Dark Winter? What Could Biden have Meant?

Do not miss Leo Hohmann’s latest post:

Bracing for a ‘DARK WINTER’

  • Are globalists using Covid as cover for their real post-election plans?
  • Should we expect the left to unleash a bloody cleansing of its political opponents?

Here are the opening paragraphs, but you must read it all.

After his stumbling performance in Thursday night’s debate, and the way in which his campaign seems to be hiding him from public view, it’s hard to imagine how Joe Biden wins the presidency on Nov. 3.

If Biden was seriously trying to win, he would be out on the campaign trail like President Trump, not in his basement.

The way Biden is acting, it’s almost as if he’s been told not to worry, the outcome is not going to be decided by vote tallies.

With that in mind, let’s think outside the box and examine some possibilities that may sound insane, until we detach ourselves from our normalcy bias.***

From this vantage point, all roads lead to the same dark place — a second coronavirus lockdown, indeed a harder lockdown than the first one.

And it could be accompanied this time by a coup d’ etat to remove Trump from office. Look for the establishment [deep state supported by deep media] to conjure up some false pretense to justify his removal despite the fact that he will win re-election on Nov. 3, fair and square.

All the signals are pointing to this. And the latest came from Biden himself.

During the debate, Biden held up his black mask, looked straight into the camera and said “We’re about to go into a dark winter.”

***As I explained in a post a couple of months ago  ‘normalcy bias’ has resulted in the deaths of millions throughout history. There is no downside to considering all of the possibilities for the coming weeks, months, and God forbid years, just don’t stress.  We are in God’s hands.

Now keep reading Hohmann’s dire warning!


Dark Winter

On June 22-23, 2001, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Studies, the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security, and the Oklahoma City National Memorial Institute for the Prevention Terrorism, hosted a senior-level war game examining the national security, intergovernmental, and information challenges of a biological attack on the American homeland. (See also: Dark Winter ScriptArticle: Shining Light on Dark Winter)


EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Malcolm Flex Explains How AOC Politicized Twitch

Malcolm Flex, with 56,000 Twitter followers, has recently produced a must-watch video. His tweet accompanying this video says “Don’t underestimate today’s political power players just because they aren’t playing the same game as you.”

Flex leads off by saying “The paradigm is switching right now and it is switching so fast.” As an example he is referring to the new power of the Twitch platform as a political influencer, stating “Twitch is a hive for young minds, for young, unshapen, very bored minds.” In particular, he is referring to Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s recent debut appearance as a player on Twitch, an appearance that attracted over 430,000 online participants.

In a 20 minute dialogue that should be required watching for every anti-socialist politician, strategist, and influencer in America, Flex explains how the anti-socialist movement is not recruiting the right young talent. He surveys the young players, from Chandler Crump to Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens, and explains that while they are saying the right things, they lack the charisma to attract an army. He acknowledges the magnetism of the Hodge Twins, but reminds us that Keith and Kevin Hodge, at age 45, are a generation removed from the future voters that populate, for example, the Twitchosphere.

Displaying a knowledge of Twitch that shouldn’t, but does elude most political strategists, Flex marvels at the fact that AOC used Twitch not as a broadcaster, but as a player, to build a “simp army” (look it up – and don’t laugh, because they’ll all be voting in 2028). More generally, he observes that nobody holds a candle to AOC when it comes to branding.

As Flex warns, Twitch has now realized they can make money with political content. What if they go in the same direction as the other big platforms and censor or deboost conservatives? Twitch is owned by Amazon, so if they do, it should come as no surprise.

Malcolm Flex is a powerful new voice in anti-socialist politics.

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This Winston84 column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Fr. Michael O’Connor Preaches Truth to Joe Biden

Joe Biden is a “…an embarrassment to Catholicism…”

WATCH:

RELATED VIDEO: Check out this simple video that details key sections of the platforms of both parties. Be sure to share it with your friends, family, and fellow parishioners. 

 

Please share these videos with your friends, family and fellow Christians.

©CatholicVote. All rights reserved.

Voting? A Simple Video Guide to Each Party’s Platform

Check out this simple video that details key sections of the platforms of both parties. Be sure to share it with your friends, family, and fellow parishioners. 

Please share this video with your friends, family and fellow Christians.

©CatholicVote. All rights reserved.

Pope Francis Oversteps the Papal Office

Fr. Gerald Murray on the pope’s endorsement of civil unions for same-sex couples. Pope Francis must repent of this disastrous declaration, which inflicts grave harm upon the Church.


