Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 14, 2021 | Sundance | 204 Comments
The intemperate Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney is on a hate-filled kamikaze mission to attack the base of the political party she abhors. {Direct Rumble Link Here}
Previously, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski set the low bar for contempt against the Tea Party movement, however, this week Liz Cheney says ‘hold my beer’ and goes all in against the MAGA base. Ugly is as ugly does – inside and outside.
(WaPo) – Rep. Liz Cheney’s disclosures of intriguing Jan. 6 text messages between Mark Meadows and both Donald Trump Jr. and Fox News personalities are the big news in the committee’s investigation right now. But don’t lose sight of what Cheney said immediately after she read those texts aloud.” (more)
Deep State alum Ms. Liz Cheney is desperately trying to use her position on the ridiculous January 6th committee to gain position inside the DC system. As a person with no redeeming qualities, the DC swamp is about the only place where her unlikable lawfare skills still have some marketing viability.
As the Washington Post notes, Cheney is desperate to attach some element of criminal lawbreaking to President Trump. Cheney was pointing to a specific criminal statute — a felony, 18 U.S. Code § 1512 — that she suggests President Donald Trump violated.
Cheney’s comment matches the language of the statute. It states, “Whoever corruptly … obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.” That law defines an “official proceeding” as including “a proceeding before the Congress.”
Is there a more self-centered, arrogant, smug and narcissistic member of the current Republican Party? I cannot think of one.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 14, 2021 | Sundance | 226 Comments
Reuters is reporting on an interesting dynamic within the vaccine mandate as it pertains to Amtrak. Reading between the lines tells us something very specific about this vaccine mandate that we have discussed here, and it’s starting to show.
The article itself points to how Amtrak is suspending their vaccine mandate as a result of the federal courts blocking enforcement of any mandate pending litigation. From their perspective as a federal contractor, Amtrak is now in a position to cease the vaccine requirement until the legal issues are resolved. However, there’s an element touched upon that needs to be considered.
First the article (the emphasis is mine):
WASHINGTON, Dec 14 (Reuters) – U.S. passenger railroad Amtrak said on Tuesday it will temporarily suspend a vaccine mandate for employees and now no longerexpects to be forced to cut some service in January. In a memo seen by Reuters, Amtrak Chief Executive Bill Flynn said the railroad would allow employees who were not vaccinated to get tested.
Currently, fewer than 500 active Amtrak employees are not in compliance. Last week, the railroad told Congress it anticipated “proactively needing to temporarily reduce some train frequencies across our network” because of the mandate.
Flynn said 95.7% of Amtrak’s 17,000 employees are either fully vaccinated or have an accommodation — and including employees with one dose 97.3% of employees are in compliance.
Amtrak cited a U.S. district court decision that halted the enforcement of President Joe Biden’s executive order mandating vaccines for federal contractors by January. “This caused the company to reevaluate our policy and to address the uncertainty about the federal requirements that apply to Amtrak,” the memo said. (read more)
Let’s cut through some politically correct corporate speech and media spin, and instead focus on a few key aspects:
First, the cause of the operational change, a frequency change in Amtrak service, was specifically admitted to be due to the vaccine mandate. This is EXACTLY the opposite of the White House claim earlier today (see below). The vaccine mandate was the cause of the operational change. Amtrak admits this – the White House refutes this.
Second, a reduction of 500 non-vaccinated people amid a company payroll exceeding 17,000, to the extent that the reduction actually changes the operational service of the company, tells us the unvaccinated people were specifically critical to the service the company provides.
This second point gets to the heart of a thesis we have proposed before. It’s not an issue of how many people, or what percentage, quit over a vaccine requirement. It’s a more specific issue of WHO those people are and what they do.
In any organization, there are people critical to the operation and people not so critical.
In a cumbersome top-heavy organization, that relies upon government largess and subsidy to operate, employment is bloated beyond what is efficient. I have long stated that the key group of most productive people, the very critical group for efficient operation, are a small subset of the total company employment.
