This past Saturday, after President Trump's Tulsa rally did not draw the expected capacity crowd, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, "Actually you just got ROCKED by teens on TikTok who flooded the Trump campaign w/ fake ticket reservations & tricked you into believing a million people wanted your white supremacist open mic enough to pack an arena during COVID.
"Shout out to Zoomers. Y'all make me so proud. "
Ocasio-Cortez was responding to claims that TikTok, with apparent help from within China, flooded the Trump campaign with fake reservation requests, discouraging others from attending.
But what was most telling in her tweet was the reference to Trump's "white supremacist open mic." This dangerous and ugly accusation is now standard fare for the left: Trump is a white supremacist, as are his white supporters.
Of course, you could see this building for several years now.
First, the left-wing media branded candidate Trump a white supremacist, based especially on his comments about Mexican immigrants and Muslims.
Confirmation for this was found when men like David Duke endorsed him.
Then, there was the misrepresentation of his words about Charlottesville, where he allegedly said that there were some "very fine people" among the neo-Nazi demonstrators.
To the contrary, he categorically condemned those very people, saying, "Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups."
But the misrepresentation continues to this day, repeated regularly by presidential candidate Joe Biden.
The next step in the left-wing media's strategy was to brand you a white supremacist if you were white and supported Trump. In fact, in some circles, it is assumed that, for white supporters of Trump, MAGA really means, "Make America White Again." (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made this very claim.)
For people like Ocasio-Cortez, this is simply taken for granted.
In the book, I meticulously lay out the case against Trump, including the charges that he is an unashamed racist. And I do this, not to whitewash such charges but to examine them carefully and fairly. Is Donald Trump a white supremacist and racist?
Some of Trump's statements have certainly lacked precision, leading to further misunderstanding and confusion. And I recognize that, in many ways, he has been highly divisive. I have no desire to defend those aspects of his speech or conduct.
Still, as I demonstrate in my book, the charges of "white supremacy" have no substance at all. (According to Merriam-Webster, a white supremacist is "a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races.")
White supremacists do not go out of their way to meet regularly with black leaders for input and wisdom.
White supremacists do not pass major criminal justice bills that largely affect non-whites.
White supremacists are not the focus of stories in the New York Times like this one, from Sept. 10, 2019, headlined, "Trump Focuses on Black Economic Gains and Support for Historically Black Colleges." As the Times reported, "Since the beginning of Mr. Trump's presidency, the administration has, in fact, made an effort to support historically black schools, increasing investment in their programs by 14.3 percent." (For further documentation of these points, see "Evangelicals at the Crossroads.")
White supremacists do not immediately call for the FBI and the Department of Justice to look into the death of a black man, George Floyd, at the hands of a white cop, Derek Chauvin.
And white supremacists do not call for special forums titled "transition to greatness," where the focus is on listening to black leaders address the problem of racism in America.
Cynics would say, "He's a politician. He's just doing this for votes."
But real white supremacists do no such things, especially white supremacist politicians, whose very reputation depends on their racism. (When it comes to politicians doing things for votes, which politician does not do things for votes?)
Yet, as bogus as the charge of "white supremacist" is when it comes to Trump, it is even more bogus for the vast majority of his white supporters.
Many of them would have voted for Ben Carson in a heartbeat had the elections been between Dr. Carson and Hillary Clinton. White supremacists would not do this. (Of course, white Trump supporters would have voted for Hispanic candidates like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio had they run against Hillary.)
And the vast majority of white Trump supporters opposed President Obama because of his policies, not because of the color of his skin. (The last I checked, both Hillary and Biden are white, so our rejection of them has nothing to do with skin color.)
Not only so, but some of Trump's most prominent white evangelical supporters have been involved in interracial ministry for decades, with a long history of opposing racism. And of the many, white Trump supporters I know, not a single one of them fits the definition of "white supremacist" cited above.
Let us, then, call out this ugly accusation for what it is: slanderous, libelous, and dangerous. Shame on those who use such ugly words as a political and ideological tool.
