Press "Enter" to skip to content

ResCon1

Lies, Damn Lies, and Mask Lies

Public health experts now admit what the empirical and scientific evidence has shown all along: cloth masks don’t work.

Like a bad dream that won’t go away, our public health experts’ unhealthy mask fetish continues, albeit with an important qualification:

Public health experts now acknowledge that cloth masks—which they foisted upon the American people for at least the first 18 months of this pandemic—don’t stop or slow the the spread of viral respiratory infections.

“Cloth masks are little more than facial decorations,” admits CNN Medical Analyst Dr. Leana Wen, an emergency physician and visiting professor of health policy and management at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health.

“I wish we’d get rid of the term masking,” adds Michael Osterholm, Director of Infectious Disease, Research and Policy, at the University of Minnesota. “Because, in fact, it implies anything you put in front of your face works…

We know today that many of the face cloth coverings that people wear are not very effective in reducing any of the virus movement in or out—either [that] you’re breathing out or you’re breathing in.

Mr. Osterholm made those comments more than five months ago, Aug. 2, 2021; and Dr. Wen’s comments were recorded by CNN three weeks ago.

CDC. Yet, only three days ago (Fri., Jan. 14, 2022), did the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finally acknowledge (sort of) this empirical, scientific reality.

I say sort of because the CDC still refuses to acknowledge that the efficacy of cloth masks has not been demonstrated in any real-world population setting (as opposed to an artificial laboratory setting). “Masking,” asserts the CDC

is a critical public health tool for preventing spread of COVID-19, and it is important to remember that any mask is better than no mask.

Historical Evidence. This is simply not true, as even mask fetishists Mr. Osterholm and Dr. Wen readily acknowledge. And while cloth masks are even less effective against the more contagious and fast-spreading Omicron variant, their utility against any respiratory virus, COVID included, is sorely lacking.

“More than a century after the 1918 influenza pandemic,” write researchers from the Cato Institute,

examination of the efficacy of masks has produced a large volume of mostly low- to moderate-quality evidence that has largely failed to demonstrate their value in most settings.

“COVID is so dangerous,” notes Cato’s Thomas A. Firey, “that masking doesn’t provide much benefit—and cotton masks seem to provide no benefit at all.”

In short, the evidence is clear, consistent, and definitive: cloth masks don’t work. They don’t stop or slow the spread of viral respiratory infections. Let’s end the charade and give up the fetish—and let’s focus, instead, on things that really do work: vaccines, social distancing, and therapeutics.

Feature photo credit: Screen shots of Dr. Leana Wen and Michael Osterholm from the PBS News Hour and CSPAN, respectively.

Why Is Russia Now Threatening Ukraine?

Biden’s weakness gave license to Putin’s aggression.

When, last August, Joe Biden abjectly surrendered Afghanistan to the Taliban, he and his administration  said this was necessary because the United States has no strategic interests there and must pivot, instead, to confront a rising China.

Never mind that, as William Lloyd Stearman points out, Bagram Air Base is strategically located “about 400 miles west of China and 500 miles east of Iran.” This, Stearman writes, is obviously “a good place to have American assets.”

U.S. Surrender in Afghanistan. Nonetheless, the President opted to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan and abandon Bagram to the Taliban. Mr. Biden pretended that his decision to surrender would not have deleterious and far-reaching strategic consequences.

Russia’s Vladimir Putin has proven Joe Biden wrong. The Russian dictator has amassed more than 100,000 troops and advanced military equipment along the Russian-Ukraine border, while demanding hegemonic control over Ukraine and other neighboring countries.

“We are concerned,” says White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, “that the Russian government is preparing for an invasion in Ukraine that may result in widespread human rights violations and war crimes should diplomacy fail to meet their objectives.”

Indeed, not since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990 has the world seen such a brazen assault on  the sovereignty and territorial integrity of an independent nation-state.

Why now? Because Putin has taken the measure of Joe Biden and realizes that our President is unwilling to protect the American national interest in Afghanistan or Europe.

In fact, Biden has pledged not to deploy U.S. ground troops or military advisers to Ukraine, and he has been reticent to arm the Ukrainian military for fear of provoking Putin.

As Bret Stephens observes, Putin and other anti-American dictators watched the American debacle in Afghanistan and concluded that “the United States is a feckless power.

“The current Ukraine crisis,” Stephens writes, “is as much the child of Biden’s Afghanistan debacle as the last Ukraine crisis [in 2014] was the child of Obama’s Syria debacle.”

In short, weakness is provocative. Weakness begets aggression. Weakness courts disaster. And weakness can have deleterious strategic consequences as we are now learning in Ukraine.