I would bet, and it is essentially admitted by the statement from Amtrak, that a much higher percentage of the critical workers are refusing the vaccine than exist in the total employment ranks. The most productive and critical employees within any organization are independent minded, dependable and capable of a much larger influence than the average person. It is inside that core group of highly critical employees where effects from a vaccine mandate refusal makes the biggest impact.
As a result, the issue for any mandate is not the percentage of compliance overall, but rather how those very critical employees respond to the mandate.
There can be a specific skillset or duty needed in an organization, even a massive organization, that is only being done by a handful of specifically skilled people. If those people stop working, the effect on the entire organization is far beyond scale. In some instances, even in large organizations, that handful of people can shut down the entire operation if they do not perform their job(s).
500 out of 17,000 is only 3%,… yet that 3% were obviously critical enough to the operation of Amtrak in such a scale as the organization was planning to modify it’s entire operation due to their absence. This fact points as evidence to the theory that the most critical blue-collar people inside every organization carry a tremendous amount of clout when it comes to this vaccine mandate.
It’s not a matter of how many refuse the mandate, it’s an issue of who they are.
The blue-collar effort to bolster the resistance by these brothers and sisters in freedom, does not have to be too massive to have an impact. Remember, almost all of the leftists and elite-minded communists, who now operate as Democrats, have no capacity for self-sufficiency. If the working class stops picking up their trash, stops mowing their lawns, shopping for them, doing their cleaning and essentially facilitating their lives, this entire group of people cannot function.
If the always dependable shift-worker who never misses a day of work; the person who is always dutiful, diligent, trustworthy and can solve problems independently; the person who goes the extra mile and is proactive in planning their responsibilities, does not show up with the keys to be the switch operator, well, then the switch doesn’t get operated. And, that person is very hard to replace.
Remember, the part where Amtrak said the change in service schedules was due to the vaccine? Well, here’s the White House denying the change in Amtrak services was caused by the vaccine. WATCH:
From a commonsense and logistical perspective, regardless of the federal outlook, there’s no way they can pull it off. We are the quiet, and according to those who look down their noses – the “invisible” unwashed masses. However, when it comes to keeping the gears turning, we are the majority.
We keep their shit working and just want to be left alone. The system will not function if tens-of-millions of American workers stand united against the vaccine mandate. It really is that simple.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 13, 2021 | Sundance | 155 Comments
Comrades, December is a time of joy and festive gatherings at the famous German Christmas markets. However, the COVID madness has caused the worst in government authority to surface. Not even Santa Claus is immune from the control efforts.
Video has surfaced of Santa Claus being arrested at the Stralsund Christmas Market for the crime of not wearing a mask outdoors in public. WATCH:
Madness, all of it.
Lol the German police are arresting Santa for not wearing a mask this is the insanity that we have reached pic.twitter.com/EZBkhf2ZEA
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 13, 2021 | Sundance | 289 Comments
When New York’s original vaccine mandate for healthcare workers was announced, it included an exemption for religious reasons. However, when the administration changed hands, Governor Hochul removed the religious exemption. A lawsuit was filed. A federal appeals court loss brought the plaintiffs to the Supreme Court requesting an injunction.
Today, the request from the 20 plaintiffs was rejected by the Supreme Court as referred by Justice Sotomayor who covers the New York region. Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas dissented and would have provide the injunctive relief. However, Chief Justice John Roberts, Amy Coney-Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh sided with the liberal wing and denied the request. [Full pdf Decision Here]
Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch wrote in their 14-page dissent that Governor Hochul’s record in the case “practically exudes suspicion of those who hold unpopular religious beliefs,” adding, “That alone is sufficient to render the mandate unconstitutional as applied to these applicants.”
Unfortunately, the alignment of Justices Roberts, Barrett and Kavanaugh with the left wing of the court makes future constitutional appeals around the vaccine mandate look increasingly tenuous. Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Barrett have been big disappointments.
