• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

“These Are Deeply Troubling Developments”!

The 2020 Election is Breaking the Legal Profession

Sanctioning lawyers who are fighting to uphold the country’s election process is a great way to scare away competent, qualified, and strong ones from taking charged cases.

By Deion A. Kathawa at American Greatness:

August 6, 2021

The Hill reports that a Colorado federal magistrate judge, N. Reid Neureiter, “sanctioned lawyers who challenged the 2020 presidential election results, calling their election claims ‘fantastical.’” “Plaintiffs’ counsel shall jointly and severally pay the moving Defendants’ reasonable attorneys [fees]”—which is very likely to be many thousands of dollars. This ruling comes while a federal district judge in Michigan, Linda Parker, considers imposing sanctions on attorneys Sidney Powell and Lin Wood, both of whom raised questions about the propriety of the 2020 presidential election. 

In January, James Boasberg, a federal district judge in Washington, D.C., “referred a Minnesota lawyer [Erick Kardaal] for potential discipline” for his lawsuit regarding the last election. And these three proceedings occur in the shadow of the sanctioning of Rudy Giuliani by a New York state appellate court, which saw fit to suspend his law license for representing his client, then-President Donald J. Trump, in the wake of the 2020 election. Giuliani likely will face “permanent sanctions” at the conclusion of the process.

These are deeply troubling developments. Even the Bush v. Gore saga didn’t generate such official acrimony.

Attorneys in every state are duty-bound to offer zealous advocacy for their clients. This doesn’t mean that they can lie to the court or to the other lawyers involved in a case, or make a mockery of the process, but it does mean that they have an ethical obligation to press every possible good-faith claim in their client’s favor as hard as they possibly can. The American legal system is adversarial; therefore, a case’s legal soundness is only as good as the competition between the lawyers who appear before the court.

The Colorado magistrate and the New York appellate court both rested their decisions imposing sanctions on the alleged “threat” that the cases posed to the continuity of America itself; both cited the January 6, 2021 “insurrection.” (In Giuliani’s case, shockingly, almost none of the statements that the New York court cited as the basis for its sanctions ruling were things that Giuliani said in court filings or to the court itself; the vast majority were public utterances. First Amendment, anyone?) 

This is all more than a little ridiculous, and if Americans paid even half as much attention to the goings-on of the courts as these jurists seem to think they do, we certainly would not be in such dire straits. Fact is, hardly anybody does follow judicial minutiae very closely, and most don’t follow it at all. Back in 2011, a poll showed that only 37 percent of those polled knew that there are nine justices on the Supreme Court of the United States, and a poll released in January 2016 revealed that 10 percent of college graduates think “Judge Judy” is one of them!

Given the appalling lack of civic literacy surrounding even the nation’s highest, and consequently most visible, tribunal, I’m on very safe ground when I say that these lower court cases emphatically are not “the stuff of which violent insurrections are made” (which is how the hyperventilating Colorado magistrate characterized the case before him).about:blankabout:blank

Elites are psychologically predisposed to swat down, with extreme prejudice, any perceived threats to the ruling class’ continued legitimacy; it has ever been thus. But make no mistake: This sort of thing, if it spreads and becomes normalized as the routine operation of our legal system, will have dire consequences.

Our legal system, as I noted, is premised on zealous advocacy. It grew out of the medieval practice of “trial by combat.” In that system, it became perfectly acceptable for people to hire strong (and thus expensive) champions to win a trial on their behalf. This is roughly the role that lawyers play today—just without the literal blood, physical injury, and death.

But the system only works if both sides have access to strong, vigorous advocates. You can imagine how trial by combat would go if one side was only permitted to hire measly runts to defend them in battle, while the other side was able to hire people like “The Mountain.” Barring a miracle, “The Mountain” is going to win. But such a disparity is, in effect, what is happening now. The system is imploding because the ability to access quality legal representation for certain cases and causes increasingly is subject to elite approval.

The penalties levied on lawyers who litigate claims the ruling class finds icky and verboten are premised on a serious misunderstanding of the nature of the legal profession. Lawyers do not have to agree with their clients; in fact, you simply can’t be a good lawyer if you expect to agree 100 percent with everyone who hires you. To say that a lawyer who represents a client and therefore a cause that some people think is odious should be punished for that representation is to destroy our entire system of justice.

It appears the Left is becoming more comfortable enforcing its orthodoxy through formal channels. Not only will you get cancelled if you represent someone they don’t like, you’ll also be fined, sanctioned, and held in contempt of court. If lawyers are unable to represent clients as zealously as is humanly possible, then our legal system is no more.about:blank

Lawyers are hired guns. They’re paid to advocate on behalf of their clients’ interests. They do not have to agree with or even like their clients. But they do have to fight like hell for them.

Sanctioning lawyers who are fighting to uphold the country’s election system, to uphold “ballots”—“the rightful and peaceful successors of bullets,” as Abraham Lincoln put it—is a great way to scare away competent, qualified, and strong ones from taking charged cases.

Maybe that’s the point.

If this transmogrification becomes complete, our legal system will have been gutted, even as, appearance-wise, it will seem to be the very same venerable system passed down to us and developed over the centuries by our ancestors. And for what?

All to stick it to the Bad Orange Man.

This way lies madness, but there’s still time to course correct. If we care about justice, we will.TwitterFacebookParlerShare onTwitterFacebookParler

About Deion A. Kathawa

Deion A. Kathawa is an attorney who hails from America’s heartland. He holds a J.D. from the University of Notre Dame and a B.A. from the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor. Subscribe to his “Sed Kontra” newsletter.

A Bit Of Parochial Interest For Minnesotans!

BY SCOTT JOHNSON IN SPORTS at PowerLine:

THE GABLE STEVESON EXPERIENCE

There are many interesting angles to Gable Steveson’s Gold Medal-winning performance in the Olympic heavyweight freestyle wrestling competition, but let’s take a quick look at his performance as the clock wound down to zero.