The endorsement of civil unions for same-sex couples by Pope Francis in the film Francesco, directed by Evgeny Afineevsky, is a true scandal in both the technical and popular meaning of that term. He has repudiated the teaching of St. John Paul II that “respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions” and that the “legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity.”

In addition to endorsing civil unions, Pope Francis says that homosexuals “have a right to a family.” What are we to make of this? There is evidence that Afineevsky has egregiously taken this statement from a videotaped 2019 interview of Pope Francis by the Mexican journalist Valentina Alazraki out of context.

Pope Francis was in fact speaking about the right of homosexuals not to be rejected by their own families, not about homosexuals creating new families of their own, presumably by adoption or through surrogate motherhood.

The problem, though, remains that the Vatican has publicly embraced this film. And the pope’s out-of-context “right to a family” comments have been widely interpreted in the media in the way surely intended by Afineevsky but not by Pope Francis. The Vatican has the duty to issue a correction stating clearly that Pope Francis was not giving an endorsement of a right to the adoption of children by homosexual couples. The Church has always taught that there is no right for two men or two women living together in an immoral sexual relationship to adopt children.

As he has at several critical points in the past, however, Pope Francis has overstepped the limits of his office. The pope is a witness to the Faith, not an all-powerful authority who can change Catholic doctrine according to his own mistaken way of thinking. Catholic doctrine teaches that homosexual persons should refrain from same-sex activity and not enter into sinful relationships that lead to mortal sin.

Pope Francis’ remarks will give encouragement to all those, Catholic and not, who reject the Church’s teaching that sodomy is an inherently evil act. They will claim that the Church now accepts homosexual activity as something good when it offers a real good: life within a family, of a sort.

And in the context the pope has placed it, same-sex “families” deserve not only legal protection via civil unions but also societal approval in order to make same-sex couples feel as welcome and accepted as anyone else in society.

I expect that various cardinals and bishops will make public statements for and against this new teaching. Cardinal Burke has already issued a powerful reply that may be read by clicking here.  Divisions, already in existence over other hotly-contested questions, will grow wider.

No “bridge-building” will result from this latest misstep. Those who accept the Church’s perennial teaching on homosexuality will be accused of being anti-Catholic enemies of the pope. But can that be true?

To remind the pope of what the Church has always taught makes those who do so not his opponents, but rather his true friends who have the courage to rebuke a pope who has attempted to do what lies beyond his powers, that is, change Catholic moral doctrine.

The Catholic Church throughout the world has strongly opposed proposals to pass civil-union laws, having been instructed to do so by the Holy See in 2003. That all changed on October 21, 2020. Encouraging governments to legally formalize unnatural, sinful relationships in which people engage in sodomy is a shameful thing for any Christian to do, but most especially so for the pope.

Pope Francis’ comments are a flagrant betrayal of the mission of the successor of St. Peter “to confirm the brethren” in sound doctrine.

This is a volcanic eruption. Catholicism is now widely but incorrectly seen to consist of the latest remarks by Pope Francis to journalists and filmmakers. Pope Francis has used the power and influence of his sacred office to promote something that is sinful. That is not the mission entrusted by Christ to St. Peter and his successors. Catholic doctrine on the immorality of homosexual acts cannot be changed by Pope Francis or any other pope.

We must pray that he comes to realize the grave offense he has given to God by this wrongful endorsement of homosexual pseudo-marriage. He is encouraging what he is bound by his office to condemn. His acceptance of his election as pope by the College of Cardinals included a solemn commitment to uphold the Faith handed down from the Apostles.

He has no right to promote the erroneous teaching that homosexual people have a right to live together in sin or have a just claim upon civil society, acting through its governments, to publicly recognize such unions as legal institutions that are equivalent in some way to sacramental marriage.

The faithful must call upon Pope Francis to repent of this disastrous declaration, which inflicts grave harm upon the Church.

COLUMN BY

Fr. Gerald E. Murray

The Rev. Gerald E. Murray, J.C.D. is a canon lawyer and the pastor of Holy Family Church in New York City.

EDITORS NOTE: This The Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2020 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Situation Report: Iran’s ‘Proud Boy’ False Flag Shows Danger of Media Bias

Iran utilized media bias in order to conduct a disinformation campaign aimed at the Trump campaign according to senior intelligence officials.