ORIGINAL LINK Canadian College Exec Apologizes, Resigns After 'Liking' Conservative TweetsTyler DurdenMon, 06/22/2020 - 21:10
The Chair of the University of British Columbia Board of Governors has resigned after a college activist group was triggered by several tweets he "liked."
Michael Korenberg was targeted for cancellation by pro-antifa campus activist group, UBC Students Against Bigotry, after he liked tweets from Ann Coulter, Charlie Kirk and Dinesh D'Souza - as well as tweets wishing President Trump a happy birthday, according to True North.
One of the 'liked' tweets was critical of Black Lives Matter - drawing condemnation from far-left media outlets, as well as UBC staff such as professor Annette Henry, who said Korenberg's Twitter activity has reflected a "white supremacist capitalist [hetero]patriarchy" worldview, adding that "It’s unfortunate that we have people in such positions of authority at UBC."
According to Henry, UBC 'still keeps hiring white people where we have the opportunity not to.'
UBS professor Jennifer Berdahl called on Korenberg to resign.
And now, he has, accompanied by a lengthy apology.
"Over the past two weeks some articles/statements that I ‘liked’ on Twitter supported regressive voices and took aim at thousands of brave individuals who are standing up against racism, discrimination and hatred," wrote Korenberg in a Saturday tweet containing a typed statement.
"I accept that in liking these social media posts, I damaged what I support and that I hurt people. I wholeheartedly apologize to them, particularly to the students, faculty and staff of UBC…I have stepped down because it is the right thing to do."
Today I stepped down as Chair of the Board of Governors of UBC. I owe all students, faculty and staff and all those who stand against all forms of discrimination, an apology. I do so with all my heart. pic.twitter.com/tDczgwvmbp
And that really is all he is resigning for, folks: because he liked some tweets featuring basic, mainstream Republican talking points.
Korenberg was showing signs, early on, that he was the “apologize and resign” type. He told PressProgress that he regrets liking the tweets, giving the weak excuse that he liked them late at night.
But for the rest of us, if we are ever targeted by a mob of leftist campus activists and media outlets for something so minuscule as liking conservative-minded tweets, I hope we can muster up some courage and not be the type to “apologize and resign.” -True North
We're sure the woke mob will forgive his transgressions and he'll regain his previous stature within academia. Or not.
Tiffany Riley, the principal of Windsor High School in Windsor, Vermont, faced the wrath of the PC police after failing to fully and unequivocally endorse Black Lives Matter in a Facebook post earlier this month. The backlash was so severe that she ended up losing her job.
According to the Valley News, Riley's post June 10 made it clear that she believes that "black lives matter," but she added a caveat that caught the ire of the leftist mob: "I DO NOT agree with coercive measures taken to get this point across; some of which are falsified in an attempt to prove a point."
"I do not think that people should be made to feel they have to choose black race over human race," Riley wrote, adding: "While I understand the urgency to feel compelled to advocate for black lives, what about our law enforcement?"
She also declared that "just because I don't walk around with a BLM sign should not mean I'm a racist."
Sadly, according to many in Windsor, including the school board, her failure to "walk around with a BLM sign" does make her a racist.
The Mount Ascutney School Board, "uniformly appalled" by her words, voted unanimously to place Riley on paid leave June 14.
The Mt. Ascutney School Board has voted unanimously to place Windsor School principal, Tiffany Riley, on paid leave immediately, following a Facebook post that 'uniformly appalled" the board. https://t.co/tD9nPXPI9I
The district's superintendent, David Becker, said the district will work to put together a "mutually agreed upon severance package" with Riley and justified the decision to let her go by saying, "It's clear that the community has lost faith in her ability to lead."
Ridiculously, Becker said he thought Riley's Facebook page was hacked and indicated that he fully agreed with the criticism that her post was "racist."
"I felt like a post like that, with those kinds of racial overtones and what I define as pretty much outright racist in my values system, she would have never posted that," he said.