Gable is a hometown hero from Apple Valley, Minnesota, and still an undegrad at the University of Minnesota. In the Gold Medal round (previewed here by the university) it came down to the last 13 seconds, when he had to make up a deficit of three points against his formidable — three-time world champion –Georgian opponent.

And then it came down to the last half-second. Grace under pressure…https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?creatorScreenName=powerlineUS&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3NwYWNlX2NhcmQiOnsiYnVja2V0Ijoib2ZmIiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH19&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1423612487811964928&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Farchives%2F2021%2F08%2Fthe-gable-steveson-experience.php&sessionId=2fe08f0ffc45cca5a96f58cc740f2dfe11acbf16&siteScreenName=powerlineUS&theme=light&widgetsVersion=1890d59c%3A1627936082797&width=550px

quote Tom Hauser: “I’m not a wrestling expert and have no idea what just happened here…but damn it was exciting!  USA!!!”

The university celebrated Steveson’s performance here in a report that embedded the tweet catching the reaction on the Steveson home front as time expired (below).https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?creatorScreenName=powerlineUS&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-1&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3NwYWNlX2NhcmQiOnsiYnVja2V0Ijoib2ZmIiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH19&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1423642023672811535&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Farchives%2F2021%2F08%2Fthe-gable-steveson-experience.php&sessionId=2fe08f0ffc45cca5a96f58cc740f2dfe11acbf16&siteScreenName=powerlineUS&theme=light&widgetsVersion=1890d59c%3A1627936082797&width=550px

Another vaccine messaging whiff by Rochelle Walensky

BY ALLAHPUNDIT at HotAir:

This isn’t a total whiff, as she makes clear that the vaccines do an excellent job of preventing the kind of severe illness that lands people in the hospital. She’s incentivizing vaccination by pointing that out.

But she could be incentivizing it more.

Watch a few minutes of her exchange with Wolf Blitzer starting at around 1:00, when he asks about breakthrough infections. What’s missing?https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3NwYWNlX2NhcmQiOnsiYnVja2V0Ijoib2ZmIiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH19&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1423422301882748929&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Fallahpundit%2F2021%2F08%2F07%2Fanother-vaccine-messaging-whiff-by-rochelle-walensky-n407373&sessionId=636dac14eb7b38f46218deb645cea104149aea1c&siteScreenName=hotairblog&theme=light&widgetsVersion=1890d59c%3A1627936082797&width=550px

“What they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.” Hearing that, you’d be justified in concluding that the vaccinated and unvaccinated are now equally likely to get infected and to infect others. But that’s not remotely true. What the CDC deduced from the Provincetown data and other studies is that if a vaccinated person is infected then he or she might be equally capable of transmitting the virus as an infected unvaccinated person is.

But that’s a long, long way from saying that the vaxxed and unvaxxed are at equal risk of getting COVID. They are not.

That ratio may have tightened up a bit with the advent of Delta but it’s a cinch that the unvaccinated are still getting infected at a much higher clip than the vaccinated are. (Especially the recently vaccinated, I’d guess.) Somehow Walensky never mentions that in her bit with Blitzer. She didn’t mention it in a tweet she published last night highlighting her CNN interview either. Immunization gives you extremely high protection against hospitalization and death but also decent protection against infection.

This data from one California county makes the point starkly:https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-1&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3NwYWNlX2NhcmQiOnsiYnVja2V0Ijoib2ZmIiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH19&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1423742110562324480&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Fallahpundit%2F2021%2F08%2F07%2Fanother-vaccine-messaging-whiff-by-rochelle-walensky-n407373&sessionId=636dac14eb7b38f46218deb645cea104149aea1c&siteScreenName=hotairblog&theme=light&widgetsVersion=1890d59c%3A1627936082797&width=550px

“[T]he unvaccinated continue to be the big highway of transmission,” said infectious disease expert William Schaffner to CNN recently. “The vaccinated, they’re little side streets.” Why isn’t Walensky hammering that point? Some vaccine holdouts listening to her may decide that if they’re destined to catch COVID whether they’ve had their shots or not, they might as well skip them.

But they’re not destined. The shots might very well spare them from infection entirely.

Some vaccination proponents have lost what’s left of their patience with her messaging missteps:https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-2&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3NwYWNlX2NhcmQiOnsiYnVja2V0Ijoib2ZmIiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH19&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1423778803441078275&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Fallahpundit%2F2021%2F08%2F07%2Fanother-vaccine-messaging-whiff-by-rochelle-walensky-n407373&sessionId=636dac14eb7b38f46218deb645cea104149aea1c&siteScreenName=hotairblog&theme=light&widgetsVersion=1890d59c%3A1627936082797&width=550px

On top of that, when CNN recently tried to get some key information out of the CDC about its new mask guidance, it was inexplicably stonewalled:

If you’ve watched cable news, read a newspaper, or surfed the internet, you’ve probably come across this map of the United States showing areas of “substantial” and “high” spread of the coronavirus. The CDC has defined “substantial” community transmission as areas of 50 or more cases per 100,000 people. And it has defined “high” rates of transmission as areas with 100 or more cases per 100,000 people. These numbers have significant implications for local governments, given the CDC’s recent guidance. But, while CDC may be providing definitions for the thresholds, it is still not saying how it decided on the figures behind the definitions.

I have personally asked CDC spokespeople for more than a week to help explain its calculus, but I have yet to receive an answer. In fact, on Thursday a CDC spokesperson told me that to get an answer I’d need to submit a Freedom of Information Act Request. When I pushed back, noting that I was simply asking for an explanation of the science that informed the CDC’s decision making, I was told that the email directing me to submit a FOIA request “wasn’t meant” for me. The spokesperson then reiterated the CDC would “get back” to me when it had “something to share.” I’m still waiting.

