dailysignal--2020-10-02--The Unscientific Attack on the Science of Dr. Scott Atlas

The news media until recently had rarely criticized the medical advice of experts—especially those who worked for federal bureaucracies , international organizations , or elite universities .
Yet the much-praised Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus , director-general of the World Health Organization , has demonstrably weakened the effort to fight COVID-19 .
During the critical initial weeks of the virus ’ spread , Tedros parroted Chinese propaganda .
He falsely assured a complacent world that the virus was likely not transmissible between humans and did not warrant travel bans .
That Tedros was the first WHO director not to have a medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is known to the public for his past advocacy of the Obama administration ’ s Affordable Care Act .
Although he now advises 77-year-old presidential candidate Joe Biden , Emanuel once wrote an article for The Atlantic titled “ Why I hope to die at 75 , ” contending that that life after age 75 is , and should be , mostly over—now an eerie idea in a time of a pandemic that targets the elderly .
Emanuel has often weighed in on the COVID-19 pandemic , sometimes in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acquired collective immunity and a viable vaccine were not likely to come soon .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
Yet Emanuel also has been largely exempt from media criticism .
No reporters have questioned his epidemiological expertise despite his background as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The esteemed Dr. Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , has given conflicting advice on the use of masks , quarantining , and the methods of viral transmission .
Yet such inconsistency is either ignored or chalked up by the media to the usual learning curve of dealing with a new epidemic .
So why—other than politics—is there now a concerted media attack on Dr. Scott Atlas , an adviser to the Trump administration on COVID-19 policy ?
Atlas has had a distinguished career as one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He has become a national expert on public health policy , especially in the cost-benefit analysis of government programs .
After COVID-19 arrived in the U.S. , Atlas consistently warned that government must follow science , not politics , in doing the least amount of harm to its people .
He has reminded us that those under 65 rarely die from COVID-19 , and that those infected who are younger than 20 usually do not show any serious symptoms .
Accordingly , Atlas has urged the states to focus more resources on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the vast majority of COVID-19 deaths—and allow younger Americans to reenter schools and the workforce with appropriate caution .
Atlas has also warned that the available test data on COVID-19 ’ s infectiousness , spread , and morbidity must be handled with care , given that those who feel sick are more likely to get tested .
He argues that those with some natural protection from the virus , either through antibodies from an asymptotic past infection or through T-cells , may be a far larger group than previously thought .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government must be careful not to endanger Americans with draconian lockdowns that curtail needed medical examinations , procedures , and treatments .
Just as dangerous as the disease may be quarantine-related spikes in mental illness , substance abuse , child and spousal abuse , and depression from lost livelihoods .
Children may be suffering irreparable harm from being locked down and kept out of school .
Atlas has shown that these policy choices unfortunately entail bad options and even worse ones , rather than good choices and even better alternatives .
He has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but rather has reminded us to look at scientific data that often belies media sensationalism .
Many in the media , some of his former colleagues at Stanford Medical School and some other Stanford faculty members have claimed that Atlas—a colleague of mine at the Hoover Institution—has acted unprofessionally .
They allege that he has downplayed the lethality of the virus , implying that he is aiding the administration ’ s efforts to ease out of the quarantine .
Yet few , if any , of these complainants have cited supporting evidence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
Often the accusations turn puerile , suggesting that Atlas can ’ t be a public health expert because he was originally a neuroradiologist .
In fact , rarely reported is that many members of the Stanford community are honored by its medical school receiving global acclaim for its diversity of expert scientific opinion on the virus .
Nobel Prize-winning biophysicist Michael Levitt of Stanford , along with several stellar Stanford epidemiologists , have been praised worldwide for their careful critiques of often media-generated misconceptions—especially on the overreliance on COVID-19 positive test @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
How ironic that some critics fault Atlas for not following science , but they do so in a fashion that is completely … well , unscientific .
( C ) 2020 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY , LLC .

The news media until recently had rarely criticized the medical advice of experts—especially those who worked for federal bureaucracies, international organizations, or elite universities.
Yet the much-praised Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the World Health Organization, has demonstrably weakened the effort to fight COVID-19.
During the critical initial weeks of the virus’ spread, Tedros parroted Chinese propaganda. He falsely assured a complacent world that the virus was likely not transmissible between humans and did not warrant travel bans. That Tedros was the first WHO director not to have a medical degree was seldom cited by the media.
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is known to the public for his past advocacy of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act. Although he now advises 77-year-old presidential candidate Joe Biden, Emanuel once wrote an article for The Atlantic titled “Why I hope to die at 75,” contending that that life after age 75 is, and should be, mostly over—now an eerie idea in a time of a pandemic that targets the elderly.
Emanuel has often weighed in on the COVID-19 pandemic, sometimes in overly pessimistic fashion by suggesting that some acquired collective immunity and a viable vaccine were not likely to come soon.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
Yet Emanuel also has been largely exempt from media criticism. No reporters have questioned his epidemiological expertise despite his background as an oncologist specializing in breast cancer.
The esteemed Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has given conflicting advice on the use of masks, quarantining, and the methods of viral transmission. Yet such inconsistency is either ignored or chalked up by the media to the usual learning curve of dealing with a new epidemic.
So why—other than politics—is there now a concerted media attack on Dr. Scott Atlas, an adviser to the Trump administration on COVID-19 policy?
Atlas has had a distinguished career as one of world’s top neuroradiologists. He has become a national expert on public health policy, especially in the cost-benefit analysis of government programs.
After COVID-19 arrived in the U.S., Atlas consistently warned that government must follow science, not politics, in doing the least amount of harm to its people. He has reminded us that those under 65 rarely die from COVID-19, and that those infected who are younger than 20 usually do not show any serious symptoms.
Accordingly, Atlas has urged the states to focus more resources on the most vulnerable—those over 65, who account for the vast majority of COVID-19 deaths—and allow younger Americans to reenter schools and the workforce with appropriate caution.
Atlas has also warned that the available test data on COVID-19’s infectiousness, spread, and morbidity must be handled with care, given that those who feel sick are more likely to get tested. He argues that those with some natural protection from the virus, either through antibodies from an asymptotic past infection or through T-cells, may be a far larger group than previously thought.
But most importantly, Atlas has warned that government must be careful not to endanger Americans with draconian lockdowns that curtail needed medical examinations, procedures, and treatments.
Just as dangerous as the disease may be quarantine-related spikes in mental illness, substance abuse, child and spousal abuse, and depression from lost livelihoods. Children may be suffering irreparable harm from being locked down and kept out of school.
Atlas has shown that these policy choices unfortunately entail bad options and even worse ones, rather than good choices and even better alternatives. He has not played down the dangers of COVID-19 but rather has reminded us to look at scientific data that often belies media sensationalism.
Many in the media, some of his former colleagues at Stanford Medical School and some other Stanford faculty members have claimed that Atlas—a colleague of mine at the Hoover Institution—has acted unprofessionally. They allege that he has downplayed the lethality of the virus, implying that he is aiding the administration’s efforts to ease out of the quarantine.
Yet few, if any, of these complainants have cited supporting evidence, either from what Atlas has written or said. Often the accusations turn puerile, suggesting that Atlas can’t be a public health expert because he was originally a neuroradiologist.
In fact, rarely reported is that many members of the Stanford community are honored by its medical school receiving global acclaim for its diversity of expert scientific opinion on the virus.
Nobel Prize-winning biophysicist Michael Levitt of Stanford, along with several stellar Stanford epidemiologists, have been praised worldwide for their careful critiques of often media-generated misconceptions—especially on the overreliance on COVID-19 positive test data to calibrate viral prevalence and morbidly.
How ironic that some critics fault Atlas for not following science, but they do so in a fashion that is completely … well, unscientific.
(C) 2020 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.


dailysignal--2020-10-02--Protect Elderly Votes Project Aims to Thwart ‘Ballot-Harvesting’ Fraud

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic , the push for widespread mail-in voting and other alternatives to going to the polls ahead of the presidential election has increased the risk of vote fraud through “ ballot harvesting , ” and the elderly are particularly vulnerable , advocates warn .
To protect seniors , especially those with physical impairments , the American Constitutional Rights Union ( ACRU ) is stepping up its efforts to prevent what it calls “ Stranger Danger ” through its Protect Elderly Votes project .
The ACRU is a Naples , Florida-based right-leaning nonprofit dedicated to what it says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution and Bill of Rights .
Not only are those 65 and older more likely to be victims of COVID-19 , they are also increasingly at risk of falling prey to voter fraud this election year , ACRU President Lori Roman said .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s because many seniors rely on assistance in voting from staffers of nursing homes and assisted-living facilities , as well as from political activists .
The latter may target the elderly living in those facilities , disguising their true intentions with offers to help “ fill out ” and deliver voter-registration cards and ballot forms .
Political operatives also have been known to approach seniors near their homes and polling stations , and in residential facilities , with offers of “ voting assistance.
” The operatives ’ true objective might be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the physical factors that make seniors particularly vulnerable to those forms of voter fraud are health conditions , such as vision and hearing impairments and/or mobility challenges , according to the ACRU ’ s Senior Citizen Voter Bill of Rights .
Such physical impairments make them prime targets for political activists intent on committing vote fraud and ballot manipulation under the guise of “ assisting the elderly.
” Along with physical challenges , seniors may face cognitive problems , such as dementia or other forms of memory decline .
But seniors can protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Vote in person whenever possible .
That ’ s the most secure way to vote .
Seniors who are not able to vote in person and have to use an absentee ballot should ensure that no one touches or tampers with their ballot , and that no one coerces them or tries to fill it out for them .
If they ’ re in a facility , and they fill out their absentee ballot , they need to fill it out themselves , and they need to mail it themselves using the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to anyone else .
Either turn in the ballot yourself or give it to a trusted family member to turn it in .
Seniors should also be wary of handing over their ballots to organizations claiming to be nonpartisan , Roman said , adding : That “ ballot harvesting ” has increased as the presidential election nears .
The ACRU recently reported widespread cases of ballot harvesting in Florida by third-party organizations , such as the left-leaning League of Women Voters and possibly also the American Civil Liberties Union , Roman said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to offer their “ assistance.
” To counter the practice of illegal ballot harvesting and to raise awareness of the growing risk of vote fraud , the “ Stranger Danger ” campaign has also contacted dozens of nursing homes across the country alerting the directors about the prevalence of ballot harvesting and offering to provide residents of the facilities with copies of its Senior Citizen Voter Bill of Rights .

