“The number of new coronavirus cases reported in the U.S. hit a single-day record, as cases spread across communities in every region of the country including remote areas that hadn’t yet been hard hit. The U.S. reported 83,757 new cases Friday, surpassing the previous high of 77,362 reported July 16, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University. Daily new-case totals have risen for five straight days.
Since the pandemic began, more than 8.49 million infections have been reported in the U.S. and more than 223,900 Americans have died, according to Johns Hopkins data.World-wide, more than 42.2 million cases have been reported, and more than 1.14 million people have died.
“We are at a critical juncture in this pandemic, particularly in the northern hemisphere,” World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said at a news conference Friday. “The next few months are going to be very tough and some countries are on a dangerous track.”
Dr. Tedros warned that “too many countries are seeing an exponential increase in cases,” bringing hospitals close to their operational capacity or even above it. “We urge leaders to take immediate action, to prevent further unnecessary deaths, essential health services from collapsing and schools shutting again,” he said.
Epidemiologists and public-health researchers have said a number of factors, from pandemic fatigue to the return of college students to campuses and more social gatherings, are contributing to the latest rise in cases. The recent increases are affecting broader swaths of the U.S. than the spring and summer surges, when outbreaks were heavily concentrated in a handful of states…”
…then ponder these little factoids:
(1). There’s never been a realistic chance the Wuhan virus was ever to going to stop spreading until (a) the country achieved herd immunity or, (b) an effective vaccine was developed and distributed.
(3). The concern should NOT be the sheer number of cases, which MUST increase, but rather the mortality rate, which has drastically decreased.
(4). 61 million Americans contracted the Swine flu in 2009 during an Obama-Biden administration which did NOTHING to combat the H1N1 virus.
(5). A minority of those listed as victims died solely as a result of the virus, with the vast majority of victims having at least one, and often two comorbidities. Not to mention hospitals and nursing home facilities had a financial incentive to record COVID-19 as a patient’s cause of death.
And need we mention, at this point, like Dr. Faux Chi, does anyone believe or care about a single thing Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus…or anyone else on the ChiCom payroll…says?!?
As the following from Balls Cotton concludes, when…
All of which means, come the last Thursday in November at our house, we’re down with the thought expressed in this meme from Ed Hickey:
Now, here’s The Gouge!
First up…
Thus has The Donald done more to advance the cause of Conservatism while under constant attack in one term than four of the last five Republican Presidents combined; and more to make Constitutionalism predominant on the SCOTUS at a critical juncture in our history than even Ronaldus Maximus, while at the same time bringing Socialists…
…to tears. So here’s to you, Chucky, Mazie, Nancy, Barry, Billary and Biden:
Meanwhile, to the rest of the Socialists out there, as this meme from Speed Mach suggests…
It’s worth noting neither CNN or MSDNC covered Barrett’s confirmation vote in the Senate, with CNN barely covering any of the preceding hearings. Still, all The Left’s horses and all The Left’s men can’t put the emanation back on the penumbra again…at least not for the foreseeable future.
Turning from the sublime to the ridiculous, FOX informs us the…
“The Economist provided sympathetic coverage of a Chinese tech giant widely considered a national security risk without disclosing the publication’s lucrative business relationship with the firm that spanned nearly a decade.
Huawei Technologies commissioned the Economist‘s business consulting division to advance its policy agendas and deflect cybersecurity concerns raised by Western governments. The influential British magazine produced reports on a wide range of subjects—including a report on broadband access in the United Kingdom that Huawei credits to have influenced British policy. The publication has also run numerous Huawei advertisements, and its editors have cohosted several global forums with the company, helping the tech firm boost its public image as it faced growing scrutiny from the developed world for its close ties with the Chinese government.
The Economist defended Huawei in a front-page cover story in 2012—the year the publication’s consulting division started working with the company—that accused Western countries of using cybersecurity concerns as a pretense to oppose legitimate competition from Huawei. The publication’s coverage of the tech company has become less overtly pro-Huawei in recent years, but the Economist‘s coverage of the company is seen as friendly enough that Huawei’s PR division has cited severalof the magazine’s articles to deflect criticism.
