No corner of hell is fiery enough to give former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo the roasting he deserves. Engineering thousands of deaths from COVID-19 was not enough. Now the disgraced Democrat deceptively blames his lethal sins on someone who offered help: President Donald J. Trump. Cuomo, who resigned in August 2021 after sexually harassing 13 women, slithered out of his well-earned oblivion with an op-ed in Sunday’s New York Daily News. “The United States lost 1.2 million people” to COVID, Cuomo writes. Why? “Trump recklessly and negligently politicized COVID,” Cuomo claims. “It was a complete failure of Trump’s leadership.” The COVID-19 deaths of nearly 13,000 residents of Empire State nursing homes were the predictable consequences of Cuomo’s decisions as governor, not Trump’s as president. Members of the U.S. House of Representatives should grill Cuomo about the following epic fails when he testifies at 2 p.m. Tuesday before the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. On March 25, 2020, Cuomo’s Health Department ordered: “No resident shall be denied re-admission or admission to the [nursing home] solely based on a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19.” Cuomo forbade evaluating seniors for COVID-19. His directive went on to state that nursing homes “are prohibited from requiring a hospitalized resident who is determined medically stable to be tested for COVID-19 prior to admission or readmission.” Physicians immediately warned that Cuomo’s imperative would kill New York residents. The American Medical Directors Association declared March 26, 2020: “Unsafe transfers will increase the risk of transmission in post-acute and long-term care facilities which will ultimately only serve to increase the return flow back to hospitals, overwhelming capacity, endangering more health care personnel, and escalating the death rate.” Team Cuomo replied: “Obey!” The New York Post detailed the aftermath: Local hospitals steered 70 COVID-19 sufferers into Harlem’s Terence Cardinal Cooke Health Care Center in April 2020. By May 8, COVID-19 had killed 32 tenants. Hospitals delivered 19 COVID-19 survivors to Staten Island’s Carmel Richmond nursing home. By May 8, the virus had killed 56 inhabitants. “The state forced us to bring in these sick people,” a nurse at Long Island’s Luxor Nursing and Rehabilitation told the Post. “We had no choice, but we’re not happy about it here.” Cuomo denied rest homes’ requests for protective gear. “Not our job,” the governor snapped. Until April 30—Day 48 of the crisis—Cuomo allowed staffers who had tested positive for COVID-19 to work inside elder centers. By Jan. 19, 2021—coincidentally, Trump’s last full day in the White House—Cuomo’s edicts had killed 12,743 assisted-living dwellers. This amounted to 46.3% more fatalities than the 8,711 reported to have perished in the New York Health Department’s cooked books. In contrast to Cuomo’s stupid, unnecessary, and fatal judgments, Trump had offered the governor three lifesaving options: First, Trump sped the 1,000-bed floating hospital USNS Comfort to Manhattan’s Pier 90 on March 30, 2020—five days after Cuomo’s decree. Cuomo could have quarantined COVID-positive seniors in Comfort’s 500 pandemic-grade berths until they tested negative, and then sent them to elder institutions. Alas, Cuomo neglected the vessel. Only 182 checked in before Comfortsteamed back to Norfolk, Virginia, that April 30. Second, 12 blocks south, Trump transformed the Javits Center into a 3,000-bed pop-up hospital. Only 1,094 people arrived before it closed that May 1. Donny Tuchman, CEO of Cobble Hill Health Center, begged to send COVID-positive individuals to Comfort or the Javits Center that April 9. Cuomo’s Health Department said, “Nyet.” “I was told those facilities were only for hospitals” to refer patients, Tuchman told the Post. Never mind that only 62 of Comfort’s berths were full that day, as were just 134 of Javits’ 1,000 COVID-ready beds. Third, Trump’s close coordination with private industry yielded much of the masks, gowns, gloves, and other protective gear that Cuomo complained it was “not our job” to supply. Cuomo should beg forgiveness for his toxic boneheadedness. Instead, he takes zero responsibility for policy blunders that killed the elderly. Now, as Election Day looms, Cuomo slams Trump, the man who tried to avoid this mayhem and keep older Americans alive long enough to enjoy another Christmas or Hanukkah. Conversely, Cuomo bullied seniors into premature graves. Andrew Cuomo should beg the families of his victims for forgiveness and hope that this spares him from an eternity of damnation. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Cuomo Should Pay—Big League—for His Trump-Hating COVID-19 Lies appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Attending church services may open the door to eternal life—but it will also extend your life on Earth more than diet or exercise, according to the foremost expert on global longevity. Dan Buettner, who won three Emmy Awards for his groundbreaking 2023 documentary “Live to 100: Secrets of the Blue Zones,” revealed the deep benefits that faith in God renders to those who want to live a long and prosperous life. Although America faces an epidemic of chronic diseases, “only about 20% of how long you live is dictated by your genes,” he told “Mornings with Maria” on Aug. 30. A healthy lifestyle incorporating diet, exercise, and stress management means the average person can live “12 more years in good health.” But the statistics he shared proved that an