The new guidance based on the Provincetown study recommended masks indoors even for vaccinated people in areas of “substantial” transmission. That recommendation is why there’s now a mask mandate in place in Washington D.C., which recently — and barely — crossed the numerical threshold of “substantial” transmission. But how can Washingtonians rightly be asked to mask if the CDC won’t explain why the threshold is what it is?

It wouldn’t be the first time during this pandemic either that the agency had grabbed at an arbitrary number and then built an entire national precautions regime around it.

I’ll leave you with this, a reminder that it may not matter what Walensky or anyone else has to say at this point. Views on COVID precautions are so deeply politicized now that many people will respond to them according to what their tribe believes, not what the data indicates.

Critical race theory: ‘Diversity’ is not the solution, dismantling white supremacy is!

(So, Let’s Hate The Whites and GET RID OF THEM?)

by Beth Daley

Race has been a mainstay in the media this year. Everyday there is another racism story in the news, on a podcast, trending on Twitter or being joked about on late night television

As a critical race educator and activist I have spent most of my life inserting race into the conversation. You would think this focus would have me thrilled. Finally everyone is talking about race.

Not only are people talking about race, they are talking about critical race theory (CRT) and having important conversations about the role of systemic racism in our country and across the globe.

This sudden interest in CRT is largely due to former U.S. president Donald Trump’s now defunct executive order banning the teaching of critical race theory in school. Since then many states have taken up similar policies.

How The Conversation is different: All our authors are experts.

Learn more

What is critical race theory?

CRT started as a legal theory that illustrates how racism becomes institutionalized, even though discrimination is illegal. It has since branched out, but the essence remains — to show how race and racism continue to operate across various systems, interrogating their role in society.

As American policies on CRT education in schools shows, the problem has become showing how racism operates instead of racism itself. Mainstream society becomes fearful that people will be able to articulate the ways in which systemic discrimination operates and as a result demand that we do better.

This is convenient because it upholds the foundations of mainstream societal concepts like white supremacy and capitalism. And by white supremacy I don’t mean white supremacists, like the angry rioters in MAGA hats that stormed the U.S. Capitol. I mean the ideologies of white supremacy, the implicit systems that maintain whiteness as superior and allow for situations like George Floyd and Joyce Eschanquan as matter of fact aspects of existence with little to no consequences.

Two people stand holding signs that read 'Justice for George Floyd' in front of a mural depicting his face and name
People stand in front of a mural for George Floyd after a guilty verdict was announced at the trial of former Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin for the 2020 death of Floyd. (AP Photo/Morry Gash)

CRT has simply become the latest target of white supremacy. But as you may guess, CRT is not the problem. The problem is diversity.

The solution to every problem

Progressive folks take up “diversity” like it is the solution to every problem. We are bombarded with it through committees, policies and “commitments.” You see it everywhere from public institutions to private corporations.

Even Canada’s iconic Hudson Bay Company (HBC) has been embroiled in a recent diversity scandal. While HBC was collecting donations for a campaign to “empower” Indigenous people, Black people and people of colour across the country, they used the image of Hadiya Roderique, a prominent Black lawyer in Toronto, without her permission.https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3NwYWNlX2NhcmQiOnsiYnVja2V0Ijoib2ZmIiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH19&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1412093674520027140&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconversation.com%2Fcritical-race-theory-diversity-is-not-the-solution-dismantling-white-supremacy-is-163398&sessionId=6916cee0ccb34e9e19f5c9158b6ff947f41033b8&siteScreenName=ConversationCA&theme=light&widgetsVersion=1890d59c%3A1627936082797&width=550px

HBC became so blinded by their diversity mission they forgot to use diversity principles in their promotion. As a public we are inundated with images and information of different organizations and corporations attempting to advance diversity initiatives, when really it has simply become a public relations call to capitalize on woke culture.

Acknowledging systemic racism

If HBC was actually trying to enact change for Indigenous people, Black people and people of colour, they would know that this cannot be achieved by asking individual customers to donate $5.

Instead, the corporation would have to acknowledge the systemic, institutional and residual effects of racism and white supremacy embedded in our country and as a result, their corporation. They would also have to put their money where their mouth is.

This means investing in hiring and retaining diverse staff, promoting radical racialized people to senior leadership positions, making working conditions better for diverse staff through safer corporate cultures, fair pay, showing respect with initiatives like affordable childcare and paid sick days and supporting diverse brands and designers.

And all of this would need to be measured and calculated to ensure progress was being made — and not some vague promise with no material evidence.

In her book On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life, Sara Ahmed shows how diversity is another tool of white supremacy. Ahmed highlights that as diversity advances in institutions, it is operating exactly the way it is supposed to: to do absolutely nothing and thus maintain the status quo.

Diversity has become a way to appease the masses and occupy people like me, the critical race agitators so we chase diversity up the chain of command instead of demanding radical change. Instead of starting a revolution.

So whether the conservative target is critical race theory, anti-racism, Black Lives Matter movements or anything else — the problem will remain until we remove diversity from the solution pile and fundamentally change white supremacist systems.

How The Conversation is different

Every article you read here is written by university scholars and researchers with deep expertise in their subjects, sharing their knowledge in their own words. We don’t oversimplify complicated issues, but we do explain and clarify. We believe bringing the voices of experts into the public discourse is good for democracy.

Find out more

Beth Daley

Editor and General Manager

That Evil “Schumer the Crooked” Challenged AT LAST!

Frosh GOP senator stops Schumer’s fast track for infrastructure bill – why aren’t more GOP doing that?

KAREN TOWNSEND at HotAir:

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

A lone Freshman Republican senator threw a wrench into Chuck Schumer’s plan to fast track the infrastructure bill late last night. Around midnight, after day-long negotiations in the Senate, Tennessee Senator Bill Haggerty objected to a cloture vote on the Sinema-Portman substitute amendment. The amendment is the finished product from the bipartisan group of twenty who have been working on an infrastructure bill to bring to the floor for a vote.