In a Justice Department press conference Wednesday evening, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe and FBI Director Christopher Wray highlighted an attempt by the Islamic Republic of Iran to manipulate U.S. voters.

Using purloined voter registration lists, the Iranians allegedly sent intimidating emails to Democratic Party registered voters. The e-mails, sent from a fake e-mail address “info@officialproudboys.com” claimed that the Proud Boys would use violence against those who didn’t vote for Trump.

The Proud Boys, a right-wing group best known for its public clashes with Antifa at demonstrations around the country, were brought to national attention when former Vice President Joe Biden interjected the group’s name into the first debate, after moderator Chris Wallace demanded the President denounce white supremacist groups. The President urged the Proud Boys to “stand back” and let U.S. law enforcement respond to left-wing violence. Multiple media outlets later attempted to paint the President’s comments as somehow promoting Proud Boy activity.

The Iranian operation appears to have been intended to generate media buzz by utilizing the name of the Proud Boys, and multiple media agencies eagerly jumped at the opportunity.

Name checking the relatively small organization suggests the Iranian operation had a sophisticated understanding of the current political environment.

As a senior intelligence official told The Federalist, the “Media did exactly what Iran knew they would do. They assumed fake ‘Proud Boys’ e-mails were real, then used them to attack Trump.”

The Iranian operation creates further risk of election instability as left-wing Antifa-linked groups have claimed Trump would rely on “white supremacists” and “armed militias” to remain in power as justification for preparing massive post-election disruptions.

Since the 2016 election, media outlets have purported to emphasize detecting and preventing foreign disinformation campaigns. Yet through increasingly relentless partisanship, media behavior has become exceedingly predictable creating an easier environment for foreign states to insert disinformation.

As in the case of the Iranian “Proud Boys” false flag op, most disinformation efforts by foreign states around the election will be relatively small scale and lack significant impact absent media amplification. The successful and rapid exposure of this operation represents a rare but important win by the intelligence community in interdicting foreign active measures.

COLUMN BY

Kyle Shideler

Kyle Shideler is the Director and Senior Analyst for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism at the Center for Security Policy. Mr. Shideler specializes in Islamist groups operating in the United States, having spent over a decade researching and writing on their history, doctrine, and impact. Read his complete bio here. Follow Shideler on Twitter at @ShidelerK. View all posts by Kyle Shideler 

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VOTER FRAUD ALERT: Lawsuit Filed to Stop Ballot Fiasco in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania /PRNewswire/ — Plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, GOP congressional candidates Sean Parnell and Luke Negron, are demanding Allegheny County officials count every ballot intended to be cast despite confusion wrought by the county’s mistake in sending out over 29,000 duplicative ballots.

Plaintiffs point out that many voters may fail to cast corrected absentee ballots mailed by the County after the County mailed over 29,000 flawed ballots to the same voters. The plaintiff congressional candidates express concern that after already casting a ballot flawed by the County’s admitted error, those voters may not cast the corrected ballot out of a concern for casting two ballots.

Plaintiffs filed Declarations with the court early today, outlining their concerns with the Allegheny County Board of Elections issuing 29,000 erroneous ballots while refusing to permit poll watchers at satellite voting stations. The plaintiffs propose the County should accept the votes on the corrected ballot and also those votes properly cast on the flawed ballot if the voter has not returned the corrected ballot or otherwise cast a vote.

“Every vote must count, so the County must fulfill their sworn duty to protect every voter’s ballot by properly counting every ballot cast,” said GOP congressional candidate for the 17th District of PennsylvaniaSean Parnell. “And County officials should make sure that votes are not counted in the wrong district. The citizens of Allegheny County deserve this at a minimum,” he concluded.

Adding his thoughts on the blocking of poll watchers, GOP congressional candidate for the 18th District of PennsylvaniaLuke Negron, said, “Considering this mistake, it is only fair and it is required by law, that representatives of all of the candidates be allowed to witness the handling of these ballots and to work together to make sure the election is conducted professionally and fairly.”

Both candidates urged their opponents to join their “efforts to protect the ballots and integrity of the votes cast by the citizens of Allegheny County,” according to the Declarations.

The candidates originally filed their complaint on behalf of the citizens of Allegheny County to ensure that their ballots are safeguarded, and their votes are protected following revelations that erroneous ballots were mailed to registered voters with a second round of corrected ballots mailed thereafter. The plaintiffs are concerned the mistakes of the Alleghany Election Officials will disenfranchise voters who intended to vote in the 2020 General Election.