Aubrey Marcus, the founder of holistic health and lifestyle brand, Onnit, and New York Times best-selling author, invited three guests on his self-titled podcast. According to the podcast page, guests provide “expertise in mindset, relationship, health, business, and spirituality.” Episode #337, titled “The Inconvenient Injured w/ Vaccine Advocates Dr. Aditi Bhargava, Kyle Warner, and Brianne Dressen,” explores the perspective of Bhargava, molecular biologist, Professor, and Principal Investigator at UCSF who develops mRNA technology. The additional guests tell their personal stories of experiencing an mRNA vaccine injury which we will summarize in our Part II article.
An open mind is most definitely important with a novel, unfolding pandemic such as the one we now face. Marcus begins by prefacing the conversation for viewers/listeners to keep an open mind so that ideas and issues can be discussed, examined, and critically explored regardless of politics or the current scientific taboos.
Exposing Scientific Loopholes
Bhargava is concerned about the way that scientists have approached the pandemic. It seems like scientific standards, norms and ideals have been abandoned. However, she also believes that coronavirus research and publication speed has exposed many loopholes in the scientific process that should be addressed in a methodical manner.
For example, it took 11 years for scientists with differing opinions to come to a consensus regarding SARS-CoV-1 as the pathogen that caused the SARS epidemic in the early 2000s. The outbreak, she believes, was likely a result of gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses being performed in many institutions and as highlighted by a laboratory-acquired infection in Singapore, in the case of bat CoV, gain-of-function entails intentionally creating mutations that could infect humans, not a natural host, simply to see what could happen. This seemingly unwarranted justification, says Bhargava, is “playing with fire” especially given that CoV in bats does not cause disease, just mild sniffles, and bats clear that virus fairly quickly; under the guise of pathogen discovery program, an ulterior purpose is “to develop biological warfare weapons.”
In contrast, the rigid consensus that Sars-CoV-2 is the cause of the current COVID-19 pandemic was made in less than two months; how to treat it or contain it, has been a chaotic and unscientific process, at best for the last two years.
The Technical Term for Preventing Infection
In terms of mRNA vaccines, Bhargava says they do not meet the traditional definition because unlike live-attenuated vaccines, (MMR, chickenpox, yellow fever,) mRNAs do not qualify due to their inability to reduce the viral load or prevent infection, or transmission. They could more accurately be categorized as a drug, says Bhargava.
(In the summer of 2021, the CDC changed its definition of a “vaccine” by replacing the word “immunity” with “protection” which they have claimed is for accuracy. Merriam-Webster also updated their definition in May, as pointed out by Dr. Peter Doshi.)
Bhargava also states that there have not been well-controlled clinical trials control-group studies (which compare vaccinated vs. unvaccinated with a similar health history, age, sex, and exposure risk) to conclude that the vaccines are efficacious and safe.
The Claim that “the Science is Clear”
Bhargava is “puzzled” as to why the scientific community is “turning a blind eye” to severe side effects. To not objectively acknowledge and explore adverse events, “is contradictory to everything we know about developing drugs,” she explains. The media continually suggests that the “science is clear.” Yet, when she reviews peer and non-peer-reviewed scientific publications, it leaves her with more questions and less clarity, despite her expertise and experience.
The topic of biological science and research had never been so widely consumed by the media and the public in “real-time” until recently, she says. While the urgency for answers is understandable, studies that normally take months to establish and peer-review are fast-tracked, yet devoid of the cautionary mindset that “science is always changing.” For example, if a natural infection takes 2 weeks to train the immune system, so does the vaccine. And the vaccine only trains a small arm of the immune system. (The architect of mRNA technology, Dr. Robert Malone, echoes this issue, saying established scientific data, which health officials rely on, is usually six months behind.)
Mechanism of Action for Covid-19 Vaccines:
There are currently three categories of vaccines developed for Covid-19. They include 1) inactivated (e.g., India’s Covaxin or a couple of the Chinese vaccines such as SinoVac, CoronaVac) representing the traditional approach; 2) Recombinant (Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca) which use adeno-associated virus fused with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (“the shell” of the virus); and 3) mRNA (Pfizer and Moderna).