“The rise of a Chinese world-beater is stoking fears of cyber-espionage. Techno-nationalism is not the answer,” reads the 2012 piece’s headline.
Huawei nurtured a lucrative relationship with the Economist just as it faced growing concerns from Western countries that broadband networks built by the tech firm serve as a conduit for Chinese espionage. Such cybersecurity concerns have pushed the United States, Japan, Australia, the United Kingdom, and other U.S. allies to severely curtail or outright ban the company’s operations in their countries.
Huawei fought tooth and nail to stave off the government sanctions, an effort the Economist played a major role in.
…None of the Economist‘s coverage of Huawei mentioned the publication’s long-standing business relationship with the tech firm…”
In a related item, Glenn Greenwald, hardly the voice of Conservatism, calls the MSM’s treatment of the Biden corruption scandal as he sees it:
Meanwhile, Groper Joe continues to bitterly cling to the supposed belief Russia presents the greatest foreign threat to America. Sure it does…until Putin hires Hunter, at which point the Little Rocket Man will become the greatest threat on Planet Biden.
Since we’re on the subject of the far greater of two evils, here’s an excellent article by Michael Brown my brother Rob featured on his Facebook page:
To begin with, the political system itself is earthly and flawed, with all candidates being far from perfect. While it would be ideal for our presidents to be shining examples of morality and character, very few in our history would live up to that ideal. This is not to make excuses but rather to be realistic.
Next, it is one thing to elect a boastful, divisive leader. It is another thing to empower a party that will sanction the killing of the unborn. Or strip away religious freedoms. Or give free reign to foreign, tyrannical regimes.
When it comes to Trump, we can vote for his policies while saying, “I don’t like many of the things he does and feel his example is often very destructive. I will therefore speak out when he acts wrongly and will model something different in my own life.” But a vote for Biden and the Democrats is a vote to empower a party that wants to impose an overtly godless agenda.
Pastor Piper writes, “I find it bewildering that Christians can be so sure that greater damage will be done by bad judges, bad laws, and bad policies than is being done by the culture-infecting spread of the gangrene of sinful self-exaltation, and boasting, and strife-stirring (eristikos).”
My response, again, is simple: Trump is one man, and as destructive as his words and conduct can be – just look at the warnings in Proverbs about foolish kings – we can vote for him by the millions while at the same time modeling godlier conduct. On the other hand, if those with a different agenda are empowered, their policies will affect us by the millions.
Put another way, if voting for a boastful man can potentially save millions of babies’ lives, can that vote be justified? If voting for a man with a sexually immoral past can give support to persecuted minorities in China, can that vote be justified? If voting for a man who often lies and exaggerates can stop the rise of an anti-God socialism, can that vote be justified?
What we cannot do, as I have been shouting for years now, is become apologists for the president. That, without question, demeans our witness. But to say that we cannot vote for him when the stakes are so highis, in my view, to miss the larger point…”
Three thoughts: (1) We agree with Brown completely; (2) The “culture-infecting spread of the gangrene of sinful self-exaltation, and boasting, and strife-stirring (eristikos)” Piper cites certainly didn’t begin with Donald Trump; and, (3) Piper’s effectively endorsing the whitewashed tombs of the Pharisees concept, having no problem with Presidents such as JFK, LBJ and BHO, who did their sinning in private…or, particularly in the latter’s case, conveniently outside the glare of the media spotlight.
Once he’s finished picking a peck of pickled peppers, Pastor Piper needs to peruse the following from American Greatness via Steve Boss, as Roger Kimball reminds us this is indeed a…
“…I did not, until recently, suspect Joe Biden of serious corruption. The ongoing revelations from Hunter Biden’s “laptop from hell” have led me to reconsider that judgment, especially when combined with the ongoing bulletins from Hunter Biden’s former business partner, Tony Bobulinski, who claims that Joe Biden, contrary to his repeated assertions, was involved in discussions about his son’s business dealings.
