Posted on

FOLLOWING THE SCIENCE

The perverse world of Left-wing politics has degraded even the one area of purported objectivity—science. Confirmation of this view was made when Microsoft News revealed that scientists withheld their opinion that the Covid-19 virus originated in a lab because they felt that supporting President Trump would associate them with racism.

Alina Chan and 18 other scientists published a letter in the journal Science demanding a thorough study of the origin of the virus. The Chinese government has insisted that the origin of the virus was the result of animal-to-animal contact. The Trump administration believed that the origin was the Wuhan lab in Wuhan China, which is associated with the Chinese Army. Part of the lab’s known mission was gain of function research. Gain of function research has to do with making a virus more virulent, hence the Chinese army’s interest in the lab.  This lab is the only known one of its kind in China and successfully making a virus more potent made the Covid-19 a biological weapon.

President Trump repeatedly accused the Wuhan lab of either carelessly handling the virus or outright using it as a biological weapon. The later point seems to be unlikely because the Chinese killed some of its researchers and population at the outset of the pandemic which ensued. But like Leftist in the United States, they saw no reason to let a good crisis go to waste. So, instead of containing the disease in Wuhan alone, the Chinese released visiting non-Chinese back to their homes around the world as their stays ended. For China itself, they stopped flights out of Wuhan for other Chinese cities, thus contaminating the entire world, and minimizing the damage in China.

Getting back to Alina Chan and her cohorts, it turns out, according to Microsoft News and their source that: the “Researchers said the scientific evidence remained relatively unchanged but noted that “the context and circumstances of the origin debate have changed, NBC reported. One of the most notable changes in the “context” of the debate, according to Chan, was Trump’s departure from the White House.

Chan told NBC that some scientists had apprehensions about publicly discussing the lab leak possibility out of concern that their statements would be manipulated to suggest they were endorsing “racist” language about COVID’s origins in China — an apparent reference to Trump’s use of the phrase “Wuhan virus” and “Chinese Virus.”

‘At the time, it was scarier to be associated with Trump and to become a tool for racists, so people didn’t want to publicly call for an investigation into lab origins,’ Chan said in the interview.’

The left constantly told the big lie—that Trump was a racist. If you repeat a lie often enough, some people will believe it regardless of the lack of evidence to that effect. By designating the disease the Wuhan virus or Chinese virus, Trump was merely describing its source, which was clear even in the early stages of the pandemic. There was no difference in that than there was 102 years earlier when describing the Spanish flu in 1918 by its assumed source. The true context of this was the death of George Floyd which launched the left-wing protests which have led to the loss of life and billions of dollars in destruction in American cities run by—guess who—leftists. Those leftists have now found a new demon in the police as a part of the hate they have spread to divide the United States. The topic of demonizing the police is for another day.

If this story wasn’t telling enough, the rest of the story has been mostly uncovered by a Conservative investigation into the underlying facts of the pandemic. The once unknown and now infamously discredited Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) knew of the likelihood of the Chinese lab release of the virus and its work on gain of function research. He knew about it because he helped pay for it with U.S. taxpayer dollars. In addition to his confusing, inconsistent advice on how to handle the pandemic he was simultaneously concealing his involvement in in the Wuhan lab itself. Notably, the U.S. government decided to contribute to the labs gain of function research, which was considered unethical and illegal in the United States.  This was the medical equivalent of outsourcing torture of terrorists to friendly allies whose ethics did not prohibit the practice.

Instead of giving Americans different versions of whether and when to wear masks, or originally advising President Trump that the virus was likely the equivalent of the annual flu and other fallacious assertions, he should have simply said, “I don’t know.” But the ego of a bureaucratic leader who does not treat patients took hold, and his advice proved devastatingly wrong, especially in advocating in favor of lockdowns. Even the World Health Organization—a Chinese tool itself—now says this is not the way to fight the pandemic of 2020.

A recent study by Dr. Stephen Smith as well as older studies validated President Trumps assertion and that of scientists in the early stages of the pandemic that the commonly used (and inexpensive) drug, Hydroxychloroquine, improved outcomes against Covid-19. The hate-Trump and deny him any sort of victory at any cost press dominated the debate by opposing the drug and cost many lives. The politicization of this drug and the indifference to it by Dr. Fauci and left-wing pundits does not speak well of journalists and bureaucrats.