In the short-term (2-3 months post-vaccination), it may appear that vaccines decrease infection and transmission, the long-term effects of these vaccines on cellular and immune function is a complete unknown; it’s uncertain that these will be the only changes produced, says Bhargava.
In the past, adeno-associated viral (AAV) vectors used in gene therapy caused issues when they were integrated into patients’ genomes randomly. Some of the patients in the gene therapy trials found the original disease being cured but development of other symptoms or cancers gene therapy trials experienced a cure of one disease, but other types of cancers resulted in their place, causing death in every single trial, says Bhargava. Due to these unforeseen outcomes, the FDA wants a minimum five-year follow-up for adeno-associated viral vectors used in therapy.
Interestingly, many people are naturally infected with adenovirus but have no symptoms or disease; the virus lies dormant in their genome. “We don’t know if the recombinant AAV vaccine (with Sars-CoV-2 spike protein), a mutated adeno-vector, can somehow activate the virus which is latent in some people, and if that virus becomes activated…,” she says, it could essentially perform a “rescue” to the mutant version of the virus in the vaccine by providing the missing pieces; this could have unintended consequences.
These unintended consequences highlight the issue of the public-facing stance that Covid-19 vaccines are unequivocally “safe and effective.” Bhargava dispels the notion that these side effects are random and not causation from the vaccines because side effects “are clustered.”
Warner agreed, stating that he recently attended a vaccine-injury press conference in which those who claimed to be affected had injuries in three main groups: neurological, cardiac, and autoimmune. (Warner experienced severe cardiac and autoimmune issues after his second dose of Pfizer.) He noted that the vax-injured cohort compiled a mixed demographic, with their only common denominator being the vaccine, says Warner. Prior to the pandemic, says Bhargava, scientists would proceed in investigating this perplexing commonality, instead of ignoring the reports.
The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, (where patients and doctors can make vaccine injuries known to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,) has been discounted by health officials, scientific publications, and the media, citing that self-reporting is not credible in determining that the vaccines are the causation of the injury.
Warner says the in-depth amount of information that must be provided to make a valid claim gives credibility to the genuineness of the reports. Also, false reporting to VAERS is a federal crime. Warner references a study conducted by non-profit Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare called the Lazarus report, which found that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.” Given this determination, —even using the most conservative figure— the death toll would be alarming.
Warner clarifies that neither he nor Dressen (who experienced debilitating neurological disorders with one injection of AstraZeneca) are advocating for ending the vaccine initiative. However, if medical professionals continue to deny their patients a vaccine-related injury diagnosis, they cannot get the appropriate medical support. Warner also claims that doctors who do acknowledge and diagnose vaccine injuries are in jeopardy of losing their license.
Mandates vs. Fundamental Immunology
To Bhargava, mandates do not make scientific sense for several reasons. She provided her rationale including:
One, the vaccines fail to stop infection or importantly, transmission, so how will they end the pandemic? The CDC stopped tracking breakthrough infections in fully vaccinated people since May of 2021 (just a few months into the vaccine drive) unless they were hospitalized or had severe disease. In contrast, all cases, whether mild or asymptomatic in the vaccinated are being reported. This is skewing of data. The promise of herd immunity for Covid-19 is doubtful considering our failure to reach herd immunity with the flu—despite the widespread use of yearly flu shots. “Have we eradicated it?” asks Bhargava. “No.”
Two, even for mandated childhood vaccines such as chickenpox, there can be breakthrough infections and transmissibility. However, with natural immunity, the recovered patient cannot be reinfected and is therefore exempt from needing the pox vaccine. But somehow there is no exemption for natural immunity with Covid-19. Of course, TrialSite reminds it has followed studies that evidence reinfection with CoV-2 is a rare phenomenon, but it does occur. Some early data indicate Omicron may pose a larger threat for more reinfection, but the notion is mere speculation; re-infections have yet to be confirmed by sequencing and prior infection variant identity is seldom reported. Only time and data will tell.