Featured photo credit: Joe Bidden and Vladimir Putin, courtesy of Fox News.

Back to the Future!

How Ted Cruz lost the 2024 Republican Presidential Nomination to Mike Pompeo and Tom Cotton.

HOUSTON, Texas, March 14, 2024—Sen. Ted Cruz today announced that he is withdrawing from the presidential race after suffering lopsided defeats in every primary and caucus state thus far, including a stinging defeat in his own home state of Texas.

Cruz’s candidacy never really took off and was stillborn almost from the start because of controversial remarks he made in 2021 and 2022.

Cruz harshly criticized Trump supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol Jan. 6, 2021. He said the January 6 protest was a “violent terrorist attack.”

Cruz quickly retracted that remark after being called to account by Fox News host Tucker Carlson. However, his presidential candidacy never recovered. Out on the campaign trail, Cruz’s depiction of the January 6 protest was used against him by his GOP rivals.

Mike Pompeo. “Let’s be clear,” said former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during the Feb. 22, 2024, debate at the Citadel in South Carolina.

Senator Cruz called Trump supporters “violent terrorists.” That depiction is wrong. It is inaccurate. It is a lie. And it is slur against millions of good and decent Americans whose only crime was to support President Trump. The senator ought to be ashamed.

Cruz said the remark was a one-off and used only to criticize those January 6 protesters who assaulted the police. CNN, though, found that Cruz had used that controversial depiction “at least 17 previous times in official written statements, in tweets, in remarks at Senate hearings, and in interviews.”

Cruz’s rivals for the nomination said that Cruz was being disingenuous. They said that Cruz is a Harvard-trained lawyer who always chooses his words very carefully.

“He knew what he was saying. It was no mistake and it was no accident. Those reprehensible remarks reflect a lifelong habit the Senator has of always trying to have it both ways,” Pompeo said.

Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), meanwhile, reminded voters that former President Trump called Cruz “Lyin’ Ted” during the 2016 GOP presidential primary race.

Trump has remained officially neutral in the 2024 presidential contest. However, his comments about Cruz have helped to sink Cruz’s campaign.

Three weeks ago, for instance, the former president told reporters that, although neutral, “I will tell you: Ted has a lot to answer for. A lot. And I’ll just leave it at that.”

Pompeo and Cotton are both military veterans, and they spent all winter hammering away at Cruz’s lack of military service.

“Senator Cruz, Secretary Pompeo, and I are all Harvard Law alumni ,” said Cotton during the March 3 debate in Huntsville, Alabama.

But only Mike and I left the Ivy League to serve in the U.S. military out on the frontiers of freedom. Ted, by contrast, is a career politician whose sole pursuit has been political power for himself and his cronies.

Defense and foreign policy issues became top campaign issues last fall after Russia invaded Ukraine and China attacked Taiwan’s electrical grid. The intermittent blackouts have persisted for months and are seen as the prelude to China’s attempted annexation of Taiwan.

Iranian proxy forces, meanwhile, have attacked Saudi Arabia, and Tehran has announced that its nuclear weapons capability is “non-negotiable.”

“Two years ago,” said GOP political consultant Whit Ayres, “no one thought defense and foreign policy issues would be the big, defining issues in this race. But things have gotten so bad so quickly that voters can’t help but take note and be concerned.”

Working class GOP primary voters, he added—”especially the increasing number of Hispanic Republicans and African American military veterans—they give pride of place to military service. That matters to them.”

Elitist. In addition, Cruz was hurt by his wife’s work for Goldman Sachs. His rivals used this work to portray Cruz as an out-of-touch elitist more interested in catering to the well-heeled and the wealthy than the working class voters who compose an increasing share of the GOP primary electorate.

Pompeo and Cotton wished Cruz well. Pompeo said that, if elected, he would consider appointing Cruz attorney general. Cotton said Cruz would make a good Supreme Court appointee.

Feature photo credit: Ted Cruz via the Dallas Morning News, courtesy of NBC News Dallas-Ft. Worth.

January 6 Lies and Distortions

January 6 is a day that will live in infamy. So, too, will left-wing lies and distortions about that infamous day.

The January 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol never should have happened; and Donald Trump bears responsibility for inspiring the assault, for failing to deter and prevent it, and then failing to help stop it once it happened.

This was more than enough reason to impeach and convict Trump, as I argued at the time.

However, Democrats and “progressives,” aided by the media, have since depicted the protest as something that it was not: an insurrection involving hundreds of “racists” and “white supremacists” intent on “hanging Mike Pence” and violently seizing control of Congress.

