Tag: liberals

The Left’s Stubborn Refusal To Listen To The Other Side Is Anti-Intellectualism

Many mainstream outlets recently ran a fake news story about hospitals in rural Oklahoma being overrun by people overdosing on Ivermectin. The hospitals were indeed crowded, but there was no evidence, beyond the twisted testimony of one doctor, suggesting it was because of ignorant bumpkins ingesting horse dewormer.

Commenting on this story in The Federalist, Rachel Bovard points out how these journalistic mistakes consistently fall in one direction — against conservatives —and how the correction so many days or weeks later is buried behind other headlines. Also, as Bovard notes, it is clear that corporate media are “using their platform[s] as an advocacy tool for their ideological goals.” Even if the instance in question isn’t factually true, it is “morally right,” as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez notoriously said.

So what’s the narrative in this case? That conservatives are dumb and oppose science. They would rather take a drug intended for horses or cleaning aquariums than the vaccines developed by America’s greatest pharmaceutical experts.

But why perpetuate this narrative? What’s the goal? Even if it might be true (it isn’t), how does it benefit anyone to call half the country a bunch of morons? Will this really change their ways and help them become more progressive (as it’s satirically depicted in the show “South Park,” where the residents are shamed into building a Whole Foods in their small town), or will it simply push so many Americans away from public discourse? Do the people who push these narratives even care one way or the other how people respond?

Obviously, there’s tribalism at work in which one group vilifies and ridicules the rival to dominate them. There’s a great deal of satisfaction in “owning” or “dunking on” the other side. It makes for good entertainment and it creates a sense of belonging. Life may be bad, but it could be worse: you could be one of the idiots in Oklahoma overdosing on Ivermectin.

However, underneath this tribalism, there seems to be some genuine insecurity. In most cases, bullies resort to this kind of name-calling, scapegoating, and false narratives to make up for something lacking in themselves. After all, if they were confident in their ideas and in their ability to carry out those ideas, they would simply speak the truth and not feel the need to mock their rivals.

Keep reading

Leftists: Health Care Is A Human Right, Unless You’re Unvaccinated

The same people who spent the last decade telling you health care is a human right now want to be able to deny it to you.

As if it wasn’t enough to hound people without the COVID-19 shot out of their jobs, schools, and even effectively whole cities, pundits and even some doctors are now floating the idea of denying medical care to people based on COVID-19 vaccination status.

“Is it time to put those who are endangering public health by refusing vaccines on notice that if they need care they will go to the end of the line, behind the patients who acted responsibly?” asks the Washington Post in a totally-not-loaded-at-all question.

While the Post article doesn’t endorse refusing treatment to the unvaccinated as punishment per se, it leaves the door wide open for denial of health care in certain instances. “Patients should expect to be told that being tested and wearing a mask are conditions of receiving care,” it notes. “For non-urgent care in which sufficient advance notice is given, requiring vaccination as a condition of continued service might also be defensible.”

The author makes no secret of his bias either, proudly admitting, “It’s easy to feel anger — as I do — toward those who perversely promote unwarranted skepticism about the seriousness of coronavirus infection, as well as the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.”

“Taking vaccination status into account when deciding whether to treat a patient can be acceptable — sometimes,” waxes an NBC thinkpiece.

Alabama doctor Jason Valentine posted a photo of himself next to a sign bragging he would “no longer see patients that are not vaccinated against COVID-19.” To patients questioning the motive for his decision, Valentine says “I told them COVID is a miserable way to die and I can’t watch them die like that.”

Dr. Linda Marraccini of Miami took similar steps, informing her thousands of patients their patronage would be terminated if they failed to vaccinate against COVID-19 and blaming them for a “lack of selflessness.” Becker’s Hospital Review published her story under the conspicuous headline “One physician’s case for refusing to treat unvaccinated patients in person.”

An internal memo circulated to a group of Texas doctors acknowledged, “Many are understandably angry and frustrated with the unvaccinated” and instructed “Vaccine status … may be considered when making triage decisions as part of the physician’s assessment of each individual’s likelihood of survival.” After the news leaked, one of the doctors involved backtracked his story and insisted the memo was a “homework assignment.”

These commentators and physicians know they can’t (yet) make blanket assertions that those who haven’t received the COVID-19 shot should be flatly turned away from critical care, but they are nonetheless stealthily planting the conversation in the public mind.

Meanwhile, people like Jimmy Kimmel are getting away with it, as the late-night host mocked the unvaccinated and suggested they should be denied lifesaving treatment. “Vaccinated person having a heart attack? Yes, come right in, we’ll take care of you. Unvaccinated guy who gobbled horse goo? Rest in peace, wheezy,” Kimmel needled, taking a dig at Ivermectin, a Nobel Prize-winning drug which has been misleadingly mocked as a horse dewormer, despite the fact that it has been used as an antiparasitic for human patients for decades.