…Still, these allegations, if true, though they would be enough to dissuade me from voting for Joe Biden, are not the reason that I think this election is the most momentous of my lifetime.
Is it because of the stark policy differences, then, between the candidates that I believe this election is so momentous? The differences are indeed stark, as a simple list of issues will demonstrate to cognizant voters: Taxes, regulation, immigration policy, environmental policy, energy policy, judges, foreign policy, affirmative action and everything that’s loaded into the charge that America is “systemically racist”—even to utter these words is to acknowledge that the differences between what Donald Trump has done and wants to do and what the Democrats promise is as night and day. President Trump is about “America First.” Team Biden is about “America Failed.”
But even those powerful differences do not, by themselves, describe why I think this election is so important. The real gravamen is this. The battle between Donald Trump and the Biden-Harris coalition is a battle between the forces of republican democracy, on one side, and the forces of socialist oligarchy, on the other.
…Donald Trump may be an odd ambassador of freedom. His motley may not pass muster in the salons and drawing rooms of our lords and masters. But Joe Biden is but a gibbering front for a vanguard that would destroy America as traditionally conceived—America, I mean, as a crucible of ordered liberty, limited government, and individual freedom.
The swamp would smother those ideals in a muck of group rights and the rule of diktat, not law. It would represent not the peaceful transfer of power but the destruction of that process by the substitution of political correctness for politics. No longer would it be a debate about policy. It would become instead a series of heresy trials, with a sort of spoils system benefitting lucky members of the new commissariat.
A preview of this new order was recently vouchsafed by the diminutive satrap Robert Reich. “When this nightmare is over,” he tweeted, “we need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It would erase Trump’s lies, comfort those who have been harmed by his hatefulness, and name every official, politician, executive, and media mogul whose greed and cowardice enabled this catastrophe.”
Noted. And the truly frightening thing is that it would be susceptible neither to repeal nor revision but, having cast our political life into a Manichaean struggle between heresy and the regime, would hearken only to competing entreaties from its own medium of exchange, naked power.
The prospect of that malign dispensation is why I believe the 2020 election is the most momentous of my life…”
It’s as this video featured in the Monday edition relates:
Regardless who’s name is at the top of the Dimocratic ticket, Joe Biden isn’t who will ultimately occupy the Oval Office.
And in the EnvironMental Moment, Jeff Foutch forwarded this primer detailing the irreplaceability of one of our planet’s most important natural resources:
Which brings us to The Lighter Side:
Then there’s this from Bill Meisen…
…another from Speed Mach…
…a couple from our sister-in-law Amy…
…a few from Balls Cotton…
…two more from Mark Foster…
…and last, but never least, a pair courtesy of the lovely Shannon:
Finally, we’ll call it a wrap with yet another sordid story straight from the pages of The Crime Blotter, courtesy today of another demonstrably false Black Lies Matter narrative, as willingly spread in a FOX News report claiming…
“Angry protesters clashed with police in western Philadelphia Monday night and looted businesses after the death of a 27-year-old Black man at the hands of city officers earlier in the day.
Walter Wallace, who was allegedly holding a knife, was fatally shot while two police officers were responding to a complaint about a man with a weapon in Cobbs Creek, according to the Associated Press. He “advanced toward” the officers, who then fired “several times,” the outlet reported.
…Following Wallace’s death, which was recorded and posted on social media, hundreds of people — some armed with bricks — protested at the 52nd Street commercial district, and the demonstration quickly turned violent…”
Three thoughts come to mind: (1) MSM reports to the contrary notwithstanding, “protestors” don’t raid shops and ATMs, LOOTERS raid shops and ATMs; (2) Since the shooting was recorded, did the FOX “reporter” bother to review the video to determine whether Walter Wallace had a knife?; and, (3) This the latest fruit of the poisonous Black Lies Matter-planted seed that people with knives don’t pose a serious threat to people with guns, a lie which can only be true if the people with guns shoot the people with knives before they’re close enough to inflict harm…which is likely precisely what the Philly police officers did.
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.