Monday, March 14, 2022
Pfizer CEO Calls for Another Booster Shot for all Americans
As reported by Politico, Albert Bourla made his remarks in an interview with CBS’ Margaret Brennan, where he said that his company was preparing to submit “a significant package of data about the need for a fourth dose” to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
“The protection that you are getting from the third [shot], it is good enough, actually quite good for hospitalizations and deaths,” Bourla said. “It’s not that good against infections, but doesn’t last very long. But we are just submitting those data to the FDA, and then we will see what the experts also will say outside Pfizer.”
The Pfizer vaccine against COVID-19, which requires two different shots, was first approved in late 2020. A third shot produced by the same company, known as a booster, was authorized by the FDA in September. However, there had been contradicting rhetoric from the Biden White House and the private sector; when Pfizer first recommended the original booster shot, the Biden Administration initially disagreed with the idea of a booster before reversing course and approving it.
“I think right now we need to be very well-coordinated — CDC, FDA and the industry — so that we are all providing to the American people and to the world a cohesive picture rather than confusion,” Bourla continued. But he emphasized his belief that the United States needs to “very diligently stay ahead of the virus,” even though the height of the pandemic appears to have passed.
Bourla also promised during the interview that if the second booster is approved, then “we can go back to, really, the way we used to live.”
The coronavirus has spiked twice under Biden’s watch: First in early- and mid-2021 due to the rise of the India Variant, also known as the Delta Variant. Then, just as Delta seemed to subside, a new variant known as the South Africa Variant, or the Omicron Variant, peaked in early 2022.
Despite the Biden Administration’s insistence of strict measures such as further lockdowns and vaccine requirements, such policies have become so widely unpopular that the vast majority of states have begun lifting nearly all restrictions. Biden’s attempt to force a vaccine mandate on...
Since It Is So Likely That Your Children Will Meet Cruel Enemies...
He was the wizard of a thousand kings
And I chanced to meet him one night wandering
He told me tales and he drank my wine
Me and my magic man kind of feeling fine
He had a cloak of gold
And eyes of fire
And as he spoke I felt a deep desire
To free the world of its fear and pain
And help the people to feel free again
Black Students Attack White Classmates as 'Revenge' for Slavery
The attack took place at a recreation center in Coconut Creek Florida on Wednesday. One of the victims told NBC Miami that the five boys jumped him and yelled racial slurs. The attackers reportedly singled the boy out, saying “you’re white” before throwing him on the ground and proceeding to kick, stomp on and “whip” the victim with a USB cord.
One of the victims, who has not been identified because he is a minor, told NBC that he no longer feels safe attending Lyons Creek Middle School in Broward County, Florida. The victim further said that the attackers told him and his friends that it was “revenge for what they did in the 1700s, slavery.”
‘They were whipping them, kicking them, hitting them,’ Frank Foster, a parent of one of the victims, told NBC. Foster said his son is still being abused at school over text messages for reporting the assault. “People at school are calling him a snitch for reporting it and doing the right thing,” the victim’s father continued.
The five students were arrested and charged battery and evidence of prejudice while committing a battery, which is a third-degree felony. However, the mother of one of the alleged attackers said she is angry at the victims and claimed they are trying to “ruin” her son’s life by...
Happy Pi Day! 3.14
She's my cherry pie
Cool drink of water
Such a sweet surprise
Tastes so good
Make a grown man cry
Sweet cherry pie oh yea
She's my cherry pie
Put a smile on your face
Ten miles wide
Looks so good
Bring a tear to your eye
Sweet cherry pie
EXCLUSIVE: Ginni Thomas Wants To Set the Record Straight on January 6
Conservative activist talks to the Free Beacon about her work and her husband, Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas
She did not help organize the White House rally that preceded the riot at the Capitol. She did attend the rally, but got cold and left early. And most importantly, in her view, her involvement with the event has no bearing on the work of her husband, Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas.
A veteran conservative operator, critics have for decades charged that her political activity poses an ethics conundrum for the justice. She was keen to dispel misperceptions and shared fresh details about her professional life.