What the story of Fauci and Chan tell us about our age is not flattering either. Now we know that science is not free of politics or outside influence. We have learned that what we are told is science, is not always true Even proven science takes many years to validate. What we must learn from Chan and Fauci, or perhaps re-learn, is that the truth is preferable to lies and self-deception, that hate has unintended repercussions, and that evil done in the name of good is still evil.

 

Posted on

NGO GOOD

Portland, Oregon has seen its share of peace signs. It was a hotbed of flower power in the 60’s in opposition to the war in Viet Nam. The slogan back then was, “make love, not war.” Leftist radicalism was at the root of Oregon politics. That the left did not live up to the “love” part was always understood. Eugene, Oregon was also the sight of vandalism. The University of Oregon ROTC building was torched and vehicles at a car dealership were destroyed. Tree spikers risked the lives of loggers in order to stop logging. Still, it was a national problem.

Some groups were violent or threatened violence. Patty Hearst was kidnapped on February 4, 1974 by the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA). The next year, another domestic terror group, the Weather Underground, bombed a State Department Building. No one was killed, but the following year they perpetrated 25 bombings. The group was corralled by improved police work but lasted into the mid-‘80s when the last members of the group stopped the attacks, although some did not answer for their crimes for decades. The Revolutionary Black Panther Party carried guns and advocated for black nationalism and was perceived as a threat to order by the police of the day.

Since the 60’s, the sense of moral entitlement has been retained, but now violence from the Left has been directed at conservatives, the most recent of which has been Andy Ngo. By way of background, Ngo, an Asian American of slight build and pacific temperament, is conservative writer. He also happens to be gay. None of this is relevant to the issue of the crime committed against him except it bears on the motive for the hate crime perpetrators who caused him brain and other injuries. He was known to Antifa thugs and so it was not surprising when they spotted him during one of their controlled riots. In a recent Fox News interview, he stated that he was struck with a brick or other hard object and was dazed as a result. As he ambled off the scene, visibly shaken, he was continuously assaulted and humiliated by masked assailants.

Meanwhile police lined the street and did nothing to stop the assault. When Ngo, dazed and confused, was able to make his way to an officer away from the frothing demonstrators, he was told by the officer that he could get a ride in an ambulance, but only if he walked to the police station. Ngo was eventually evacuated to a hospital where he says he was diagnosed with bleeding in his brain and numerous cuts and abrasions caused by the pummeling he took, including, he thought, from milkshakes laden with cement. Throwing milkshakes on conservatives has been a recent method of protest by protesters in Great Britain.

The attack on Ngo was part of a wider unpermitted conflict labeled by the police as a “civil disorder,” thus defining the conflict below the status of riot. The Oregonian [July 2, 2019] described some of the Antifa violence that occurred in addition to that against Andy Ngo, as follows:

“Gage Halupowski, 24, of Portland, faces a second-degree assault allegation, accused of repeatedly using a baton to strike a man near Pioneer Square. Police said Halupowski also turned on a second man, Adam Kelly, who tried to help the man who was no the ground and bleeding. An officer watched Halupowski deliver a ‘full overhead swing that struck the top of Kelly’s head from behind’ and reported that the ‘sound of the blow was sickening,’ causing many in the crowd to collectively gasp, according to a probable cause affidavit. Kelly received more than 20 staples to close wounds to his head and suffered a concussion.”

Violence against Conservative supporters of President Trump has been a recurring tragedy. The Trump campaign and the Trump presidency have been subject to violence of one kind or another—everything from egg throwing to vandalism, to bodily threats, to political suppression by indifference.

Those who blame the president need to know that they will not succeed in their tactics. Attacks on free speech as has been seen at the University of California at Berkeley teach violence.

The same The Oregonian article also noted that “ . . . public safety advisor Robert King was telling reporters that police are directed to enforce all laws as they’re ‘able to’ and work to keep feuding demonstrators separated. Would they act the same if their salary was paid as the city was able? Would the city’s Mayor and Commissioners behave differently if they were paid as the city was able?