Why are some Republicans willing to give the Biden administration a win on a $1 trillion infrastructure bill so that Democrats can move on to a $3.5 trillion bill that throws in everything but the kitchen sink and calls it the second part of the infrastructure bill? The first bill is loaded up with lots of things that don’t fall under traditional infrastructure so why allow it to proceed, especially when the scoring from the Congressional Budget Office came out yesterday and shows the bill will increase the deficit by at least $256 billion dollars? Democrats claimed it wouldn’t increase the deficit, that the spending increases are paid for. Republicans used to care about deficits though it has been a long time since they have proven that so it is refreshing to hear at least one Republican give lip service to that concern. He’s only been in office a few months – he was elected in 2020 – so maybe he’s the one to speak up and slow the process down a bit. For background, Haggerty was the Trump administration’s ambassador to Japan. He ran for the seat held by Lamar Alexander when Alexander didn’t run for re-election.

Schumer wanted a cloture vote Thursday night and that was stopped with Haggerty’s objection. Schumer called for the Senate to reconvene Saturday at noon for the vote and then follow regular order to finish the bill. His statement voices his frustration, as reported in today’s Punchbowl News.

“We’ve worked long, hard and collaboratively to finish this important, bipartisan bill. The Senate has considered 22 amendments during this process and we’ve been willing to consider many more. In fact, we have been trying to vote on amendments all day but have encountered numerous objections from the other side. However, we very much want to finish important bill, so we will reconvene Saturday at noon to vote on cloture [on the Sinema-Portman substitute amendment], and then we will follow the regular order to finish the bill.”

Schumer is eager to get moving to secure a win for Biden, who is seen as desperate for a big legislative win, especially going into the midterm elections. The August recess is quickly approaching and Schumer wants to wrap this up before then. Today about two dozen senators are attending former Senator Mike Enzi’s funeral in Wyoming.

Haggerty’s objection is reasonable and once would have been a completely normal reaction from a Republican. We don’t live in normal times, though, so it being reported as a futile gesture meant to slow the process with little hope of derailing it in the end. That’s true, in the end, but that is the job of the minority – to be the loyal opposition. It shouldn’t be hard for Republicans to try to derail the obscene amounts of money being proposed by the Biden administration. If not now, when?

“Earlier this afternoon, the Congressional Budget Office released its long awaited score for this infrastructure bill. While we’ve heard for weeks that it would be paid for, it’s not. It didn’t just come up short, it came up a quarter of a trillion dollars short. The CBO indicated this bill will increase the deficit by at least $256 billion dollars when it was supposed to break even. Despite this news, I was asked to consent to expedite the process and pass it. I could not, in good conscience, allow that to happen at this hour—especially when the objective of the majority is to hurry up and pass this bill so that they can move quickly to their $3.5 trillion tax-and-spend spree designed to implement the Green New Deal and increase Americans’ dependence on the government so I objected.”

Yesterday, Senator John Thune signaled that the bill will pass and he’s fine with it. He knows that Biden will crow about fulfilling a campaign promise on infrastructure and restoring bipartisan working relationships in Congress. He thinks that up to twenty Republican senators will vote for the bill, which is twice the number needed to avoid a filibuster. Thune spins the Republican support as a good thing, that it will help in the midterm elections if they can point to projects funded in their states by the bill. Mitt Romney agrees and says it would be worse for red states if the bill doesn’t pass.

Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.) said the need to deliver for constituents outweighs the more abstract political calculations over how much the bill might help Biden.

“Irrespective of what’s going on in the politics of the country, if you can get people to work together in a fashion on an issue that’s important to the country’s competitiveness,” it’s a good thing, Thune argued.

“You can look back throughout history and see examples of that, whether it’s 4G or the interstate highway system,” he added, pointing to examples of how federal spending on infrastructure helped the nation’s economy.

“I think Republicans get some benefit from it,” Thune said. “Anytime people are working together to try to get results, I think that in the long term accrues to their benefit.”

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who will vote for the legislation, argued on the Senate floor Thursday that red states would have gotten far less money for infrastructure if GOP senators had refused to negotiate and forced Democrats to pass a bill with only Democratic votes.

“It’s fair to say if Democrats alone write an infrastructure bill, my state of Utah won’t be real happy by the time that’s done,” he said.

How do you feel about government supervision on your driving habits and taxing you for each mile driven? That’s buried in the bill. That will hurt working families the most. A new federal tax will do that.

We know what is coming down the road. This bill will pass, thanks to Republican support and a desire to get along with Democrats. That support is a one-way street but never mind. Republicans never learn that lesson. Next, they will bring up the bigger bill under the budget reconciliation process that will allow them to proceed without any GOP votes. That bill is all about “human infrastructure” like universal daycare, a $15 minimum wage, and of course, the Green New Deal mandates. Trying to throw up some obstacles and hold Democrats to their claim that new spending will be offset is the least the Republicans can do. Trust me, President Unity will continue to trash Republicans at every opportunity either way.

“How futile man’s attempts to ‘control disease’ are!”

The ‘Centers for Disease Control’ is No Such Thing

By Ted Noel, MD at American Thinker:

You read that right.  That’s the name on the sign in front of the building.  It’s the advertising when one of its higher level bureaucrats testifies before Congress.  And it’s the bludgeon used to corral all dissenters into one place where individual choice is extinguished.  Beyond all that, it’s a lie.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a classic example of how futile man’s attempts to “control disease” are.  By time we even knew that it had arrived in the U.S., it had spread widely.  Since most people don’t get severe disease, many in contact with Patient Zero had gotten what they may have attributed to a cold or flu.  Recognizing that those diseases in their age group were seldom serious, they took some Tylenol and stayed out of work for a couple of days.  Rinse, repeat, and the bug is “in the wild,” long beyond any attempts to control it.  Yet the CDC claimed we could.  Does anyone recall “fifteen days to stop the spread?”