Three, there are fundamental differences between RNA and DNA viruses. “You can’t compare Covid to chickenpox, because chickenpox is caused by DNA viruses. They don’t mutate as often, and they induce life-long immunity…” —even if they are around someone who is actively infectious—. In contrast, the flu (RNA) behaves differently, selectively, as does Covid. Household members may not contract it from a sick member, and if they do, symptoms and their level of severity can vary.
Furthermore, it is rare to contract flu year-after-year, (evidence of a significant level of robust, ongoing immunity.) Upon reinfection perhaps five or ten years later, the subsequent infection is often milder. “The idea that people who have recovered from Covid also need to be vaccinated is completely mind-boggling to me, and to the whole principle of immunology.”
Four, “natural immunity has been known to be the gold standard for the longest time,” says Bhargava. Consider the development of the smallpox vaccine:
It was observed in 1796, that milkmaids who contracted the cowpox disease were protected from smallpox. Therefore, scientists were able to inoculate others using some of the secretions in the cowpox blisters (gross but necessary,) and exposed it to people who became resistant to smallpox.
Historically, scientists unanimously recognized the value of natural immunity. Why won’t virologists affirm its crucial role in this pandemic?
Mass Vaccination Causing Evolutionary Pressure
Five, putting pressure on the virus by vaccinating during a pandemic causes it to mutate for its survival. Bhargava uses “a disguise” analogy: mRNA vaccines are built in a way that the body recognizes “the face” of the virus, (the spike protein.) So, when the virus wants to infect a vaccinated host, it puts on “a mask.” However, with natural immunity, the body is acquainted with all facets of the virus’ identity, making it harder to conquer its host.
These ideas are shared by Malone, and Belgian virologist, Geert Vanden Bossche, who advocate that mass vaccination is compelling the virus to mutate, essentially training it to become more resilient.
Incomplete Data Breeds Public Distrust
Bhargava reviewed recent data from the United Kingdom’s Health Ministry. It examined alternate antibodies created in vaccinated vs. naturally acquired immunity cohorts, which fight other parts of the virus, such as the nucleocapsid protein. The vaccinated group was reported to have lower amounts of antibodies for the nucleocapsid protein than the unvaccinated, naturally infected group. “What that tells me is that the vaccine is interfering with the function of your immune system to mount a robust response against the virus when you get infected,” says Bhargava.
Most of the published research comparing antibody levels in vaccinated immunity vs. natural immunity are comparing spike protein antibodies only, “and disregarding other components,” says Bhargava. If our immune system’s antibody defense were a pie, the spike protein would only comprise 35 – 50%. Comparing the data this way often favors the vaccinated, while ignoring all the other antibodies that naturally infected persons produce.
There were also flaws in the way scientists evaluated the virulence of the Delta variant. In the studies, she read they did not track the symptoms of the unvaccinated which would provide necessary info for comparison against the vaccinated breakthrough cases.
Without the Delta data of the unvaccinated, how can we know it is more virulent? To make such a conclusion, researchers would have to observe cases of more severe disease in the unvaccinated, ensuring that underlying health conditions were similar in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Of course, if that information was present in scientific publication, and it was determined to be the case, the media would have shared it worldwide, right? Is it possible that the unvaccinated experienced milder symptoms, which may explain why this data was not recorded or shared?
It’s also fair to note that the CDC no longer tracks breakthrough infections in the vaccinated unless there is death or hospitalization, so there is not truly a clear picture in which to make scientific determinations. The scientific community is “cherry-picking” their data, says Bhargava.
Marcus confirms that these inexplicable actions on behalf of the leaders in scientific research provoke the mounting doubt of the general public. Things aren’t right, and their minds are compelled to search for or reach for answers. On the other hand, there are voices on both sides of the political spectrum who are allowing their conclusions to run off the deep end.