"Like so many married couples, we share many of the same ideals, principles, and aspirations for America," Thomas told the Washington Free Beacon. "But we have our own separate careers, and our own ideas and opinions too. Clarence doesn't discuss his work with me, and I don't involve him in my work."
Though Thomas has taken steps to adjust her public profile, such as deleting her Facebook page, she has no plans to curtail her professional activities.
In a wide-ranging interview, Thomas spoke for the first time about a series of recent news reports linking her with the events of Jan. 6 and alleging Mrs. Thomas's activities create a conflict of interest for her husband and undermine the Supreme Court's standing with the public.
"If you are going to be true to yourself and your professional calling, you can never be intimidated, chilled, or censored by what the press or others say," she said.
In January, the Supreme Court rebuffed former president Donald Trump's request to quash a House subpoena for White House records relating to the 2020 elections. Justice Thomas was the only member of the Court to publicly note his dissent.
That datapoint, combined with incomplete public accounts of Mrs. Thomas's advocacy related to the 2020 election, spawned a push for the justice to recuse himself from future cases related to the events of Jan. 6.
Thomas told the Free Beacon that she was in the crowd at the Ellipse rally for a short time the morning of Jan. 6, but returned home before Trump took the stage at noon. Her presence at the Ellipse during the morning was the extent of her activity, she said.
"I was disappointed and frustrated that there was violence that happened following a peaceful gathering of Trump supporters on the Ellipse on Jan. 6," Thomas told the Free Beacon. "There are important and legitimate substantive questions about achieving goals like electoral integrity, racial equality, and political accountability that a democratic system like ours needs to be able to discuss and debate rationally in the political square. I fear we are losing that ability."
In January and February, the New Yorker and the New York Times Magazine each published longform pieces alleging that Thomas had a much larger role in the events of Jan. 6. The Times in particular cast Thomas as an important trouble-shooter in the leadup to the rally, reporting she acted as an intermediary among bickering activists organizing the event.
Citing second-hand information from organizer Dustin Stockton, the Times reported that Thomas acted as a peacemaker between two feuding faction leaders—Jenny Beth Martin of Tea Party Patriots and Amy Kremer of Women for America First—convincing both to participate in the rally for the sake of shared goals.
Thomas, Martin, and Kremer each reject that claim.
"I played no role with those who were planning and leading the Jan. 6 events," Thomas said. "There are stories in the press suggesting I paid or arranged for buses. I did not. There are other stories saying I mediated feuding factions of leaders for that day. I did not."
One of the factions Thomas supposedly negotiated with wasn't even involved with organizing the rally. Martin's Tea Party groups were not sponsors of the Ellipse event, nor did her organizations spend money to support the effort.
"We condemn the violence. We are shocked, outraged, and saddened at the turn of events on January 6," Martin said in a statement.
Kremer contested the allegation about Thomas in texts exchanged with Times reporter Danny Hakim, one of the Thomas story's two authors. Those exchanges happened on background, meaning Hakim could not attribute any statement to Kremer in the Times story.
After the article was published, Kremer gave Hakim an on-the-record statement rejecting the allegation that Thomas acted as a peace-broker for her and Martin. Hakim tweeted the statement, but the story was never updated online and remained unchanged as of the publication of this story.
Kremer told the Free Beacon that the Times disregarded her background denials in order to push a false narrative about Thomas. And she said it was "egregious" that the Times did not update its story when she issued an on-the-record comment that cast doubt on one of the article's biggest claims.
"The NYT seems to be more of an activist organization than a media outlet focused on real journalism," Kremer told the Free Beacon. "They certainly have no regard for...
Exclusive: Researcher Tells Durham He Saw Holes In The Alfa Bank Hoax Before Democrats Shopped It To The FBI
Last week’s cache of documents is not the first to confirm that Manos Antonakakis rejected the Alfa Bank-Trump secret communication theory before it was peddled to the FBI.