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the push for widespread mail-in voting and other alternatives to going to the polls ahead of the presidential election has increased the risk of vote fraud through “ballot harvesting,” and the elderly are particularly vulnerable, advocates warn.
To protect seniors, especially those with physical impairments, the American Constitutional Rights Union is stepping up its efforts to prevent what it calls “Stranger Danger” through its Protect Elderly Votes project. The American Constitutional Rights Union is a Naples, Florida-based right-leaning nonprofit dedicated to what it says is safeguarding the liberties enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Not only are those 65 and older more likely to be victims of COVID-19, they are also increasingly at risk of falling prey to voter fraud this election year, American Constitutional Rights Union President Lori Roman said.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
That’s because many seniors rely on assistance in voting from staffers of nursing homes and assisted living facilities, as well as from political activists. The latter may target the elderly living in those facilities, disguising their true intentions with offers to help “fill out” and deliver voter registration cards and ballot forms.
Political operatives also have been known to approach seniors near their homes and polling stations, and in residential facilities, with offers of “voting assistance.” The operatives’ true objective might be to manipulate or change votes.
Among the physical factors that make seniors particularly vulnerable to those forms of voter fraud are health conditions, such as vision and hearing impairments and/or mobility challenges, according to the American Constitutional Rights Union’s Senior Citizen Voter Bill of Rights.
Such physical impairments make them prime targets for political activists intent on committing vote fraud and ballot manipulation under the guise of “assisting the elderly.”
Along with physical challenges, seniors may face cognitive problems, such as dementia or other forms of memory decline.
But seniors can protect themselves from vote fraud, Roman said:
Vote in person whenever possible. That’s the most secure way to vote. Seniors who are not able to vote in person and have to use an absentee ballot should ensure that no one touches or tampers with their ballot, and that no one coerces them or tries to fill it out for them. If they’re in a facility, and they fill out their absentee ballot, they need to fill it out themselves, and they need to mail it themselves using the mailbox at the facility and not hand it to anyone else. Either turn in the ballot yourself or give it to a trusted family member to turn it in.
Seniors should also be wary of handing over their ballots to organizations claiming to be nonpartisan, Roman said, adding:
We have, through our hotline, received tips that nonprofit leftist-leaning organizations all over the country—two in particular—are trying to harvest ballots from the elderly and assisted living facilities. They are claiming that they will take the ballots and get them to the election office for the citizens.
That “ballot harvesting” has increased as the presidential election nears.
The American Constitutional Rights Union recently reported widespread cases of ballot harvesting in Florida by third-party organizations, such as the left-leaning League of Women Voters and possibly also the American Civil Liberties Union, Roman said. The groups may be using the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to offer their “assistance.”
To counter the practice of illegal ballot harvesting and to raise awareness of the growing risk of vote fraud, the “Stranger Danger” campaign has also contacted hundreds of nursing homes across the country, alerting the directors about the prevalence of ballot harvesting and offering to provide residents of the facilities with copies of its Senior Citizen Voter Bill of Rights.
This article has been updated on the number of nursing homes contacted by the American Constitutional Rights Union about ballot harvesting.


dailysignal--2020-10-02--Biased Media in the Woke Era

Biased Media in the Woke Era

That was The Washington Post ’ s headline about Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
But when Justice Antonin Scalia died , the headline was , “ Supreme Court conservative dismayed liberals.
” When the founder of ISIS was killed , the headline was : “ Austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State , dies.
” But when President Donald Trump ’ s brother died , the headline was , “ younger brother of President Trump who filed lawsuit against niece , dies.
” At news conferences , Vice President Joe Biden gets softball questions .
After an article in The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ losers , ” one reporter asked Biden , “ What does it tell you about President Trump ’ s soul ?
” “ It ’ s not even softball !
” complains The Hill ’ s media reporter , Joe Concha .
“ It ’ s T-ball , except when you put a beach ball on the tee !
” What we used to call “ mainstream media ” is now “ woke ” media .
Many don ’ t even try to be objective .
That ’ s the topic of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CNN during this summer ’ s protests , I noticed that reporters kept calling protests “ mostly peaceful , ” even when reporting violence .
CNN posted the words , “ Mostly peaceful protests ” on the screen when flaming cars were on the street behind their reporter .
CNN defended itself , citing a study that said “ 93 % of protests were… peaceful.
” But that ’ s silly .
When planes crash , we don ’ t put “ 99 % landed safely ” on the screen .
As Concha @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dying and losing their businesses , that ’ s your story !
” I push back : “ Most people who work there consider themselves journalists .
They try to get it right.
” “ I don ’ t know if I agree with that , John , ” Concha replies .
“ More and more are playing to a crowd.
” CNN once tried to look like a neutral news network .
No more .
Now it does whatever it can to scare people or make Trump look bad .
In March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misleading people by claiming the U.S. did more COVID-19 tests than any other country .
They , correctly , pointed out that per capita , “ South Korea and Italy tested many times more.
” > > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
CNN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But then , to make Trump look worse , CNN suddenly stopped adjusting for population .
They scolded the president , saying , “ The U.S. had more coronavirus cases than any country in the world !
” But that ’ s just wrong !
Adjusted for population , 28 countries , including France , England , Ireland , and Norway had more cases .
I asked their spokesperson if CNN considers its reporting objective .
No response .
During the Democratic National Convention , CNN didn ’ t bother fact-checking Democrats ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech at the Republican Convention , CNN suddenly put up a black ticker tape “ fact-check ” across the screen .
Why not fact-check the Democratic National Convention , too ?
“ There ’ s a reason we didn ’ t fact-check Democrats !
” said CNN ’ s Chris Cuomo .
“ They are not lying the way Trump does.
” But they lie , too .
Democrats were deceitful enough that the Associated Press and BBC found a need to fact-check .
For example , Michelle Obama complained that under Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ families and thrown into cages !
” But that border-control policy began under her husband ’ s administration .
CNN ’ s Van Jones admits that CNN overtly favors Biden , saying after Biden ’ s acceptance speech , “ As long as he didn ’ t embarrass himself , we were going to come out here and praise it.
” “ Maybe CNN ’ s just being honest , ” I say to Concha .
When I was at ABC , everyone pretended to be apolitical ( but nearly all were on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ CNN ’ s prime-time lineup , Anderson Cooper , Chris Cuomo , and Don Lemon , have the title of anchor , not opinion maker.
” Fox at least calls its prime-time anchors “ opinion ” hosts .
News hosts like Chris Wallace and Bret Baier play it pretty straight .
It ’ s clear that most reporters don ’ t like Trump–or even Republicans .
Last election , 96 % of journalists ’ political donations went to Hillary Clinton .
“ Our national media are in two cities , New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ When you ’ re surrounded by everybody else in a city and newsroom that goes the other way , it ’ s almost impossible not to start to conform .
”