Confidence in Truth Emerging
“If people lose faith in science, that will be, I think, the end of medicine as we know it,” says Bhargava.
Bhargava acknowledges why physicians and nurses who see and treat patients adhere to the protocol given by health authorities, however, “in the lab, there are always deviations from the experimental protocol. That’s how discoveries are made.” Lab experiments fail 99% of the time. Protocol is only a guideline; she encouraged her surgical students to deviate from the protocols as needed and ask questions during experimentation that might lead to insight along the way. “If you do that, your chances of succeeding will be much higher.”
Final thoughts:
With only incomplete data on hand, how can scientific inferences be made with strong confidence? Bhargava declared, “When there are no appropriate controls and no proper documentation of data,” the inferences made hold little value. She emphasizes the importance of accepting the inconvenient-yet-important data. Information such as adverse events or alternative therapeutics should be examined so that it can help us understand more about SARS-CoV-2 and the role that our current vaccines have in protecting the world from Covid-19.
Call to Action: Check out Aubrey Marcus’ podcasts here.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 12, 2021 | Sundance | 319 Comments
The NBC media panel for Meet the Press is absolutely apoplectic about their inability to destroy President Donald Trump and his supportive base of pragmatic, awakened Americans. The pearl-clutching and fear are palpable, as the leftist roundtable contemplates future elections that may deconstruct decades of election control, manipulation, fraud and falsehood.
What the panel of John Heilemann, Marianna Sotomayor, Kimberly Atkins Stohr and Brendan Buck really fear is the pesky system within our constitutional republic we call ‘federalism’. They need to keep their attacks against Donald Trump cast in the role of eliminating baby Hitler simply to avoid confronting the flaws in their own ideological arguments. They fear freedom. They need the collective. Individual liberty is against their own sense of self and purpose.
If you listen through their nonsense (not for the faint of heart), all of the panel apoplexy boils down to individual states in control of their own elections. What they fear is federalism itself, which makes sense when you remind yourself there are two generations of leftists who were taught that collectivism (the we are the world crap), where only one centralized federal government, of all consuming power and authority, should be allowed to make decisions. WATCH:
While it would be fun to debate a group like this, the core of their fear is a diminishing ability to control. As CTH reminds frequently, the need for control is a reaction to fear. This applies in all levels of social society from elections to COVID responses. Elites need control, because at their core they fear the inherent inequity of freedom.
Sally Struthers pleads into the camera for donations to feed the starving child in her arms in Africa… leftists swoon, and the U.N. activates. Meanwhile, some pragmatist watching the commercial leans over to her husband and says, “I wonder why the cameraman didn’t just give the kid a sandwich”?
Control is a reaction to fear. Think in terms of politics and society – the fear behind leftist politics is the fear that someone might withhold things (opportunities, money, whatever) from me. Fear that if you live your life in a way I dislike that it might affect my life. Fear that if you get that job, there will be nothing left for me. Fear that if you make tons of money, it means there’s less money out there for me. So, people who believe in leftist ideologies seek control as a means of trying to create guarantees and safeguards against those circumstances they fear.
The DC UniParty knows exactly how to exploit that fear, and both Democrats and Republicans love to provide those guarantees and safeguards.
Modern “liberals”, leftists, try to control the world and people to enable their comfort and happiness. Which, as we know, is an endless quest. Trying to control others does nothing in the way of making oneself happy. By extension, voting in this mindset so that government can try to control others will also – shocking – not lead to a happier, more comfortable life.
The conservative (and moderate, independent, but for the sake of expediency, the conservative), on the other hand, relies on himself to meet his own needs. And the trade off of being free to live his life as he wishes, is also understanding that he has to make peace with how you live yours. By extension, aware that he wants to be able to hold onto this liberty and freedom forever, the conservative votes accordingly, so that everyone can remain free and in charge of his or her own life.