In truth, a few thousand protesters marched on the Capitol and a few hundred of these protesters violently clashed with the police. None of the protesters were found to possess guns or firearms; and, despite hyperbolic, martial rhetoric from some of the protesters, they had no plan or scheme to seize control of Congress.

The protest got out of hand and became a full-scale riot because the Capitol Police were, as Andrew McCarthy explains, “grossly undermanned [and] unprepared.” Weakness begot aggression.

Yet, today on Face the Nation, Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago repeatedly referred to protesters who “broke into the Capitol.” But in truth, as we’ve seen in real-time video, many of the protesters were allowed into the Capitol building by police who opened the door for them and let them in.

Nor is this surprising. The Capitol has long been welcoming  and hospitable to visitors. Ours is a democracy, after all; and those who foot the bill and elect our Congressional representatives have always been welcomed into the corridors of power.

For this reason, many of the protesters genuinely seemed to think they had a right to enter the Capitol. And the Capitol Police initially took a soft and relaxed approach to the protest because they seemed to view it as benign and non-threatening.

It was only after a small minority of protesters grew violent and viciously assaulted the police that things began to change.

Professor Pape also insists that “race is an element and race is a driver” of Trump’s January 6 protest. But he reaches this conclusion only through the worst possible interpretation of the evidence that he himself presents.

The evidence that Professor Pape presents is this: most of the 700+ indicted Trump protesters came from politically blue urban areas with declining white populations. This, he says, “dovetails with the right-wing conspiracy theory… called the great replacement.”

In short, these Trump protesters were racists and white supremacists angry that their communities are becoming more black and brown.

Blue State Politics. That’s one possible, albeit farfetched, interpretation. Here’s another more plausible interpretation:

These Trump protesters who live in blue enclaves have seen firsthand the damage wrought by “progressive” Democratic rule. Thus they are more politically engaged—and enraged—and more politically sensitive than ordinary red state voters.

In other words, politics, not race, is what drove these Trump supporters.

Because minorities vote Democrat in significantly greater numbers than white voters, it is all too easy to conflate race and politics. But we should avoid conflating these two factors unless we have clear and compelling evidence that race and not politics is at work. Professor Pape presents no such evidence.

The bottom line: we can and should condemn Trump and the January 6, 2021, Capitol Hill riot. However, we mustn’t allow “progressives,” Democrats, and their media fellow travelers to use January 6 as a pretext to vilify all of the Trump protesters and especially all Trump supporters.

Most had peaceful intentions and were the misguided victims of Trump’s lies and demagoguery. Others were more malicious and sinister in their intent. Fair enough. However, the same can be said of Trump’s political opponents in the media and Democratic Party.

Feature photo credit: Political Science Professor Robert Pape (L) and Donald Trump (R), courtesy of Face the Nation and Ballotpedia, respectively.

Joe Manchin’s Profile in Courage

The Senator from West Virginia deserves, but won’t get, honor and gratitude for stopping Bernie Biden’s $5-Trillion ‘Build Back Better’ monstrosity. 

In 1956, Democratic Senator John F. Kennedy and his gifted speechwriter, Ted Sorenson, authored a Pulitzer Prize winning biography called Profiles in Courage.

The book celebrated eight United States Senators who exhibited rare political courage by taking principled stands, at great political cost to themselves, to do right by and for the country.

Today, we can, we should, and we must add one more name to Kennedy’s honored and revered list: Senator Joe Manchin.

True, by refusing to succumb to left-wing demands that he rubber-stamp Bernie Biden’s $5-Trillion “Build Back Better” monstrosity, Sen. Manchin is hardly defying the will of his constituents. To the contrary: Biden is deeply unpopular in West Virginia, and polls show that the vast majority of West Virginians oppose his “Build Back Better” monstrosity.

Still, Manchin is a Democrat and the one Senator whose vote can make or break this disastrously transformative legislation. As such, he is under tremendous political pressure to buckle under “for Joe,” “for his president,” and to be a “team player.”

In fact, far left Democratic senators, congressmen, and party activists have already taken to Twitter to impugn Manchin’s integrity and to heap opprobrium on him for daring to dissent from “progressive” party orthodoxy.

In a better world and a politically healthier country, Manchin’s brave and principled stand would be honored and applauded for what it is: a profile in courage. But instead, because Manchin is siding with conservatives and opposing “progressives,” he is (predictably) being demonized and cast as the toad in the road.

The authors of Profiles in Courage knew better and so do we.

Feature photo credit: Then Senator John F. Kennedy (left) and Senator Joe Manchin now (right), courtesy of 1957timecapsule.wordpress.com via the Daily JFK and the Associated Press via the Honolulu Star-Advertiserrespectively.