“A pioneer devoted to equality.”
That was The Washington Post’s headline about Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
But when Justice Antonin Scalia died, the headline was, “Supreme Court conservative dismayed liberals.”
When the founder of ISIS was killed, the headline was: “Austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State dies.”
But when President Donald Trump’s brother died, the headline was, “Younger brother of President Trump who filed lawsuit against niece dies.”
At news conferences, former Vice President Joe Biden gets softball questions. After an article in The Atlantic claimed Trump called fallen military members “losers,” one reporter asked Biden, “What does it tell you about President Trump’s soul?”
“It’s not even softball!” complains The Hill’s media reporter, Joe Concha. “It’s T-ball, except when you put a beach ball on the tee!”
Trump does get nastier questions.
What we used to call “mainstream media” is now “woke” media. Many don’t even try to be objective. That’s the topic of my new video this week.
Watching CNN during this summer’s protests, I noticed that reporters kept calling protests “mostly peaceful,” even when reporting violence. CNN posted the words “mostly peaceful protests” on the screen when flaming cars were on the street behind its reporter.
CNN defended itself, citing a study that said “93% of protests were … peaceful.”
But that’s silly. When planes crash, we don’t put “99% landed safely” on the screen. As Concha puts it, “When people start dying and losing their businesses, that’s your story!”
I push back: “Most people who work there consider themselves journalists. They try to get it right.”
“I don’t know if I agree with that, John,” Concha replies. “More and more are playing to a crowd.”
CNN once tried to look like a neutral news network. No more. Now it does whatever it can to scare people or make Trump look bad.
In March, CNN sneered at the president for misleading people by claiming the U.S. did more COVID-19 tests than any other country. It, correctly, pointed out that per capita, “South Korea and Italy tested many times more.”
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
CNN was right to adjust for population. But then, to make Trump look worse, CNN suddenly stopped adjusting for population.
It scolded the president, saying, “The U.S. had more coronavirus cases than any country in the world!”
But that’s just wrong. Adjusted for population, 28 countries, including France, England, Ireland, and Norway, had more cases.
CNN sneers at Trump all day.
I asked its spokesperson if CNN considers its reporting objective. No response.
During the Democratic National Convention, CNN didn’t bother fact-checking Democrats’ speeches. But during Trump’s speech at the Republican Convention, CNN suddenly put up a black ticker tape “fact-check” across the screen.
Why not fact-check the Democratic National Convention, too? “There’s a reason we didn’t fact-check Democrats!” said CNN’s Chris Cuomo. “They are not lying the way Trump does.”
But they lie, too.
Democrats were deceitful enough that The Associated Press and BBC found a need to fact-check.
For example, former first lady Michelle Obama complained that under Trump, “children are torn from their families and thrown into cages!” But that border control policy began under her husband’s administration.
CNN’s Van Jones admits that CNN overtly favors Biden, saying after Biden’s acceptance speech, “As long as he didn’t embarrass himself, we were going to come out here and praise it.”
“Maybe CNN’s just being honest,” I say to Concha. When I was at ABC, everyone pretended to be apolitical (but nearly all were on the left).
Concha replies, “CNN’s prime-time lineup, Anderson Cooper, Chris Cuomo, and Don Lemon, have the title of anchor, not opinion-maker.”
Fox at least calls its prime-time anchors “opinion” hosts. News hosts like Chris Wallace and Bret Baier play it pretty straight.
It’s clear that most reporters don’t like Trump—or even Republicans. Last election, 96% of journalists’ political donations went to Hillary Clinton.
Why?
“Our national media are in two cities, New York and Washington,” says Concha. “When you’re surrounded by everybody else in a city and newsroom that goes the other way, it’s almost impossible not to start to conform.”
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM


dailysignal--2020-10-02--‘I’ve Said It Many Times’: Trump Condemns KKK, White Supremacists, Proud Boys

President Donald Trump condemned white supremacists , the Ku Klux Klan , and the Proud Boys in a Thursday evening interview .
“ I ’ ve said it many times , let me be clear again , I condemn the KKK , I condemn all white supremacists , I condemn the Proud Boys , ” Trump told Fox News host Sean Hannity .
“ I don ’ t know much about the Proud Boys , almost nothing , but I condemn that.
” “ He should condemn also Antifa , ” Trump added , referring to former Vice President Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group of people .
They kill people , what they do to people , and they are causing insurrection , causing riots.
” “ He doesn ’ t want to do that , but the press doesn ’ t go after him .
And that ’ s a really bad group of people , ” Trump added .
“ I condemn them .
If I say it 100 times , it won ’ t be enough because it ’ s fake news , ” the president continued .
His comments come after moderator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supremacists during Tuesday night ’ s debate .
“ I ’ m willing to do that , ” Trump said .
“ I ’ m willing to do anything .
I want to see peace.
” The president emphasized that most of the violence he has seen lately has been caused by Antifa , while Biden and Wallace pushed him to condemn white supremacist groups .
“ What do you want to call them ?
” Trump asked .
“ Give me a name .
Give me a name .
Who would you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden named the Proud Boys , Trump responded : “ Proud Boys , stand back and stand by .
Somebody has to do something about Antifa and the left because this is not a right-wing problem , this is a left-wing.
” The president walked back this statement to reporters at the White House Wednesday .
“ I don ’ t know who the Proud Boys are .
I mean , you ’ ll have to give me a definition because I don ’ t know who they are .
They have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their work , ” Trump told reporters .
“ But whoever they are , they have to stand down.
” Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of this original content , email [ email protected ]

President Donald Trump condemned white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Proud Boys in a Thursday evening interview.
“I’ve said it many times, let me be clear again, I condemn the KKK, I condemn all white supremacists, I condemn the Proud Boys,” Trump told Fox News host Sean Hannity. “I don’t know much about the Proud Boys, almost nothing, but I condemn that.”
“He should condemn also Antifa,” Trump added, referring to former Vice President Joe Biden. “Antifa is a horrible group of people. They kill people, what they do to people, and they are causing insurrection, causing riots.”
“He doesn’t want to do that, but the press doesn’t go after him. And that’s a really bad group of people,” Trump added.
“I condemn them. If I say it 100 times, it won’t be enough because it’s fake news,” the president continued.
His comments come after moderator Chris Wallace asked Trump to condemn white supremacists during Tuesday night’s debate.
“I’m willing to do that,” Trump said. “I’m willing to do anything. I want to see peace.”
The president emphasized that most of the violence he has seen lately has been caused by Antifa, while Biden and Wallace pushed him to condemn white supremacist groups.
“What do you want to call them?” Trump asked. “Give me a name. Give me a name. Who would you like me to condemn?”
When Biden named the Proud Boys, Trump responded: “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. Somebody has to do something about Antifa and the left because this is not a right-wing problem, this is a left-wing.”
The president walked back this statement to reporters at the White House Wednesday.
“I don’t know who the Proud Boys are. I mean, you’ll have to give me a definition because I don’t know who they are. They have to stand down, let law enforcement do their work,” Trump told reporters. “But whoever they are, they have to stand down.”
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


dailysignal--2020-10-02--‘Safe Injection Sites’ Don’t Work Well. Just Ask Canada.

If you ’ ve never heard of “ safe injection sites ” –public facilities for drug users to consume heroin , fentanyl , and methamphetamine under the supervision of medical staff–you probably will soon .
In cities such as Philadelphia , Denver , and San Francisco , drug legalization activists have launched a campaign to create such sites .
When challenged , activists point to Canada , which they have long cited as a model of enlightened drug policies .
In their policy proposals and campaign literature , drug legalization advocates argue that safe injection sites in Canada–particularly the Insite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overdose deaths and saved lives .
They should ask a few Canadians .
In cities throughout the Great White North , a group of insurgent leaders has begun to turn against safe injection sites–and they are winning with voters .
Since 2016 , anti-safe injection site candidates have won the premierships of Ontario , Alberta , and Manitoba .
Their argument is simple : Safe injection sites have not delivered on their promises and have caused a significant increase in trash , crime , and disorder .
Public health experts have built safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ creating problems for long-time residents .
As Ontario Premier Doug Ford told reporters : “ If I put ( a safe injection site ) beside your house , you ’ d be going ballistic.
” Activists–who never seem to live within shouting distance of these sites–often respond that “ privileged ” neighbors must shoulder the burden in pursuit of “ saving lives.
” But an emerging body of evidence suggests safe injection sites may cause more harm than good .
In Alberta , public health authorities released a bombshell report that showed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or opioid-related emergency calls .
And they led to an increase in crime , discarded needles , and social disorder in surrounding neighborhoods .
Residents complained that they were not involved in the process and felt “ less safe than before.
” After the release of the report , Alberta Premier Jason Kenney announced that the provincial government would consider closing or relocating some of the safe injection sites .
Politically , critics can not dismiss this major reversal as happening in conservative or backwater provinces .
Ontario , Alberta , and Manitoba @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provinces , and home to the progressive urban populations of Toronto , Calgary , and Winnipeg .
Premiers Doug Ford , Jason Kenney , and Brian Pallister all rose to power as political insurgents , challenging the ideology of “ harm reduction ” and channeling public frustration about safe injection sites .
Since taking office , Ford cut funding for three safe injection sites , Kenney froze funding for new safe injection facilities , and Pallister announced his intention to support law enforcement over harm reduction .
What does this mean for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narrative on harm reduction–that it saves lives without collateral costs– can not be maintained .
Safe injection sites have an extremely poor record of moving drug users into treatment and recovery , with some referral rates as low as 1 % .
As a result , neighborhoods that host safe injection sites , like the Downtown Eastside in Vancouver , often devolve into open-air drug markets , with hundreds of homeless addicts sleeping in the streets .
This , of course , only compounds the problem and externalizes the social costs onto neighbors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in progressive Canada , safe injection sites are not as popular as activists had hoped .
To the contrary , safe injection sites are driving a backlash that has empowered conservative political parties in Canadian cities , suburbs , and rural areas .
Although American harm reduction activists have firmly embedded themselves in the social service bureaucracy of major cities , there is no guarantee that their ideas will come to fruition .
Already , in some American cities that have come closest to implementing safe injection sites , there are echoes of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five cities surrounding Seattle quickly passed local ordinances banning safe injection sites ; U.S. Attorney Brian Mora warned Seattle lawmakers that any attempt to a create safe injection site would immediately be shut down by the federal government .
Earlier this year , Philadelphia announced it would open the nation ’ s first safe injection site , then quickly reversed course after working-class residents in South Philadelphia rebelled against the plan .
Moving forward , opponents of “ harm reduction ” in the United States must build on these successes and develop a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safe injection sites .
American political leaders can learn an important lesson from their Canadian counterparts : There is no such thing as safely using heroin , fentanyl , and methamphetamine .
Voters have a greater understanding of this simple truth than harm reduction activists and ideologically committed public health officials .
It ’ s up to savvy political leaders to turn this key insight into political power .

