Assault, robbery victim shoots 2 suspects in Phoenix

PHOENIX – Police say two suspects have been hospitalized after being shot by a man that they assaulted and robbed in Phoenix.

According to the Phoenix Police Department, the shooting happened on Dec. 31 at 1:40 a.m. near 48th Street and McDowell Road.

When officers arrived at the scene, they found two men who had been shot. Both men were taken to a hospital for treatment.

At the scene, officers also found a man and woman who said the man shot the two suspects while being assaulted and robbed.

The victim was injured during the assault, however, his injuries are not considered to be life-threatening.

 

83 House Members Reject Democrat Plan to Prevent Lawmakers From Carrying Firearms on Capitol Hill

More than 80 members of the House of Representatives are taking a stand against a Democrat plan to end lawmakers’ eligibility to carry firearms on the grounds of Capitol Hill under current regulations.

The effort is being lead by Representative Lauren Boebert (R-CO) who says she refuses to give up her ability to carry a firearm while spending time in the crime ridden District of Columbia.

“I refuse to give up my Second Amendment rights,” Boebert said in a statement, adding:

Continue reading “”

The preceding gets this:

This is the same kind of historical revisionism that tries to paint the 2nd Amendment as some slave patrol scheme in the vein of the Aptly named Dr. Bogus whose revisionist history “The Hidden History of the Second Amendment” includes Section 1, part K literally titled: “The Absence of Direct Evidence”.

Advocates of such false history also try to misconstrue the statements of Patrick Henry before the Ratifying Convention in Virginia from June 5th, 1788.

You can read the full speech here.

You’ll see none of what Bogus suggest regarding the 2nd Amendment being for slavery present there.

All the Judicial, Statutory, and Historic evidence from the 17th Century to Modern day supports the individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to militia service.

Being a direct descendant of the English colonies American law is based off of the English model. Our earliest documents from the Mayflower compact to the Constitution itself share a lineage with the Magna Carta. Even the American Bill of Rights being modeled after the English Bill of Rights.

The individual right, unconnected to militia service, preexists the United States and the Constitution. This right is firmly based in English law.

In 1689 The British Bill of Rights gave all protestants the right to keep and bear arms.

“The English right was a right of individuals, not conditioned on militia service…The English right to arms emerged in 1689, and in the century thereafter courts, Blackstone, and other authorities recognized it. They recognized a personal, individual right.” – CATO Brief on DC v Heller

Prior to the debates on the US Constitution, or its ratification, multiple states built the individual right to keep and bear arms, unconnected to militia service, in their own state constitutions.

“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State” – chapter 1, Section XV, Constitution of Vermont – July 8, 1777.

“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state” – A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Section XIII, Constitution of Pennsylvania – September 28, 1776.

Later the debates that would literally become the American Bill of Rights also include the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

“And that the said Constitution never be constructed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press, or the rights of the conscience; or prevent of people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceful and orderly manner, the federal legislature for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers, or possessions.” – Debates and proceedings in the Convention of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788. Page 86-87.

The American Bill of Rights itself was a compromise between the federalist and anti-federalist created for the express purpose of protecting individual rights.

“In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that.  With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of  a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress  comes into session.  The concession was  undoubtedly  necessary to secure the Constitution’s hard-fought ratification.  Thomas Jefferson, who did not attend the Constitutional Convention, in a December 1787 letter to Madison called the omission of a Bill of Rights a major mistake: “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.”

In Madison’s own words:

“I think we should obtain the confidence of our fellow citizens, in proportion as we fortify the rights of the people against the encroachments of the government,” Madison said in his address to Congress in June 1789.

Madison’s first draft of the second Amendment is even more clear.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Ironically it was changed because the founders feared someone would try to misconstrue a clause to deny the right of the people.

“Mr. Gerry — This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the maladministration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the Constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms.” – House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution 17, Aug. 1789

Please note Mr. Gerry clearly refers to this as the right of the people.

This is also why we have the 9th Amendment.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Article I Section 8 had already established and addressed the militia and the military making the incorrect collective militia misinterpretation redundant.