The fact that Riley's community would take such umbrage at her comments should not come as a surprise. Windsor County supported Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump by a 2-1 ratio in 2016, and the state as a whole keeps electing democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders.
In an era when American education has become just another arm of the left, Riley's circumstances are hardly unique. Eric Thompson, a professor who taught at Moreno Valley College in California, was dismissed from his position after daring to sympathize with traditional viewpoints on marriage, gender and sexuality.
In addition to causing professors to lose their jobs, holding conservative positions can also have consequences for students who hold prominent positions on campus.
Earlier this month, the president of the Florida State University Student Senate was removed from his post after daring to criticize Black Lives Matter and other liberal organizations deemed heroic by the radical left.
Despite the fact that Riley went out of her way to empathize with the point of view of her opponents and offered analysis consistent with the views of many Americans, she lost her job. What happened to Riley could have a chilling effect that will cause many people to think twice about posting anything critical of Black Lives Matter -- a leftist movement dressed up as opposition to racism.
That's the whole goal.
With Riley's firing, diversity of opinion in education continues to shrink.
According to a 2016 study from Econ Journal Watch, liberal professors outnumber their conservative counterparts by a ratio of 11.5-1 in the departments of economics, history, journalism, law and psychology at "40 leading U.S. universities."
This liberal uniformity extends into K-12 education, with research conducted by Verdant Labs finding that "there are 97 Democrats for every three Republicans" teaching English and "87 Democrats for every 13 Republicans" among math and science teachers.
Riley's situation is saddening but not surprising. Hopefully, what happened to her will launch a renewed movement to ensure freedom of speech in education for teachers and students alike, from kindergarten through college.
Adam Carolla and Dennis Prager's documentary "No Safe Spaces" is definitely a good start.
Robert Kiyosaki has been on the front lines warning people of what’s coming. He continues to speak up, even though he was told to “stay in your lane” and not alert the public to what’s going on right in front of them, with their unknowing consent.
ORIGINAL LINK NPR Busted Framing Self-Defense Getaway From Gun-Toting 'Protesters' As Right-Wing Extremist AttackTyler DurdenSun, 06/21/2020 - 18:39
NPR has altered an article after they were busted using a misleading photo of a 'vehicle ramming' in Louisville to claim that 'extremists' are targeting protesters with cars.
Here's what actually happened - the driver of the car, a woman with dreadlocks, was attacked by the 'peaceful' protesters, one of whom reportedly pulled a gun on her - and another who was struck as she accelerated to escape:
Here's a fuller video of what you're calling a "right-wing extremist attack" ... a driver is harassed by a group of people, tries to get away, is then attacked by a larger group... and uses their vehicle to defend themselves and get away.
So - while NPR claims at least '50 vehicle-ramming incidents' since late May, and tried to pass off a photo of a victim fleeing a potentially deadly situation, the liberal news network was unable to find a single photo of a recent ramming incident by 'said extremists.'
A study suggesting the coronavirus might have been spreading across Lombardy as early as December, months before the first cases were detected in February, was only the latest in a steady stream of research from around the world finding traces of coronavirus infection and deaths weeks or months earl
Truth is the first victim in politics. Factions and passions rule. Random facts are picked as weapons, no one thinks things through. We need to understand the facts surrounding the death of George Floyd. Many key facts are being ignored:
Emergency Physician, Dr. Simone Gold and Cardiologist, Dr. Dan Wohlgelernter are two brave doctors who join Austen Fletcher of the Fleccas Talks YouTube channel with very important information, countering the breathtaking skullduggery coordinated worldwide across governments and health agencies against the drug, hydroxychloroquine. Furthermore, they say the lockdowns were and are completely unnecessary.
Dr. Wohlgelernter says, “I’ve decided to speak out, because I think that we’re dealing with a tragic situation, where the scientific process has been violated. Studies have been published that had not been adequately vetted and should not have been published and those studies were used to terminate further evaluations of hydroxychloroquine.”