If you’ve never heard of “safe injection sites”—public facilities for drug users to consume heroin, fentanyl, and methamphetamine under the supervision of medical staff—you probably will soon. In cities such as Philadelphia, Denver, and San Francisco, drug legalization activists have launched a campaign to create such sites.
When challenged, activists point to Canada, which they have long cited as a model of enlightened drug policies. In their policy proposals and campaign literature, drug legalization advocates argue that safe injection sites in Canada—particularly the Insite facility in Vancouver, British Columbia—have prevented overdose deaths and saved lives.
They should ask a few Canadians. In cities throughout the Great White North, a group of insurgent leaders has begun to turn against safe injection sites—and they are winning with voters. Since 2016, anti-safe injection site candidates have won the premierships of Ontario, Alberta, and Manitoba.
Their argument is simple: Safe injection sites have not delivered on their promises and have caused a significant increase in trash, crime, and disorder. Public health experts have built safe injection facilities with little public input, creating problems for long-time residents.
As Ontario Premier Doug Ford told reporters: “If I put (a safe injection site) beside your house, you’d be going ballistic.”
Activists—who never seem to live within shouting distance of these sites—often respond that “privileged” neighbors must shoulder the burden in pursuit of “saving lives.” But an emerging body of evidence suggests safe injection sites may cause more harm than good.
In Alberta, public health authorities released a bombshell report that showed the sites did not reduce overall overdose deaths or opioid-related emergency calls. And they led to an increase in crime, discarded needles, and social disorder in surrounding neighborhoods.
Residents complained that they were not involved in the process and felt “less safe than before.” After the release of the report, Alberta Premier Jason Kenney announced that the provincial government would consider closing or relocating some of the safe injection sites.
Politically, critics cannot dismiss this major reversal as happening in conservative or backwater provinces. Ontario, Alberta, and Manitoba are three of the five largest Canadian provinces, and home to the progressive urban populations of Toronto, Calgary, and Winnipeg. Premiers Doug Ford, Jason Kenney, and Brian Pallister all rose to power as political insurgents, challenging the ideology of “harm reduction” and channeling public frustration about safe injection sites.
Since taking office, Ford cut funding for three safe injection sites, Kenney froze funding for new safe injection facilities, and Pallister announced his intention to support law enforcement over harm reduction.
What does this mean for the United States?
First, the activist narrative on harm reduction—that it saves lives without collateral costs—cannot be maintained. Safe injection sites have an extremely poor record of moving drug users into treatment and recovery, with some referral rates as low as 1%.
As a result, neighborhoods that host safe injection sites, like the Downtown Eastside in Vancouver, often devolve into open-air drug markets, with hundreds of homeless addicts sleeping in the streets. This, of course, only compounds the problem and externalizes the social costs onto neighbors and small businesses.
Second, even in progressive Canada, safe injection sites are not as popular as activists had hoped. To the contrary, safe injection sites are driving a backlash that has empowered conservative political parties in Canadian cities, suburbs, and rural areas.
Although American harm reduction activists have firmly embedded themselves in the social service bureaucracy of major cities, there is no guarantee that their ideas will come to fruition.
Already, in some American cities that have come closest to implementing safe injection sites, there are echoes of the Canadian uprising.
In 2017, five cities surrounding Seattle quickly passed local ordinances banning safe injection sites. U.S. Attorney Brian Mora warned Seattle lawmakers that any attempt to create a safe injection site would immediately be shut down by the federal government.
Earlier this year, Philadelphia announced it would open the nation’s first safe injection site, then quickly reversed course after working-class residents in South Philadelphia rebelled against the plan.
Moving forward, opponents of “harm reduction” in the United States must build on these successes and develop a coordinated strategy to prevent the establishment of safe injection sites. American political leaders can learn an important lesson from their Canadian counterparts: There is no such thing as safely using heroin, fentanyl, and methamphetamine.
Voters have a greater understanding of this simple truth than harm reduction activists and ideologically committed public health officials. It’s up to savvy political leaders to turn this key insight into political power.
Originally published by ArcaMax


dailysignal--2020-10-02--After COVID-19 Diagnosis, Trump Hospitalized, Says He’s ‘Doing Very Well’

President Donald Trump announced late Friday that he was checking into Walter Reed National Military Medical Center after testing positive the day before for COVID-19 .
“ I want to thank everybody for the tremendous support .
I ’ m going to Walter Reed Hospital , ” Trump said in a brief video announcement from the White House .
“ I think we ’ re doing very well , but we ’ re going to make sure things work out .
The first lady is doing very well.
” First lady Melania Trump , who also tested positive for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The COVID-19 pandemic has killed more than 200,000 Americans , most of them older and with underlying conditions .
Trump , at 74 , is considered in the high risk category .
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said the hospital move was out of “ an abundance of caution.
” “ President Trump remains in good spirits , has mild symptoms , and has been working throughout the day , ” McEnany said .
“ Out of an abundance of caution , and at the recommendation of his physician and medical experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the presidential offices at Walter Reed for the next few days .
President Trump appreciates the outpouring of support for both he and the first lady .
”

President Donald Trump announced late Friday that he was checking into Walter Reed National Military Medical Center after testing positive the day before for COVID-19.
“I want to thank everybody for the tremendous support. I’m going to Walter Reed hospital,” Trump said in a brief video announcement from the White House.
“I think we’re doing very well, but we’re going to make sure things work out,” the president said. “The first lady is doing very well.”
First lady Melania Trump, who also tested positive for the virus, is not being hospitalized and remained at the White House.
The COVID-19 pandemic has killed more than 200,000 Americans, most of them older and with underlying conditions.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
Trump, at 74, is considered in the high risk category.
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said the hospital move was out of “an abundance of caution.”
“President Trump remains in good spirits, has mild symptoms, and has been working throughout the day,” McEnany said. “Out of an abundance of caution, and at the recommendation of his physician and medical experts, the president will be working from the presidential offices at Walter Reed for the next few days. President Trump appreciates the outpouring of support for both he and the first lady.”


dailysignal--2020-10-02--The Corporate Media’s Shameful Ignoring of Riots and Looting

The downtowns of numerous American cities have been burned up .
Government buildings have been attacked .
Private businesses have been destroyed .
And people have even been killed .
This has been happening off and on now for many months .
And—perhaps most amazing and horrifying of all—the news media has decided to largely ignore it .
Detailed coverage would undercut the “ mostly peaceful ” narrative that many want to cling to .
When things get really out of control , the corporate media is forced to report on them in summary fashion , but they have largely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would do in virtually any other circumstance .
Reporting of that sort is coming from a relatively small number of independent publishers , none more than my own publication , the Daily Caller .
The Daily Caller has sent reporters to every hot spot in America , from Washington , D.C. , to Seattle , to Portland , Oregon , and Kenosha , Wisconsin .
The fact that this medium-sized news outlet has more gruesome footage of what ’ s really going on in our streets than huge corporate media outlets should scare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporate media ’ s choice to largely ignore this coverage is , in essence , a decision to distort reality .
In the face of this vacuum , we have been filling the void .
Our reporters are in the middle of many dangerous riots , and they are there with only one goal : Tell the truth about what they are seeing .
They have told stories of peaceful protesters trying to confront the radical and violent elements .
They have told stories of brutal attacks by rioters against police just trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told stories of times when police response seemed too aggressive .
They have told stories of organized radical attacks against government buildings .
They have told stories of protesters attacking journalists .
They have also told stories of right-wing vigilantes attacking innocent people .
If it happens on the ground and they see it , they tell it straight .
That ’ s the job as it ’ s supposed to be done .
I could not be prouder of the ( generally young ) reporters we have out on our streets .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this coverage .
It ’ s flat-out dangerous .
We have had reporters threatened , chased , punched , and even shot at during these protests that too often turn into riots .
One thing that has never happened until now , though , is for our reporters ’ constitutional right to undertake this coverage to come under attack by government authorities .
That all changed last week in Louisville , Kentucky .
Daily Caller reporters Shelby Talcott and Jorge Ventura were on the streets of Louisville on Sept. 23 in the wake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Breonna Taylor shooting case .
As so many nights sadly do , that night turned violent in Louisville .
Two police officers were shot at .
Our reporters were out after the protest was declared an “ unlawful assembly.
” They were still out because the protesters and rioters were still on the streets , so they had a job to do covering the chaos that was happening .
They were also still out because the Louisville Police themselves had assured them earlier in the day that their rights would be protected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ titled “ MEDIA UPDATE IN REFERENCE TO CURFEW AND UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY , ” the Louisville Police Department said : Despite this assurance , both of our reporters were arrested on the ground in Louisville .
The charges—completely contrary to the assurances from the Louisville Police earlier in the evening—are “ failure to disperse ” and “ unlawful assembly.
” Upon arrest , our editor-in-chief , Geoff Ingersoll , contacted the Louisville Police immediately .
He was surprised and relieved to get through to a real person in all the chaos .
He told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mistake and two of his reporters were arrested despite following guidelines , and he offered to confirm their identities as reporters .
Despite this , our reporters were each held overnight and for most of the following day in small cells with rioters—many of whom may want to do them harm for daring to report on their activities .
What ’ s worse , they have now been arraigned , and the charges still have not been dropped .
These two reporters have covered more protests and more riots than any others we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They have traveled the country on a protest and riot coverage tour .
They are good at it .
They know what they are doing .
They have never been arrested or even close to it .
They did not break the law .
Both charges require the offender to be acting for an unlawful purpose .
News reporting is the opposite .
As a practical matter , we should all be glad these reporters are brave enough to do this dangerous work .
If they were not , we would not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ available to show the American people the brutal loss of life and property taking place .
Police in every other American city have allowed our reporters to do their jobs and tell these stories .
Most police are thankful for our balanced and accurate portrayals , which often show just what a tough situation they are facing night after night .
As a legal matter , our Founding Fathers were wise enough to foresee all of this and enshrine protections for the press in the very first amendment to our Constitution .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apparently didn ’ t get the memo on this .
We are going to teach them all about it .

