Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

I’m worried that there won’t be a peaceful conclusion to this presidential election

Posted: October 22, 2020 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

I’ve been considering writing this article for a few weeks but hesitated because I felt some would believe I was just being melodramatic. Just this week I noticed a couple of prominent conservative news sites featured articles sharing the same exact concerns so I decided this was the proper article for me to write at this point in time.

There are so many factors that have led to my anxiety concerning violence and the upcoming election. 

The political left has demonstrated an affinity for violence.  The amount of violence they have perpetrated just the last year is staggering.  In Portland Oregon alone ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter rioted for over 100 days.  How many cities were burned by leftists over police involved shootings this year?   We all have clear memories of leftists rioting on President Trumps Inauguration Day.   What are the chances of leftists rioting if President wins?  I believe they are high especially if it is a contested election.

I believe that there will be a tremendous amount of confusion over election results in many key states thanks to mail in voting.  It is widely believed by us on the political right that mail in voting is a tool to steal the election from President Trump.  There are far fewer safeguards when it comes to mail in voting and a tremendous amount of fraud has already proven to have taken place.  There is a very chance that the Supreme Court will have to settle some state elections and the election will end up in the House of Representatives where President Trump should win.  That would trigger a tsunami of violence from the left.

The news media has been trumpeting very loudly polls declaring that Joe Biden has a commanding lead over President Trump.  I believe these polls are fraudulent and the media are pushing them on purpose to stir up the left even further after a surprise Trump victory.  The author of this American Thinker article How Likely Is a Violent Transition of Power This Election?

Just as in 2016, nearly all political pundits predict a victory for the Democrat candidate.  The vast majority of MSM downplay any polls showing Trump leading the race and overplay the ones for Biden.  This bias toward the Democrat shapes the perception of the Democrat party (Republicans are mostly skeptical about those polls), setting false expectations for the Election Day results.  The pure-evil-fascist-Trump simply cannot be allowed to reign another term.  A wide array of the leftist groups is already coordinating efforts to ensure substantial public protests after the election to “defend the vote counting.”  “If Trump tries to stop the counting of mail-in ballots after Election Day, or otherwise tries to short-circuit the results, the scale of protests would be that of “the BLM protests on steroids,” they warn. 

How many times have the news media speculated that President Trump may not step down if he looses?  This is an attempt to cast doubt on a contested President Trump victory and to further inflame the political left, resulting in more violence from the left.

I am worried that the level of violence from the political left will be far greater after a President Trump victory than we have seen so far.  Hopefully governors and mayors take proper precautions.  I fear a lot of Democrats in authority will not.

Just as I was getting ready to publish my article I came across this Federalist article which proves my fears are more than justified.

Riot and protest instigators plan to “make sure Trump leaves the White House” by any means necessary after the Nov. 3 election, according to website posts from the group Shut Down DC and their allies. “W]e’re making plans to be in the streets before the polls even close, ready to adapt and respond to whatever comes our way,” the group says on its website currently.

Report from Louisiana: Senate 2020

Posted: October 19, 2020 by Pat Austin in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – Early voting is underway in Louisiana and in Shreveport the lines are blocks long waiting to get in. As large a city as Shreveport is, there is only one place to early vote.  What these long lines mean is anyone’s guess.

Last month I wrote in this space about the senatorial race in Louisiana between incumbent Bill Cassidy and newcomer Adrian Perkins; Perkins is currently the mayor of Shreveport, elected in 2018.

Word on the street, and in the polls, is that Perkins doesn’t stand a chance in this election, but what is clear is that his eye is on a bigger prize and Shreveport was never anything but a stepping stone to the next rung on the political ladder.

In my post last month, I outline some of the missteps by Adrian Perkins as mayor of Shreveport; this weekend, Baton Rouge Advocate reporter Tyler Bridges covers much the same ground, outlining his background and political rise. Bridges compares Perkins quick rise to that of former Governor Bobby Jindal. This is not necessarily a good thing. Once full of great promise, Jindal left Louisiana in a fiscal mess.