He says, “I have decided to speak out because the political interference in the physician decision-making process is objectionable and should not be allowed to continue. There are lessons to be learned from this pandemic on many levels. We’ve spoken about the dangers and the irrationality of the lockdown process. We’ve spoken about the violation of the scientific purity of investigation. We’ve spoken about media presentations and misrepresentations of data. This is injurious to the health of our population now and I don’t want to see this replicated in the future.
“I think as physicians, we have a moral responsibility to protect our patients, to protect the science behind our medical decisions and to prevent intrusions into the purity of the scientific process by outside forces that may have bad intent and it’s important to speak out. It’s a moral imperative for us to speak out and to protect our patients and protect our profession.”
Dr. Gold says, “I decided to speak out for one very specific reason. I was actually presented with a definite COVID-positive patient and I prescribed hydroxychloroquine and zinc, because I was very up on the literature on this – and I got severely reprimanded for it. I also had received a letter from the State Board, threatening all doctors – I was just one – with potential investigation into me for unprofessional conduct if I was to prescribe hydroxychloroquine.
“This was so shocking to me,” says Gold, who is also an attorney. “It had never happened, where the government told a physician if they had a right or not a right to prescribe an FDA-approved medication. I mean, that was just a sui generis [unique] event, that took me by surprise. And I thought to myself, ‘If doctors don’t speak up we’ve really all lost.”
Dr. Wohlgelernter says, “The cost of the shutdown, in terms of the physical, emotional and psychological health of people is enormous. We’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg; of people who have been shut-in, who’ve lost their businesses, who are facing depression, who are facing issues of mental health because of the consequences.
“This should never happen again. If we ever face this kind of situation again, we need to learn the lessons from the mistakes in policy that were implemented…
“I think that the focus should have been on protecting the high-risk population. And we knew from the data that had come out from China and from Italy and from France, that the people at risk were the elderly and frail; people who are immunocompromised.
“As Dr. Gold said, young people had very little risk from this infection; they rarely got ill from it. So, it was not a good decision to shut down schools, to shut down all businesses and it certainly was not a good decision to send actively-infected coronavirus patients to nursing homes.
“The strategy was inverted. We should have protected the people in the nursing homes and given those homes more resources to protect the people at risk…”
Thousands of infected patients were sent to nursing homes, leading to massive death when there were plenty of new beds set up at great expense, between the Javits Center and the USNS Comfort. This was unconscionably negligent.
Dr. Gold says, “The question of why Governor Cuomo did this is very unpleasant to speculate but one thing that…was absolutely known when he made the decision to let the patients go back to the nursing homes – it was 100% known…that it was risky to send the nursing home patients back…
“The Health Commissioner of Pennsylvania really had an egregious situation, where she took her own mother out of an assisted living facility – but she told the rest of the state that it was perfectly safe to leave your grandparent in an assisted living facility. That’s just egregious. There’s no question that [the danger] was known, at the time…
Dr. Wohlgelernter says, “It’s estimated that as many as 40%, even 50% of the deaths in New York were nursing home patients. This was preventable.”
Austen asks Dr. Wohlgelernter about reports that hydroxychloroquine is dangerous. He replies, “I’ve prescribed it. I’ve also recommended it to people and I’ve had conversations with physicians literally around the globe; in Israel and Italy and England and the East Coast of the United States and and I’ve read the literature extensively.
“Hydroxychloroquine definitely has a role. That role is specific. It’s an antiviral agent that is effective in early stages of infection. When used in that context, it is effective and it is safe.
“Unfortunately, there have been studies that have looked at hydroxychloroquine but have looked at it in the wrong context; looked at it and severely critically ill people in the hospital setting. At that point, the antiviral isn’t effective, because you’ve gone beyond viral infection to an immune-mediated widespread inflammatory reaction, so that was the wrong population to look at hydroxychloroquine in.
“And that kind of study sabotages the whole story about hydroxychloroquine…I’m not quite certain why they were designed that way, but it was obvious that hydroxychloroquine would fail in that context.
“Hydroxychloroquine has been reported to have heart toxicity – and as a cardiologist, I’m intimately aware of this literature and I’m familiar with hydroxychloroquine and the study that was most specific in looking at the cardiac issues; specifically, with rhythm abnormalities.