The downtowns of numerous American cities have been burned up. Government buildings have been attacked. Private businesses have been destroyed. And people have even been killed. This has been happening off and on now for many months. And—perhaps most amazing and horrifying of all—the news media has decided to largely ignore it.
Detailed coverage would undercut the “mostly peaceful” narrative that many want to cling to. When things get really out of control, the corporate media is forced to report on them in summary fashion, but they have largely abandoned the day-to-day, on-the-ground reporting they would do in virtually any other circumstance. Reporting of that sort is coming from a relatively small number of independent publishers, none more than my own publication, the Daily Caller.
The Daily Caller has sent reporters to every hot spot in America, from Washington, D.C., to Seattle, to Portland, Oregon, and Kenosha, Wisconsin. The fact that this medium-sized news outlet has more gruesome footage of what’s really going on in our streets than huge corporate media outlets should scare the hell out of you.
The corporate media’s choice to largely ignore this coverage is, in essence, a decision to distort reality. In the face of this vacuum, we have been filling the void.
Our reporters are in the middle of many dangerous riots, and they are there with only one goal: Tell the truth about what they are seeing.
They have told stories of peaceful protesters trying to confront the radical and violent elements. They have told stories of brutal attacks by rioters against police just trying to keep the peace. They have told stories of times when police response seemed too aggressive. They have told stories of organized radical attacks against government buildings. They have told stories of protesters attacking journalists. They have also told stories of right-wing vigilantes attacking innocent people.
If it happens on the ground and they see it, they tell it straight. That’s the job as it’s supposed to be done.
I could not be prouder of the (generally young) reporters we have out on our streets. We never force any reporter to do this coverage. It’s flat-out dangerous. We have had reporters threatened, chased, punched, and even shot at during these protests that too often turn into riots.
One thing that has never happened until now, though, is for our reporters’ constitutional right to undertake this coverage to come under attack by government authorities. That all changed last week in Louisville, Kentucky.
Daily Caller reporters Shelby Talcott and Jorge Ventura were on the streets of Louisville on Sept. 23 in the wake of the prosecutors’ charging decisions in the Breonna Taylor shooting case. As so many nights sadly do, that night turned violent in Louisville.
Two police officers were shot at. Our reporters were out after the protest was declared an “unlawful assembly.” They were still out because the protesters and rioters were still on the streets, so they had a job to do covering the chaos that was happening.
They were also still out because the Louisville Police themselves had assured them earlier in the day that their rights would be protected. In an official email to press titled “MEDIA UPDATE IN REFERENCE TO CURFEW AND UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY,” the Louisville Police Department said:
Media can absolutely observe and film all activity going on during these protests’ events. Media is not subject to the curfew if they are working and providing coverage to a designated audience. When a declaration of an unlawful assembly is given, media is expected to remain as a bystander/observer of the activity, not a participant, or in any way hinder the operations of officers
Despite this assurance, both of our reporters were arrested on the ground in Louisville. The charges—completely contrary to the assurances from the Louisville Police earlier in the evening—are “failure to disperse” and “unlawful assembly.”
Upon arrest, our editor-in-chief, Geoff Ingersoll, contacted the Louisville Police immediately. He was surprised and relieved to get through to a real person in all the chaos. He told an officer that there had been a mistake and two of his reporters were arrested despite following guidelines, and he offered to confirm their identities as reporters.
Despite this, our reporters were each held overnight and for most of the following day in small cells with rioters—many of whom may want to do them harm for daring to report on their activities. What’s worse, they have now been arraigned, and the charges still have not been dropped.
These two reporters have covered more protests and more riots than any others we are aware of in the entire country. They have traveled the country on a protest and riot coverage tour. They are good at it. They know what they are doing. They have never been arrested or even close to it. They did not break the law. Both charges require the offender to be acting for an unlawful purpose. News reporting is the opposite.
As a practical matter, we should all be glad these reporters are brave enough to do this dangerous work. If they were not, we would not have half the stories and video footage available to show the American people the brutal loss of life and property taking place.
Police in every other American city have allowed our reporters to do their jobs and tell these stories. Most police are thankful for our balanced and accurate portrayals, which often show just what a tough situation they are facing night after night.
As a legal matter, our Founding Fathers were wise enough to foresee all of this and enshrine protections for the press in the very first amendment to our Constitution. The inept Louisville Police Department and Louisville prosecutors apparently didn’t get the memo on this. We are going to teach them all about it.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM


dailysignal--2020-10-02--Protect Elderly Votes Project Aims to Thwart ‘Ballot Harvesting’ Fraud

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic , the push for widespread mail-in voting and other alternatives to going to the polls ahead of the presidential election has increased the risk of vote fraud through “ ballot harvesting , ” and the elderly are particularly vulnerable , advocates warn .
To protect seniors , especially those with physical impairments , the American Constitutional Rights Union is stepping up its efforts to prevent what it calls “ Stranger Danger ” through its Protect Elderly Votes project .
The American Constitutional Rights Union is a Naples , Florida-based right-leaning nonprofit dedicated to what it says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution and Bill of Rights .
Not only are those 65 and older more likely to be victims of COVID-19 , they are also increasingly at risk of falling prey to voter fraud this election year , American Constitutional Rights Union President Lori Roman said .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more here .
That ’ s because many seniors rely on assistance in voting from staffers of nursing homes and assisted living facilities , as well as from political activists .
The latter may target the elderly living in those facilities , disguising their true intentions with offers to help “ fill out ” and deliver voter registration cards and ballot forms .
Political operatives also have been known to approach seniors near their homes and polling stations , and in residential facilities , with offers of “ voting assistance.
” The operatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or change votes .
Among the physical factors that make seniors particularly vulnerable to those forms of voter fraud are health conditions , such as vision and hearing impairments and/or mobility challenges , according to the American Constitutional Rights Union ’ s Senior Citizen Voter Bill of Rights .
Such physical impairments make them prime targets for political activists intent on committing vote fraud and ballot manipulation under the guise of “ assisting the elderly.
” Along with physical challenges , seniors may face cognitive problems , such as dementia or other forms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect themselves from vote fraud , Roman said : Vote in person whenever possible .
That ’ s the most secure way to vote .
Seniors who are not able to vote in person and have to use an absentee ballot should ensure that no one touches or tampers with their ballot , and that no one coerces them or tries to fill it out for them .
If they ’ re in a facility , and they fill out their absentee ballot , they need to fill it out themselves , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mailbox at the facility and not hand it to anyone else .
Either turn in the ballot yourself or give it to a trusted family member to turn it in .
Seniors should also be wary of handing over their ballots to organizations claiming to be nonpartisan , Roman said , adding : That “ ballot harvesting ” has increased as the presidential election nears .
The American Constitutional Rights Union recently reported widespread cases of ballot harvesting in Florida by third-party organizations , such as the left-leaning League of Women Voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Union , Roman said .
The groups may be using the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to offer their “ assistance.
” To counter the practice of illegal ballot harvesting and to raise awareness of the growing risk of vote fraud , the “ Stranger Danger ” campaign has also contacted dozens of nursing homes across the country , alerting the directors about the prevalence of ballot harvesting and offering to provide residents of the facilities with copies of its Senior Citizen Voter Bill of Rights .


dailysignal--2020-10-04--Trump ‘Doing Really Well,’ Could Be Released From Hospital Soon, His Doctor Says

President Donald Trump could be released from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center , where he ’ s being treated for COVID-19 , as early as Monday if his condition continues to improve .
“ The fact of the matter is , is that he is doing really well , that he is — he is responding , ” Trump ’ s doctor , Navy Cmdr .
Dr. Sean Conley , said Sunday at a press conference at the hospital .
“ And as the team said , if everything continues to go well , we ’ re going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House.
” > > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
Trump has been at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center since Friday evening , after he and first lady Melania Trump tested positive for the coronavirus .
The president reportedly had two episodes of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Friday morning before he went to the hospital and again on Saturday , but Dr. Sean Dooley , a pulmonary critical care physician , said the president has been steadily improving .
“ The patient continues to improve , ” Dooley said .
“ He has remained without fever since Friday morning .
His vital signs are stable.
” In a press conference Saturday , Conley said that Trump received a first dose of remdesivir , a broad-spectrum antiviral medication , on Friday evening and will be treated for five days with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows expressed concern about Trump ’ s health in an interview with Fox News ’ Jeanine Pirro .
“ He ’ s made unbelievable improvements from yesterday morning , when I know a number of us , the doctor and I , were very concerned , ” Meadows said , adding : The biggest thing that we see is that , with no fever now , and with him doing really well with his oxygen saturation levels … yesterday morning , we were real concerned with that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fever , and his blood oxygen level had dropped rapidly … and yet , in typical style , this president was up and walking around .
In a video released Saturday from the medical center , Trump said that he “ wasn ’ t feeling so well , ” but that he feels “ much better now.
” “ We ’ re working hard to get me all the way back , ” the president said .
Trump also briefly appeared in a vehicle to drive past supporters of his gathered outside the @ @