The Conspiracy for Deceptive Calculations (h/t: Tony Perkins) decided that instead of locking sick people up where they couldn’t infect others — a proper quarantine — they’d lock the rest of us up.  This “lockdown” was immediately recognized by cooler heads as stupid.  Yes, stupid.  Quarantine works when you lock sick people up, but when you lock healthy people in with them, you get a lot more people infected.  Just ask Miracle Worker Cuomo, whose New York policies led to 60% of all COVID cases to be among those locked down and thousands of nursing home patients killed when he forced sick people into long-term care facilities.  Lockdowns also caused immense numbers of deaths due to other diseases not being properly detected or treated.

As we start our journey of discovery, we must flip to the grooveyard of forgotten tunes.  Who can forget the constant chorus of “everyone has to be tested!”  There were long lines at all sorts of public venues for drive-through tonsil torture.  We then waited for results from a test that even the inventor said wasn’t to be used for diagnostic purposes.  It was unstandardized and unreliable.  But the CDC kept pushing for over a year.  Then, on July 21, 2021, the CDC announced that labs should drop the RT-PCR test and adopt a “multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses.”  There would be no reason to say this unless the RT-PCR test simply can’t do what it was supposedly able to do: detect COVID-19 and COVID-19 alone.  In fact, based on the wording, it’s very likely that a lot of the “positive” COVID tests were actually influenza.  A lot of those “COVID deaths” were actually flu.  These recent revelations from the CDC should cause us to carefully reconsider the premise that the CDC is a useful body.

Let’s start with masks.  It’s easy to show that masks block big drops of water.  “Mechanistic studies” show they even do a good job blocking tiny droplets.  So masks ought to help.  After all, surgeons wear them in the operating room to prevent infecting patients.  Case closed!

Not!

Most of the critics of my video showing how masks don’t work (condensed here) lean on that surgeon example.  During surgery, the surgeon and assistants lean over the field, facing directly into the open wound.  Any droplets from speech would fall directly onto the sterile field, creating a risk of infection.  But even in the O.R., there is no statistical evidence that masks reduce infections (also here).

COVID spreads by aerosols, not droplets (here and here) that masks might block or contact.  This was known as early as April of last year.  Those “mechanistic” studies maskers quote don’t say anything about disease transmission.  Rational Ground showed in October of last year that mask mandates, however well they may have kept you from spitting on your neighbor, didn’t work to slow the spread of COVID-19.  Now they’ve gathered the data that masks should not be used on children.  But what does our CDC say?

Everyone should wear a mask, even if you’re vaccinated.”  The CDC doesn’t care that there are no data to support its advice.  It proposes that a study rejected by pro-mask peer reviewers is enough justification to impose universal masking, even though a multitude of studies show that they simply don’t work to stop disease transmission in public.  Of course, Anthony Fauci’s famous flip-flopping from “You don’t need to wear a mask” to “You must wear a mask” and back and forth hasn’t helped the CDC’s credibility.

Next, “the delta variant is more infectious than original COVID.” Somehow this means, “If you come in contact with it, you’ll instantly turn into a pillar of salt.”  This is pure panic porn.  “Infectious” just means you can get it easier, not that it is more likely to kill you.  In fact, the delta variant is, as would normally be predicted, less deadly than the original, with a mortality statistically indistinguishable from zero in patients under 50, and fewer deaths among their elders than seasonal flu.  This is the normal course of viruses.  They mutate to become more infectious and less virulent (deadly), steadily becoming endemic (part of the everyday background of life).

We cannot leave without visiting the screed that you have to be vaccinated to have immunity.  We’ve seen multiple public figures trumpeting that “almost all infections are in the unvaccinated.”  This is such a surprise…not.  Vaccines do create immunity.  But they aren’t perfect, and there’s a strong case that recovery from the disease should create better immunity than the vaccine, since the virus exposes you to more antigens than just the spike protein.  But that somehow won’t create “herd immunity”!

Early in the pandemic, the concept of herd immunity was pooh-poohed.  Then, as Trump’s Warp Speed program bore fruit, we all had to be vaccinated to create herd immunity.  The number was 50%, then 60%, 80%, and now 100%.  “Herd immunity” somehow became a talisman to excuse draconian restrictions until the last person has bared his arm for a federally subsidized “cure” for the latest variant that isn’t blocked by the prior vaccine.  In reality, herd immunity simply describes the fact that when most people are immune (nobody knows the percentage), it’s hard for a virus to spread widely.  On this subject, we must note that there is no reason to vaccinate the young.  They generally get mild disease and recover fully.  They aren’t very effective in passing the bug along, either.

Finally, we must take note of treatments.  Early on, hydroxychloroquine was discovered to be very helpful in early stages of the disease.  But the CDC adopted the NIH posture and belittled it, pushing a study showing that it didn’t help in end-stage ICU patients.  They even used argument by intimidation to get some states to outlaw it based on fears of an extremely rare heart rhythm problem.  The CDC insisted that remdesivir (Fauci’s failed baby from Ebola) would be a panacea.  Now we know it doesn’t help much.  The story repeats for ivermectin and a host of other approaches.  Literally thousands of people died because the CDC ran roughshod over any alternate approaches.

I could probably wax eloquent for a few thousand more words, but that won’t add much to the tale.  Throughout this sordid story, Fauci’s CDC demanded that he was the ultimate authority, and nothing he didn’t approve would be acceptable.  Masks don’t help the public, but Fauci insisted we should wear them.  Society was locked down, contrary to clear literature evidence that lockdowns don’t help.  They actually cost many thousands of lives due to foregone care, cancer screenings, and the like.  Children were developmentally harmed by masking, and it’s uncertain whether they will recover educationally and socially from unnecessary school lockdowns.

The CDC has proven that its name is a lie.  It is a political organization that is barely acquainted with science.  We have learned far more about COVID-19 through the studies and commentaries published by a myriad of authors on the internet.  And it’s very likely that without the CDC, we would have thousands of loved ones still alive.