But here’s the crucial difference, perhaps, particularly where misery on the left stems: The conservative does not worry, so to speak, about you. The conservative knows that you were born with the same access to self-love, self-empowerment, self-determination and self-reliance that we all were, no matter the circumstances into which you were born. (Think about the millions of people this country has allowed to crawl up from poverty into prosperity – the conservative KNOWS this is possible.) And the conservative believes that if you want prosperity, or a good job, or a good education, you can make it happen – but you have to work hard.
The conservative hopes and intends that the free markets bring you all of the affordable and positive opportunities and resources that you need. The conservative also knows that on the other side of that hard work is great reward – material and, more importantly, emotional, spiritual and mental.
The conservative understands that not only is it a waste of time to try to control you, it’s actually impossible. Humans were born to be free. And if we put a roadblock in front of you, you’ll find another way around it. So we see attempts at control as a waste of resources, energy and time at best, and at worst, creating detrimental results that serve to hinder people’s upward mobility or teach dependence. We see much more efficiency, as well as endless opportunity, in leaving you to your own devices. And we want the same in return.
This is where modern democrats misview conservatives as heartless. But really, the conservative believes that there is one and one path only to sustainable success and independence – and that is self-empowerment. All other avenues – welfare, affirmative action, housing loans you can’t actually afford – ultimately risk doing a disservice to people, as they teach dependence on special circumstances, the govt, or arbitrary assistance (that can disappear tomorrow). And the real danger – they will ALWAYS backfire, and leave the recipient in equally or more dire circumstances. Any false improvement will always expire.
The conservative believes in abundance. The liberal believes in scarcity.
The conservative believes man is born free and will be who he is, no matter what arbitrary limitations or rules are put on him. The leftist believes man is perfectible, and by extension, believes a society at large is perfectible, and command and control is justified in the quest to a “perfect” utopian society. (Sounds familiar!)
The conservative tends to be more faithful – and not necessarily in God, but in the ability of the individual to find great strength in himself (or from his God) to get what he needs and to be successful. Therefore the conservative has an outlet for his fear and disappointment – trust and faith in something bigger.
The leftist believes the system must be perfected in order to enable success. Therefore disappointment is channeled as anger and blame at the system. Voids are left to be filled by faith in the govt, which they surely then want to come in and “fix” things.
And therein lie the roots of love and fear respectively. For the conservative, when life presents great struggles, he knows he has the power to surmount them. Happiness stems from internal strength and perseverance. For the modern leftist, when life presents great struggles, the system failed, therefore they were at the mercy of a faulty system, and they believe that only when the system is fixed can their life improve. Happiness is built on systemic contingencies, which they will then seek to control or expect someone else to.
One blames himself. The other blames anyone and everyone but himself.
And there it is. There’s where the meanness comes from. The leftist ideology causes that person to cast anger at the world when things go wrong or appear “unfair.” He constantly chooses only to see the “injustices” – and that makes for a very miserable, mean, blame-casting existence.
One last point that we have seen over and over and over with many (not all) of our leftist friends: Extreme stinginess and cheapness.
In our conservative community growing up, we were always taught that you give when people are in need – make donations to the Red Cross when there’s an earthquake, donate to charity when you can afford it, etc. Even if it’s just $50 here and there – it’s the right thing to do. Conservatives see this as the responsibility that comes with gaining from the capitalistic system; if you happen to benefit greatly from the system, it’s your duty to give back.
The liberal, on the other hand, does not seem to share this same viewpoint, at least not in my experience. They perhaps think this is linked to believing in scarcity, and that your dollar comes at the cost of mine. So it seems that liberals, on some level of consciousness, feel guilty about not being voluntarily charitable. Therefore, to write off their guilt, they outsource their “generosity” to the government by voting for wealth re-distributive policies. Thus, the liberal cheats himself of the joy and addictiveness of direct generosity. (Not to mention – redistributive policies ALWAYS end up disempowering those who they’re meant to help.)
We think the Treehouse is a good armory for those who are doing long distance walking for the sake of our nation. We hope you’ll think so, too. Find yourself a good branch….or just pull up a rock to the campfire.