President Donald Trump could be released from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, where he’s being treated for COVID-19, as early as Monday if his condition continues to improve.
“The fact of the matter is, is that he is doing really well, that he is—he is responding,” Trump’s doctor, Navy Cmdr. Dr. Sean Conley, said Sunday at a press conference at the hospital. “And as the team said, if everything continues to go well, we’re going to start discharge planning back to the White House.”
Trump has been at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center since Friday evening, after he and first lady Melania Trump tested positive for the coronavirus.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
The president reportedly had two episodes of a drop in oxygen, once on Friday morning before he went to the hospital and again on Saturday, but Dr. Sean Dooley, a pulmonary critical care physician, said the president has been steadily improving.
“The patient continues to improve,” Dooley said. “He has remained without fever since Friday morning. His vital signs are stable.”
In a press conference Saturday, Conley said that Trump received a first dose of remdesivir, a broad-spectrum antiviral medication, on Friday evening and will be treated for five days with the IV drug.
On Saturday night, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows expressed concern about Trump’s health in an interview with Fox News’ Jeanine Pirro.
“He’s made unbelievable improvements from yesterday morning, when I know a number of us, the doctor and I, were very concerned,” Meadows said, adding:
The biggest thing that we see is that, with no fever now, and with him doing really well with his oxygen saturation levels … yesterday morning, we were real concerned with that. You know, he had a fever, and his blood oxygen level had dropped rapidly … and yet, in typical style, this president was up and walking around.
In a video released Saturday from the medical center, Trump said that he “wasn’t feeling so well,” but that he feels “much better now.”
“We’re working hard to get me all the way back,” the president said.
Trump also briefly appeared in a vehicle to drive past supporters of his gathered outside the hopsital.


dailysignal--2020-10-06--Trump Returns to White House After 3-Day Hospitalization for COVID-19

President Donald Trump returned to the White House on Monday evening after being discharged from a military hospital where he was treated for COVID-19 for three days .
Within an hour , the president released a video in which he urged Americans not to let the disease “ dominate your lives.
” After disembarking Marine One , the helicopter that flew him back , Trump climbed stairs to a White House balcony where he took off a mask , saluted as the aircraft lifted off , waved , and gave a thumbs-up .
The president had walked out of Walter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mask at 6:42 p.m. , giving a thumbs-up to cameras outside the facility in Bethesda , Maryland .
As Trump strolled to the armored sport utility vehicle that took him to Marine One outside the hospital , a reporter shouted to ask whether he is a “ super spreader ” of the disease caused by the new coronavirus .
After reaching the SUV , the president turned and gave another thumbs-up and fist pump .
The helicopter was wheels up at 6:46 p.m. , according to the press pool report , and landed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Just before 8 p.m. , the president tweeted out a new video from the White House , in which he thanked his caregivers at Walter Reed , touted advances in drugs and treatment , and urged Americans not to let COVID-19 “ dominate your lives.
” “ We ’ re the greatest country in the world .
We ’ re going back , we ’ re going back to work , we ’ re going to be out front , ” Trump said , adding : As your leader , I had to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s danger to it , but I had to do it .
I stood out front .
I led .
Nobody that ’ s a leader would not do what I did .
And I know there ’ s a risk , there ’ s a danger , but that ’ s OK. And now I ’ m better , and maybe I ’ m immune , I don ’ t know .
But don ’ t let it dominate your lives .
Get out there , be careful .
The helicopter ride @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before touchdown on the South Lawn of the White House .
After getting out , Trump waved and walked up the South Portico steps , where he turned , buttoned his suit jacket , and gave a long salute .
He said a few words , but the press pool reported that the words were inaudible .
The president announced in a tweet early Friday that he and first lady Melania Trump had tested positive for COVID-19 , the disease that has killed more than 200,000 Americans since spreading around the world from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
Since Trump tested positive Thursday night for COVID-19 , several high-level White House staffers , among them press secretary Kayleigh McEnany , also have tested positive .
At 74 and somewhat overweight , Trump is in a high risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were moderate .
“ Feeling really good !
Don ’ t be afraid of Covid .
Don ’ t let it dominate your life , ” Trump tweeted earlier Monday .
“ We have developed , under the Trump Administration , some really great drugs & knowledge .
I feel better than I did 20 years ago !
” On Sunday , a masked Trump left the hospital briefly for a short motorcade in his SUV to wave to supporters gathered outside since Friday .
The White House said the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospital “ out of an abundance of caution.
” Dr. Sean Conley , the president ’ s physician , said earlier Monday that Trump had “ exceeded all standard hospital discharge criteria.
” “ The team and I agree that all our evaluations—and , most importantly , his clinical status—support the president ’ s safe return home , where he ’ ll be surrounded by world-class medical care 24/7 , ” Conley said .
Doctors reportedly put the president on eight different medications , including remdesivir , which is among the most common @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monoclonal , an antibody “ cocktail ” of several drugs ; the steroid dexamethasone ; famotidine , widely known by the brand name Pepcid ; vitamin D ; melatonin , a naturally occurring hormone with antioxidant , anti-inflammatory properties ; and aspirin ; and zinc .
The first lady also tweeted Monday .
“ I am feeling good & will continue to rest at home .
Thank you to medical staff & caretakers everywhere , & my continued prayers for those who are ill or have a family member impacted by the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @

President Donald Trump returned to the White House on Monday evening after being discharged from a military hospital where he was treated for COVID-19 for three days. Within an hour, the president released a video in which he urged Americans not to let the disease “dominate your lives.”
After disembarking Marine One, the helicopter that flew him back, Trump climbed stairs to a White House balcony where he took off a mask, saluted as the aircraft lifted off, waved, and gave a thumbs-up.
The president had walked out of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center wearing a mask at 6:42 p.m., giving a thumbs-up to cameras outside the facility in Bethesda, Maryland.
As Trump strolled to the armored sport utility vehicle that took him to Marine One outside the hospital, a reporter shouted to ask whether he is a “super spreader” of the disease caused by the new coronavirus. After reaching the SUV, the president turned and gave another thumbs-up and fist pump.
The helicopter was wheels up at 6:46 p.m., according to the press pool report, and landed at the White House at 6:57.
Just before 8 p.m., the president tweeted out a new video from the White House, in which he thanked his caregivers at Walter Reed, touted advances in drugs and treatment, and urged Americans not to let COVID-19 “dominate your lives.”
“We’re the greatest country in the world. We’re going back, we’re going back to work, we’re going to be out front,” Trump said, adding:
As your leader, I had to do that. I knew there’s danger to it, but I had to do it. I stood out front. I led. Nobody that’s a leader would not do what I did. And I know there’s a risk, there’s a danger, but that’s OK. And now I’m better, and maybe I’m immune, I don’t know. But don’t let it dominate your lives. Get out there, be careful.
“And the vaccines are coming momentarily,” Trump added.
The helicopter ride from Walter Reed took about 10 minutes before touchdown on the South Lawn of the White House.
After getting out, Trump waved and walked up the South Portico steps, where he turned, buttoned his suit jacket, and gave a long salute. He said a few words, but the press pool reported that the words were inaudible.
The president announced in a tweet early Friday that he and first lady Melania Trump had tested positive for COVID-19, the disease that has killed more than 200,000 Americans since spreading around the world from Wuhan, China.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
Since Trump tested positive Thursday night for COVID-19, several high-level White House staffers, among them press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, also have tested positive.
At 74 and somewhat overweight, Trump is in a high risk category. However, his symptoms reportedly were moderate.
“Feeling really good! Don’t be afraid of Covid. Don’t let it dominate your life,” Trump tweeted earlier Monday. “We have developed, under the Trump Administration, some really great drugs & knowledge. I feel better than I did 20 years ago!”
I will be leaving the great Walter Reed Medical Center today at 6:30 P.M. Feeling really good! Don’t be afraid of Covid. Don’t let it dominate your life. We have developed, under the Trump Administration, some really great drugs & knowledge. I feel better than I did 20 years ago! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 5, 2020
On Sunday, a masked Trump left the hospital briefly for a short motorcade in his SUV to wave to supporters gathered outside since Friday.
It is reported that the Media is upset because I got into a secure vehicle to say thank you to the many fans and supporters who were standing outside of the hospital for many hours, and even days, to pay their respect to their President. If I didn’t do it, Media would say RUDE!!! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 5, 2020
The White House said the president’s doctors advised him to check into the hospital “out of an abundance of caution.”
Dr. Sean Conley, the president’s physician, said earlier Monday that Trump had “exceeded all standard hospital discharge criteria.”
“The team and I agree that all our evaluations—and, most importantly, his clinical status—support the president’s safe return home, where he’ll be surrounded by world-class medical care 24/7,” Conley said.
Doctors reportedly put the president on eight different medications, including remdesivir, which is among the most common antiviral drugs given to COVID-19 patients; monoclonal, an antibody “cocktail” of several drugs; the steroid dexamethasone; famotidine, widely known by the brand name Pepcid; vitamin D; melatonin, a naturally occurring hormone with antioxidant, anti-inflammatory properties; and aspirin; and zinc.
The first lady also tweeted Monday.
“I am feeling good & will continue to rest at home. Thank you to medical staff & caretakers everywhere, & my continued prayers for those who are ill or have a family member impacted by the virus,” she wrote on Twitter.
My family is grateful for all of the prayers & support! I am feeling good & will continue to rest at home. Thank you to medical staff & caretakers everywhere, & my continued prayers for those who are ill or have a family member impacted by the virus. — Melania Trump (@FLOTUS) October 5, 2020
Ken McIntyre contributed to this report.