active faith in God, including weekly church attendance, had potentially the biggest impact on extending earthly life. Buettner’s documentary investigated regions in the world known for having the longest average lifespan. Researchers interviewed 263 centenarians—people who had lived to the age of 100—and found all but five “belonged to some faith-based community.” The healthiest elderly had a common characteristic: “having a faith. We know people who go to church—or temple, or even mosque—and show up four times per month are living four to 14 years longer than people who aren’t.” The figure may come from a study finding regular church attendance lengthened the average American’s life by seven years—and 14 years for African Americans. That number dwarfed other, more intuitive lifehacks, including regular exercise and diet. “For a 20-year-old, if you move away from the standard American diet towards a Blue Zone diet—which is to say whole food, plant-based—it’s worth about 10 years of extra life expectancy, and for a 60-year-old, it’s still worth about six years,” he said. One food, particularly, stood out above others: beans. “If you’re eating a cup of beans a day, it’s worth about four extra years of life expectancy over getting your protein from less healthy sources,” Buettner said, as he raved about minestrone soup. “Every time that you mix a grain with a bean, they come together, they make a whole protein. … These are cheap foods, they’re shelf stable, and every American can afford them.” Those in the healthiest lifestyle moved organically, about every 20 minutes, without sitting for long periods of time. But anyone can benefit from simple exercise, such as walking. “If you have zero physical activity in your life, you can raise your life expectancy three years if you just walk 20 minutes a day,” Buettner told Bartiromo. Strong family relationships also put years in your life. Centenaries agree on “putting family first, keeping your aging parents nearby, investing in your partner, investing in your children,” he continued. “People who are in a committed relationship are living anywhere from two to six years longer than people who are alone in life.” If you’re keeping track, you can add three years to your life with exercise, four years by eating beans, six years by being in a committed relationship, six to 10 years by eating a whole foods and plant-based diet, and seven to 14 years by going to church every week. Another aspect of church life that may lengthen your life is stress management. A key factor in living to 100 is “downshifting: either through prayer, meditation, simply expressing gratitude before a meal.” Regular prayer incorporates “making sure our day has certain times where we lower the stress of the human condition, lower inflammation,” said Buettner, a 2011 fellow at National Geographic and muti-time grant awardee. Environmental factors—including the people and businesses around you—also play a role. “If you live in a neighborhood with more than five fast food restaurants within half a mile of your home, you’re about 35% more likely to be obese than if there are fewer than three,” Buettner added. “If your three best friends are obese and unhealthy, you are 150% more likely to be overweight yourself.” The study is but one of many that have found physical, mental, and psychological benefits of faith, Bible reading, and church attendance: Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued a report in March 2023 stating that an epidemic of loneliness has produced health impacts “even greater than that associated with obesity and physical inactivity.” Americans’ “health may be undermined” by their declining participation in “[r]eligious or faith-based groups.” Regular “religious practice has significant effects” in reducing the faithful’s odds of dying from suicides, drug poisonings, and alcoholic liver disease, according to a 2023 study. The Blue Zones commend cultures that promote a sense of purpose. “[R]eligious Americans tend to believe their life is meaningful more often than do those who are not religious,” found a 2023 study. Americans who believe in God and value marriage are more likely to be “very happy” than isolated secularists, according to a Wall Street Journal-NORC poll taken last March. While only a thin sliver of Americans (12%) consider themselves “very happy,” 68% of the happiest people surveyed say they believe in God. An overwhelming 82% of Christians describe their outlook as optimistic and take pride in their church, according to a 2023 study. Christians who regularly read the Bible report a higher score on the Human Flourishing Index—which measures “happiness & life satisfaction,” “mental & physical health,” “meaning & purpose,” “character & virtue,” “close societal relationships” and “financial & material stability”—than nonpracticing Christians or the Nones/religiously unaffiliated, a 2023 study found. “Young-adult Gen-Xers in the strongly religious class across the three measurements generally reported better mental health when they reached established adulthood than those in the nonreligious class,” reported a 2022 Syracuse University study. Women who attend church at least once a week had a 68% lower chance of dying a death of despair than non-churchgoers; men who go to church frequently lower their risk by one-third, according to a 2020 Harvard study. Americans who attended religious services regularly were 44% more likely to say they were “very happy” than the religiously inactive, concluded a 2019 Pew Research Center survey. A 2019 study found “robust effects of religiosity