The Declarations and the pleadings in the case outline the demands of the plaintiffs that:

  • All votes are properly counted, and no ballots are thrown away;
  • Only the votes properly cast by voters residing in the district should be counted, consistent with law.
  • Representatives for all of the candidates should be able to be poll watchers in satellite offices as required by law and to ensure the handling of ballots is done properly and fairly.
  • No candidate should have to pay the County $540,000 to help the County correct its mistake.

REFERENCE: Case No.:  2:20-cv-1570, The Hon. J. Nicholas Ranjan, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

For more information on this and related issues, go to got-freedom.org.

©All rights reserved.

Bombshell Texts Show Effort To Hide Joe Biden’s Involvement In Hunter’s Business Deals

Incredible. Just incredible and ZERO accountability while the criminal media is covering up the biggest political corruption scandal in American history.

‘Don’t Mention Joe Being Involved’: Bombshell Texts Show Effort To Hide Joe Biden’s Involvement In Hunter’s Business Deals

By Sean Davis and Mollie Hemingway, The Federalist, October 23, 2020:

Explosive texts from a Biden family business associate discuss how to conceal the involvement of former Vice President Joe Biden in a deal being planned with a Chinese Communist government-linked firm. Biden has repeatedly claimed that he knew nothing about any of Hunter Biden’s foreign business activities.

“Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when you are face to face,” reads a text from Hunter Biden’s business partner to another business associate. The two are discussing putting together a deal between SinoHawk, which was a Biden family company reportedly named in part for China and in part for Beau Biden’s favorite animal.

The text exchange is between James Gilliar, who is a business partner of Hunter Biden’s, and Tony Bobulinski, a retired Navy lieutenant, who was the CEO of SinoHawk.

Later in the 2017 exchange, they discuss Hunter’s role in a 2020 Joe Biden presidential campaign.

The texts are part of a massive tranche of messages, e-mails, and company documents that Bobulinski handed over to reporters in recent days. Bobulinski said on Thursday that he had handed over all of his records to Senate investigators as well as the FBI.

One e-mail details how different Biden family associates would benefit from the deal, including 20 percent for Hunter Biden, 10 percent for James Biden, and 10 percent to be held by Hunter Biden on behalf of “the big guy,” who Bobulinski says was Joe himself. Later contract documents eventually kept Hunter’s disclosed stake at 20 percent and bumped up the stake for James Biden–Joe Biden’s brother–to 20 percent despite James having little to do with the work involved in the deal. It is not known whether the 10 percent to be held for “the big guy” was provided to James Biden rather than Hunter Biden.

“I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings,” Biden claimed in September 2019 while campaigning in Iowa.

At a press conference on Thursday night, Bobulinski claimed he witnessed otherwise. The texts claim that Joe Biden met with Bobulinski in on the evening of May 2, 2017, to discuss ongoing deal discussions with the Chinese energy company.

A text from Bobulinski to Jim Biden reads, “Great to meet you and spend some time together, please thank Joe for his time, was great to talk thx Tony B”:

Contemporaneous media reporting in May of 2017 shows that Biden spoke at a large financial convention at the Beverly Hilton on May 3, the morning after he met with Hunter, James Biden, and Tony Bobulinski at the hotel.

Neither Joe Biden nor his campaign have specifically disputed the authenticity of underlying facts discussed in any of the texts, e-mails, and contracts disclosed by Bobulinski. Instead, the campaign has claimed, without evidence, that the Russians are responsible for Hunter Biden’s business partner and a Biden family insider releasing evidence of Joe Biden’s participation in Hunter’s overseas business dealings.

Earlier this week, the Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said there was no evidence whatsoever that records released this week about Joe and Hunter Biden were the result of so-called Russian disinformation.

RELATED VIDEO: Trump exposes media bias tells ’60 Minutes’ Leslie Stahl ‘You’re protecting’ Biden

RELATED ARTICLES:

Lawmaker calls for defunding NPR over their refusal to cover Hunter Biden laptop news stories

President Trump’s Approval with Black Voters Soars to 46% After Debate

Trump reaches critical 52% approval rate entering final election stretch

Ilhan Omar, AOC join blogger who said ‘America deserved 9/11’

Biden Pledged to End the American Oil Industry During Debate

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Trump Announces that Sudan and Israel have Agreed to Normalization of Relations

As Hugh Fitzgerald discussed here yesterday, Sudan has become the latest majority-Muslim state to normalize relations with Israel, once again bypassing “Palestinian” jihadi intransigence.