A Georgia Tech researcher says he tried to politely throw cold water on a key part of the Russia collusion hoax before the Alfa Bank lie was eventually shopped to the media and government agencies, according to a newly obtained document. This new detail was one of several revealed in a document drafted by George Tech’s Manos Antonakakis—the man branded “Researcher-1” in Special Counsel John Durham’s indictment of Michael Sussmann on one count of lying to FBI General Counsel James Baker.
As I explained previously, “that indictment alleged that when Sussmann met with Baker on September 19, 2016, to provide the FBI attorney with data and ‘white papers’ that purported to establish a secret communication channel between the Trump organization and the Russia-connected Alfa Bank, Sussmann falsely claimed he was not acting on behalf of a client, when in reality Sussmann was working both for the Clinton campaign and an unnamed ‘U.S. technology industry executive’ since confirmed to be Rodney Joffe.”
After the Sussmann indictment dropped, Antonakakis emailed his private lawyers and an attorney and higher-ups at Georgia Tech a document entitled “fallacies” that purported to identify several portions of the indictment he claimed are false or misleading. Last week, The Federalist reported on several details contained in an abbreviated version of the “fallacies” document obtained from Georgia Tech pursuant to a Right-to-Know request.
On Thursday, The Federalist received a more complete version of the summary drafted by Antonakakis two days after news broke of Sussmann’s indictment. That version included Antonakakis’s synopsis of what he told Durham’s team about the Alfa Bank hoax.
“This part has been taken out of context,” Antonakakis wrote of the indictment’s excerpt from an email he had sent to Joffe after reviewing a draft white paper laying out the Alfa Bank-Trump theory. That excerpt to Joffe read: “A DNS expert would poke several holes to this hypothesis (primarily around visibility, about which very smartly you do not talk about). That being said, I do not think even the top security (non-DNS) researcher can refute your statements. Nice!”
“If my memory serves me right,” Antonakakis wrote, “I was explicit when I told them that I was not the creator or even an editor of this document.” “I told them that I said what I said in my review of this document,” Antonakakis continued, “because this IMHO [was] the best and most polite way I can tell [Joffe] that this analysis is not great.”
So, according to Antonakakis, it was manners that caused him to tell Joffe he “very smartly” did not discuss the main “hole” in the Alfa Bank analysis. It was also proper deportment that compelled the Georgia Tech expert to exclaim “Nice!” to the fact that “even the top security (non-DNS) researchers” would be unable to refute Joffe’s statements.
Last week’s cache of documents is not the first to confirm that Antonakakis had rejected the Alfa Bank-Trump secret communication network theory posited in the white paper Sussmann later presented to the FBI’s general counsel. In an earlier email obtained from...
Now You're Talking: Trump Offers a Proposal to Destroy the Deep State
Virtually all Americans believed, until the inauguration of Donald Trump as president on January 20, 2017, that when someone became president, he could begin to implement his agenda. Certainly Old Joe Biden’s handlers have done so with a vengeance since they took over; but when Trump became president, he immediately began to encounter resistance from entrenched members of the government bureaucracy who refused to do as he ordered. Some worked actively against Trump, while the establishment media assured us that these self-appointed “deep state” saboteurs were the courageous guardians of “our democracy.” At his South Carolina rally Saturday night, Trump continued to tease a 2024 run and made a new promise about how he would break the power of the unelected “deep state.”
“We will pass critical reforms,” Trump said, “making every executive branch employee fireable by the president of the United States. The deep state must and will be brought to heel.”
It’s a commonsensical solution, as Ohio Senate candidate J.D. Vance pointed out. “Everyone is losing their mind about this, but I’ve been calling for it at every town hall I do. Either the president controls the executive branch or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t, we don’t live in a Republic, we live in a civil service driven oligarchy.”
Quite so. And although the “deep state” only came to the attention of most Americans over the last few years, the controversy over the hiring and firing of civil service employees is one of the oldest controversies of the republic. As Rating America’s Presidents explains, Andrew Jackson was elected president in 1828 on promises to end the hegemony of a privileged aristocracy, and, to drain that swamp, he would need his own men in key...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)