Recently, violence in this country was attributed to White Nationalist. Political violence is not justified in a Democracy. Judging by the City of Portland, violence is allowed. Violence will beget violence regardless of the inner political meaning intended by its sponsors.

Some have blamed President Trump for hostility and violence in America. Two recent gun attacks sparked sadness and outrage in the country. One in El Paso, Texas where twenty were recently reported killed and twenty-four wounded and Dayton, Ohio were nine dead and twenty-six wounded were also reported shocked the nation. The President denounced White Supremacy, although White Supremacists were not involved in both cases. The perpetrator in Dayton was said to have been a support of the left-wing Senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren. The El Paso shooter released a racist “manifesto” condemning Hispanics entering the United States which was, in his view, damaging to the environment. The Left seized on half the truth and blamed President Trump, which caused him to, once again, condemn White Nationalism. Most Americans have, by now, become used to the half-truths and lies propagated by the “fake news” media. They ignore Madonna having thoughts of threats of bombing the White House, Kathy Griffin holding a severed fake Donald Trump head, and many other vicious attacks on the President.

No president has ever had to endure the kinds of political attacks that President Trump has had to absorb. The highlight of these might include the false charge of collusion that has dogged his presidency since the beginning of this presidency. Based on no justifiable facts, nineteen Lawyers were assembled to provide a report to the Attorney General on Trump’s involvement. Th result of the investigation was a legal document known as the Mueller Report. It revealed no criminal guilt against the President, yet the nineteen Democrat lawyers writing the report were sure to insinuate there was proof of a kind, only if Congress continues to investigate the President. Even the lack of evidence does not stop the accusations. And in dogging the President, the President’s opponents have not only called him racist, misogynist, treasonous, and many other names, but maligned him and his family, including his children and wife, and anyone who touches him.

Not only that, but members of Congress and many others have encouraged their supporters to verbally assault the President, Cabinet supporters, and employees of the President in public places—anywhere they might be in order to attack the President. Yet they claim President Trump is the cause of internal conflict in America. The Big lie is always preferable to the Left and is reminiscent of Nazi claims against Jews.

Political violence in America is not new. The Civil War took 700,000 lives and claimed to make the point that violence is the answer to divisions in America. But the left in the 20th and 21st century has set the tone by directly assaulting Democracy. In America, there is no place for hate speech of any kind. From Andy Ngo to President Trump, the Left knows no bounds in their attack on Democracy. Small targets to big targets receive whatever treatment is necessary to discredit the Conservatism that created America and culminated in a Constitution that set the limits of government and defined personal freedoms. The Left assures us that their moral superiority is all that we need. The worst-case scenario for America is to allow complacency to replace the noble values our country has fought for over its history. The Leftward vision projects a one-party state run by elite bureaucrats and politicians who design governmental policy in backrooms based on secret manifestos of their own which are designed to remove individuality and decent from their decisions. In Congress, the left labels itself “the resistance.” The election of President Trump exposed the failures of the Left and revealed much more truth than they could have envisioned. Just the same, Americans must lawfully oppose in a long struggle the uncivilized barbarism of the hallucinating heads on the necks of left-wing agitators whose nihilistic bias is the enemy of America.

Posted on

THE LUXURY OF MORAL SUPERIORITY

A recent obituary by Philip Terzian in the Washington Examiner [February 12, 2019] looked at the life of Morton Sobell who died in 2018 after once serving a 30-year sentence for espionage. Sobell, an engineer and expert in military technology, betrayed his country by turning over American industrial and military information to the Soviet Union. His actions and those of Alger Hiss, as well as the executed Soviet spies Julius and Ethel Rosen Rosenberg set the cold war tone for the country. A sympathetic Left at the time denied the existence of a spy problem and dismissed it as conservative hysteria. The truth of the matter is that the secrets stolen by Sobell and passed to the Soviets, led to American combat deaths in Korea. Other stolen classified information by Klaus Fuchs during WWII led to the Soviet development of the atom bomb.