What is happening here, if it can be sustained, could be world-historical.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hamas-linked CAIR does victory lap as Oakland police end partnership with Joint Terrorism Task Force

Sweden: Teacher says violent attacks on free speech ‘can happen here too,’ from ‘Islamists or right-wing extremists’

UK: Minister at church targeted by man who tore down cross expresses sympathy for the vandal

France: Muslim screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ threatens to murder police officers

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why Even RBG Would Have (Probably) Supported Ted Cruz’s Common-Sense Constitutional Amendment Banning Court-Packing

The Amendment would make it impossible for a future president and Senate to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court to cram it full of like-minded jurists.


Even a few years ago, the idea that packing the Supreme Court would be a serious issue in a US election would have seemed absurd. But now, it is no exaggeration to say that the very independence of the judiciary branch of our federal government may be in jeopardy if “court-packing” proponents make gains in the November election.

So, it’s easy to see why some conservative senators might want to take court-packing off the table—permanently. Senator Ted Cruz has officially introduced a constitutional amendment permanently setting the number of justices on the Supreme Court at nine. The amendment is co-sponsored by many of his colleagues such as Sens. Thom Tillis, Martha McSally, Roger Wicker, Kelly Loeffler, and Cindy Hyde-Smith.

If ratified, this constitutional amendment would make it impossible for a future president and Senate to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court to cram it full of like-minded jurists who’d rubber-stamp their agenda. The Supreme Court has had only nine justices since 1869. Yet as written now, the Constitution does not specify the number of judges on the Supreme Court, so this kind of “court-packing” would be legal—even though it would be an assault on checks and balances and judicial independence.

Grappling with this threat is no intellectual exercise, though, because proposals to pack the Supreme Court are actually gaining traction among prominent elected officials:

Meanwhile, presidential candidate Joe Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris have repeatedly refused to rule out packing the Supreme Court. They continue to flirt with the radical proposal.

As I have previously explained for FEE.org, court-packing is a dangerous tactic that could put the country on the path toward authoritarianism:

It would erode the separation of powers that prevents government officials (of either party) from violating our rights. It subverts the highest level of the judicial branch to the whims of the executive and legislative branches. It removes a crucial check on the other branches and leaves the Supreme Court as little more than a red-stamp for the president’s agenda, no matter how authoritarian it may be.

The Founding Fathers purposefully enshrined the separation of powers into our system of governance. They knew that if one branch or official wields too much power, nothing prevents the slow slide into tyranny.

“If the Democrats pack the court, the GOP will respond in kind, as soon as they get the chance,” George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin has written. “The predictable result will not only be a loss of ‘credibility’ for the Supreme Court, but also the elimination of judicial review as an effective check on the other branches of government.”

“If the president can pack the court any time his or her party controls both houses of Congress, they can prevent the court from making decisions that curb unconstitutional policies they may wish to enact,” Somin continued. “It is no accident that court-packing is a standard tool of authoritarian populists seeking to undermine liberal democracy, recently used in such countries as Hungary, Turkey, and Venezuela.”

Cruz and his colleagues are right to want to take this authoritarian measure off the table. No president or Senate—of any party—should be able to attack the independence of the judiciary branch and bring its check on their authority to heel.

“Packing the Court means one very specific thing: expanding the number of justices to achieve a political outcome,” the Texas senator said. “It is wrong. It is an abuse of power… a partisan assault on the Court.”

“For the sake of our liberties and the future of our country, we must preserve our independent judiciary,” Cruz concluded.

This isn’t a partisan position. The late liberal hero Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg publicly repudiated court-packing in an interview just a few years ago.

e number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.'”

Ginsburg never specifically endorsed an amendment banning court-packing, but it seems reasonable to guess she might have supported one. This really is a trans-partisan issue; or at least, it should be.

It is an oversight that our Constitution does not set the number of justices in stone. It thus leaves the door open to such dangerous legislative proposals, even though they would undoubtedly endanger the system of checks and balances that the Constitution takes great care to establish.

In the past, the Senate legislative filibuster requiring a two-thirds majority would have likely blocked court-packing from passing. But it looks likely the filibuster will be eliminated after the November election.