We have a massive federal debt.  Spending cuts are imperative.  Eliminating the CDC would be a good first step.

Ted Noel, M.D. writes and posts as DoctorTed and @vidzette.

Isn’t Loony Biden Better Than Giggly Harris AS PRESIDENT? What Do You Think?

BY JOHN HINDERAKER at PowerLine:

BIDEN’S MATH SKILLS DISPLAYED

We could make Joe Biden’s latest gaffe a daily feature, although to be fair, what is most alarming is not so much Biden’s constant factual errors as the demeanor and frailness that suggest he is ready for a nursing home. In today’s blunder, Biden says (twice) that over 350 million Americans have been vaccinated against covid:

What makes this appalling, given that Biden is alleged to be the President of the United States, is that there are nowhere near 350 million Americans. It isn’t just that Biden can’t read his note card properly. Does he really not know how many people live in the country he purports to govern?

Apparently not. Biden’s lack of mental capacity is frightening, and we can only hope that he gets through his term without facing a crisis of any sort.

That Critical Race Theory

How To Argue Leftists Into A Corner

By Jeff M. Lewis at American Thinker:

The Culture War is hot, and it continues. The furor over Critical Race Theory seems to have died down a bit (perhaps on purpose?), but don’t think we have won. This is likely to continue for quite some time and we know for sure that the leftists will not quit, and neither should we.

I can hear the groans now: “That’s a great way to ruin my family dinner or my pool party barbeque, dude.…” Indeed, it is a risky endeavor, and the decision is yours alone. However, in the culture war and in the battle to preserve America, we may need to fight the good fight at a time not of our own choosing.

I had a recent excursion against CRT and a familiar leftist tactic after viewing a friend’s shared Facebook post:

After a few days of cautious consideration, I replied, “Typical. CRT cannot be argued on its merits because it only divides and tears down and has no merit. Therefore, call opponents to CRT Racist.”

The skirmishes may begin in just this manner and opening volleys will be a shock.

There recently has been very effective public pushback against Critical Race Theory. Therefore, I interpret the post’s author lamenting the lost ground and resorting to what every leftist does as a result – ad hominem attacks against the opposition’s credibility (“Nazi/Fascist/Racist!”). It is an entirely predictable leftist non-answer to opposition on any issue, and an attempt to deflect from addressing the issue on its merits.

Be prepared for it and don’t get distracted. You will be ridiculed in every possible way (more on that later) and shown “rabbit holes” to take you off-track and off-topic. One must be well-armed with the weapons of the truth, factual analysis, and a willingness to employ them as best one can.

Armed and confident after months of research and learning the nuances of CRT, I waded in. The conversation continued on what might have been a productive track: I was asked to “clarify… what is it you understand critical race theory to be? Because I am fairly certain what you think it is and what it is are two different things.”

Aha! The leftists’ initial reply contained the charge that I was ignorant about the subject at hand. I responded by defining CRT as a Marxist, identity-based theory that describes the interaction among individuals as primarily influenced by race; and as an extrapolation of the Marxist theory of oppressor vs. oppressed, including the tenets of white privilege, white supremacy, and the claim that all white people are irredeemably racist.

The return-fire began from other commenters and consisted of the preeminent leftist argument, which is that America was founded on racism, slavery, and has a “400-year” history of oppression, inequality, and subsequent forfeiture of generational wealth for African Americans. Therefore, CRT is only teaching an “accurate” history of the United States. One of my opponents concluded by asking, “If we teach only those parts of history we like, we aren’t really teaching history, right?”

Obviously, we know the truth and should not hide from it. There have been some horrific things committed throughout the history of our nation. It is best to acknowledge these truths and to remain engaged with what I believe are some very strong counterpoints (the reader can likely think of others):

  • America was not the first to abolish the international slave trade, but American abolitionist movements pre-dated the Revolutionary War. Once the ideals of “created equal,” individual liberty and freedom were codified and incorporated into the Constitution, abolitionists and future civil rights leaders routinely referred to the founding documents and their self-evident truth to fortify their arguments.
  • As the United States followed other nations’ leads in turning away from slavery, we fought a terribly costly four-year war among ourselves. That we had to do so speaks to the evil of which a fallen human race is capable, not to America’s illegitimacy.
  • What speaks very clearly to the wisdom of the founders is that the government they formed and the Constitution that serves as its foundation provided the mechanisms needed to forever abolish slavery in the United States

Since the backlash against CRT has made headlines (where the news has been accurately reported), there has been a deliberate effort to rebrand it or tell opponents to CRT that we don’t know what we are talking about. I encountered the latter. I was told that CRT is not meant, “to divide or to categorize, but to understand that there are nuances to the systems and institutions that do the dividing for us.” Moreover, “The division already exists.” And the most incredible assertion of all, that “the whole premise is to care about other people.”

Wow. At this point, I openly questioned whether these Facebook combatants accurately understood CRT or the people behind it. Challenging another’s opinions and beliefs is hazardous enough, but to question the accuracy and authenticity of a young adult’s “actual CRT college course,” or the content upon which that undergraduate degree and college credentials is based (because leftists were all young college graduates) is apparently strictly prohibited, and the penalty for my egregious offense was swift and harsh blow-back.

Be forewarned that today’s college-educated young adults – along with their peers enrolled in graduate- or doctorate-level studies – will likely never allow you any ground or credibility whatsoever to question them or their closely held and guarded credentials (such as they are). The intolerance, arrogance, and condescension rose to apparent delusions of omniscience. From a college course? A college degree? Sheesh!

Responding to their attempt to re-brand and re-define CRT, I posed a question: “Which system of government and accompanying economic system would you prefer in the United States, that would also provide comparable opportunity, prosperity, and innovation? Every Marxist, Communist, Socialist government fails, has failed, or is in the process of failing… CRT does not lead humanity toward a more just society, only one in which we are all further divided. Please tell me how that is aspirational? How is that a better and more desirable outcome for America?”