“There was a study done in the East Coast, in the New York area, where they looked at 200 patients and carefully monitored their EKGs and looked for arrhythmias and they found no serious arrhythmias in any of those patients.
“Some of the reports about danger to the heart and dangerous effects of hydroxychloroquine are based on misinterpretation of data or on faulty data.”
Austen asks, “We did see the World Health Organization ordered countries to stop using hydroxychloroquine recently and they’ve also stopped trial testing on it, as well. Was this decision based on those studies from Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA?”
Dr. Gold responds, “The World Health Organization stopped the hydroxychloroquine trials based specifically on the faulty studies that were printed in The Lancet and printed in the New England Journal of Medicine. Also, the European Union stopped it and it was headlines all across the world that we should stop using it.
“I do want to clarify for the audience that they did restart the trials once The Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine retracted those faulty studies. However, it’s not so easy to…restart a trial. You have all these patients, they were in the trial that had to stop and start and gather new patients and the damage has certainly been done.
“And in addition to those studies, there’s been so much negative press about hydroxychloroquine, that it’s actually difficult to even enroll patients in hydroxychloroquine studies. That’s been well-documented. There’s a professor at Columbia who said it’s hard for me to even get patients in this study, because they hear about hydroxychloroquine, they think it’s so negative.
“I always want to remind people, this is an FDA-approved drug for 65 years. It’s generic. It’s cheap. It’s widely available. We give it to pregnant women. We give it to breastfeeding women. We give it to elderly patients. We give it to patients who are immune-compromised.
“Most of those patients are on it for decades! There was never controversy about hydroxychloroquine, right up until March 20th, 2020. So, I would look at the studies before then. The early studies, before Trump said he kind of liked the drug were uncontroversial, from China and from France. It looked promising.
“I don’t know what the final data will show, however, I do find that the data after Trump thought it was possibly helpful is suspect…
“To be published in The Lancet and to be published in the New England Journal Medicine is no easy feat…to have them do a retraction was a major story, which is why you heard about it in the headlines. The reason their study was retracted is the data that went into those studies could not be independently verified…
“We asked the company that provided the data, a company called Surgisphere, which has been quite secretive to reveal their data and they have absolutely refused. Because they refused to reveal their data, those studies HAD to be retracted by the journals…
“In addition, a story that hasn’t been discussed really in the media is a third world premier class Medical Journal, the Journal of the American Medical Association, known as JAMA…
“The first major flaw in the JAMA study is what I would call “pseudo randomization”. To do an effective medical study, you have to randomize the patients into different groups; groups that have this character and that character – and the point being that the group should be generally similar, so that you know if the drug actually made the difference…
“When you look at the study itself, as it’s printed right now in JAMA, your listeners – I encourage you and viewers to go and look this up, yourself – on Page 7 of the study. You can look and see that the groups are not equal. The higher-dose group is seven years older, they have almost 80% heart disease. Those are just two of the differences. The other group is seven years younger and has 0% heart disease and there’s a number of these flaws that are different in the two groups.
“By itself, that’s cherry-picking of patients that would make any data that comes from such a study suspect. So I want to be clear that the JAMA study used not exactly hydroxychloroquine, they used a drug called chloroquine which is really a precursor to hydroxychloroquine. Sometimes, we use those drugs, those names interchangeably but in America, we only use hydroxychloroquine.
“The JAMA study was in Brazil. They used chloroquine. The lethal dose of chloroquine has been well-established for more than 30 years in 1988 a New England Journal Medicine. Again, one of the world premier journals established and everyone accepts that the lethal dose of chloroquine is 5 grams. Well, the Jama study had two groups. In the high-dose chloroquine group, they gave them 1.2 grams a day which means by the fourth day, they had almost 5 grams…
“Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine sit in your body for very long time, at least a month, perhaps 2 months; somewhere between 30 and 60 days is its half-life. So, to give someone 4.8 grams in four days is a very large dose; people would often possibly call that a lethal dose.