The Advocate article is interesting to me in who it cites as advocates for Perkins; Mary Landrieu, for one. That’s enough to shut me down right there. His personal narrative is compelling:

As a boy, Perkins said, his mother often worked three jobs to put food on the table for her three sons. Perkins’ father left when he was three but returned when his son was in high school. Perkins said the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks inspired him to join the military. West Point recruited him, Perkins said, because he had top grades, had served as class president every year and was an all-state athlete in the 800 meters. At the military academy, Perkins said he was president of his class all four years, was a conference champion 10 times in track and field races and majored in economics. About 18 months after graduation, he was deployed to Iraq, where he was a platoon leader. During two tours of Afghanistan, he was a company commander with over 200 soldiers. After seven years in the military, Perkins, a captain, left at 28 to enter Harvard Law School. “I had already jumped out of planes and rappelled out of helicopters,” he said. “I wanted to do something intellectually stimulating.”

All well and good but his success in Shreveport during his brief tenure as mayor has been nonexistent. Bridges touches on some of the same scandals I mentioned last month but also points out that Perkins has lost a lot of support. Republican leaders who were willing to work with him have turned their backs on him:

A group of Republican businessmen who helped elect him in 2018 turned against Perkins after he awarded an insurance contract to the first cousin of his campaign manager. The man had no experience in that area of insurance. The businessmen said Perkins had broken his promise not to engage in politics as usual. A city internal audit said the new contract appeared to provide less coverage for more money. Perkins said it was a good deal for the city and added, “We introduced minorities into insurance coverage for the first time in the city’s history. Minorities should have an opportunity, outside of the well connected class.”

From my personal perspective, as a resident of Shreveport, I could in no way support Perkins for any higher office because I don’t believe he has fulfilled his promise for this office. He ran for mayor as someone who wanted to do new, fresh things to better this city, and he has failed miserably. Shreveport is not a large city by many standards – in 2018 we had a population of about 188,000. We are demographically 57% black, 38% white. We have shootings every single day and our murder rate is way up. There is no manufacturing in Shreveport and jobs are primarily service industry jobs. The largest employer in Shreveport is the school system, followed by Willis Knighten hospital system. There is little for families to do here unless you like going to casinos or bars.

All that negativity to say that Perkins has a lot of room in which to improve this city, but has not done so. Given that, I don’t think he will do much better for the state, should he somehow be elected senator. I truly believe this is only an exercise in building name recognition and that Perkins wants to take that same meteoric rise as Barack Obama. Presidential aspirations? Maybe. Higher office than mayor of a dying city? Certainly.

Even after Perkins loses this election, it won’t be the last you hear of him.

Mark my words.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport and is the author of Cane River Bohemia: Cammie Henry and her Circle at Melrose Plantation. Follow her on Instagram @patbecker25 and Twitter @paustin110.

Futureworld

Posted: October 17, 2020 by datechguy in Uncategorized

Falling asleep in front of the TV the other night, talking heads in my ears, yabbering about the polls — a grim Election Day for Trump and the Republicans in the apparent offing — a vision from the future then seeped into my mind. It came in the form of a news article, dateline: June 19, 2023.

“Former President Donald Trump celebrated Juneteenth today by announcing his candidacy for the Republican nomination, throwing the 2024 presidential race into chaos.

“After barbecuing spare ribs at rapper Ice Cube’s Bel-Air estate in celebration of the newly established federal holiday, Trump took to the mansion’s rooftop to make his big announcement before being whisked away by helicopter, a banner emblazoned with the nascent campaign’s slogan, “Put America Back Together Again,” trailing behind in the wind.

“’It’s time we dump that loser broad in the White House,’ Trump said, in apparent reference to President Kamala Harris. ‘All she’s done is lose, ever since she kicked my ass – which, really, she kicked Pence’s ass, if you wanna get technical. And she’s done nothing ever since, absolutely nothing, it’s really quite remarkable,’ he said. He then listed several things Harris did that he would immediately reverse, ‘Starting on Day One, or before, even,’ he promised.

“Among Trump’s proposals was to divide California into five separate states, a single state along the coast, and four states carved out of its more rural, more conservative interior. This, Trump promised, would cancel out the admission of North Puerto Rico, South Puerto Rico, and Washington, D.C. by the Democrat-controlled Congress in 2021. ‘The coast is iconic, you know, the California coast, I didn’t really think it should be broken up, so we’re keeping it as one state,’ Trump explained.

