Thousands at Oakland Coliseum received wrong vaccine dosage, medical staff say

Thousands of people who visited the mass vaccination site at the Oakland Coliseum received the wrong vaccine dosages this week, raising questions about the effectiveness of the medication, according to two medical workers who contacted KTVU.

People who received too little of the Pfizer doses received their vaccines on Monday before 2 p.m. But at that point, the issue was identified and was stopped by that evening, according to the EMTs, who asked to remain anonymous in order to keep their jobs, and which was confirmed by state officials. That is the only day and time period in question. 

One EMT estimated that 4,300 people had been given the shots by then. A total of 6,000 people can be vaccinated at that site during the weekdays. 

State officials dispute the notion that anyone will be less protected by the smaller vaccine doses, although another infectious disease expert said there’s not enough science to prove that yet. The claim comes at a time when people nationwide are clamoring to get vaccinated, and as shortages and confusion about making appointments and who is eligible, abound. 

Keep reading

Kentucky bill would make it a crime to insult or taunt police officers

A bill advancing out of a Kentucky Senate committee on Thursday would make it a crime to insult or taunt a police officer to the point where the taunts provoke a violent response.

Senate Bill 211 passed by a 7-3 vote, according to reports. The proposal was a response to riots throughout the country last summer, said the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Danny Carroll, R-Benton, a retired police officer.

Louisville saw numerous violent protests and rioting last year following the Breonna Taylor incident in March. Police had obtained a narcotics related search warrant for her apartment. After knock and notice was provided, police made entry only to be met with gunfire from Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker. Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly was shot in the leg. Officers returned fire, killing Taylor.

This week prosecutors decided to forego charges against Walker, Law Officer reported. Mattingly filed a lawsuit against Walker last October. He alleges that the shot was “outrageous, intolerable and offends all accepted standards of decency or morality.”

The lawsuit accuses Walker of battery, assault and emotional distress.

Meanwhile, Carroll noted the newly proposed legislation wasn’t about limiting lawful protest “in any way, shape, form or fashion,” according to WDRB.

“This country was built on lawful protest, and it’s something that we must maintain — our citizens’ right to do so. What this deals with are those who cross the line and commit criminal acts,” he said.

The bill kept language making a person guilty of disorderly conduct — a Class B misdemeanor — if they accost, insult, taunt, or challenge “a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words, or by gestures or other physical contact, that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person.”

Keep reading

Cannibal, 41, cut out his neighbor’s heart and COOKED it with potatoes to feed his family before stabbing his uncle and a four-year-old girl to death

A repeat felon has confessed to killing his neighbor, cutting out her heart and feeding it to his family before murdering his uncle and a four-year-old girl, Oklahoma authorities say. 

Lawrence Paul Anderson, 42, allegedly stabbed the neighbor, Andrea Lynn Blankenship, to death at her home in Chickasha on February 9.  

He then went back to his house and stabbed three people – his uncle, aunt and their granddaughter – the same day, according to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. 

Police were called to the home and found the uncle, 67-year-old Leon Pye, and the child, Kaeos Yates, injured. She was pronounced dead in an ambulance en route to the hospital. 

The aunt, Delsie Pye, was also stabbed in both eyes but survived. 

In an interview with investigators Anderson revealed the gruesome final meal he fed his family after murdering Blankenship.

Keep reading

Critical Race Fragility

The critical race theorists are feeling the heat. Over the past decade, they have had remarkable success in perpetuating the concepts of systemic racism, unconscious bias, white privilege, and white fragility in American institutions, beginning with universities and moving on to schools, government agencies, and multinational corporations. Their campaign began mostly without opposition, as most conservatives were either ignorant of what was happening or dismissed it as a campus fad.

That changed last year. The intellectual movements around the so-called Intellectual Dark Web, Quillette magazine, and the 1776 Unites coalition of dissident black scholars had laid down a theoretical case against critical race theory (CRT). President Trump elevated the debate into the mainstream, denouncing CRT by name at the National Archives, signing an executive order banning CRT-based training programs from the federal government, and sparring on the topic during a televised presidential debate. Since then, investigative journalists, including me, have reported on the negative impact of CRT in government, schools, and corporations; states such as New Hampshire, Arkansas, Iowa, West Virginia, and Oklahoma have introduced legislation seeking to ban CRT programs that promote the concepts of race essentialism, collective guilt, and race-based harassment in public institutions.

This shift in momentum against the new racial orthodoxy, which has now grown beyond America’s borders to England, France, Italy, Hungary, and Brazil, has rattled the American Left. Their first argument against this change is that conservatives are using state power to “cancel wokeness.” New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg recently followed this line, attacking my work “leading the conservative charge against critical race theory,” declaring that the Right wants to ban critical race theory because it is afraid to debate it. This is false, of course. For more than a year, prominent black intellectuals, including John McWhorter, Glenn Loury, Wilfred Reilly, and Coleman Hughes have challenged the critical race theorists to debate—and none has accepted. After Goldberg published her column, I called her bluff even further, challenging to “debate any prominent critical race theorist on the floor of the New York Times.” Predictably, none responded, catching the New York Times in a fib and further exposing the critical race theorists’ refusal to submit their ideas to public scrutiny.

The second line of attack, advanced by Goldberg and Acadia University professor Jeffrey Sachs, is that the attempt to regulate critical race theory-based programs is an “attack on free speech.” Goldberg and Sachs are attempting to reclaim the mantle of free speech, but on closer inspection, their case is legally and morally groundless. First, as legal writer Hans Bader points out, the Supreme Court has ruled that states and public schools have the ability to control curricular speech without violating free speech. Furthermore, under the Fourteenth Amendment, states and school districts have an obligation to prevent the creation of a learning environment that promotes hostility toward a certain race or sex. The courts have repeatedly ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment outweighs and limits the First Amendment when it comes to government entities adopting policies and programs that perpetuate racial stereotyping, discrimination, and harassment. Despite Sachs’s hyperventilation about threats to academia (i.e., the public-employment program for new racialist ideology), many legislatures have explicitly allowed the teaching of CRT in university classrooms; it is only forbidden to turn these principles into compelled speech, employee-indoctrination programs, and official state curricula for primary and secondary school students.

The most telling limitation in their argument, however, is that Goldberg and Sachs both refuse to deal with specifics. They present critical race theory as a benign academic discipline that seeks “social justice,” while ignoring the avalanche of reporting, including my own, that suggests that, in practice, CRT-based programs are often hateful, divisive, and filled with falsehoods; they traffic in racial stereotypes, collective guilt, racial segregation, and race-based harassment. The real test for intellectuals on the left is not to defend their ideas as abstractions but to defend the real-world consequences of their ideas.

Keep reading

Pelosi-appointed general recommends establishing permanent QUICK-REACTION TROOPS in DC to protect government from the governed

The retired Army general appointed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to lead a security study after the January 6 Capitol riot has called for setting up a quick-reaction force to permanently stand ready for threats against government.

The so-called QRF would be staffed with National Guard troops who reside in Washington full-time, troops from National Guard units from around the nation who are sent to Washington on three- or six-month rotations, or officers drawn from federal law enforcement agencies, retired US Army Lt. General Russel Honore said in a draft copy of his report. The executive summary, obtained on Thursday by Fox News, didn’t specify how large the QRF should be.

Keep reading