dailysignal--2020-10-06--Tens of Thousands of Cases of Possible Voter Fraud Cited in New Report

One of the constant refrains from those who oppose election reforms designed to protect the security and integrity of the voting process is that serious vote fraud is a myth .
But as a shocking new report from the Public Interest Legal Foundation shows , those naysayers could not be more wrong .
The foundation ’ s report , “ Critical Condition , ” highlights the severity of the problem : inaccurate voter rolls , duplicate registrations , dead voters , and incomplete registrations—all of which allow fraud by those willing to exploit vulnerabilities in the system .
The foundation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election fraud in the 2016 and 2018 elections , ranging from individuals illegally voting in multiple states to someone voting in the name of a deceased person .
The Public Interest Legal Foundation created the type of database that President Donald Trump ’ s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity wanted to create , but was prevented from doing so by numerous frivolous lawsuits filed by the left .
Many state governors and election officials also refused to provide data to the commission , which is why it was shut down before it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foundation obtained voter registration and voter history data from 42 states .
It had to sue three states—Illinois , Maine , and Maryland—to get what is supposed to be public information after they refused to comply with their own laws .
All of this information was put into the Safeguarding America ’ s Votes and Elections database .
It was then supplemented with information from other commercial and government data sources , such as credit agencies , obituaries , and the Social Security Death Index .
By supplementing the voter registration information , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to sift out as many “ false positives ” as possible .
A false positive in data comparisons occurs when two different individuals have the same name and birthdate .
For example , “ John James Smith ” born July 4 , 1976 , appearing on two state voter registration lists may actually be two different people .
By leveraging other identifying information , such as commercial data , Social Security numbers , and credit address histories , one can eliminate most , if not all , false positives that have plagued prior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now has what it says is “ the best platform ever constructed to analyze the health of voter rolls and catalog potential vote fraud vulnerabilities.
” So , what did the Public Interest Legal Foundation uncover ?
There are currently 349,773 deceased registrants on the voter rolls in 41 states .
The worst states in this regard are Michigan , Florida , New York , Texas , and California , which account for roughly 51 % of the dead voters who are still mistakenly registered .
Even worse , state records show that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the grave in the 2016 presidential election and 6,718 did so in the 2018 congressional elections .
If that weren ’ t bad enough , the foundation also found that : — 8,360 individuals registered and voted in two different states during the 2018 election .
— 43,760 individuals were registered more than once at the same address and cast second votes in the 2016 election , while 37,889 individuals appeared to have voted twice from the same registration address in 2018 .
( Thousands of these apparent double votes were exclusively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cast ballots twice in the same state from two different registration addresses in 2018 .
— 34,000 voters appeared to have used nonresidential , commercial addresses—such as gas stations , casinos , and restaurants—to register to vote .
That last problem—registering at a commercial address—is a serious issue .
In fact , Rep. Steve Watkins , R-Kan. , was charged with election fraud in July for claiming a UPS store as his residence when he registered to vote , and then voting in a 2019 municipal election in Topeka , Kansas .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found that 17 ballots were cast from a self-storage facility in Compton , California , and four ballots were cast from the NPR headquarters in Culver City , California .
The Heritage Election Fraud Database of almost 1,300 proven cases of fraud is just a sampling and not a comprehensive list of election fraud cases .
As we note , it “ does not capture reported instances that are not investigated or prosecuted.
” Those reported cases are likely just the tip of the iceberg .
As the Public Interest Legal Foundation ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other potential cases of election fraud , just from the last two federal elections .
These should be investigated by election officials and prosecuted by law enforcement officials if the information it uncovered is correct .
Downplaying the risks and vulnerabilities for fraud in the current system only exacerbates existing problems and compromises the most sacred right a free people have .
As the Heritage Election Fraud Database and the latest Public Interest Legal Foundation report show , the threat of vote fraud is real—and it could make a difference in a close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hans von Spakovsky serves on the board of the Public Interest Legal Foundation .

One of the constant refrains from those who oppose election reforms designed to protect the security and integrity of the voting process is that serious vote fraud is a myth.
But as a shocking new report from the Public Interest Legal Foundation shows, those naysayers could not be more wrong.
The foundation’s report, “Critical Condition,” highlights the severity of the problem: inaccurate voter rolls, duplicate registrations, dead voters, and incomplete registrations—all of which allow fraud by those willing to exploit vulnerabilities in the system.
The foundation discovered more than 140,000 instances of potential election fraud in the 2016 and 2018 elections, ranging from individuals illegally voting in multiple states to someone voting in the name of a deceased person.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation created the type of database that President Donald Trump’s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity wanted to create, but was prevented from doing so by numerous frivolous lawsuits filed by the left.
Many state governors and election officials also refused to provide data to the commission, which is why it was shut down before it could even do any research.
The foundation obtained voter registration and voter history data from 42 states. It had to sue three states—Illinois, Maine, and Maryland—to get what is supposed to be public information after they refused to comply with their own laws.
All of this information was put into the Safeguarding America’s Votes and Elections database. It was then supplemented with information from other commercial and government data sources, such as credit agencies, obituaries, and the Social Security Death Index.
By supplementing the voter registration information, the Public Interest Legal Foundation was able to sift out as many “false positives” as possible.
A false positive in data comparisons occurs when two different individuals have the same name and birthdate. For example, “John James Smith” born July 4, 1976, appearing on two state voter registration lists may actually be two different people.
By leveraging other identifying information, such as commercial data, Social Security numbers, and credit address histories, one can eliminate most, if not all, false positives that have plagued prior reports from other entities.
The foundation now has what it says is “the best platform ever constructed to analyze the health of voter rolls and catalog potential vote fraud vulnerabilities.”
So, what did the Public Interest Legal Foundation uncover?
There are currently 349,773 deceased registrants on the voter rolls in 41 states. The worst states in this regard are Michigan, Florida, New York, Texas, and California, which account for roughly 51% of the dead voters who are still mistakenly registered.
Even worse, state records show that 7,890 of these deceased voters cast ballots from the grave in the 2016 presidential election and 6,718 did so in the 2018 congressional elections.
If that weren’t bad enough, the foundation also found that:
— 8,360 individuals registered and voted in two different states during the 2018 election.
— 43,760 individuals were registered more than once at the same address and cast second votes in the 2016 election, while 37,889 individuals appeared to have voted twice from the same registration address in 2018. (Thousands of these apparent double votes were exclusively mail-in ballots.)
— 5,500 voters cast ballots twice in the same state from two different registration addresses in 2018.
— 34,000 voters appeared to have used nonresidential, commercial addresses—such as gas stations, casinos, and restaurants—to register to vote.
That last problem—registering at a commercial address—is a serious issue. In fact, Rep. Steve Watkins, R-Kan., was charged with election fraud in July for claiming a UPS store as his residence when he registered to vote, and then voting in a 2019 municipal election in Topeka, Kansas.
In 2018, the foundation’s research found that 17 ballots were cast from a self-storage facility in Compton, California, and four ballots were cast from the NPR headquarters in Culver City, California.
The Heritage Election Fraud Database of almost 1,300 proven cases of fraud is just a sampling and not a comprehensive list of election fraud cases. As we note, it “does not capture reported instances that are not investigated or prosecuted.” Those reported cases are likely just the tip of the iceberg.
As the Public Interest Legal Foundation’s report shows, there are 144,117 other potential cases of election fraud, just from the last two federal elections. These should be investigated by election officials and prosecuted by law enforcement officials if the information it uncovered is correct.
Downplaying the risks and vulnerabilities for fraud in the current system only exacerbates existing problems and compromises the most sacred right a free people have.
As the Heritage Election Fraud Database and the latest Public Interest Legal Foundation report show, the threat of vote fraud is real—and it could make a difference in a close election.
Editor’s note: Hans von Spakovsky serves on the board of the Public Interest Legal Foundation.


dailysignal--2020-10-05--‘Vote for America’ Ad Campaign Focuses on Dangers of Far-Left Policies

The Heritage Foundation on Monday announced a new $ 1.1 million “ Fight for America , Vote for America ” advertising campaign .
The three 30-second ads will air for four weeks on the Discovery Channel , HGTV , the History Channel , and Fox News , and will focus on the “ dystopian goals of the extreme left and activate the nation for a better America , ” Heritage said .
“ America ’ s great experiment in liberty needs defending , and The Heritage Foundation is at the forward edge of the fight for our future , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a public statement , adding : The radical left has a different idea about what America should be and has shown that it will hold nothing back to achieve its objectives .
Many politicians who share the left ’ s beliefs refuse to do anything to stop the violence or to even denounce it .
… The Heritage Foundation offers hope and won ’ t surrender to those who only offer havoc .
We will fight for America against the mob and against socialism , and we ’ re asking millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ founding ideals it represents to join us .
The Washington-based conservative think tank , the parent organization of The Daily Signal , produced three 30-second TV spots .
One focuses on the rioting in Portland , Oregon .
The second ad focuses on the history of progress in the United States because of freedom and on how the left and socialist policies could reverse it .
The third ad takes a “ field trip ” to Venezuela , Cuba , and North Korea .
The ads will direct viewers to Heritage ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where they can register to vote and engage in other ways .
The website states : “ As the far left threatens to take more control of our lives and livelihoods , Heritage proclaims this truth : Only freedom can produce prosperity and improve everyone ’ s quality of life .
No matter who you are , protecting your freedom is our top priority .
Join us as we fight for America !
” The ads outline the choice between two different visions , Heritage said , in which the “ far left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives and livelihoods and appears ready to use any means necessary to achieve power , ” adding :