Supreme Court cases like US v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, DC v. Heller, and even the Dredd Scott decision specifically call out the individual right to keep and bear arms, unconnected to militia service.

This is further evidenced by State Constitutions including the Right to keep and bear arms from the Colonial Period to Modern Day.

“The Constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press. in the structure of our legislatures we think experience has proved the benefit of subjecting questions to two separate bodies of deliberants; …” – Thomas Jefferson’s letter to John Cartwright, on June 5th, 1824

Cornell is being purposefully mendacious.

 

Cornell’s article was a republished one on Yahoo.
Of interest is the last informational paragraph which notes:

As a researcher at the John Glenn School of Public Policy at Ohio State, Cornell was the lead investigator on a project that was funded by a grant from the Joyce Foundation to research the history of gun regulation. Part of the research cited in this essay was done under that grant.

The Joyce Foundation is well known as a rabid antigun group. Cornell is known for it too. With such open bias, why should anyone expect any other ‘results’?

Anti-Gunners Attempt To Re-Write 2A History

What did the Founding Fathers think about our right to keep and bear arms? According to historian Saul Cornell, founders like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison would be far more likely to side with Everytown for Gun Safety than the National Rifle Association if they were alive today, because in Cornell’s view, the early republic was chock full of restrictions on gun owners.
In a new piece at The Conversation, Cornell lays out five types of gun laws that he says the Founders wholeheartedly embraces, starting with gun registration laws.
Today American gun rights advocates typically oppose any form of registration – even though such schemes are common in every other industrial democracy – and typically argue that registration violates the Second Amendment. This claim is also hard to square with the history of the nation’s founding. All of the colonies – apart from Quaker-dominated Pennsylvania, the one colony in which religious pacifists blocked the creation of a militia – enrolled local citizens, white men between the ages of 16-60 in state-regulated militias. The colonies and then the newly independent states kept track of these privately owned weapons required for militia service. Men could be fined if they reported to a muster without a well-maintained weapon in working condition.
What Cornell is describing isn’t a registration of privately owned firearms, and he provides no evidence whatsoever that the various colonies actually kept track of the rifles and muskets owned by militia members. Cornell is correct when he says that those mustering for militia service could face fines if their firearm wasn’t well maintained, but that has nothing to do with any sort of registration or list of guns in the hands of private citizens.
Next, Cornell claims that the Founders loved the idea of restricting the right to carry. For this argument, Cornell reaches way back to English common law and claims that there was no “general right of armed travel” at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment. Were there any actual bans on traveling while armed? Cornell doesn’t cite any specific examples, though he is correct when he points out that by the mid-1800s many states had either banned or limited the practice of carrying concealed. What he doesn’t point out is that by attempting the manner of carrying arms, those same lawmakers were tacitly acknowledging a more general right to carry.
The Fordham University historian also argues that the Founders would also have been opposed to “stand your ground” laws, even though the Castle Doctrine had been a part of common law for centuries by that point.
The use of deadly force was justified only in the home, where retreat was not required under the so-called castle doctrine, or the idea that “a man’s home is his castle.” The emergence of a more aggressive view of the right of self-defense in public, standing your ground, emerged slowly in the decades after the Civil War.
I’m honestly not sure where Cornell gets the idea that deadly force was only justifiable in the home. I can think of one very famous case from the 1770s where that wasn’t the case. Most of the British soldiers who opened fire on a crowd of angry Bostonians who were throwing chunks of ice and razor-sharp oyster shells at them on March 5th, 1770 were ultimately found not guilty of murder because a jury found that they were acting in self-defense (two others were convicted of manslaughter).
Cornell goes on to claim that the Founders were on board with storage laws, based solely off of a 1786 ordinance in Boston that required guns had to be kept unloaded. His last assertion is that “the notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against the government is absurd. Indeed, the Constitution itself defines such an act as treason.”
To wage an offensive war against the United States is indeed treason, as defined by Article III of the Constitution. To take up arms in defense of a tyrannical federal government, on the other hand, was most certainly acknowledged as a right of the people by the Founding Fathers. Here’s James Madison writing in Federalist 46.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.
Saul Cornell has likely forgotten more history than I’ll ever know, but he’s off-base in asserting that the Founding Fathers embraced the idea of restricting the right to keep and bear arms. There’s simply no evidence to support the idea that the laws pushed by gun control activists today, like bans on commonly-owned firearms or magazines; gun licensing; gun rationing; or bans on carrying firearms would have found favor with the Founders or the early Americans who argued against ratifying the Constitution until a Bill of Rights was included and the pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms was protected.