on depression that are stronger for the most depressed.” Even if they leave behind religious practices, “people who attended weekly religious services or practiced daily prayer or meditation in their youth reported greater life satisfaction and positivity in their 20s—and were less likely to subsequently have depressive symptoms, smoke, use illicit drugs, or have a sexually transmitted infection—than people raised with less regular spiritual habits,” discovered a 2018 study from Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health. A 2017 study found church attendance significantly lowers the body’s reaction to stress and cuts the worshiper’s chance of dying in half. “More frequent churchgoers (more than once a week) had a 55% reduction of all-cause mortality risk compared with non-churchgoers,” reported the study. Attending church more than once a week reduced a woman’s likelihood of dying by 33%, a 2016 Harvard study concluded. Originally published by The Washington Stand The post Attending Church Regularly Will Lengthen Your Life More Than Diet, Exercise, Longevity Expert Says appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Journalist Alex Berenson has amended his lawsuit against Joe Biden (Berenson v. Biden, deliberated by a New York district court), to add new evidence regarding alleged government-social media censorship collusion. We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here. Berenson’s lawsuit revolves around the involvement of not just the Biden administration, but Covid vaccine maker Pfizer, and what the journalist believes is their joint effort (“conspiracy”) to get Twitter to ban him in 2021. According to Berenson, formerly a New York Times reporter, the updated suit provides proof that many similar legislative efforts have been trying to present – namely, that Twitter’s censorship was “ultimately traceable” to the current White House, specifically, government pressure exerted upon social media companies. This evidence related to the ban comes from Twitter’s archives thanks to Elon Musk and X making it available to the journalist, as well as the ongoing Congressional investigation. Meanwhile, the mention of “traceable (injury)” has to do with the bar set by the US Supreme Court in Missouri v. Biden that has to be satisfied to allow a case to proceed to trial. Berenson believes that now with new evidence about what he calls coercive censorship, his lawsuit is “much stronger.” The amended complaint includes internal Twitter emails where the company’s own top executives state that the platform made a mistake banning Berenson’s account, while another appears to show lobbyist middlemen put Pfizer Director (and former FDA chief) Scott Gottlieb’s outreach in touch with the Biden administration. Yet another email reveals that Andy Slavitt, who had just resigned from the White House, communicated with Facebook to tell an exec there precisely how the White House – referred to as “WH” in the document – wants Facebook to treat content the government disapproves of. Berenson goes into details regarding mutual relationships among all these actors, and what each of them stood to gain from what is now commonly referred to by opponents as collusion; the reporter also singles out Slavitt as having “the central role (…) in the conspiracy” to censor him personally. In light of the new evidence, Berenson believes that his case will be allowed to proceed despite the defense team’s motions to dismiss it. “But if it does not, if federal Judge Jessica G.L. Clarke dismisses it before even allowing discovery and appeals courts back that decision, free speech on the internet will be close to dead,” Berenson warns. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Journalist Alex Berenson Sues Biden Admin, Citing New Evidence of Twitter Censorship Ties appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Kamala Blames Trump for Disastrous Afghan Withdrawal

The ratings competition between CNN and MSNBC took a back seat on Monday as CNN’s Dana Bash traveled over to Inside with Jen Psaki to promote her new book on the 1872 Louisiana gubernatorial election and allege that the imagined voter suppression of today is on par with the real voter suppression of back then when such tactics included literal race massacres. Bash and co-author David Fisher titled their book America's Deadliest Election: The Cautionary Tale of the Most Violent Election in American History, and Bash recalled to Psaki that the Democrats of that era, “were trying to do whatever they could to suppress the vote. The new black vote and in Louisiana, and other states, but this particular story is how they were successful in doing so. They realized the only way to keep society from changing so drastically was to make sure that blacks didn't vote.”     She also recalled how, “they were intimidated. They were threatened, they were disenfranchised, and they were murdered, in some cases, a massacre.” Bash was almost certainly referring to the Colfax Massacre and the Battle of Liberty Place, which happened in 1873 and 1874, respectively. Psaki then observed, “There are so many racial comparisons, you just outline them, to present day today as well, where we see with voter suppression around the country. You've answered a bit there, but how do you look at those comparisons in terms of how rhetoric is used to kind of suppress the vote, to intimidate people. To make immigrants sound like they are bringing violence to our country. How do you compare this time to that time?” The correct answer would’ve been to say that asking for voter identification or not believing in months of early voting is not even in the same universe as race massacres, but Bash answered differently, “Again, very similar. Very similar. There were discussions about, rants, about people coming from the Southern border back then just as they are now, and, you know, it started in 1872 and then it went up to 1876, which people might be a little bit more familiar with because of the, parallels there between what happened then and 2021.” Bash then transitioned into talking about the 1876 presidential election, but while she and Psaki may be claiming to honor the victims of past crimes by telling their story, they were trivializing them by fearmongering for the sake of trying to get people to the polls in order to defeat Republicans. Here is a transcript for the September 9 show: MSNBC Inside with Jen Psaki 9/9/2024 8:33 PM ET DANA BASH: So, they were trying to do whatever they could to suppress the vote. The new black vote and in Louisiana, and other states, but this particular story is how they were successful in doing so. They realized the only way to keep society from changing so drastically was to make sure that blacks didn't vote. And they were intimidated. They were threatened, they were disenfranchised, and they were murdered, in some cases, a massacre. JEN PSAKI: There are so many racial comparisons, you just outline them, to present day today as well, where we see with voter suppression around the country. You've answered a bit there, but how do you look at those comparisons in terms of how rhetoric is used to kind of suppress the vote, to intimidate people. To make immigrants sound like they are bringing violence to our country. How do you compare this time to that time? BASH: Again, very similar. Very similar. There were discussions about, rants, about people coming from the Southern border back then just as they are now, and, you know, it started in 1872 and then it went up to 1876, which people might be a little bit more familiar with because of the, parallels there between what happened then and 2021.  When things were so bad in Louisiana and three other states that they sent two slates of electors to Washington. And there was a debate about what the vice president's role was. Was it something that is more ceremonial or could the vice president choose the electoral slates. JEN PSAKI: Sounds familiar. BASH: And they decided then it was ceremonial, but another familiar thing that happened back then, there, one of the riots in the streets of New Orleans erupted in chants, “hang him, hang him” about the opponent that they were trying to stage a coup against that was actually the rightly elected governor. PSAKI: Very eerie.  

Dozens of New York City residents, led by a 30-vehicle caravan, rallied together on Sunday to protest the massive tent city shelter at Brooklyn's Floyd Bennett Field as the city's lease agreement with the federal government nears its end.The locals, including elected officials and veterans, urged the city not to renew its lease and instead shut down the 2,000-bed makeshift accommodations housing some of the more than 214,000 illegal immigrants who have relocated to New York City over the past two years.'They have complete immunity.' The city's lease with the National Park Service is set to expire on September 14. The current lease does not indicate an automatic right to renewal or extension. Assemblywoman Jaime Williams (R-Brooklyn) told the New York Post, "We have these migrants coming in, door knocking, stealing packages, you know, soliciting everywhere in front of our supermarkets, playing at the heartstrings of people.""And this is not what our community is about," Williams continued. "Floyd Bennett field is not a place to house migrants. It's a flood zone [with] no infrastructure whatsoever. So when you have them in that type of setting, there is nothing left to do. They're going to be on the street because they don't have any jobs."Antonia Natal, a longtime resident, stated, "I don't mind if they come in the legal way.""That's what our country's about. That's what our country is built on, many migrants — legal. And I'm supportive of that," Natal added. "I feel we need to do that with the whole city — no illegals, no shelters."Natal expressed concern that the influx of illegal immigrants in New York City would "damage" the local economy and housing market.Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa, who has led a number of protests against the city's shelters, said Sunday that illegal immigrants are flooding into the area "every day," the Post reported."They're still checking in at the [city intake center at] the Roosevelt Hotel. And they have complete immunity. You arrest an illegal alien, they get cut loose," he stated.A spokesperson for City Hall told the news outlet, "With over 210 emergency sites currently operating and hundreds of new arrivals continuing to arrive in New York City every week, we have been out of good options for a while now.""The site at Floyd Bennett Field has been one tool in our very limited toolbox for sheltering hundreds of migrant families with children every night. We continue to advocate for additional support from the federal partners and ask our elected partners to join us," the spokesperson remarked.More than 100 residents held a similar protest in June, demanding the city revoke the lease, Blaze News previously reported. One local who attended the rally fumed that the illegal immigrants were "being prioritized over New Yorkers."In August, the House Committee on Natural Resources subpoenaed the Biden-Harris administration's Department of Homeland Security, claiming that the federal government failed to produce requested information about the Floyd Bennett Field shelter. Lawmakers sought reports on how the site was selected and the vetting process for the tenants following "widespread reports of criminality," including "domestic violence, assault, shoplifting, prostitution, and panhandling scams."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, one of the most powerful and influential Democrats in America, has implied that nearly one-third of all Republicans are too racist, sexist, and homophobic to support Kamala Harris for president in 2024.That remark came on Saturday, when Pelosi sat down with journalist Kara Swisher, host of the podcast "On with Kara Swisher," at the 2024 Texas Tribune Festival in Austin, Texas.'You can put half of Trump's supporters into what I call a basket of deplorables.'Pelosi and Swisher touched on a number of topics, including why former President Donald Trump is still doing so well against Harris in the 2024 presidential polls. When Swisher asked Pelosi whether she was "worried" about Trump's possible re-election, Pelosi suggested that "30%" of Republican voters are just too bigoted to consider voting for Democrats."There are people who will never be, shall we say, inclined to support Democrats because of — they just have a different orientation toward women, people of color, LGBTQ, you know, they just are not ever going to be there," Pelosi replied. "So say that's about like 30% or something like that — of the Republicans."As the Post Millennial noted, this response from Pelosi was remarkably similar to an infamous statement from Hillary Clinton that likely helped sink her presidential campaign against Trump in 2016. At the time, Clinton characterized "half" of Trump's supporters — in other words, a large segment of the American electorate — as "deplorable.""You can put half of Trump's supporters into what I call a basket of deplorables," Clinton said. "They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that, and he has lifted them up."Pelosi also indicated to Swisher that some Republicans are just "very rich people" who could not care less about "clean air or clean water." They just don't want to pay taxes, she claimed.Perhaps to soften her remarks, Pelosi then quickly added that some of Trump's supporters have concerns about globalization and immigration. "I think we have to be as respectful and understanding as possible," Pelosi told Swisher. Despite that call for comity, Pelosi also inexplicably stated that some Republicans feared "innovation.""They saw the factory down the road move overseas," Pelosi explained. "They're fearful of innovation."She then tried to give an example: "My father is a truck driver, and now they're going to have all of, you know ..." As the 84-year-old congresswoman then appeared stuck, Swisher jumped in and added "autonomous truck." "Yeah, and so, so the innovation, globalization, and they include immigration in there," Pelosi continued.She also insisted that "migration" is not actually a "big job-taker" and that it "fuels the economy."Another moment from Pelosi and Swisher's hour-long conversation also went viral. At one point, Swisher asked Pelosi to give Trump advice for his debate against Harris on Tuesday night."You think he’s gonna show up?" Pelosi asked.Swisher appeared surprised by the question. "I do. Do you know something that I don't know?" Swisher replied as the audience chuckled in amusement."I know cowardice when I see it," Pelosi answered.In response to a request for comment from Fox News Digital, Steven Cheung of the Trump campaign called Pelosi a "liar and fraud" who "has no idea what she is talking about." Cheung also called the suggestion that Trump would not appear at the debate "fake news."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

When Sen. Raphael Warnock — the “radical progressive leftist Democrat” and “campaign surrogate for Kamala Harris” — spoke with Kristen Welker on “Meet the Press,” Dave Rubin noticed something funny. - YouTube www.youtube.com “Should [Harris] also be, in your opinion, supporting a mandatory gun buyback program?” Welker asked. “Listen, we're not going to be able to get where we need to go without action in Congress. We've got to pass some laws to deal with this,” Warnock responded, confirming that yes, he believes Congress should do away with the Second Amendment and force citizens to relinquish their arms. “Isn’t that interesting? Mandatory buyback?” asks Dave. “Generally, when things are sold and purchased, it's voluntary, right? But ‘mandatory buyback’ — you got to love the language on that one.” “There are about 400 million firearms in the United States right now. We have about 350 million people, so there are more firearms than people. Let's say they passed those laws and did their mandatory buyback ... and they got rid of 200 million firearms. A. Do you think we'd be safer? And B. Do you think they would stop there?” Dave asks. “The answer to both those questions is obviously no.” But Dave isn’t the only one outraged by the notion of a mandatory buyback program. Elon Musk, who saw the clip of Welker and Warnock’s conversation, tweeted: “And guys, we just know this is true,” says Dave. Want more from Dave Rubin?To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Debate zingers are not the way. Kamala Harris’s only hope is to convince persuadable voters on the sidelines that she is a safe bet.

OMG-LOL, That's Just SAD! Democrats REEEALLY Had to REACH to Create List of Kamala's Accomplishments