What allows a person of the Left to betray a democratic country? Before a 2008 admission to the New York Times Sobell had never confirmed that he was a spy. Terzian writes, “Neither he [Sobell] nor the Rosenbergs had ever been spies, he insisted, and their sympathy for the Soviet Union was based on admiration for its socialist ideals and the wartime alliance with Moscow in the fight against fascism.” The Soviet era during the long domination by Joseph Stalin was a time of starvation, war, and persecution that cost the lives of 50 million people. The mythology of the Marxist ideal was tied up with the phantasy view of the perfectibility of man. The Marxist utopia wasn’t even possible in a police state where as a Soviet citizen your life was always hanging on the thin thread attached to the party line.

Ideals are normal for most people—even desirable, but the argument falls apart after the person with the ideals seeks to enforce them on someone else. It starts as a simple verbal nudge and ends in a police state when the lack of humility predominates and transforms into moral certainty.

When individuals form groups with the same morally certain principles, it becomes a movement. Some movements die out as too narrow such as Williams Jennings Bryan advocacy for silver coinage and his anti-evolution stands. Others, such as the democracy of the early United States as embodied by the Constitution have lasted. What these different stands have in common is a religious fervor that moves masses of people at the politically correct moment in time.

Morality based causes are notably religious in nature. The religious quality of the cause grants the moralist permission for extreme actions. The extremist relies on martyrs, saints and symbols to support and represent in simplified form the cause they advocate. For Christianity it is the cross; for Bryan it was the cross of gold; for peace groups in the 60’s, it was the peace symbol; for Nazi’s it was the swastika; for the #metoo movement it is the #metoo hashtag representing an organization identifying female victims without justice, and on and on. The use of symbols is a source of self-identification and a unifying factor among members of a group. It is a shorthand method of identifying members with the same political, social, or religious identity.

If a cause is religious in nature the individual is thinking of a higher power than the self. A religious nature allows martyrs to die for a cause. Christ dies, the martyrs die, men and women die in battle, the flesh is gone, but the cause remains. The cause is related to the future. The cause lives on at the sacrifice of the individual. If a person is arrested, the cause goes on. If true believers suffer harm for the cause, the cause goes on. Until it evaporates in history. No one today advocates for a cross of gold.

Following martyrdom comes sainthood. Saints become the focal point of the moralist’s view as a paradigm for the younger generation. Focusing on a human being allows the follower to relate to the cause, especially if the saint and the follower perceive themselves as victims. Thinking in terms of a religion allows the fanatic to commit murders, fight just wars (the union side of the civil war), fight unjust wars (the Confederate side of the Civil War) cut off the heads of enemies, and say anything no matter how untrue because the cause is at stake That brings us to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

She is a young woman of self-proclaimed superior morality focused on tarring money hoarders among the 500 billionaires of America. As a 29-year-old Democrat Party barista turned Representative of the people of New York’s 14th congressional district, Ocasio-Cortez has made national news upstaging with ease wily veteran politicians trying with great difficulty to distinguish themselves during the current presidential mad dash toward the nomination of their party. All this for the privilege of unseating President Trump in 2020. She is too young according to the Constitution to run for the officer herself, but find the right 9th circuit court judge, and all things become possible.

Opinions are inflated currency these days, but she represents a paragon of the spoiled, entitled class of youthful true believers[1] who lack any sense of embarrassment when confronted with their own ignorance. The four Pinocchio’s she received from the otherwise friendly Washington Post did not stop her. The reason she does not feel pain the way most politicians do is simple: she tells us she has a higher morality. From whence comes this gift? Religious true believers find the source in a deity who is willing to share. Her gift seems to be self-generated as if sprung from a demi-god enjoying a promotion. We know this from an interview with Anderson Cooper on television’s 60 Minutes during which she announced her superior morality.

If that is all it takes, the Democrats should definitely hold her in position to assume the presidency at the next opportunity. If the 9th Circuit Court idea doesn’t work, try a new amendment to the Constitution on her behalf for an earlier presidential run. Let’s not wait. Due to the current conflict in America, the woman of superior morality should be our leader. Unless . . . there is another person out there who can trump her bid for highest moral standing on the planet. If that is you, speak up. Please.

[1] See The True Believer, by Eric Hoffer