It’s called ‘Sauce for the Goose, is Sauce for the Gander’ as in if it’s okay for you, it’s okay for me.

Sen. Josh Hawley Isn’t The First — And Won’t Be The Last — To Object To The Electoral

Jan. 6 won’t be the first time partisan lawmakers alleged that a wide conspiracy should nullify the results of a presidential election.

As Americans witnessed in 2017, such challenges also have the effect of weakening American trust in institutions. Two out of three Democrats, for example, believed Russia actually changed vote tallies despite no credible evidence, according to a 2018 poll from YouGov. Similarly, Trump’s crusade has led nearly 80 percent of Republicans to believe the election was stolen.

Just this week, Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley set off a flurry of criticism when he announced Wednesday his intent to object to the Electoral College certification Jan. 6. Hawley cited suppression from big-tech platforms as interference in the election along with election laws in Pennsylvania.

Hawley’s objection isn’t quite on the same level that we’ve seen from elements of the #stopthesteal movement, namely that somehow George Soros teamed up with Venezuela to rig voting machines (another election anxiety with a long history).

Still, the sentiment recalls liberal efforts in January 2017 to cast poorly made Russian memes on Facebook and mean emails about Chelsea Clinton as the deciders of 2016’s election, rather than the plurality of Americans who voted for Trump over Hillary Clinton.

America saw a situation similar to Hawley’s Pennsylvania contention in 2005, when a group of Democrats objected to counting Ohio’s 20 electoral votes after insisting Ohio’s election was riddled with widespread “irregularities” that favored former President George W. Bush, according to CNN.

Joined by Democratic California Sen. Barbara Boxer, objectors, including Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, said that a report by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee found “numerous, serious election irregularities” in Ohio that led to “a significant disenfranchisement of voters,” according to CNN.

“How can we possibly tell millions of Americans who registered to vote, who came to the polls in record numbers, particularly our young people … to simply get over it and move in,” Tubbs Jones said at a press conference with Boxer, according to the report.

In order for a formal objection to be considered, a member of both the House and the Senate must question a state’s electoral votes in writing, according to The New York Times (NYT).

As required by the rules, lawmakers were sent back to their chambers for two hours to debate the challenge and vote on it, CNN reported. Ultimately Ohio’s electoral votes were awarded to Bush.

Bush’s 2001 highly contested win in the Supreme Court also led to attempts to object to the certification of electoral votes.

The 2000 election was overshadowed by conspiracies, including one that then-Governor of Florida Jeb Bush threw the election to his brother.

 

 

COVID Red Flag Laws Coming To A State Near You

Covid Red Flag laws are visibly on the horizon in the United States. Specifically, New York has AB A416 sitting in committee right now. It’s a piece of legislation that reeks of dictatorship.

Let’s start with this:

“2. UPON DETERMINING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE HEALTH
OF OTHERS IS OR MAY BE ENDANGERED BY A CASE, CONTACT OR CARRIER, OR
SUSPECTED CASE,CONTACT OR CARRIER OF A CONTAGIOUS DISEASE THAT, IN THE
OPINION OF THE GOVERNOR, AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE COMMISSIONER, MAY
POSE AN IMMINENT AND SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH RESULTING
IN SEVERE MORBIDITY OR HIGH MORTALITY, THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER DELE-
GEE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE COMMISSIONER OR THE HEADS OF
LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS, MAY ORDER THE REMOVAL AND/OR DETENTION OF SUCH
A PERSON OR OF A GROUP OF SUCH PERSONS BY ISSUING A SINGLE ORDER, IDEN-
TIFYING SUCH PERSONS EITHER BY NAME OR BY A REASONABLY SPECIFIC
DESCRIPTION OF THE INDIVIDUALS OR GROUP BEING DETAINED. SUCH PERSON OR
GROUP OF PERSONS SHALL BE DETAINED IN A MEDICAL FACILITY OR OTHER APPRO-
PRIATE FACILITY OR PREMISES DESIGNATED BY THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER
DELEGEE AND COMPLYING WITH SUBDIVISION FIVE OF THIS SECTION.”

Now isn’t that just something?? This is a Red Flag law if I ever saw one. First of all, as we’d pointed out with the Red Flag laws pertaining to our Second Amendment rights, this is a potential law that makes it legal to snitch without providing any evidence whatsoever. Secondly this crappy piece of legislation allows for people to snitch if they barely suspect someone might have COVID. A sneeze could send a Karen running for the tip line! Think I’m wrong? How many Karens have we seen all over social media these last nine months??

This proposed Covid Red Flag bill completely allows for the snitch to provide a description of the malingerer and not one damned thing in said legislation allows for authorities to investigate whether the allegations have merit BEFORE detention.

Here are some additional “highlights” of this atrocious legislation.

  • Zero due process UNLESS the person being detained requests it
  • You will be ALLOWED to provide the state with contact information so family or friends can be notified…eventually
  • You can be detained only until you’ve been deemed non-contagious or after sixty days, whichever comes first
  • Those suspected of the disease will be released …eventually
  • Court hearings will be made available within three days of detention – even if detainee doesn’t have legal representation on board
  • The Governor (currently Cuomo) is the final determination regarding whether the court ruling is correct to allow release

In other words, detention with zero due process and Miranda without any of the Miranda Rights.

Does this enrage you and send chills up and down your spine? If it isn’t, it damned well should!

Continue reading “”

The Left Takes On God’s Country

The Declaration of Independence conceived a nation.   Yes, it took the revolutionary war, a constitution, and a Bill of Rights to give us the birth of these United States.  A country that would shortly become the light of liberty, the great hope of the nations.  A country that has grown to be the most powerful country ever.   In economic power, in military might, in virtually every way, America has established its ability to call out the better angels of humanity.

We stand at a time when the premise of our country’s greatness is being challenged.  Not with facts, history, or intelligent debate.  Because those would show the uncomfortable truth to those doing the challenging:  that we have been, and are, the greatest nation in the world.  We have God-given rights and freedoms bestowed upon our citizens in ways that had never occurred before.   We have achieved much.   Yes, we have flaws.   We’re human, but we’re better than anyplace else.

There is no better alternative model country.   There is no better alternative governance.  There is no alternative system that has raised the collective ability to live life well, pursue happiness, pursue the uplifting of humanity, or has enriched its citizenry so well as the one we have now.  And there’s not a close second.  We are the most generous, inclusive, open-minded people ever.  A testimony to humanity’s better side.

Yet we are being called by the left to abandon all that.  We are being called by the left to forgo our birthright of liberty for the shackles of collectivist governance, which has destroyed every country it has been tried in.   A bowl of pottage for our birthright.  Leftists have the audacity to want us to believe their leaders are finally smart enough to properly institute this system of tyranny.

This brilliance has brought us the alternatives called the Soviet Union.  Cuba.   Cambodia.  Venezuela.  China.  California.  NYC.

Their brilliance brought the gulags of the USSR, the prisons of Cuba, the horrors of the East German surveillance state, the poverty of Cuba, the squalor of Venezuela, plus the ruin of California and New York.  And trust me, many on the left expect us to give up our freedoms so they can institute this “better, more equable” alternative governance everywhere.

What is it that brings such different visions for America?

Two quick things:  First, the left has been seduced by the principle of “the ends justify the means” utopian vision.   The prime reason for the horrors in leftist nations are enshrined right there.   A corollary train of thought: “Conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions; liberals have conclusions and sell them as facts.”  That enshrines the epitaph of the left. Continue reading “”

Tech Expert Shocks GA Election Fraud Hearing With News He ‘Got Into’ Voting System With WiFi

The man who invented and patented the technology that lets you scan items at the grocery store, create an airport boarding pass, and generate authentication codes just blew the doors off the Georgia State Senate subcommittee hearing on elections.

Tech expert Jovan Hutton Pulitzer claimed that to the extent there were election issues in Georgia, they could be explained by simply looking at the paper ballots. And he claimed to prove in real time that the system was susceptible to manipulation via WiFi because his team had broken in and were in it at the time of the hearing.

Pulitzer basically threw down, telling a Georgia Senate subcommittee looking into voter fraud to show him the ballots, give him two hours, and he’d show them if there was election fraud in Fulton County.

I only care what that piece of paper tells us. The paper, the paper. Verify the vote, verify the vote.

[…] I can determine where ink comes from, where paper comes from, whether it was mailed, whether it was folded, the difference of a duplicated press” and a mass copier.

Pulitzer wants to see the paper ballot because what he’s seen so far looks entirely janky.

He told the lawmakers that it’s not about the code in the machines that caused 93% of them to be set aside to be “adjudicated” by humans; all he needs to do is get a look the “Holy Grail” – the physical paper ballots.

Continue reading “”

Thousands of Colorado Residents Without Heat After Attack on Gas Service

The FBI has joined a criminal investigation of what police said appears to be an “intentional attack” on gas service lines in Aspen, Colorado, that left thousands of residents and businesses without heat as temperatures in the skiing mecca plunged to near zero degrees.

Work crews are scrambling to restore gas service, and local authorities handed out electric space heaters to residents still without heat Tuesday, as a storm is forecast to bring up to 8 inches of snow in the Rocky Mountains region this week. Temperatures are forecast to fall to 2 degrees in Aspen on Tuesday night, according to the National Weather Service.

Aspen police said the apparently coordinated acts of vandalism occurred Saturday night at three separate Black Hills Energy gas line sites, one in Aspen and two elsewhere in Pitkin County.

At one of the targeted sites, police said they found the words “Earth first” scrawled, and investigators were looking into whether the self-described “radical environmental group” Earth First! was involved.

NURSE WHO TOOK COVID-19 VACCINE TESTS POSITIVE FOR COVID-19

It’s still 2020, and you cannot make this stuff up.  A nurse who has already taken the COVID-19 vaccine has tested positive for the COVID-19 virus over a week after taking the vaccine that is allegedly supposed to prevent this “disease”.

According to a report by NCTV, Matthew W., a nurse at two different local hospitals, said in a Facebook post on December 18 that he had received the Pfizer vaccine. He went on to tell the ABC News affiliate that his arm was sore for a day but that he had suffered no other side-effects. Until now.  Now, the side effect of the COVID-19 vaccine appears to be COVID-19.

Six days later on Christmas Eve, he became sick after working a shift in the COVID-19 unit, the report added. He got the chills and later came down with muscle aches and fatigue.

He went to a drive-up hospital testing site and tested positive for COVID-19 the day after Christmas, the report said.

Christian Ramers, an infectious disease specialist with Family Health Centers of San Diego, told the ABC News affiliate that this scenario was not unexpected. –NCTV

So did the World Health Organization doctor finally tell the truth?

WHO Chief Scientist: There Is NO EVIDENCE That The Vaccine Will Prevent Infection

If you’ve been paying attention, you know by now that this vaccine has nothing to do with health or prevention of disease, and everything to do with control and manipulation of the mass of humanity.

But the authoritarians say that the nurse just needs a second shot of this DNA altering vaccine and then he’ll be protected from COVID-19.  “We know from the vaccine clinical trials that it’s going to take about 10 to 14 days for you to start to develop protection from the vaccine,” Ramers said. “That first dose we think gives you somewhere around 50%, and you need that second dose to get up to 95%,” Ramers added.

Notice the use of the words “we think”? They don’t know. And they don’t care. They just need everyone to line up for two shots. Anyone who somehow still believes this vaccine was created for a statistically irrelevant virus to protect them from the .05% chance of dying so they can have a much bigger chance when taking this vaccine may be a lost cause at this point.  If you haven’t figured this out yet, you may never do so.

I’m not a lawyer, but I see a grand opportunity for big payouts for lawsuits.

DC Passes Bill to Vaccinate Children Without Parental Consent or Knowledge

Lawmakers in the District of Columbia (D.C.) have passed a bill allowing children to be vaccinated without parental consent or even their parents’ knowledge.

The “Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act,” B23-017, was passed in D.C. last month.

The bill that permits a child aged 11 years or older “to consent to receive a vaccine where the vaccination is recommended by the United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

“It also establishes that if a minor is able to comprehend the need for, the nature of, and any significant risks inherent in the medical care then informed consent is established.”

The bill not only permits children of this age to provide consent to doctors and other vaccine administrators without a parent’s knowledge or consent, but also requires school administrators, insurance companies, and medical personnel to conceal a child’s vaccination from their parents.

In lines 37–38, the legislation mandates that “[p]roviders who administer immunizations under the authority of this subsection shall seek reimbursement, without parental consent, directly from the insurer” rather than involving a parent in this process.

Secondly, it mandates that insurance companies are not to notify parents of such payouts in the standard way, according to LifeSite News.

“Insurers shall not send an Explanation of Benefits (EOB) [to the child’s parents] for services provided,” the bill states (line 40).

Finally, B23-017 requires a health care provider to leave part of the immunization record “blank” in order to conceal from parents that their own child has been vaccinated (lines 48–52).

In addition to this being a violation of fundamental and natural parental rights, critics say it may also lead to situations where children could be double-vaccinated.

Following such a “confidential” vaccination of the child in school, a parent may take him to the doctor at a later occasion, where he may be vaccinated again.

More fundamentally, if this bill becomes law, The Vaccine Reaction (V.R.) warns, “it is clear that minor children will be at risk of being pressured and coerced into getting a COVID-19 vaccine behind their parents’ back.”

V.R. also demonstrates how B23-0171 violates the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA), which requires health care providers to supply parents or guardians with vaccine information from the CDC prior to administering the vaccine to their minor child.

The CDC itself affirms this to be a legal requirement on its website.

According to an “FAQ” question, “Is there a requirement to verify that parents/legal representatives have actually received and reviewed the VIS (Vaccine information Statement)?,” the answer is “Yes.” Continue reading “”

Dawn Wells, Mary Ann on ‘Gilligan’s Island,’ Dies at 82

Dawn Wells, the girl-next-door actress and former beauty queen who played the sweet Mary Ann Summers on the iconic CBS sitcom Gilligan’s Island, died Wednesday morning. She was 82.

Wells died in Los Angeles of causes related to COVID-19, her publicist announced.

Other than Tina Louise, Wells was the last surviving member of the regular cast of the Sherwood Schwartz-created show, which featured three women and four men marooned on a desert island after their three-hour boat tour off the coast of Honolulu went inexplicably awry.

Continue reading “”

Authorities Deflect From Their Role In Violence Surge

Communities of all sizes are seeing a significant surge in violent crime. It’s happening in places like New York and Chicago, but it’s also happening in much smaller communities as well.

Unsurprisingly, people are asking why? They want their public officials to tell them not just why this is happening but how they’re going to fix it. After all, that’s what people expect the government to do. It’s part of why they pay their taxes, after all.

Also unsurprisingly, some of those officials are trying to deflect from their role in the fiasco.

When Andre Avery drives his commercial truck through Detroit, he keeps his pistol close.

Avery, 57, grew up in the Motor City and is aware that homicides and shootings are surging, even though before the pandemic they were dropping in Detroit and elsewhere. His gun is legal, and he carries it with him for protection.