Others are “merely” suggesting the unvaccinated should pay more for their healthcare. “Americans have just about had it up to here with people who refuse COVID-19 vaccinations,” begins a Los Angeles Times column from Michael Hiltzik entitled “Should the unvaccinated pay more for healthcare? That’s an easy call.”

“Unvaccinated people could be held civilly or even criminally liable if it can be shown that their behavior brought harm to others” — i.e., infected them — reads one of Hiltzik’s suggestions. As an example, he cites the possibility of nursing home employees who aren’t vaccinated (but curiously doesn’t mention the policies of Democrat governors like New York’s Andrew Cuomo, who condemned thousands of residents to their deaths by forcing nursing homes to take infected COVID-19 patients).

In another suggestion, he cites economist Jonathan Meer’s take in MarketWatch: “Insurers, led by government programs, should declare that medically-able, eligible people who choose not to be vaccinated are responsible for the full financial cost of COVID-related hospitalizations.”

Keep reading

Cutting Corners: Liberals Mindlessly Rejoice as FDA Fully Approves Pfizer Vaccine Despite Poor Results; Skipped Key Clinical Trials and Advisory Committee Review

On Monday, the FDA announced that it had approved the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of the disease in individuals 16 years of age and older, but the rushed nature of their announcement raises questions.

Liberal media hacks rejoiced and gleefully spread the news they had been waiting for since Trump left office and the vaccine magically transformed into their only hope for mankind.

“Time for mandates!” They exclaimed, in some form or another, as they feverishly began plotting how they could now call for conservatives to be held down while a needle gets jammed in their arm.

And how convenient, just in time for booster shots!

The tyrants in Biden’s regime also jumped at the news and immediately said they would force all active-duty military members to get the jab. They are expected to implement even more draconian restrictions now that the FDA has given the experimental and highly controversial mRNA vaccine their ‘blessing.’

Keep reading

Liberal Journo Says ‘Someone Needs to Create Porn for Children’

A liberal “journalist” advocated for “porn for children” where “no one gets choked.”

Yes, really.

Writer Flora Gill, who boasts on her Twitter profile of writing for GQ, ST Style Magazine, The Sunday Times Magazine, and Evening Standard, claimed that children need “entry level porn.”

“Someone needs to create porn for children. Hear me out,” Gill tweeted Thursday. “Young teens are already watching porn but they’re finding hardcore, aggressive videos that give a terrible view of sex. They need entry level porn! A soft core site where everyone asks for consent and no one gets choked.”

Keep reading

The Left Has A Pedophilia Problem, And It’s Out In The Open

Like many others, I have fond memories of my childhood. Whether I was marching in an Independence Day Parade, binge-watching the Power Rangers, or making gingerbread men for Christmas with my family, I had the chance to enjoy a childhood that preserved my innocence, an innocence that is unique to children and that, once lost, doesn’t return. 

A subset of children growing up today will likely recall certain aspects of their childhood very differently. The left has, with a startling degree of success, endeavored to reshape our society by embedding their beliefs within the experience of childhood, overshadowing 4th of July parades with Pride parades, implanting LGBT propaganda in children’s shows, and supplanting gingerbread men with the “genderbread person.”

In isolation, any of these specific incidences would be unsettling, to say the least, but by viewing them in the larger context one reaches a conclusion that is just as unconscionable as it is unavoidable. It isn’t just that controversial beliefs are being thrust into childhood experiences, but that the natural curiosity, openness, and naivety that is the inherent disposition of youth is being hijacked to normalize a divergent sexual ethic. 

This interest in children s not purely ideological, however. With increasing frequency, the obvious has become undeniable. Those who have a creepy obsession with involving children in their sexual tastes, and use any avenue at their disposal to do so, either have a direct sexual interest in children or want to run cover for those who do. The left has a pedophilia problem, and it’s only getting worse.

I was made painstakingly aware of this fact when I attended the 2019 San Francisco Pride Parade to interview attendees for my YouTube channel, which I co-host with a friend. One particularly honest marcher told my co-host that he is “down for the kink with kids,” mentioning later that he believed that “age is a construct.”  

Another demonstrator informed me that child involvement in drag is “so cool” and that “there should be more kids doing drag” before saying that the statement “love has no age” is “100 percent true” and letting loose a Freudian slip when he admitted that a child drag queen who performed in a gay night club was paid in the same manner “you do with strippers.”

In case you have the impression that this is an isolated incident, take a look at this mashup of Vice headlines, which in several instances attempt to generate sympathy for pedophiles, obfuscate the definition of pedophilia, and confer legitimacy to “non-offending” pedophiles, including one pseudonymously named Ian whose job “involved children directly” and another called Gary, a man who “developed feelings for a three-year-old girl” but calls himself a “virtuous” pedophile who supposedly doesn’t act on his attraction. Gary was also a foster parent to three children and was subsequently accused of sexually assaulting one of the young girls.

Keep reading