“The study went on for 10 days, which meant that the people in that group got 12 grams. Again, New England Journal of Medicine in 1988 established 5 grams as a lethal dose…Mind you, these are elderly, critically-ill patients that are intubated or in severe respiratory distress…
“It’s not just my speculation or the science data that says it’s a very high, toxic dose. So many patients died in the high-dose group that they halted that study early. They quit the high dose group because so many patients died. That’s extremely dramatic for a scientific study.
“It’s very unusual for a study to have given such a large dose of a medication, because all the scientific studies that involve human subjects have to be overseen by an ethics board. The scientists that did this study and presented the paper to JAMA are saying that they went through an ethics board – however, that’s in doubt.
“The Brazilian Ministry of Justice is actually investigating. There’s no proof that there actually was an ethics board…
“They normally have a certain committee number that’s stamped on the paperwork and they don’t have that. We have written to them and tried to get it and there has been no response on that. So, the Ministry of Justice is actually investigating the deaths of all those patients who died in the high-dose chloroquine group.”
Austen asks Dr. Wohlgelernter why hydroxychloroquine has become so politicized and he responds, “I think one of the serious casualties of the COVID pandemic has been scientific truth. We rely on the scientific process to be pure and untainted by political influence.
“The fact that, as Dr. Gould said two of the world’s most prestigious journals, Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine published studies hastily, without adequate peer review and studies that were based on data where there was no transparency, that creates widespread skepticism about the reliability of medical journals to give information that can be trusted and we’re going to need to look into that whole process and to and to reform the process of publication so that we never see that kind of violation of scientific truth.
“Now, why did this become politicized? The fact is that President Trump first mentioned hydroxychloroquine and advocated for its use, as a non-physician in mid-March but we had data from China and from France well before that in February, showing a significant beneficial impact of hydroxychloroquine.
“Yet you saw physicians, politicians, journalists saying that hydroxychloroquine is ‘all hype’, it’s ‘all due to the president pushing it’ – and that’s revisionist history.
“The fact is there was a great deal of excitement in the medical community internationally, a month before President Trump ever mentioned it, because of the data reported from China and from Dr. Raoult in France and it’s sad that people used whatever political animosity they had towards the President to attack the medication that, in fact had helped many people with coronavirus and could have helped many more, had its reputation not been so sullied by political accusations and by poorly-designed studies and by medical journals allowing publications that were negative, as far as their conclusions – publications that never should have reached print, because they hadn’t been adequately vetted.”
“I got asked a lot of questions about the VA study of hydroxychloroquine and my immediate instinct is to wonder why hydroxychloroquine keeps getting studied at the later stages of the disease.
“I can’t emphasize enough that the mechanism of action of a drug and the pathophysiology of a disease is the number one factor when you’re structuring a scientific study. The disease early in the course is all about viral replication; how much virus can be produced and how quickly. That’s the problem in the early setting. In the late setting, the problem is your body’s over-response to trying to cure itself and that’s called a ‘cytokine storm’ and in that setting, that affects all of your organs, including your lungs failing.
“In the first group, which is the early group, you would like a drug that is very good at preventing the viral replication. That’s what hydroxychloroquine with zinc is very, very good at. So, I was always a bit confused why we kept doing study after study after study but hydroxychloroquine – we studied it in the late-stage disease population. And kind of like it doesn’t snow in August, it wasn’t working very well.
“So, to me, the VA study, The Lancet study, JAMA – all of those studies – I’m not that surprised, because I already know it doesn’t snow in August. I’m waiting to see the data but hydroxychloroquine and zinc, how well it works early on. Mechanism of action, when indicated would work well and before hydroxychloroquine got politicized, the preliminary data that we have from China and from France, it was very promising.”
“As Dr. Gold mentioned, hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine had been around since the 1950s. Azithromycin, which is an adjuvant agent used with hydroxychloroquine has been around for 30 years. These agents have been shown to be safe and to be effective. And again, you needed to understand which context it worked in. It wasn’t going to work in the critically-ill, hospitalized patients on ventilators with multi-organ system failure. That was not what it should have been used for. It works in early-stage, where the antiviral effect can terminate the infection and prevent people from getting critically ill.
