's hands which can then infect the wearer or other people is inevitable.  They ignored that in the general untrained population people will and do touch and "adjust" their mask repeatedly and each such touch contaminates one's hands which then can contaminate a surface or inoculate the wearer or others. They ignored that in the general public proper disposal or  sequestering of the now-biologically dangerous mask once it has been worn will never take place and thus it can and will infect others. And finally they ignored that for a bug which can be transmitted by fecal material, including fecal aerosols as we know are a transmission path for Covid19 since this the only plausible transmission mechanism for two outbreaks in February the wearing of masks into a restroom, especially a public restroom, is likely to result in the collection of fecal aerosol material and its transport out of the restroom and thus the infection of other persons beyond the individual who used said restroom at said time.

Then there's the WHO's admission that the guidelines were based on political lobbying and clear evidence of intentional false characterizations of observational "studies."  In other words there is no science; it was literally all made up.

In addition, and perhaps most-damning there is the clear and convincing evidence from multiple jurisdictions that infection rates rise after mask mandates are put in place, including Hawaii state-wide, Sevier and Knox Counties in Tennessee, the entire nation of Spain and more.  In other words exactly what the 40+ years of science has told us, including that seminal study of masks in an operating room increased infection rates was replicated by experiment in multiple jurisdictions that passed mask ordinances over the last several months and yet exactly zero of said locations have removed their mandates even when the data is conclusive and literally shoved in their face.


In other words...... Witchcraft and worse, intentional exposure and infection of the population to this virus by government mandate.


Friday, September 11, 2020

Dr. Fauci Says Asymptomatic Transmission Doesn't Drive Epidemics

The entire basis of lockdowns, school closures and mask mandates is undermined by Dr. Fauci's own words.


Monday, September 7, 2020

Is Dave Smith Alt-Right? Dave Smith vs Andy Craig Debate!

This will be expanded. Andy Craig is a vile, stupid, lying and disgusting POS. Laughing at the idea that anti-white racism is not a problem and that anti-black racism is?   I'm only 25 minutes into this. These people need to start their own stupid movement and get out of ours. THEY ARE NOT LIBERTARIANS. 

Someone is more alt-right than libertarian if they I would categorize Stefan Molyneux as great and think Gary Johnson is awful.

Alt right means illiberal populism on the far right.

Alt-right and paleo strategy

One of the things that has certainly come up, talk about race and IQ and that sort of stuff you know we can get further into that, hostility to immigration, denouncing libertarian critics of alt-right figures, people like Cantwell and Molyneux and Malkin and Owen Benjamin, all the people that Dave, you know, has expressed very positive friendly views towards and kind of denounced their libertarian critics, ummm, that would be one thing, Illiberal attitudes towards protests and protesters and some of the recent events, hostility towards transgender individuals and trans rights where I think, you know, those are some of the examples I would mention as I think that separate what I would call the alt right or the illiberal populist far-right whatever you want to use for it, not libertarian in that direction, views that I feel Dave has been one of the chief promoter of.


Four developed desaturation and mild breathing difficulty and were treated with oral hydroxychloroquine and oxygen therapy; all 4 recovered.


10 U.S. Code §253 - Interference with State and Federal law

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

Steroids Can Be Lifesaving for Severe Covid-19 Patients, Scientists Report - No s*** Sherlock

W.H.O. issues strong recommendation for critically ill patients. Dexamethasone appears to reduce deaths by 36%; hydrocortisone by 31%.

“Based on the new evidence, the World Health Organization issued new treatment guidance, strongly recommending steroids to treat severely and critically ill patients, but not to those with mild disease*,” writes Caryn Rabin in The New York Times.

BUT BUT BUT, I got Zucked for 30 days and two of the five strikes were for linking to the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine protocol from May which lists STEROIDS as part of their treatment for ARDS.  I also have other Facbook strikes for touting ascorbic acid as an anti-viral (when calling it by its common name VITAMIN C) which is also listed as part of their treatment for ARDS: 

The three core pathologic processes in COVID-19 are:

1) Hyper-Inflammation-

2) Hyper-coagulability

3) Hypoxemia

Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Working Group “MATH+” PROTOCOL:  All three medicines must be started within 6 hours of admission to the hospital:

1) METHYLPREDNISONE – a powerful anti-inflammatory drug that we use to suppress the immune system and prevent organ damage. COVID-19 is causing a condition called the “cytokine storm” for which this drug, a corticosteroid, is the standard recommended treatment accepted around the world.

2) ASCORBIC ACID– although known as Vitamin C, when delivered intravenously, this substance acts as a powerful “stress hormone” that controls inflammation and prevents the development of leaky bloody vessels in the lung, thus avoiding the development of lung failure which is the condition causing death in almost all COVID-19 patients. 

* The University of Wisconsin protocol differentiates between the early mild phase and the late nasty phase and mentions HCQ. That's probably worth a Facebook strike or two or three:

As for the timing:

Figure 1 below, illustrates the importance of understanding the two distinct, yet overlapping, phases of this disease.

1. The viral replicative phase — this occurs early, largely in outpatients. Mild symptoms: fevers, fatigue, body aches, and sore throat are felt as the virus directly invades the tissues and causes systemic symptoms (but no organ dysfunction)

i. This is the phase anti-viral therapies should be focused on, i.e. before patients reach the hospital where medicines like hydroxychloroquine or Remdesivir would have the greatest impact to keep the patient away from the hospital and ICU.

2. The hyper-inflammatory, immune response phase (what brings patient to the hospital) is a state of immune system dysregulation whereby immune cells exit the blood vessels into tissues, causing massive inflammation within and failures of the major organs, most commonly the lungs, brain, heart, and kidneys.

It is this later, hospitalized “hyper-inflammatory” phase that our protocol is designed to treat and where experts in hospital and ICU medicine are needed.  

The Wisconsin protocol is very clear that it is intended to treat the late nasty ARDS stage which few people would ever reach if they took Vitamins A, C and D along with HCQ or quercetin and zinc.  Of course, mentioning that to the vulnerable to help keep them all well and safe will get you thrown into Facebook prison and soon real prison.  

 "Please ask yourself in your relative comfort just how deep your corona-religion is? Is it so deep that you’ll continue to turn a blind eye to the global suffering that’s taking place so that you can feel safe from a virus that thankfully kills so few? Please think deeply about this. The lives of hundreds of millions of innocent people with exponentially less than you hang on your level of alarmism, and the strange joy you derive from being told what to do."