“Trump promised to increase the Supreme Court by twelve new Justices, and presented a list of forty judges he promised would be considered. ‘Twelve’s a good number, you know, twice as many as Kamala’s,’ Trump said, referencing the six new Justices Harris and the Democrats added to the Court in the spring of 2022.

“The reaction among Trump’s Republican rivals for the nomination was swift. Texas governor George P. Bush, who had been a frontrunner for the nomination once sought by his father, Jeb Bush, immediately announced he was withdrawing from the campaign. ‘I would not sully the good name of political campaigns by continuing to run for the same office as him,’ he intoned.

“Florida Senator Marco Rubio was more diplomatic. ‘I believe competition makes us all stronger,’ he insisted. ‘And no matter what office I may have in the future, I look forward to doing the work of the American people.’

“When asked about Trump’s announcement, President Harris laughed awkwardly. ‘As an American, he can do and say whatever he wants, and I’ve asked the FBI to put an immediate tap on his phone, as he is a known security threat,’ she said to reporters. The reporters had no follow up questions for her.

“In his announcement, Trump also promised to re-open all churches, which the Democrats had deemed ‘dangerous to science,’ free all Republican political prisoners currently housed in the federal prison at Alcatraz, and to review the status of former President Joe Biden, admitted to Walter Reed Medical Center in February 2021 and rarely heard from since.”

After waking up, I felt a little warm, and had to take my temperature. Can’t be too careful, what with the Wuhan floating around. Yeah sure, catching it’s unlikely, but in this world, anything’s possible.

The science behind Coronavirus lockdowns is far from settled

Posted: October 15, 2020 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

Far too many individuals blindly accept the freedom and economy destroying lockdowns that governors have forced upon us because they believe that the lockdowns are based on science.  That is the narrative that has been crammed down the throats of all of us by the dangerously corrupt liberal news media.  The truth is far different but few are aware it.  That is why I’m writing this article.  On social media I share the truth, however, so many of my liberal friends dismiss the truth because it comes from right wing websites such as Breitbart, American Thinker, and the Federalist.

I was shocked to see actual truth in this New York Times article, which I immediately shared on Facebook and Twitter.  As you can see, Coronavirus is no where as prevalent in the United States as the media trumpets because the most often used test is far too sensitive.

Some of the nation’s leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus.

Most of these people are not likely to be contagious, and identifying them may contribute to bottlenecks that prevent those who are contagious from being found in time.

Here is the scientific explanation behind the overly sensitive tests:

The PCR test amplifies genetic matter from the virus in cycles; the fewer cycles required, the greater the amount of virus, or viral load, in the sample. The greater the viral load, the more likely the patient is to be contagious.

This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients, although it could tell them how infectious the patients are.

The PCR tests uses too many amplification cycles.

Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.

Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.

A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added. Dr. Mina said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Those changes would mean the amount of genetic material in a patient’s sample would have to be 100-fold to 1,000-fold that of the current standard for the test to return a positive result — at least, one worth acting on.

There has been a mini-serge of Coronavirus cases here in Massachusetts which has resulted in Governor Baker halting his tortuously slow reopening plan.  This serge is based on a big lie.

 In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said.

A large number of medical experts have recently condemned the Coronavirus lockdowns. Those who rely on the mainstream media for news are completely unaware of this development.  Here is a description of the group from this Breitbart article

The internationally known experts, who identify themselves as “coming from both the left and right, and around the world,” have produced what they call the “Great Barrington Declaration,” which, to date, has been signed by nearly 4,700 medical and public health scientists, 8,900 medical practitioners, and 123,300 members of the general public.

Here are the opening paragraphs ofThe Great Barrington Declaration

As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. 

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. 

The Great Barrington Declaration recommends a must better approach for dealing with the  Coronavirus Pandemic.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e.  the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. 

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. 

Instead of placing all of us under house arrest and shuttering all of our businesses we should:

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

The lockdowns are so not backed by science that the World Health Organization has recently reversed course on them,

Older Entries
Newer Entries