The Heritage Foundation on Monday announced a new $1.1 million “Fight for America, Vote for America” advertising campaign.
The three 30-second ads will air for four weeks on the Discovery Channel, HGTV, the History Channel, and Fox News, and will focus on the “dystopian goals of the extreme left and activate the nation for a better America,” Heritage said.
“America’s great experiment in liberty needs defending, and The Heritage Foundation is at the forward edge of the fight for our future,” Heritage Foundation President Kay C. James said in a public statement, adding:
The radical left has a different idea about what America should be and has shown that it will hold nothing back to achieve its objectives. Many politicians who share the left’s beliefs refuse to do anything to stop the violence or to even denounce it. … The Heritage Foundation offers hope and won’t surrender to those who only offer havoc. We will fight for America against the mob and against socialism, and we’re asking millions of Americans who love their country and the founding ideals it represents to join us.
The Washington-based conservative think tank, the parent organization of The Daily Signal, produced three 30-second TV spots.
One focuses on the rioting in Portland, Oregon.
The second ad focuses on the history of progress in the United States because of freedom and on how the left and socialist policies could reverse it.
The third ad takes a “field trip” to Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea.
The ads will direct viewers to Heritage’s “Fight for America” website, where they can register to vote and engage in other ways.
The website states: “As the far left threatens to take more control of our lives and livelihoods, Heritage proclaims this truth: Only freedom can produce prosperity and improve everyone’s quality of life. No matter who you are, protecting your freedom is our top priority. Join us as we fight for America!”
The ads outline the choice between two different visions, Heritage said, in which the “far left threatens to take more control of our lives and livelihoods and appears ready to use any means necessary to achieve power,” adding:


Fake Fact-Checking

A few days later , Facebook inserted a warning on my video : “ Missing Context .
Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead.
” Some of my viewers now feel betrayed .
One wrote : “ Shameful , John … what happened to you !
!
?
Your reporting was always fair … [ but ] your … fires story was so … unfair , even Facebook tagged it.
” Worse , Facebook says that because my video is labeled misleading , it will show my content to fewer people .
This kills me .
My news model counts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ videos .
I confronted the fact-checkers .
That ’ s the topic of my newest video .
Facebook ‘ s “ fact check ” links to a page from a group called Climate Feedback that claims it sorts “ fact from fiction ” about climate change .
It posted this complaint about my video : “ Forest fires are caused by poor management .
Not by climate change.
” It calls that claim “ misleading.
” But I never said that !
In my video , I acknowledged : “ Climate change has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3 degrees over 50 years.
” I don ’ t know where Climate Feedback got its quote .
Made it up ?
Quoted someone else ?
Facebook lets activists restrict my videos based on something I never said .
Now , Facebook is a private company that can censor anything it wants .
I understand the pressure it feels .
All kinds of people demand that Facebook ban posts they don ’ t like .
There ’ s no way Facebook can police everything .
The site carries billions of posts .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information flow .
People will gradually learn to sort truth from lies .
But to please politicians , Facebook now lets other people censor its content .
Mark Zuckerberg told Congress , “ We work with a set of independent fact-checkers.
” That ’ s how Climate Feedback got its power .
Facebook made it a fact-checker .
Facebook says I can appeal its throttling of my video , but my appeal must go to Climate Feedback , possibly the very activists who ’ d made up quotes from me .
I tried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Climate Feedback ’ s editor .
She didn ’ t respond .
But two of the three scientists listed as reviewers agreed to interviews .
The first was Stefan Doerr of Swansea University .
When I asked why he smeared me based on something I never said , he replied , “ I ’ ve never commented on your article.
” That was a shock .
He hadn ’ t seen my video .
Preview ( opens in a new tab ) ( opens in a new tab ) Add title I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Facebook cited when labeling my video “ misleading.
” The page lists him as a “ reviewer.
” “ If this is implying that we have reviewed the video , ” said Doerr , “ then this is clearly wrong .
There ’ s something wrong with the system.
” There sure is .
Doerr guessed that my video was flagged because I ’ d interviewed environmentalist Michael Shellenberger .
His new book “ Apocalypse Never ” criticizes environmental alarmism .
Climate Feedback says Shellenberger makes “ overly simplistic argumentation about climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hausfather , a climate scientist at the Breakthrough Institute .
He hadn ’ t seen my video either .
“ I certainly did not write a Climate Feedback piece reviewing your segment.
” So , I sent him the video .
After he watched it , I asked , “ Is [ misleading ] a fair label ?
” “ I don ’ t necessarily think so , ” he replied .
“ While there are plenty of debates around how much to emphasize fire management vs. climate change , your piece clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After those confrontations , Climate Feedback ’ s editor finally responded to our emails .
She gave us an address where we could file a complaint .
They wrote back , “ after reviewing the video ” ( at least they now watched it ) , they stand by their smear because the “ video misleads viewers by oversimplifying the drivers of wildfires.
” And both scientists I interviewed wrote to say , yes , we agree , the video downplays the role of climate change .
That ’ s what this censorship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shellenberger dares say , “ A small change in temperature is not the difference between normalcy and catastrophe.
” Climate Feedback doesn ’ t want people to hear that .
It ’ s wrong for Facebook to give these activists the power to throttle videos they don ’ t like .

Recently, I released a video that called California’s fires “government fueled.”
A few days later, Facebook inserted a warning on my video: “Missing Context. Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead.”
Some of my viewers now feel betrayed. One wrote: “Shameful, John … what happened to you!!? Your reporting was always fair … [but] your … fires story was so … unfair, even Facebook tagged it.”
A “fact check” from Facebook carries weight.
Worse, Facebook says that because my video is labeled misleading, it will show my content to fewer people.
This kills me. My news model counts on social media companies showing people my videos.
I confronted the fact-checkers. That’s the topic of my newest video.
Facebook‘s “fact check” links to a page from a group called Climate Feedback that claims it sorts “fact from fiction” about climate change.
It posted this complaint about my video: “Forest fires are caused by poor management. Not by climate change.” It calls that claim “misleading.”
It is misleading.
But I never said that! In my video, I acknowledged: “Climate change has made things worse. California has warmed 3 degrees over 50 years.”
I don’t know where Climate Feedback got its quote. Made it up? Quoted someone else?
Facebook lets activists restrict my videos based on something I never said.
Now, Facebook is a private company that can censor anything it wants. I understand the pressure it feels. All kinds of people demand that Facebook ban posts they don’t like.
There’s no way Facebook can police everything. The site carries billions of posts.
I wish it’d just let the information flow. People will gradually learn to sort truth from lies.
But to please politicians, Facebook now lets other people censor its content. Mark Zuckerberg told Congress, “We work with a set of independent fact-checkers.”
That’s how Climate Feedback got its power. Facebook made it a fact-checker.
Facebook says I can appeal its throttling of my video, but my appeal must go to Climate Feedback, possibly the very activists who’d made up quotes from me.
I tried to appeal. I emailed Nikki Forrester, Climate Feedback’s editor. She didn’t respond. But two of the three scientists listed as reviewers agreed to interviews.
The first was Stefan Doerr of Swansea University.
When I asked why he smeared me based on something I never said, he replied, “I’ve never commented on your article.”
That was a shock. He hadn’t seen my video.
Edit Post
Preview(opens in a new tab)(opens in a new tab)Add title
I referred him to the Climate Feedback webpage that Facebook cited when labeling my video “misleading.” The page lists him as a “reviewer.”
“If this is implying that we have reviewed the video,” said Doerr, “then this is clearly wrong. There’s something wrong with the system.”
There sure is.
Doerr guessed that my video was flagged because I’d interviewed environmentalist Michael Shellenberger.
His new book “Apocalypse Never” criticizes environmental alarmism. Climate Feedback says Shellenberger makes “overly simplistic argumentation about climate change.”
Its other reviewer was Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at the Breakthrough Institute. He hadn’t seen my video either. “I certainly did not write a Climate Feedback piece reviewing your segment.”
So, I sent him the video. After he watched it, I asked, “Is [misleading] a fair label?”
“I don’t necessarily think so,” he replied. “While there are plenty of debates around how much to emphasize fire management vs. climate change, your piece clearly discussed that both were at fault.”
After those confrontations, Climate Feedback’s editor finally responded to our emails. She gave us an address where we could file a complaint.
We did.
They wrote back, “after reviewing the video” (at least they now watched it), they stand by their smear because the “video misleads viewers by oversimplifying the drivers of wildfires.” And both scientists I interviewed wrote to say, yes, we agree, the video downplays the role of climate change.
That’s what this censorship is about. In my video, Shellenberger dares say, “A small change in temperature is not the difference between normalcy and catastrophe.” Climate Feedback doesn’t want people to hear that.
It’s wrong for Facebook to give these activists the power to throttle videos they don’t like.
COPYRIGHT 2020 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM