Month: April 2021

After reading the comments by our “unifying President,” about the Georgia voting law, I wonder what he, or those that read for him, actually did read. Does Joe need glasses?

The following is from The Daily Signal (Heritage Foundation):

1. Biden: “What I’m worried about is how un-American this whole initiative is. It’s sick. It’s sick … deciding that you’re going to end voting at 5 o’clock when working people are just getting off work.”

Fact:

Despite President Joe Biden’s and other’s false claim that the time period for voting would be restricted, it is not the case that voting must finish at 5 p.m. Counties can set hours anywhere between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. (see line 1446-1447 of the law).

1. Biden: “This makes Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle. I mean, this is gigantic what they’re trying to do, and it cannot be sustained.” 

Fact: The law makes no distinctions based on race. Comparisons to Jim Crow laws—which included segregation, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, and literacy tests—are historically ignorant and diminish the suffering caused by such laws.

Despite the liberal lie that the law ends early voting on Sundays, the bill allows for early voting on Sundays (see beginning of line 83 of the law).

1. Biden: “It’s an atrocity … You don’t need anything else to know that this is nothing but punitive design to keep people from voting. You can’t provide water for people about to vote? Give me a break.”

Fact: The law allows for self-service water from an unattended receptacle (see line 1828 of the law). The law protects voters from political solicitation within 150 feet of a voting building (see line 1818 of the law). Voters are of course allowed to bring water with them.

Again I need to ask, “Does Joe need glasses . . . or is there actually another more serious issue here?”

The capitulation of Major League Baseball to “wokeness” is apparently just the beginning. Sycophants Delta and Coca-Cola quickly chimed in almost before they had a chance to read the Georgia voting bill that caused the stir. But come on, why read the actual bill – as the President also quickly chirped in his two-cents worth before he read it. He earned four Pinocchios from the Washington Post, but has not clarified his “mis-statement (lie) as of today. Thus far I have not seen the Pinocchio-score for either Delta or Coke, but to other big businesses the truthfulness of what is actually in that Georgia bill doesn’t really matter, as over 100 executives of major corporations held an online meeting on 4/10/21. . It seems as if they plan ways of thwarting election integrity laws being considered in many states.

The Washington Post called the meeting an “aggressive dialing up of corporate America’s stand” against election integrity laws like Georgia’s, and “a sign that their opposition to the laws didn’t end with the fight against the Georgia legislation passed in March.”

“Executives from major airlines, retailers and manufacturers” and “at least one NFL owner” were present for the strategy call, according to the Washington Post. They (the high-power corporate leaders) discussed such tactics as “halting donations” to backers of the bills, and “delaying investments in states” that pass them — as some corporations have already done in Georgia.”

Of course the response to that meeting was predictable with comments running something like this:

“If anyone knows the list of the 100 corps, please send it along so we can start boycotting them – and get the list out to everyone so they can do the same – we need to stop all of this – they think they can rule us all – . . .we need to show them we don’t need them.”

Commendable, but not practical, as who can remember the names of the 100 companies, even if we were able to find out all of their names. I would instead recommend a more focused approach. For instance at this point my Delta credit card has been cut into pieces and I will be drinking Pepsi instead of Coke. Focused . . . and thus done. 

With this as a template, I would suggest that to start, we designate five of the hundred and focus our boycotts on these five. I think we would have a much better chance of getting their attention by focusing on a few. After a week I would then suggest that out of the 100 in attendance at the meeting, that we add one additional company, and that we continue to add one per week. 

When I read about what these 100 were contemplating, I got the feeling that they were going to take aim at those certain states that were in the process of examining their election laws. Therefore as we boycott more companies, we need to avoid having those states in our sights.

I realize that many are getting tired of my critiques of Major League Baseball’s woke decision to pull the All-Star Game from predominately black (51% black) Atlanta to overwhelmingly white (9% black) Denver. This woke move by MLB’s commissioner was in response to Georgia’s recent change to its voting laws. A change, let me remind you, that was passed by Georgia’s elected state representatives and Georgia’s duly elected governor. Talk about chutzpah! Why in God’s name would MLB do such a thing? The apparent answer is  . . . “because they can!”