“And it’s sad that many people to this day have been deprived of the potentially beneficial use of an agent that in fact is safe and that is inexpensive and that’s widely available.”
Dr. Gold says, “My message to the media is, ‘I understand that you have a point of view and God bless you and you can say it. Free speech is very important. But don’t have an opinion on the science of a medication. Think of your own family and your own loved ones and relegate to the scientists the purity of the scientific result, because one day, you could suffer the harm of having polluted that process.’
“My message to the scientists is, ‘I understand that there’s a lot of pressure out there, maybe from big pharmaceutical companies or journal editors to come to a specific result. I implore scientists to stand the line. If US scientists don’t stand the line and hold for truth and accuracy, nobody will – certainly, not the media, certainly not politicians.
“I’m very distressed on two levels about the JAMA study. The first level is that the scientists who read that actual study it, doesn’t seem as though it was done in the correct scientific manner. The other part I’m upset about is the journal, itself, which I don’t think vetted it in the manner that a world-class medical journal supposed to vet it.
“So my message to the scientists and the editors is, ‘Please ignore the media and please ignore the politicians. Please focus on the science. All of humanity depends on you doing that.'”
Are you ready for this week’s absurdity? Here’s our Friday roll-up of the most ridiculous stories from around the world that are threats to your liberty, risks to your prosperity… and on occasion, inspiring poetic justice.
Eight year old boy arrested for asking if he could buy candy with fake money
At a parade in Switzerland, fake money was thrown around for children to collect.
The obviously fake cash is called “spirit money.” Featuring Chinese symbols, it is meant as an offering to the dead so they can prosper in the afterlife.
An eight year old Swiss boy later asked a shop clerk if he could use the play money to buy candy. To be clear, the kid did not try to trick the shopkeeper, or pass off the money as real.
A normal person would laugh, and politely explain that only central banks are allowed to use fake money.
Instead, this shopkeeper opted to call the police.
Again, a reasonable officer could have stopped it all there.
Instead, the boy and his ten year old brother were taken to the police station. Police took their mugshots, but did not charge them with a crime.
Police did however search the family’s home, where police found some other play money.
These cops essentially confiscated Monopoly money, as if they were busting a counterfeiting operation.
Hertz admits its stock is worthless, as it planned to sell half a billion dollars of new shares
The rental car company Hertz is going through bankruptcy.
But Hertz announced Monday in an SEC filing that the company would sell an additional $500 million worth of new shares. And the bankruptcy judge in the case approved!
Hertz then openly admitted that the stock would almost certainly soon be worthless. That’s because as Hertz goes through bankruptcy, senior debt holders will be paid back before the common stockholders.
But that hasn’t stopped people from buying the worthless stock, apparently hoping to “buy the dip”.
But after the plan received a little too much attention– and questions from the SEC– Hertz decided to drop the plan.
US National debt increased by nearly $1 trillion in the last month
In the past 30 days, the United States national debt has increased by nearly $1 trillion– screaming past $26.2 trillion total, or 128% of GDP.
That means the US government is borrowing over $23 million per MINUTE.
But that’s just the last 30 days. The US government has gone nearly $3 trillion further into debt since March 1.
That is over $9,000 for every man, woman, and child living in the United States. And all you received was a $1200 check…
Now the “Save our Country Coalition” has penned a letter to Congress stating that the federal budget is dangerously close to $10 trillion this fiscal year.
On an inflation adjusted basis, that means the government will spend more fighting Covid than it spent fighting every single 20th century war– plus the 21st century Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan– COMBINED.
The cost of World War I, World War II, The Korean War, The Vietnam War, The Gulf War, The Iraq War, and the War in Afghanistan combined, does not add up to this fiscal year’s budget.
"
Archived photo of original article claiming an increase in 'right-wing extremist' vehicle attacks on protesters.