Posted Originally on the Conservative tree house on December 12, 2021 | Sundance | 123 Comments
ABC/IPSOS are trying hard, very hard, to provide cover for Joe Biden. [IPSOS Release Here – pdf data Here] However, even within what they call a “probability-based sample of pre-selected” Americans, aka “the knowledge panel“, the responses toward Joe Biden show a nationwide rejection of the White House occupant.
A heavily weighted sample of 28% support Biden’s efforts on inflation. The rest of their pre-selected panel say he sucks.
Another weighted sample shows 36% think Biden is doing a good job on crime. The rest of their pre-selected panel say no, Biden sucks.
(Via ABC) President Joe Biden is facing significant skepticism from the American public, with his job approval rating lagging across a range of major issues, including new lows for his handling of crime, gun violence and the economic recovery, a new ABC/Ipsos poll finds.
[…] More than two-thirds of Americans (69%) disapprove of how Biden is handling inflation (only 28% approve) while more than half (57%) disapprove of his handling of the economic recovery.
[T]he survey also reveals weaknesses from Biden’s own party with only a slim majority of Democrats (54%) approving. Biden’s orbit is also hemorrhaging independent voters, with 71% disapproving of his handling of inflation.
[…] As the national murder rates see historic jumps, only a little more than 1 in 3 Americans (36%) approve of Biden’s handling of crime, down from 43% in an ABC News/Ipsos poll in late October. (read more)
The White House strategy to deny chaos created by their policies, and yet demanding that media report good things about Main Street collapsing, does not seem to be working. Apparently, an overwhelming majority of Americans now believe what they see and feel for themselves.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 12, 2021 | Sundance | 359 Comments
It was always Chris Wallace’s job to protect the DC interests by tamping down any sunlight upon corrupt UniParty politics. That’s the reason why CTH called Wallace the deep swamp ‘gatekeeper‘ for a decade.
Wallace, the top player amid many such players at Fox News, was always a narrative platform provider to distribute media points that supported the institutional administrative state in DC. However, thanks to the rise of pragmatic conservatism, a movement created by Donald Trump and commonly identified as MAGA, in recent years more people have caught on to how this insufferable media game is played.
Chris Wallace was increasingly becoming naked to his audience, and as a direct outcome, increasingly useless for propaganda distribution. Today, the functionally obsolescent gatekeeper announced, effective immediately, he was leaving Fox News. Moments later, CNN announced Chris Wallace was joining them. In essence, Wallace moves from controlled opposition to direct opposition. WATCH:
Wallace was not the first departure. The increased public awareness of the manipulative construct that is Fox News (writ large) is the same reason why Steve Hayes and Jonah Goldberg were released. That is also the same motive for Fox hiring Dan Bongino.
Although it is yet to be announced, the Fox News contracts for Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham also will not be renewed after their current terms expire. With more people finding more places where genuine source material facts are cited with sunlight, the ability for controlled opposition pundits to thrive is demonstrably lessened.
Traditional cable news is modifying itself accordingly with subscription based services.
If you want to avoid uncomfortable truth, if you want to be fed propaganda, if you want to get talking points just to support your skewed and ideologically flawed world view, and if you want to avoid confronting your own preconceptions, the subscriber services from both Fox News and CNN will now provide the direct injection of propaganda and misinformation you need to retain the status quo. This is the new business model for cable news platforms.
An entirely new media infrastructure has assembled outside the influence of corporations. Understanding current events, real news and information based on fact, is no longer dependent on corporations. Independent researchers and information providers are giving the raw material citations directly to audiences on a variety of platforms.
In the bigger picture, these are the consequences from identifying “fake news” publicly, and yes, we can thank Donald J. Trump for that. This is the biggest gift that Donald Trump created outside of his America First political agenda. Donald J. Trump was/is a walking red pill; a “touchstone”: a visible, empirical test or criterion for determining the quality or genuineness of anything political.
Without Trump, the business models of CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and the alphabet broadcasters would never have collapsed as quickly. He alone accomplished that.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 