Of course, there is a long, difficult path for any constitutional amendment to become law. Cruz and his colleagues’ proposal would have to pass by a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, and then be ratified by at least 38 of 50 states.

But if even political leaders as ideologically disparate as Ted Cruz and Ruth Bader Ginsburg can agree that court-packing would be bad for America, then passing a constitutional amendment is surely not impossible.

COLUMN BY

Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo is a libertarian-conservative journalist and the Eugene S. Thorpe Writing Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

FLORIDA: Trump 49%, Biden 46% – Rasmussen

It appears that Florida will once again go into the Trump win column. This key battleground state has been visited by President Trump, Vice President Pence and the Trump family. President Trump is scheduled to hold rallies in Pensacola, FL and in The Villages on October 23rd. Stay tuned for videos of these rallies.

Rasmussen Reports:

President Trump holds a three-point lead over Democrat Joe Biden in Florida, a state that’s critical to whether or not the president is reelected.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone and online survey of Likely Voters in Florida finds Trump beating Biden 49% to 46%. Three percent (3%) like some other candidate, and another three percent (3%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Factor in those who haven’t made up their minds yet but are leaning toward one candidate or the other, and Trump gains another point, besting Biden 50% to 46%.

In 2016, Trump earned 49% of the vote in Florida, edging Democrat Hillary Clinton by 1.2 points to carry the state.

Eighty-nine percent (89%) of voters in the Sunshine State have already made up their minds whom they’re going to vote for. Trump leads 50% to 48% among this group.

Among the 45% who say they have already voted, however, Biden has a 17-point lead – 56% to 39%.

Ninety-three percent (93%) say they are definitely going to vote, and Trump has a five-point advantage – 50% to 45% – among these voters.

READ MORE.

RELATED TWEET:

©All rights reserved.

Four Newborns Die After Being Denied Heart Surgery because of COVID Travel Restrictions

Tragically, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a virtual laboratory for lessons in “unseen” evils that have resulted from pursuing “a present good.”


Four babies died in Adelaide, Australia over the last four weeks after being denied transport to Melbourne because of government COVID-19 restrictions, health officials say.

Adelaide, the capital city of the state of South Australia, doesn’t offer paediatric cardiac surgery. According to local news reports, this means about 100 babies are sent interstate for treatment annually, typically to Melbourne’s Royal Children’s Hospital.

Because of COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, however, Melbourne no longer remains an option. Patients must be sent to Sydney instead.

The distance from Adelaide to Melbourne is about 725 kilometers, a flight of roughly 75 minutes, while the distance to Sydney is about 1,375 kilometers, a flight of nearly two hours. An extra 45 minutes might not sound like a lot of time, but when you’re talking about surgery on a vital organ in a sick infant, minutes matter.

The infants never left Adelaide, news reports indicate, presumably because doctors either determined they would not survive the lengthy trip or because Sydney’s Children’s Hospital at Westmead—the lone hospital available due to travel restrictions—lacked the capacity to treat them.

Whatever the case, because of the travel restrictions and the lack of a cardiac center in Adelaide, the infants failed to receive treatment that could have saved their lives.

Dr. John Svigos, an obstetrician and gynecologist, told Australian TV network 9 News that the four babies who died in Adelaide “almost certainly” would have benefited from on-site surgery. He noted that recent state restrictions on travel inhibited the hospital’s ability to get the infants treated at other facilities.

“Particularly in our current COVID situation where the usual process of referral to the Melbourne cardiac unit is no longer tenable and referral to Sydney is on a case-by-case basis,” said Svigos, who has operated a private practice at Women’s and Children’s Hospital in Adelaide since 1978. “I shall leave it to you to imagine the profound effect of these deaths on the parents, their families and the dedicated medical and nursing staff dealing with these tragedies.”

The story is tragic. It’s also frustrating, in part because we know there are countless scenarios like this happening every day around the world. It’s undeniable at this point: COVID-19 regulations designed to save people are costing lives.

The tragedy is compounded by the fact that it was so predictable. Any student of economics who has read the opening line of Bastiat’s great essay “That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen” could have predicted such outcomes.

“In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects,” wrote Bastiat.

The economist explained that every action comes not with a single consequence, but many consequences. Humans tend to focus on the immediate effects of an action (the seen) while ignoring the numerous other effects that go unseen. Bastiat warned that the economist must beware pursuing “a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come.”

In other words, we must look beyond the immediate effects of an action and consider the far-reaching unintended consequences.

