After the attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Butler, PA, there was an outpouring of very primal and vicious rage from all corners of the Left — both on social media, and in the mainstream corporate outlets. For the first time in American history, the near-assassination of a president didn’t bring about a period of national mourning, or condemnations from Hollywood and academia. Instead, the overwhelming sentiment was, in effect, that Donald Trump had it coming. It continued even after their second assassination attempt on Trump, which led the the New York Times to explain that Trump was blameworthy because he had “stirred” anger among the public. Many other publications followed suit. Obviously, blaming Trump for his own attempted assassination was always demented. But we were supposed to believe that it was acceptable to blame Trump, at least in part, because he’s such a polarizing figure. The Left insisted that they aren’t always this bloodthirsty. They said that they didn’t want to see every single one of their enemies get murdered in public, live on national television. Instead, they said that they just wanted to see Donald Trump get murdered in public, because he’s basically Hitler, and Hitler is a special case. Once Hitler’s out of the way, they said, they’d return to being normal, functioning citizens who don’t want to murder their enemies all the time. This is a defense that was never believable. But after the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan this week, even the Left is completely abandoning the whole pretense. If anything, the Left seems to be gloating over the execution of Thompson even more than the Trump assassination attempt. It’s not an exaggeration to say that I’ve never seen anything quite like this. They are declaring, without any hint of reservation, that it’s “open season” on everyone they don’t like. They are gleefully celebrating the horrific demise of a human being. Whether you’re a politician or a business executive, it doesn’t matter. They don’t want you fired, they don’t want you in prison — they want you dead. Former Washington Post journalist Taylor Lorenz couldn’t have been any more explicit about this. She posted an article on her newsletter entitled, “Yes, ‘we’ want insurance executives dead.” She also posted an image of party balloons with the celebratory caption, “CEO Down.” And she wrote that, while people shouldn’t “murder” these executives, it’s “normal” to wish death upon them. WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show Separately, in response to a news article about how Blue Cross Blue Shield recently announced that it won’t pay for anesthesia past a certain point, Lorenz wrote: “And people wonder why we want these executives dead.” She also posted the name and picture of the CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield, effectively suggesting that someone assassinate her. There’s really no other way to interpret it. This is the same woman who says you’re a psychopath if you go outside without a mask and “rawdog the air.” But wishing death on healthcare executives is apparently completely fine. I could spend the next month going through all of the reactions like this from the Left. Suffice it to say, this kind of response was not unusual. For example, Columbia University professor Anthony Zenkus, who apparently specializes in the field of “social work,” wrote: “Today, we mourn the death of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, gunned down…. wait, I’m sorry – today we mourn the deaths of the 68,000 Americans who needlessly die each year so that insurance company execs like Brian Thompson can become multimillionaires.” Then there was this response from someone named “Angie,” who said that the murder of the CEO had made her feel “reinvigorated”: Brian Thompson's death gives Angie "hope" and has reinvigorated her. Why? Because her echo chamber makes it seem that "Class consciousness" is on the rise. These Communists are gross ? pic.twitter.com/R5XiDKesSi — Stu (@thestustustudio) December 5, 2024   These people are euphoric over the murder of a man with a family, supposedly because they’re not happy with his company’s insurance coverage. And now, like Taylor Lorenz, they’re turning their attention — and their threats — towards other CEOs. And it appears to be working. Within hours of the online campaign to harass and threaten the CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield, the company announced a reversal of its planned policy on anesthesia coverage. They now say they’re going to “halt” their proposed limits on coverage for anesthesia during surgery. The company put out a statement reading: “There has been significant widespread misinformation about an update to our anesthesia policy. As a result, we have decided to not proceed with this policy change. To be clear, it never was and never will be the policy of Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield to not pay for medically necessary anesthesia services. The proposed update to the policy was only designed to clarify the appropriateness of anesthesia consistent with well-established clinical guidelines.” On the surface, this looks like a victory for the assassin and his supporters. The assassin kills one insurance company CEO, and then the next day, an insurance company rescinds its plans to limit coverage. It’s the kind of thing that seems like a major victory if you have no idea how the health insurance industry works. The catch is that, as a result of this reversal, anesthesiologists no longer have any incentive to stop overbilling — which has been a major problem in their field in recent years. Blue Cross Blue Shield, along with other insurance companies, was trying to force anesthesiologists to accept the standard, per-procedure Medicare rate for their services. Anesthesiologists hated that idea, because they’d prefer to keep charging high rates for hours that they weren’t even working. And now, because of a harassment campaign by Left-wing activists in the wake of a CEO’s murder, those anesthesiologists have won. In other words, the same people who complain that healthcare costs are too high might have just made it a lot easier for anesthesiologists to jack up healthcare costs even further. It’s a development that underscores the complexity of the situation here. There are nuances that are lost when you’re re-enacting the French Revolution and murdering people in the street, instead of discussing complicated issues like reasonable people are supposed to do, in the “democracy” that the Left told us was so important. To be clear, there’s certainly evidence that companies like UnitedHealthcare are becoming much more aggressive in denying certain kinds of claims. A Senate report from this year, for example, found that: “In 2019, UnitedHealthcare issued an initial denial to 8.7 percent of the post-acute care prior authorization requests it received; by 2022, it denied 22.7 percent of all such requests, an increase of 172 percent. … Its 2022 denial rate for skilled nursing facilities was nine times higher than it was three years before.”  The Democrat-led Senate committee concluded that, “Medicare Advantage insurers are intentionally targeting a costly but critical area of medicine — substituting judgment about medical necessity with a calculation about financial gain.” What the report doesn’t mention is that UnitedHealthCare has profit margins of around 6%. After tax, it’s really under 4%. That means that, as a matter of basic finance, they’re not driving up profits to some ridiculous degree. Like any business, they have a lot of operating costs. They assume risks. If they started approving every claim, they’d go out of business overnight. CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE The other important element here that Democrats overlook, for obvious reasons, is that Democrats are the ones who implemented coverage mandates, which inevitably raise the price of insurance for everyone. We saw that immediately after Obamacare, which was supposed to lower everyone’s premiums. In reality, it increased them dramatically.  The point I’m making here is not that UnitedHealthcare is blameless, or that the insurance industry in general shouldn’t be criticized. Or that the CEO that was just killed is some kind of saint. I have no idea what kind of guy he is. He could be the very face of evil, or he could be a decent guy, or somewhere in between. I have no clue. What I’m saying is that there are no open-and-shut, clear-cut solutions to this problem. Any kind of solution requires real debate and discussion, not murdering executives in the streets. And that should make you wonder why, exactly, the Left is so supportive of Brian Thompson’s murder. If they don’t actually care about fixing the health insurance industry, then what do they care about? It would be one thing if these Left-wing activists had the view that sometimes, when things get bad enough, an assassin needs to step up and take someone out for the good of the community. I’m not endorsing that view, obviously, but at least there’s a kind of moral coherence there. If they really believed that United Healthcare is essentially murdering people, and profiting from unspeakable moral evils, then you can see why some of these depraved Leftists might get excited by the prospect of eliminating one of the company’s executives. But any semblance of coherence goes out the window the moment you zoom out a hundred feet, and look at how these same activists are reacting to the trial of Daniel Penny. If these people really thought that it’s good and righteous to eliminate a clear and present danger to the community — as they do with the CEO of UnitedHealthcare — then why exactly do they have any objection to what Daniel Penny did? Why did they storm the subways in protest after Jordan Neely’s death, chanting “No justice, no peace”? Why have they been outside the courthouse for every day of deliberations, pressuring the jurors to convict? Why isn’t Taylor Lorenz writing articles about how it’s “normal” to be happy that Jordan Neely is dead? Why aren’t the Columbia professors telling us not to mourn his death? Even if we assume that Daniel Penny actually murdered Jordan Neely, which isn’t true, what’s the objection? Even if you pretend that Daniel Penny put a silencer on a pistol, waited until 6 AM until Jordan Neely started walking into a Hilton Hotel to terrorize some shareholder meeting, and then shot him in the back — then why exactly would Leftists be upset? There’s no way to dispute that Jordan Neely was a menace to the community. He violently assaulted multiple people, including women who were just trying to take a ride on the subway. He was threatening an entire subway car of innocent passengers the day he died. His Michael Jackson impersonation didn’t seem particularly noteworthy. He was, in every respect, a net negative on society — a clear threat to the safety and well-being of the working class. So why exactly is anyone on the Left upset that Daniel Penny took action to eliminate the threat posed by Jordan Neely, while they’re busy swooning over the assassin of the UnitedHealthCare CEO in Manhattan? There’s really only one way to make sense of it. In their world view, Jordan Neely — as a black drug addict criminal — has a life of greater value than a white male health insurance CEO. Nobody wants to say that out loud, but it’s true. If Brian Thompson had been the CEO of the same company, but he was a black woman, you would not be seeing any of the gloating and celebration. You’d probably be seeing the opposite, in fact. The Washington Post would be working overtime to find the assassin and dox everyone in his family. They’d re-hire Taylor Lorenz and have her track down the white supremacist killer, along with every single social media post he’s made since he was in kindergarten. They’d probably solve the case in about ten minutes. MATT WALSH’S ‘AM I RACIST?’ NOW STREAMING ON DAILYWIRE+ But as it stands, his victim happened to fit the demographic profile of a greedy, sub-human colonizer. In other words, he was white. It didn’t even matter to them that this CEO was probably a liberal. His company’s PAC certainly donated a lot of money to Kamala Harris. That wasn’t important to them.  So we’re left with murderous, unrestrained anti-white race hatred under the guise of concern about health insurance costs — a problem that none of these people actually have any interest in fixing, because all they do when they’re in power is make insurance premiums even higher. Their primary interest is destabilizing this country by dehumanizing as many white people as possible. And if that means killing some of them, so be it. That explains the response to what happened in Butler. And it explains the response to what just happened in Midtown Manhattan in front of the Hilton Hotel. If you’re a white conservative Christian, and you think that these people wouldn’t gloat the same exact way if you were murdered while you were on your way to work, then you have no idea what the Left is capable of, or what they really believe. At this point, we don’t know why exactly Brian Thompson was executed. But we do know why these ghouls are celebrating his assassin, even as they demonize men like Daniel Penny. Pay attention to what they’re saying. Spend some time reading their euphoric posts on social media. And soon enough you’ll find that, even if you’re not the CEO of a major health insurance company, they’ll have no problem coming for you next.

At 78 years old, Diane Keaton continues reinventing herself and showing her talents. From Woody Allen’s Annie Hall to Father Of The Bride, The First Wives Club, Something’s Gotta Give, and beyond, Diane is a talented and versatile actress. But what many may not realize is that acting isn’t her only passion. She also loves to sing. In early December, Diane Keaton made her solo recording debut with the holiday single First Christmas. She shared a video on her official Instagram account, and fans loved the tune. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Diane Keaton (@diane_keaton) Diane Keaton’s “First Christmas” Is A Tear Jerker The song, written by Carole Bayer Sager and Jonas Myrin shares the story of the first Christmas without a loved one. Diane shared in a press less obtained by ABC News, “When Carole and Jonas first played me ‘First Christmas,’ I got teary,” Diane said. “It is such a beautiful sentiment, and I couldn’t wait to sing it. I’m very proud to be a part of this beautiful Christmas song, and I hope you enjoy it.” In her Instagram video, dressed in her signature androgynous style, Diane delights her fans with a beautifully passionate performance. She wrote, “THIS MORNING, MY HEART IS FILLED WITH GRATITUDE FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU.” One wrote, “This is the second Christmas without my father, but it still feels like the first. He was a huge fan of yours. Thank you for this.” Another fan shared, “This was perfect timing for me as I’m buying my first home and was feeling a little nervous about living alone this Christmas, but this song in the foreground makes it all lovely.” Rita Wilson chimed in, “I love the song and everyone involved! Congratulations, Diane. I remember seeing you sing on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. I have always loved your voice.” Diane Keaton’s First Christmas is now available on all streaming services. This story’s featured image is by Tinseltown via Shutterstock. The post Diane Keaton Makes Her Recording Debut With A Christmas Single appeared first on InspireMore.

'Based on all the feedback we’ve been receiving the last 24 hours ... we're pulling back'

'You’re suggesting slightly mad cat theories'

'Cannonball shot'

'Do you owe an apology to the American people?'

While not a dealbreaker, your cooking skills can play a role in your relationships. Time spent in the kitchen is more than just a creative outlet; cooking is caring. Preparing meals together can be a gentle way of showing love and making memorable moments, and this time together can help couples learn more about the […]

Patriot Crew is all about real American values. This clothing brand stands for freedom, honesty, and community. Unlike other brands, Patriot Crew mixes style with meaning. Every thread of their shirts inspires individuals to be their best selves—and be great Americans. They work to embody unity, resilience, and patriotism and have a deep respect for […]

The most thorough report ever released on America’s reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic has concluded that virtually everything that would have gotten you banned from social media for spreading “misinformation” was true. After a two-year investigation, the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released its 520-page report (titled “After Action Review of the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Lessons Learned and a Path Forward”) earlier this week. The report finds that the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 likely originated from a lab leak at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology, where it may have been manufactured as a chimera. Lockdowns, mask mandates, social distancing, and vaccine mandates were not based on sound science and did more harm than good, the House subcommittee report says. Natural immunity exists for COVID-19, as it does for other viruses. And then-President Donald Trump’s “racist” travel bans likely saved lives. Expressing any of these would have been enough to get one banned from social media. Twitter, now X, infamously set up a portal for government agents to flag “misinformation” and target posts or whole accounts for shadow bans, censorship, or removal. Meta, owner of Facebook, boasted that, since December 2020, “following consultations with leading health organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO),” the company had “removed false claims about COVID-19 vaccines that have been debunked by public health experts” from Facebook and Instagram. In February, Meta broadened its list of verboten ideas “to include additional debunked claims about the coronavirus and vaccines” such as “COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured” and “Vaccines are not effective at preventing the disease.” The new House report debunks this “debunking.” 1. The COVID-19 virus was probably man-made and originated from a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. From the outset, public health officials such as Dr. Anthony Fauci presented the novel coronavirus outbreak as the result of a “zoonotic spillover”—that the virus transferred from an animal to humans, probably a bat purchased at a wet market and eaten. Yet, the report says in a headline, the balance of the evidence shows that “SARS-CoV-2, the Virus that Causes COVID-19, Likely Emerged Because of a Laboratory or Research Related Accident.” “The U.S. National Institutes of Health funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, writes in his introduction. In 2018, the nonprofit EcoHealth applied for a federal grant to fund a new project at the Wuhan Institute of Virology which “sought to do what nature had not been ever known to do—insert a furin cleavage site into a SARS2 virus,” states the report. “EcoHealth and its WIV partners stated their intent to create a SARS-like virus with a furin cleavage site, which is the exact same feature that made humans susceptible to COVID-19 infection.” Rather than come clean about this federal funding, “Dr. Anthony Fauci Played Semantics with the Definition of Gain-of-Function Research,” the report concludes. “The WIV has a published record of conducting ‘gain-of-function’ research to engineer chimeric viruses,” noted a State Department fact sheet released in January 2021. “The U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19.” Further, “key evidence that would be expected if the virus had emerged from the wildlife trade is still missing,” such as infected animals. Dr. Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at MIT and Harvard, wrote in The New York Times that “the outbreak at the Wuhan market probably happened after the virus had already been circulating in humans.” Dr. Robert Redfield, the Trump administration’s director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, testified before Congress on March 8 that “COVID-19 infections more likely were the result of an accidental lab leak than the result of a natural spillover event.” Weeks earlier, the FBI and the Department of Energy expressed their support for the lab leak theory, with varying degrees of confidence. Even legacy media fact-checker Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post, who originally claimed “it is virtually impossible for this virus [to] jump from the lab,” later acknowledged that the lab leak theory was “credible.” 2. Social distancing of 6 feet had no science to back it up. The rule that Americans keep “social distancing” of 6 feet between one another to prevent COVID-19 transmission became one of the most consequential events of the pandemic. Businesses deemed worthy of being open had to limit how many customers they could serve, and schools had to rearrange rooms or resort to virtual learning to comply with the new guidelines. The House report states bluntly: “There Was No Quantitative Scientific Support for Six Feet of Social Distancing.” Yet the report merely repeats what the guidelines’ authors have already admitted. Last Jan. 9, Fauci replied “I don’t recall” when asked where the guideline of 6 feet came from. “It sort of just appeared” from the ether, he said. “I was not aware of studies” that justified the social distancing decision. The rule, Fauci said, amounted to “just an empiric decision that wasn’t based on data or even data that could be accomplished.” Two days later, Dr. Francis Collins, Fauci’s boss as former director of the National Institutes of Health, testified that he “did not see evidence” to support the 6-foot rule. On June 3, Fauci admitted that “there wasn’t a controlled trial … there wasn’t that scientific evaluation of” the rule. In short, says the House report: “There were no scientific trials or studies conducted before this policy was implemented, there appeared to be no pushback or internal discussion amongst the highest level of leadership, and more importantly there appears to be no acceptance of responsibility. That is an unacceptable answer from public health leadership.” 3. Masks do not effectively stop the spread of the COVID-19 virus—and masking children did more harm than good. The most ubiquitous symbol of the COVID-19 era was the paper face mask. The masks, required by public venues and many businesses, supposedly protected their users against transmission of the novel coronavirus. YouTube suspended Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., a medical doctor, for posting a video quoting studies saying that masks do not work. The suspension of Paul seemed odd, as the government itself ultimately performed a triple Lutz on the efficacy of face masks. “Seriously people—STOP BUYING MASKS!” tweeted then-Surgeon General Jerome Adams on leap day, Feb. 29, 2020. “They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if health care providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!” The CDC and the World Health Organization issued guidelines in March 2020 encouraging mask-wearing only for those who were ill or caring for someone who was. But a month later, in April 2020, the CDC issued guidance recommending people wear masks around others and, the report says, “went as far as posting a video teaching the public how to make masks with a T-shirt and rubber bands.” During his first two days in office in January 2021, President Joe Biden signed executive orders making the wearing of masks compulsory for federal workers and contractors, and then on airplanes and other public transportation. Biden administration officials offered contradictory statistics, telling the public that wearing masks made them anywhere from 350% to 56% less likely to get COVID-19. As this author wrote at The Daily Wire, the Biden administration relied on flawed studies, one of which “found that cloth masks could reduce transmission—or make the wearer 17% more likely to test positive than someone wearing no mask.” Most studies showed no correlation between COVID-19 outbreaks in schools and masking. In other headlines, the new House report verifies what Paul and science have long known: “Masks and Mask Mandates Were Ineffective at Controlling the Spread of COVID-19,” and “Forcibly Masking Young Children, Ages Two and Older, Caused More Harm than Good.” The report cites the U.K.-based Cochrane Collaboration, whose research “did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks” and that “[t]here were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection.” Numerous studies over many years had come to the same conclusion. In 2015, the BMJ publication discovered that cloth masks offered “almost 0%” filtration of viruses. In fact, “Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.” One team of researchers found “significant levels of pollutants” in all face masks, questioning whether paper face masks are “safe to be used on a daily basis and what consequences are to be expected after their disposal into the environment.” “Ignoring the science and facts of COVID-19 and the harms of masking young children was profoundly immoral on behalf of the leadership of the country’s public health officials,” states the House report. The Biden administration began to walk back mask mandates and directives in 2021 and 2022. “The science has changed,” Dr. Leana Wen, formerly president of Planned Parenthood, told CNN in February 2022. Yet the science had always shown masks do a poor job of preventing the transmission of viruses. The results bear this out. “The trajectories of the rate of COVID-19 infections for states with mask mandates and states without is virtually identical,” the report notes. 4. Science did not support COVID-19 vaccine mandates, which needlessly hurt Americans and the U.S. military. On Aug. 24, 2021—one day after FDA approval of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine—Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced a vaccine mandate for the U.S. armed forces. In November, the Biden administration extended the vaccine mandate to all federal workers, health care workers who worked in a facility accepting federal Medicare or Medicaid funds, and Head Start contractors or volunteers. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued a federal vaccine mandate for all employers with 100 employees or more. “The COVID-19 vaccine mandates caused people to lose their livelihoods, hollowed out our healthcare and education workforces, reduced our military readiness and recruitment, caused vaccine hesitancy, reduced trust in public health, trampled individual freedoms, deepened political divisions, and interfered in the patient-physician relationship,” says the report. In all, more than 8,000 soldiers left—or were fired from—the military for refusing to take the then-experimental COVID-19 jab. “However, more than 17,500 troops’ religious exemptions were still being adjudicated just prior to the rescission of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate,” states the report. Gil Cisneros, Biden’s undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, defended the great military vaccine purge as “appropriate disciplinary action” necessary “to maintain good order and discipline,” which affected only a “small fraction” of service members. “Congressman, I would say we are as strong as ever” after the mass firing, Cisneros told then-Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla. The report finds it no coincidence that, in 2022, the military missed its recruitment goals by 25%, or 15,000 soldiers. “Vaccine Mandates Were Not Supported by Science and Caused More Harm than Good,” the report concludes. 