Maybe there was a sense that my argument was resonating, I do not know. But what followed was a flight to victimization. I was at fault and it was improper to treat others’ opinions as I had. A bully arriving late to the fray informed me that my opinion and input were NOT welcome.

Expect this. Leftists cannot tolerate any dissenting points of view and will resort to personal attacks, claim they are victims of our “angry” or “unhinged” comments and contrary opinions, and will bully us to stifle meaningful conversation. Enter their camp anyway and leave all the nuggets of truth you can.

Confirmation Bias is commonly defined as “the tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with one’s existing beliefs.” It is a powerful psychological force and one that is not easily countered. We need to be able to recognize and counter it in ourselves, and we must attempt to counter it in the arena of ideas among family, friends, and others with whom we disagree. Human biases are so deeply ingrained we must tread carefully and respectfully. But that does not mean that we should withdraw from the fray when a leftist says something wrong.

Be a happy, honest, respectful, and unapologetic culture warrior.

Jeff M. Lewis is a Christian, a husband and father, a Veteran, and a small-business owner in South Texas.

Don’t Forget What The Dem Savages and GOP Wusses Have Done To Innocent Officer DEREK CHAUVIN!

Stunning! New Floyd Case Exhibit Confirms Witness Coercion

By John Dale Dunn, MD, JD

On July 29, District Court Judge Peter Cahill, the presiding judge in the trials of the four Minneapolis police officers indicted for the death of George Floyd, ordered the release of an exhibit memorandum that reveals a miscarriage of justice and criminal coercion of a witness.

Dr. Roger Mitchell, the former deputy mayor and medical examiner of the District of Columbia and now the Chief of Pathology at Howard University Medical School, a traditional Black medical school, boldly intimidated and coerced Hennepin County Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker into changing critical conclusory language in his autopsy report on the death of George Floyd.

The exhibit is a written summary of Mitchell’s commentary and some admissions of coercion that he volunteered to Minnesota Attorney General Office prosecutors in November 2020.  Mitchell’s perfidious conduct is discussed in this excellent article by Jack Cashill.

Dr. Andrew Baker, an experienced and well-regarded Chief Medical Examiner for Hennepin County, conducted an autopsy on Mr. Floyd on May 26, 2020, the day after his death, and reported later that day, “The autopsy revealed no physical evidence suggesting that Mr. Floyd died of asphyxiation or that excessive force was used in the restraint performed by the officers led by Officer Chauvin.   

Three days later, on Friday, May 29, prosecutors elaborated on the cause of death in posting their initial complaint against Derek Chauvin. According to the complaint, “The full report of the [medical examiner] is pending but the [medical examiner] has made the following preliminary findings. The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.”

The autopsy did show, however, that Floyd had severe heart disease, coronary artery disease, and an enlarged heart from high blood pressure. These conditions put Mr. Floyd at risk for sudden death from cardiac arrhythmia — an abnormal ineffective lethal heartbeat.

Before you proceed, think about that: Baker’s initial clean impression, without corrupting pressures, was that Derek Chauvin and his fellow officers were in no way responsible for George Floyd’s death.

Without a diagnosis of asphyxia, the State could not prosecute the officers for murder.  That is why Dr. Roger Mitchell was so critical in this tale of intimidation — and why this exhibit memorandum is so important. It reveals a naked attempt by Roger Mitchell to bully Dr. Baker into a conclusion that would enable a second-degree murder prosecution of the police officers.

Don’t take my word for it. Here is how the Minnesota prosecutors summarized their meeting with Dr. Mitchell in the memorandum:

When the preliminary result came out via the criminal complaint, Mitchell found the statement was bizarre. Mitchell was reading and said this is not right. So Mitchell called Baker and said first of all Baker should fire his public information officer. Then Mitchell asked what happened, because Mitchell didn’t think it sounded like Baker’s words. Baker said that he didn’t think the neck compression played a part and that he didn’t find petechiae. Mitchell said but you know you cannot have petechiae and still have asphyxia and can still have neck compression.

This phone call likely took place on Friday, May 29. Mitchell had a restless weekend as he drafted an op-ed for the Washington Post. His next step was pure intimidation:

Mitchell was expecting to send the op-ed to the Washington Post on Monday afternoon so Mitchell called Baker first to let him know that he was going to be critical of Baker’s findings. In this conversation, Mitchell said, you don’t want to be the medical examiner who tells everyone they didn’t see what they saw. You don’t want to be the smartest person in the room and be wrong.

The Cashill article cited above explains how Baker appears to have yielded to the pressure. In his second call to Baker, Mitchell insisted “neck compression has to be in the diagnosis,” and Baker ultimately added “neck compression.” Without that addition, Chauvin could not have been charged with murder.

Not being a physician, Cashill asked me to assess Mitchell’s conduct and his review of Baker’s work. I answered Mr. Cashill’s questions because I can.  I am an attorney admitted to the bar in Nebraska, Louisiana, and Texas by examination and I have a career-long interest in studying causes of death, especially sudden causes of death. I have been an emergency physician since 1974, an attorney since 1979, and have co-authored with a pathologist a chapter on forensics for a textbook published by the American College of Legal Medicine: Legal Medicine: Legal Dynamics of Medical Encounters (Mosby, 1988 and 1991).

What follows is a bit long and technical. I am hoping that those involved with the defense of the four officers, close to the show trials will find my answers and commentary helpful.  My analysis of the Mitchell interview memorandum is in italics.

Mitchell
—Autopsy pretty complete but noted Baker did not perform a layered posterior neck dissection

Dunn response

 Of course, Baker dissected the neck. He could not have reached the following conclusions without it. These come from what I considered a fine and careful autopsy by Baker:

—No life-threatening injuries identified

—No facial, oral mucosal, or conjunctival petechiae

—No injuries of anterior muscles of neck or laryngeal structures

—No scalp soft tissue, skull, or brain injuries

—No chest wall soft tissue injuries, rib fractures (other than a single rib fracture from CPR), vertebral column injuries, or visceral injuries

—Incision and subcutaneous dissection of posterior and lateral neck, shoulders, back, flanks, and buttocks negative for occult trauma

Here are some further findings by Baker regarding Floyd’s neck:

Layer by layer dissection of the anterior strap muscles of the neck discloses no areas of contusion or hemorrhage within the musculature.