MLB is treated differently than the NFL and the NBA because of a somewhat arbitrary decision by SCOTUS back in 1922. This decision, which has never been subjected to any legislation or executive mandate has in effect created a MLB monopoly. Whereas there have been competing leagues to both the NFL (AFL) and the NBA (remember Julius Erving better known as Dr. J of the Virginia Squires, and the ABA), there has never been a competing league to MLB. Why? 

(Because they can’t!) MLB is a monopoly, no competition is allowed. 

Finally, a response from Washington, err . . . from some Republicans in Washington.

CV NEWS FEED // Sens. Mike Lee, R-UT, Ted Cruz, R-TX, and Josh Hawley, R-MO, called for the revocation of Major League Baseball’s exemption under antitrust law.

The senators’ bill comes after MLB pulled its All-Star game from Georgia in protest against the state’s recently-passed election integrity bill.

“We’re here today to talk about legislation to remove the antitrust exemption that’s long been enjoyed by Major League Baseball,” Lee said at a press conference Tuesday. “It’s important to remember that this exemption was created from whole cloth by the Supreme Court 99 years ago.”

It is interesting to me that the majority of Americans are against MLBs woke decision to “punish” Georgia for something its legislature decided. Unless I missed it, MLB was not elected to anything. 

This will soon lead to an uncomfortable situation for Democrats in the House and the Senate. What will be their response?

Everyone knows that this woke antagonism in Georgia is really all about voter ID laws. Likewise, when polled, the majority of Americans are pro-voter ID and this is what Georgia did in addition to making it easier for voters in Georgia to vote. This is because every time a dead person or a non-citizen votes in an election, the vote of a living citizen is potentially disenfranchised and cancelled out. The Democrats can’t come right out and say that they encourage or even approve of dead people and non-citizens voting so they go to their old favorite . . . it’s racist to require voter IDs (even though Mexico requires a picture ID with a thumb print to vote.) 

So will the Democrats vote on the revocation of MLB’s antitrust status? 

Do they go along with what the majority of the voters think, especially the black voters? [It is the business owners in Atlanta (remember that 30% of businesses in Atlanta have black owners) who were screwed by MLB’s decision to arbitrarily pull the All-Star Game from Atlanta.] Common political sense here would predict that they should go along with what the majority of voters think, but if they do that, they are in essence stabbing MLB in the back . . . “GOOD,” say the majority of Americans. However, in addition, it would be a message to other woke entities to be careful and perhaps rein in their wokeness, as they would realize that they cannot depend on the Dems to back them up.

A dilemma for the Dems!!

I can hardly wait

To be honest right upfront, I stopped watching Fox News after they caved and sh**- on Donald Trump after the November election and the January Capitol riots. I used to have my DVD set to record Tucker Carlson every night . . . but like I said, I stopped watching Fox completely. 

However apparently Tucker is in a dueling match with the esteemed Dr. Fauci over the efficacy of vaccines.

Fauci specifically criticized Carlson questioning guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that recommended that vaccinated people continue to wear masks and conform to social distancing guidelines.

The other day Tucker said:

“If the vaccine is effective, there is no reason for people who have received the vaccine to wear masks or avoid physical contact. So maybe it doesn’t work, and they’re simply not telling you that.”

Fauci fired back some ludicrous comment aimed at Tucker who the responded to Fauci:

“If this stuff works, why can’t you live like it works? Why are you wearing a mask? Why can’t you eat in a restaurant? And if it doesn’t prevent you from catching the coronavirus, why are we taking it in the first place? Both can’t be true.”

Now I remember why liked Tucker Carlson back when I watched Fox News. He has got a very good point! What are your chances of catching Covid after being vaccinated?

“I caution everyone to remember, even as good as these vaccines are, no vaccine is perfect,” state Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Mandy Cohen said.

While that’s true, new research shows the vaccines may be performing even better than expected.

A study published this week by the New England Journal of Medicine showed how rare so-called breakthrough cases — those who test positive for COVID-19 after being fully vaccinated — can be.

Researchers looked at more than 28,000 health-care workers in California who were fully vaccinated during the surge of cases earlier this year.

Only seven of them — 0.02 percent — tested positive for the coronavirus after more than two weeks had passed since they received their second dose of either the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines.

And those who did have a positive test were either asymptomatic or had only mild symptoms.

Dr. David Wohl, an infectious disease specialist at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, called the results “clearly remarkable.”

In addition from the CDC:

Among more than 75 million fully vaccinated people in the US, just around 5,800 people reported a “breakthrough” infection, in which they became infected with the pandemic coronavirus despite being fully vaccinated.

The numbers suggest that breakthroughs occur at the teeny rate of less than 0.008 percent of fully vaccinated people—and that over 99.992 percent of those vaccinated have not contracted a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

It certainly appears that Tucker is right-on, and Fauci is . . . Wrong! But why is Fauci gaslighting? Why is he acting like a fox in the henhouse?

BTW: Can anyone explain to me why President Biden recently wore a mask at Arlington National Cemetery? He had  been fully vaccinated months before. There was nobody visible within six feet of him, and he was outdoors . . . pompously gaslighting!

Testing

From PJ Media:

Lockdowns have drastic consequences. Small businesses closed for good at an alarming rate. Almost 100,000 were gone for good as of September, according to a Yelp survey. The impact on children and young adults is also enormous. Children were out of school, and a recent study shows the loss of learning was significant.

More heartbreaking are increases in mental health issues, abuse, and suicide. Opioid deaths are also increasing in over 40 states.

We were told this is the cost of controlling an unusually deadly virus by selected health experts and the corporate media”

When discussing the pros and cons of lockdowns, “those who know best” basically say . . . what else do you expect us to do, as we must save lives. Some, including business owners and school children, will just have to “buck up,” as these lockdowns are for the good of the team. Who can argue that individual sacrifices were necessary? Shouldn’t the saving of lives have been the ultimate goal?

Again from PJ Media:

One would think in light of these dire predictions and given the horrible toll the response has taken on the economy and young people, the excess deaths due to COVID-19 would be through the roof. But federal data says that does not appear to be the case. 

Each year for the last ten years the number of daily deaths has increased by 100-200 in a gradually steady amount. This increase is not a surprise as the number of older folk has been steadily increasing, and as we are all aware, it is mostly old people that die. The problem in 2020 is that the recent projections from The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and the CDC indicate that 2020 did not meet this historic increase by much.

Wait! I am confused! If Covid is killing a dramatic number of people in the U.S., how can it be that the total number of deaths for 2020 is not way higher than in 2019?

The answer appears to be that a lot of Covid deaths this year have been merely “pulled forward.” Yes, this a new term for me also, but it makes sense. For instance if someone has six months to live, and that person dies in three months, his/her death has been “pulled forward.” He/she was going to die soon regardless, but Covid has accelerated that process.

In these deaths that may have been “pulled forward,” there has been excess deaths with dementia and heart disease patients who contracted COVID-19. Further, researchers in New Jersey found that 89% of patients who died with COVID-19 had a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order in place before testing positive for the virus in three hospitals. Having a DNR generally means an individual has a terminal diagnosis. In this study, that would mean nearly 9 out of 10 deaths were “pulled forward.”

So to me the question is:

If a large percent of Covid deaths are merely “pulled forward,” does it make any sense to cause an immense amount of misery for a large number of people by locking everything down? A more critical question is do lockdowns work? Do they decrease deaths or merely delay them, or not pull them forward?

An analysis of deaths during the height of the pandemic, from March 1st through August 1st, there is absolutely no correlation between public policy, such as lockdowns and mask requirements, and excess deaths. Georgia and Florida experienced a ratio of 1.16 and 1.17 between observed and expected deaths. These states closed late in March and opened in late April or early May.

New York and New Jersey, which had some of the strictest measures in place for months, saw a ratio of 1.65 and 1.60. Florida and Georgia have also had a persistently lower deaths-per-100,000 rate than New York and New Jersey for the entire pandemic. They come in at roughly half of the northern states, despite having almost no mandatory restrictions or mandatory lockdowns,

Hmmm!

From the American Institute of Economic Research:

In addition, a recent study (link removed or site crashed but now available at Archive.org) published by Dr. Genevieve Briand at Johns Hopkins University notes some critical accounting errors done at the national level. The study – which is still being vetted – simply examines the raw data that should have been questioned months ago. The overall conclusion is that Covid-19, at least according to collected data, is not the killer disease that it is currently hyped up to be. 

Hmmm!

[If you are intrigued by this topic, I would suggest that you read the entire article that has to do with “Alleged Accounting Error Regarding Covid Deaths,” published in the American Institute of Economic Research, 11/26/20, by Ethan Young.]

From Townhall:

Call it a ‘COVID conundrum,’ in states with the strictest measures in the country, like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and much of New England, cases are on the rise,” a Today Show report this week started. “While in the south, states like Arkansas and Texas that have reopened businesses and ripped away mask mandates are seeing their numbers drop.” 

Infection rates are surging to near record levels…in states with lockdowns and mask mandates, and they are sinking in states without them. So-called experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci can’t explain this, which means no one in media can either since he’s the only person they believe on the subject, no matter what.

Let’s take a look at this apparent conundrum from a different vantage-point. Basically what is being asked is, “Why aren’t these lockdowns working?” Is it possible that we are asking the wrong question? Perhaps we should be asking the following question instead:

Could it be that lockdowns in the past have now made the present Covid situation worse? 

Those who drift to the left of the political spectrum are now smirking, while those on the right are perhaps saying, “Hmmm!” and scratching their chins.

First we know that this virus spreads more efficiently indoors as opposed to outdoors. Early on there were detailed accounts comparing the number of individuals living under one roof and the proclivity of the virus to infect a higher percent of individuals in the more crowded households. Obviously if a household was able to completely, one-hundred percent isolate itself from all contacts (let’s call this, “a super-lockdown,”) then there would be no way for these super-locked down individuals to get infected, and in the short term these “super-lockdowners” were able to avoid getting infected. However for most of us a super-lockdown was not possible, as there were certain things that most could not avoid . . . like eating and working and coming back home. In other words we know that lockdowns were not perfect even in the short term. But what about in the long run?

I have had this suspicion about lockdowns making Covid worse in the long run, but have had a difficult time finding a proper analogy or metaphor. Let’s try this – keeping in mind that it will not be perfect.

Assume that the general populace in an area is similar to a large vat which holds water. Let’s further assume that water level is the metaphor here for Covid infections. If there were a fair number of “super-lockdowners” or “pretty dam close to super-lockdowners” in this area, then there would be less Covid infections, visa-vi less water in the vat. Similar to a bathtub let’s assume that this vat has a drain near the top to prevent overflow onto the floor if the water continued to be added to the tub. This drain would be the metaphorical equivalent of herd immunity. Those areas that promulgated many and frequent lockdowns (blue states) in essence are now left with less water in their vat, and hence a lot of room for more water to accumulate -i.e. now having more Covid infections. Whereas those areas which were more open all along (red states) now have a higher water level in their vat most likely due to asymptomatic infections . . . in other words they are close to reaching or have already reached herd immunity. 

Could this be an explanation for why Texas is doing well after opening up? When asked about this Dr. Fauci was apparently befuddled – “I’m not really quite sure,” he told MSNBC this week.

If anyone can get a message to him please inform him about my vat metaphor as an explanation to this “Covid conundrum.”

At first I was I a quandary as to which would be the more appropriate title for this piece. Should it be a Dickens-esque “A Tale of Two Cities” or should it be titled after an American country music group, “Asleep at the Wheel.” I finally decided on a more politically correct . . . “East vs.West.”

As background, presently the CDC is not allowing cruise ships to embark from or unload passengers in U.S. ports. At this point there is no hint that the CDC is going to change its stance and allow cruise ships to resume operations any time soon.

Today I read about the massive economic harm that the cruise ship shutdown has done to Los Angeles, and visa vi to the state of California.

As most of you are aware cruises have been suspended since March, 2020, and a resumption of U.S. passenger sailings has thus far not been scheduled.

From the Associated Press:

The Port of Los Angeles had 93 cruise cancellations in 2020, 

“According to the port, the cancellations have amounted to loss of nearly $100 million in economic activity on the waterfront. Each cruise ship call contributes about $1 million to local businesses and the economy.”

Now whereas I do not pretend to to be an economist, $100 million is no small change. The response to this continuing economic devastation to the Los Angeles area by the Governor of California has been basically what we in California have grown to expect . . .  ZIPPO, NADA, ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL!

Whereas on the opposite side of the country there is a governor who is not asleep at the wheel.

In Florida on 4/8/21 Gov. Ron DeSantis announced the state is “fighting back” against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, filing a lawsuit to allow cruise ships to start sailing again.

Florida has three of the world’s busiest cruise ship ports: Miami, Port Canaveral and Port Everglades. The industry employs thousands of workers and generates billions for the state’s economy as millions of people typically cruise from one of Florida’s ports each year. […]

“We don’t believe the federal government has the right to mothball a major industry for over a year based on very little evidence and very little data,” Gov. DeSantis said. “I think we have a good chance for success.”