Tragically, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a virtual laboratory for lessons in “unseen” evils that have resulted from pursuing “a present good.” By imposing mass lockdowns and sweeping bans on travel and other basic freedoms, governments may have increased social distancing, but they did so at costs we may never fully understand (but are now just beginning to).

We see the immediate, desired effects—less travel, businesses closed or limited in capacity, more children working on laptops and not in school—but we tend to overlook the many unseen, second-order evils. These include the cancer screenings people are not getting, the 100,000 US businesses that will never reopen, the Alcoholics Anonymous meetings people cannot attend, the rise in depression as people lose jobs, the millions of people slipping into poverty and extreme poverty, the rise in suicide, and yes—infants and other people denied surgeries that could have saved them.

Each of these effects will in turn trigger countless other effects, many of which will never be seen or written about.

The effort to protect individuals from the coronavirus through government fiat instead of individual action was akin to performing heart surgery with a broadsword—clumsy, foolish, and deadly.

“How many more deaths of babies and young children will the community and staff be forced to endure?” asked Svigos.

It’s a question every person suffering under inhumane lockdowns and other draconian government restrictions should be asking.

COLUMN BY

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Tech Censorship Is on a Dangerous Path

The Big Tech censorship by Jack Dorsey’s Twitter of the New York Post story on Hunter Biden and Joe Biden is so egregious that I have to speak up. If there were any doubt, it is now clear that Twitter’s censorship system is set up to survey, capture, control, and manipulate the political narrative within this country.

Make no mistake, the mathematical parameters and algorithms that Dorsey’s team developed and implemented had this goal in mind. Despite what he and his company might have you believe, his frustration and anger are more likely related to getting caught, and the resulting public outrage, not the wanting of some algorithm.

Any remaining lines between social media companies and the political propaganda and covert influence world have been erased. Powerful men such as Dorsey and the other tech giants who control social media platforms are meddling in inflammatory issues to engineer and influence the outcome of the upcoming election.

Their efforts are a dangerous threat to our free society. It is hard to imagine a more insidious effort to subvert freedom of speech, expression, and the free flow of ideas, good or bad, than algorithms designed to shut down speech they don’t like.


The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>


The titans of social media, Dorsey at Twitter and Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook, lead their companies the way China does.

These men want to control what the public sees, which enables them to better monitor and, ultimately, influence every aspect of society and life. It is akin to China’s “free speech elite,” where only speech from certain individuals and of certain categories is permitted, all controlled by the [Chinese Communist Party].

Social media giants either don’t care or are simply too removed from reality in their gated Silicon Valley mansions to understand the long-term ramifications of their selfish and manipulative actions. In their tenure, the modern public square has evolved from having the right to free speech to the limited and controlled speech.

All of this is driven by goals to daily influence a person’s actions and decisions, whether it be to try a new diet trend or product, hold certain views, or take preferred actions. Now, these titans have been unmasked as wanting to control our thoughts.

Twitter’s censorship of the New York Post articles, which raise serious concerns about Hunter Biden and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, is evidence that Big Tech has evolved into a twisted entity committed to polarizing society politically and silencing thoughts from anyone who supports the president or doesn’t subscribe to the left’s big government push.

The social media world has learned how to use its tools of influence in a negative way, targeting the young with items of envy–designer Nikes, expensive cars, plastic surgery—and driving a must-have sentimentality into a level of obsession. The misuse of such tools can cause anti-social behavior, depression, and other horrible consequences. People are being driven to irrational action to obtain what they want.

Weaponized, these same tools are effective in the mass influence of thought operations and polarization of political beliefs, intolerance, misinformation, and propaganda delivery. The result is the creation of an irrational hatred of President Donald Trump that has not only triggered but justified assaulting or shooting someone just for wearing a MAGA hat.

This must stop. Claiming Big Tech censorship and viewpoint discrimination are only intended to stop untruthful discourse is ridiculous and ends with these tragic outcomes.

As we move closer to stifling free speech and elevating only the viewpoints desired by the Silicon Valley elite, let us remember the words of James Madison:

Our First Amendment freedoms give us the right to think what we like and say what we please. And if we the people are to govern ourselves, we must have these rights, even if they are misused by the minority. We can never lose sight of this because the moment we do will be the moment we cease to be free.

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

Armstrong Williams is a columnist for The Daily Signal and host of “The Armstrong Williams Show,” a nationally syndicated TV program.