— The thyroid cartilage and hyoid bone are intact.  The larynx is lined by intact mucosa.  

—The thyroid is symmetric and red-brown, without cystic or nodular change.  

— The tongue is free of bite marks, hemorrhage, or other injuries.

—The cervical spinal column is palpably stable and free of hemorrhage.

Mitchell

Reviewed photos 122 and 123 pointed to a dark spot that could be a hemorrhage but was hard to tell without a layer posterior neck dissection.

Dunn response

This is nothing more than another bruise that showed up on the pictures of the body—multiple abrasions and bruises of a superficial nature present were the product of the resisting arrest scenario, and Mitchell knew that. Mitchell ignored the dissection of the neck, shoulders, back, flanks and buttocks by Baker that showed no evidence of trauma.

It appears that Dr. Mitchell didn’t even read the draft version of the autopsy.

Mitchell

The lack of a hemorrhage in the deep tissue doesn’t necessarily add value but the presents (sic) of a hemorrhage can be helpful to understand the amount of pressure

Dunn response 

No sign of injury exonerates the officers and works against Mitchell’s agenda of police abuse and asphyxiation—he wants to cherry-pick his evidence.

Mitchell

George Floyd had an open airway but goes into cardiac arrest while the knee is on his neck. Mitchell agrees with Baker that the neck compression is a component of the mechanism of death.

—Mitchell evaluated the various potential impacts of the compression of the neck and noted they include possibly causing an arrhythmia (sic), he also said it can imped (sic) blood flow to the brain, vaso vagal response
—Mitchell discussed struggle and impact on heart
—The sooner he gets care the higher likelihood he will live
—At no point are they issuing life support care
·—You can feel yourself dying, you have to move. He was in crisis – physical crisis
—The actions of law enforcement were preceded (sic) cardiac arrest
—Regarding the cause of the cardiac event, Mitchell believed the effect on circulation was potentially more significant than the impeded ventilation. However, Mitchell was somewhat unsure because he also believed the neck
compression played a significant part in Floyd’s death

Dunn response

Here Mitchell goes in circles. He admits that the manner of death was more likely cardiac and circulatory, but he then reasserts his opinion that neck compression impeded ventilation, but then he also speculates that it may have impacted circulation.

—All the while he knew that the neck showed no signs of injury at autopsy.

—Moreover, Mitchell ignores the critical information on the brain tissue exam that shows no evidence of lack of oxygen (hypoxia):

Autopsy

Sections of hippocampus, cerebellum, cerebral cortex, and midbrain show the expected microscopic architecture, without hypoxic– ischemic, reactive, neoplastic, or inflammatory changes.

Mitchell

—With respect to the term Asphyxia (sic), there are typical indicators of asphyxia that are not present but also believes the neck compression played a significant part in Floyd’s death.
—Neck compression can comprise (sic) blood delivery into the brain and can cause hypoxia.
—Baker’s lack of use of the term asphyxia is a style issue.

Dunn response

Stop the presses! Style issue? No, it isn’t a style issue—it has to do with a proper cause of death analysis and conclusions. Baker found no evidence of petechiae which is the most common diagnostic change caused by asphyxiation, the autopsy found no crushing injury of the neck and no hypoxic brain injury

Mitchell

—Did not die from overdoes (sic)

—Fentanyl is an opioid, which does compromise respiratory drive. But Floyd, when the officers first encounter him, is not having trouble breathing.
—Mitchell does not believe that the Fentanyl or any of the drugs in his system are playing a part in Floyd’s death

—In order for these drugs to cause death, the user would be in a stupor, brainstem no longer functioning properly and dying from the fact that brainstem is suggesting you have enough oxygen and you are holding on to carbon dioxide

Dunn response

 Yes indeed, this was not a Fentanyl overdose—which causes lethargy, stupor, and respiratory failure/arrest. However, Mitchell ignores the cardiac arrhythmia risks created by heart disease, agitation, and methamphetamine.

Mitchell

—Lungs = normal
—Heart = not normal
—High blood pressure
—Dilated heart
—Hypertension
—Cardiovascular disease puts Floyd at risk for fatal arrhythmia

—Cardiac arrhythmia was a risk because of Mr. Floyd’s bad heart disease

Dunn response

Mitchell makes the case for cardiac arrhythmia, so why is he pushing Baker on neck compression?  Simple, he had a political anti-police agenda.  Mitchell read what he wanted to read and ignored the evidence that was right in front of him. He had a racially motivated tunnel vision. Police misconduct killed Mr. Floyd—now let’s figure out how.

Mitchell ignored the evidence that showed the most likely cause was a bad heart, the physical exertion of resistance, and agitated intoxication combined with methamphetamine that caused fatal cardiac arrhythmia, just what forensic pathologists see all the time, cardiac arrest during exertion.

In June, I wrote an article explaining how the prone position is not lethal or harmful. I backed up my assertion with an experiment/demonstration on video of the prone position restraint applied for 10 minutes just as Chauvin did to George Floyd. The individual on top applying the restraint weighed 170 pounds, and the individual playing the role of Floyd weighed 230 pounds. The individual being restrained suffered no compromise of breathing or oxygen level and certainly no risk to health.

The futures, perhaps even the lives, of police officers are at stake.  Fraud or deception by a witness or coercion of fraudulent evidence or testimony under oath is criminally actionable and certainly can be grounds for a mistrial.  Allowing critically important evidence and testimony to be silenced enables a miscarriage of justice. Officer Chauvin did not murder Mr. Floyd.

YouTube screengrab

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.