Wow, can you believe it? This is a Tale of Two Cities (Los Angeles and Miami) that is being played out in real time. In one state on the East Coast, a governor that actually is paying attention to economics in his state. That same governor is actually doing something to attempt to get his citizens back to work.

In the other West Coast state . . . zzzzzz!

Although there are Disney theme parks in both California and Florida, on the West Coast we have a “hear no evil, speak no evil” Fantasyland, whereas in the another state on the East Coast, we have visionary Tomorrowland. Governor Newsom is quite rich. Perhaps he and his family should book a Disney Cruise, that may soon be leaving from the Port of Miami. 

Now it begins –  the backlash against MLB’s decision to move the All Star Game from Atlanta. I usually do not like to beat a dead horse, but exactly what I talked about here recently is now occurring and coming out into the open. Namely MLB’s egregious decision is hurting exactly those that purportedly it was supposed to be helping. Again with the dead horse thing, but this proclivity to hurt the poorer among us, is a recognized repeated faux-pas in the Dems way of thinking.

Examples of backlash from the Washington Free Beacon:

Small-business owners in Georgia are criticizing Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred for his decision to move the league’s All-Star Game from Atlanta to Denver, saying the decision will cost them nearly $100 million.

Darrell Anderson, the black owner of a limousine business in Atlanta, told the Washington Free Beacon that Manfred’s decision will hurt the community and worsen the economic damage from the pandemic.

“As the owner of a transportation service in Atlanta, I know firsthand how badly our community wanted the All-Star Game played here,” Anderson said. “The $100 million in revenue to this area was going to be the opportunity for all of us to recover some of the losses that we incurred during the pandemic.  Now, not only is that revenue gone, we may lose even more because conventions that were planned for Atlanta are now up in the air thanks to this decision by the MLB.”

Alfredo Ortiz, president of the Job Creators Network, a small-business advocacy group, sent Manfred a letter on 4/7/21 demanding him to reverse the decision, arguing the move “will have an outsized impact on minority-owned businesses.”

“Your decision is punishing the very group you claim to be defending,” he says. “Small businesses in Georgia are hurting and you pulled a multi-million dollar rug out from underneath them…. Don’t let activist groups weaponize America’s pastime to push radical ideas that MLB fans don’t support.”

Now that those that are effected the most are speaking out, it seems as if the likes of Stacey (“I really won back in 2018”) is changing her tune. How long will it be before Joe (“I really did win in 2020”) changes his tune?

From the Associated Press on 4/1/21:

“Two California tech companies have announced plans to bring their businesses to Reno, and local economic development officials say they’re perfect examples of the type of firms they’re targeting as part the effort to diversify the region’s economy.

“PayCertify is moving its headquarters to Reno partly because taxes in California are so high, CEO Chase Hammer said. It specializes in various financial technology services, including credit-card issuing and payment processing. ‘We wanted to go to a place where they help businesses grow and thrive,’ Hammer said. ‘Reno is now becoming the new Silicon Valley.’

“The Reno Gazette Journal reported StemExpress inked a deal to build a 52,000-square-foot (4,830-square-meter) facility in Reno.

In response to these announcements will California and it’s liberal politicians as usual say, “don’t let the door hit you on the way out,” instead of trying to admit to themselves that they are are the reason why these exits are occurring?

Remember that this is on top of other companies relocating out of California. For instance, just to refresh everyone’s memory in December Oracle announced plans to relocate its headquarters from Redwood City, California to Austin, Texas. The response from the Sacramento Dems,

“don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”

And the Golden State lost another giant when Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced that Hewlett Packard Enterprises, which is currently headquartered in San Jose, is relocating to Spring, Texas. Again, “don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”

This of course, is in addition Tesla CEO Elon Musk announcing that he moved from California to Texas to be near a new factory that Tesla is building outside Austin. However here there was a different response from San Diego Democratic Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez-Fletcher, as she apparently must have felt that “don’t let the door hit you on the way out,” did not seem to be working.

Her response to Elon Musk was different, but still exemplified that the Dem pols in California are Neanderthals and just don’t get it. She reacted to Musk’s announcement with a tweet saying, “F*ck Elon Musk.” 

Strong work, Ms. Lorena Gonzalez-Fletcher. You are one smart classy broad!