5. Natural immunity applies to COVID-19, like any other virus. Yet the Biden-Harris administration attempted to coerce Americans into getting the COVID-19 shot, in part, by denying or dismissing a scientific fact that applies to every other virus in existence: natural immunity. Once someone has gotten a viral infection, that person develops antibodies that lower the risk of reinfection. “Public Health Officials Disregarded Natural Immunity, Despite Its Proven Effectiveness and Durability,” says the House report. As this author reported at The Washington Stand, Biden administration officials formally denied the efficacy of natural immunity, under oath. “There’s no good evidence, and the research is still going on as to how we need to progress with this,” Cisneros testified to Congress last Feb. 28. “But as for right now, natural immunity is not something we believe in for this, and so we are still moving forward” with vaccine mandates. 6. COVID-era lockdowns had no scientific grounding and irreparably harmed Americans. If face masks were the most prominent sight of the COVID-19 era, its most infamous words were uttered March 16, 2020: “15 days to slow the spread.” The government ordered Americans to “shelter in place” and not have unnecessary physical contact with anyone else. Church members were often ordered not to meet in person or saw their attendance severely limited. Schools closed down. Businesses not deemed “essential” closed, many permanently. Relatives died without their loved ones at their side. Ronald Reagan once said that a government program “is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” The “15-day” program proved no exception. Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus response coordinator, admitted: “No sooner had we convinced the Trump administration to implement our version of a two-week shutdown than I was trying to figure out how to extend it.” In some areas, restricted capacity endured for more than a year. The House report notes: “Unscientific COVID-19 Lockdowns Caused More Harm Than Good.” The lockdowns were unnecessary and extracted a demanding mental and physical toll on Americans. Lockdowns ignored the fact that the virus proved most deadly to the elderly and vulnerable populations with comorbidities. By August 2020, the CDC knew that 40% of Americans were struggling with mental health issues. A study in Nature released in March found mental health disorders surged by 22% from 2019 to 2020. Another study found an extra 212 young people committed suicide in 2020, and the CDC found adolescent overdoses more than doubled during the lockdown period. Adults also died at higher rates from other diseases. “One analysis done using CDC data found that non-COVID-19 excess deaths totaled nearly 100,000 per year in 2020 and 2021,” the report states. Further, “Long Term School Closures Were Not Supported by Available Science and Evidence,” notes the House report. Instead, the Biden administration invited a teachers union, the American Federation of Teachers led by Randi Weingarten, to shape the federal government’s school closure guidelines. The AFT’s “School Closures Significantly Contributed to Increased Instances of Mental and Behavioral Health Issues” and “Made an Already Alarming Trend in Declining Physical Health Worse,” states the report. “The American people could have been better served by policies which focused on protecting the most vulnerable while prioritizing productivity and normalcy for the less vulnerable,” the report concludes. COVID-19 had one additional casualty: American liberty. “The Constitution cannot be suspended in times of crisis and restrictions on freedoms sow distrust in public health,” Wenstrup writes. 7. Trump’s ‘racist’ China travel ban likely saved lives. When Trump learned of the COVID-19 outbreak in China, he promptly paused all inbound flights to the United States from China. Although the legacy media regarded this as a “racist” undertaking, President Trump’s travel restrictions against China—and Europe—delayed the spread, the House report finds. “With four years of hindsight, it is clear the international travel restrictions early in the pandemic delayed spread of the virus but did not prevent COVID-19 from entering the U.S. By the time the European travel ban was enacted in March 2020, it is now known that the virus had already spread significantly within the U.S. due to earlier untracked travel from Europe,” the report notes. It adds: “One study estimated that the U.S. travel bans helped to prevent approximately 77,000 cases of COVID-19 in the first month of their implementation. This study concluded that, while the travel restrictions did not entirely stop the virus from entering the U.S., they were effective in slowing the rate of transmission, giving the U.S. healthcare system more time to prepare and respond to the pandemic.” *** Critics welcomed the report’s openness but argued it didn’t go far enough to address the adverse impact of the COVID-19 shot and suppression of basic civil liberties. “Forgive my cynicism,” Dr. Robert Malone, chief medical and regulatory officer for The Unity Project, told “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” on Tuesday. “I don’t see the federal government at this point in time taking these suggestions in and acting appropriately to respond to them. This should be a very active [case of] ‘lessons learned’ on their openness and transparency. We’re not seeing that.” Malone noted the House report’s odd “juxtaposition of endorsement of Operation Warp Speed, followed by a resounding lack of endorsement of the efficacy and safety of the vaccines.” He found the disconnect “perplexing” or an example of “the usual D.C. process of speaking out of both sides of one’s mouth.” Prekins, president of the Family Research Council, agreed that transparency over public health measures is “something I think we need to stay on” in the second Trump administration. Malone is “right to be cynical, because government rarely learns its lessons,” Perkins said. Originally published by The Washington Stand The post House Report Finds (Nearly) Every COVID-19 ‘Conspiracy Theory’ Was True appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Ashli Babbitt's Murderer Not All That Popular With Capitol Police Force, Either