A Note for our Readers:

Election fraud is already a problem. Soon it could be a crisis. But election fraud is not the only threat to the integrity of our election system.

Progressives are pushing for nine “reforms” that could increase the opportunity for fraud and dissolve the integrity of constitutional elections. To counter these dangerous measures, our friends at The Heritage Foundation are proposing seven measures to protect your right to vote and ensure fair, constitutional elections.

They are offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free today.

Get the details now when you download your free copy of, “Mandate for Leadership: Ensuring the Integrity of Our Election System.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘Donald Trump Watch’ Website — With Offices in China — Reveals Addresses of Local Trump Donors for Antifa and BLM Terrorist Targeting

This is one of the most shocking things you might see in this never-ending year from hell.

A mysterious group has made available the names and addresses of hundreds of thousands of Trump donors.  There can only be one reason for this—it is a target list! And, they want you to be afraid!

From Gateway Pundit: (Hat tip: Florida friend)

Mysterious “Donald Trump Watch” Website — With Offices in China — Reveals Addresses of Local Trump Donors for Antifa and BLM Terrorist Targeting

Far left operatives created the Donald Trump Watch website recently to reveal local Trump donors in your community.

Users are able to punch in the address of any location in the country and a map will show you the name and address of any Trump donor in the area.

The website is using FEC data to target Trump voters and donors.

According to the website they provide the names and addresses of “Americans who Give Money to Support a Racist.”

[….]

The only reason for calling Trump a racist and doxing his supporters on-line is to let BLM and ANTIFA know where we live.

More here.

I looked for my name and it wasn’t there, but realized that it must be because I gave through the RNC. I did find friends!  It is real!

And, if they are successful in frightening patriots this time, it will have a chilling effect on anyone considering donating to a future America First presidential candidate.

Will be watching for a Tucker Carlson report on this!

Endnote: Don’t miss my post yesterday! Stay safe!

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Patriotism is dropping like a rock [on one side of the aisle]

Gallup found that less than a third of Democrats are proud of their country.


A special event occurred on April 10 at the Alhambra Dinner Theater in Jacksonville, Florida. Performed by African American orator and combat veteran Evangelo “Vann” Morris, the Old Glory Presentation is a time-honored tradition that symbolizes the love service members have for the nation they protect and defend. Imagine for a moment that Old Glory has a personality. Here is its message, here is its song:

Once revered by nearly all Americans, Old Glory is now scorned, burned and spit on by a disgruntled class of citizens known collectively as progressives, the majority of whom belong to the Democratic Party.

The number of Democrats who love their country has plummeted

According to a July 2018 Gallup survey, less than a third of Democrats are extremely proud of their country. Less than a third, and trending sharply downward. If a survey was taken today, the percentage of Democrats who love their country would likely be fast approaching single digits. Sad to say, and with little room for doubt, patriotism has come to reside almost exclusively in the Republican Party.

Democrats as a whole have clearly soured on the place Lincoln referred to as the last best hope of mankind, the only nation that ever went to war with itself to end the scourge of slavery. Through their party’s identity politics election strategy, Democrats seek to convince members of each “victim” group that their country is an incurably flawed society that has it in for them. In no group has that strategy worked to better effect than the African American community.

Despite all that’s been done to right the wrongs once committed against an oppressed minority of its own citizens, America is now being relentlessly vilified by Democrats as an evil, systemically racist society that must be overturned and replaced by a system that’s “fair to all.“

The choice you make on Nov. 3 will determine the kind of country your living legacies will inherit

So, what “fair to all” system do Democrats have in mind? The answer is found in another national poll. According to a 2019 survey by Public Opinion Strategies, an astounding 77% of today’s Democrats have fallen under the spell of socialism. In other words, a solid majority of Democrats believe America would be a better place if its two-party representative democracy is dismantled and replaced with single-party socialist/Marxist rule.

When undecided voters choose which presidential candidate to support on November 3, here’s something they might want to keep in mind. Throughout history, wherever socialism has taken hold it has never created a single free and prosperous society, but has destroyed many. The reason for its unbroken trail of destruction is easily understood.

Despite the lies that prop it up, socialism is in eternal mortal conflict with the basic human instinct that those who work hard, educate themselves, employ their ingenuity and risk their capital have an inborn expectation to do significantly better than those who don’t. That is an immutable human condition that will never change.

How you vote matters.

©John Edison. All rights reserved.