“I remain extremely alert,” said Avery, who now lives in nearby Belleville. “I’m not in crowds. If something looks a little suspicious, I’m out of there.”

In Detroit, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia and even smaller Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Milwaukee, 2020 has been deadly not only because of the pandemic, but because gun violence is spiking.

Authorities and some experts say there is no one clear-cut reason for the spike. They instead point to social and economic upheaval caused by the COVID-19 virus, public sentiment toward police following George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis police custody and a historic shortage of jobs and resources in poorer communities as contributing factors. It’s happening in cities large and small, Democrat and Republican-led.

Now, I agree that there’s no single, clear-cut reason for the surge we’ve been seeing. It would be easy if there were and life is rarely that simple. There wasn’t a single cause for violent crime before and we’re unlikely to find a single cause now.

Yet what’s interesting to me is that while they point to the social and economic changes brought about by the pandemic and the anti-police sentiment, they completely ignore the fact that many of these same authorities released thousands of prisoners into our communities all in one fell swoop. Do they really think that so many convicted criminals entering society at one time wouldn’t create some degree of increase in criminality? Are they that deluded that they believe their rehabilitation efforts were so successful now when there’s little evidence they were before?

Continue reading “”

Why Did Fauci Move the Herd Immunity Goal Posts? — Scientists play a dangerous game when they tailor factual statements to promote policy goals.

An expert cannot distort the message to the public because too many in the public can directly interrogate the source material. In this case, that means: models estimating herd immunity thresholds or the data underlying community mask use, drawing their own conclusions. If an expert seeks to distort their view of the science to further a behavioral change amongst the public, the risk of detection is high — at least by some in the public. As such, it runs the risk of immediate backlash and the ensuing loss of credibility. . . .

Once it is revealed that any individual has presented information selectively to get the listener to change their behavior — that person will forever be viewed through that lens: a calculating person. Is Fauci telling me this because the science supports it, because he believes it, or because he thinks hearing it might motivate a behavioral change on my part?

Personally, I don’t see a way back from this situation. The moment the public believes that you might be withholding, selectively presenting, or distorting information to get them to behave a certain way, they will immediately put your comments through a translator. He might be saying this because it’s what he believes, but what if he is saying it to change my behavior. What might that look like? What does he want my behavior to be, and what would it be if he told me something else? If that’s the case, what might his real feelings be … and on and on. The moment you enter this state in a relationship, there is no path back, it is over. Trust is irrevocably broken. A new spokesperson is needed.

And Lockdown Crazy California Jumps Into the Lead

State/Territory Average Daily Cases per 100k in Last 7 Days

California 97
Tennessee 92.9
Arizona 80
Oklahoma 68.8
Alabama 67.5
West Virginia 66.7
Delaware 65.2
Nevada 62.9
Arkansas 62.6
Indiana 62.6
Utah 62
New York* 61.1
Pennsylvania 60.5
Mississippi 60.4
Georgia 59.7
Ohio 58.3
Rhode Island 57.4
Massachusetts 57.2
New Mexico 54.3
North Carolina 51.3
New York City* 51.1
Idaho 50
Kentucky 47.1
New Jersey 46.1
Florida 45.7
Kansas 45.4
New Hampshire 44.8
South Carolina 43
South Dakota 43
Missouri 42.9
Texas 42.8
Illinois 42.3
Virginia 42.3
Louisiana 41.7
Nebraska 41.3
Colorado 40
Connecticut 39.9
Wisconsin 38.9
Maryland 38.1
Wyoming 38
Alaska 36.5
Iowa 35
Montana 34.9
District of Columbia 32.4
Maine 32.3
Minnesota 29.7
Michigan 29
North Dakota 26.9
Washington 23.8
Oregon 23
Puerto Rico 21.5
Vermont 13.4
Virgin Islands 9.1
Guam 7.6
Hawaii 7.5
Northern Mariana Islands 1.5
American Samoa 0
Federated States of Micronesia 0
Palau 0
Republic of Marshall Islands 0

Data source:
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100klast7days

Just more evidence of some of the biggest policy failures in history.