☕️ HEARTBROKEN ☙ Wednesday, February 22, 2023 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
You are NOT going to believe what the New York Times just published. Project Veritas news and a heartbroken, woke public health expert hides her tweets. Plus lots more.
Good morning, C&C, it’s Wednesday! Today’s roundup includes: the Times publishes a shocking op-ed that might be illegal; Republican senators object to Biden’s plan to sign WHO pandemic accords; a Project Veritas mini-roundup; Erin Brockovich tweets support for East Palestine moms; and A woke public health expert locks down her Twitter account.
🗞 *THE C&C ARMY POST* 🗞
🪖 There’s just too much war news to roundup today. I’ll cover it all tomorrow. For now, just remember: all this talk about World War III is coming from the very same people who gave us covid death counters and orchestrated pandemic fear. Now that covid is over, we are suddenly getting nuclear war panic from the exact same people.
How about let’s not fall for it this time? Just saying.
🗞*WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY* 🗞
😷 Well, I guess we’ve come full circle now. Yesterday, the New York Times published an op-ed that would have literally killed grandma two years ago. It’s so shocking that I’m worried it’s illegal or something, and you might not even believe me anyway. Here it is, I bring you the New York Times:
Tellingly, the article did NOT include a “editor’s note” explaining how in the interests of free speech they publish all views, even Nazis, and don’t agree with this one especially, or even a sidebar providing “more context” like the government thinks masks are great or whatever.
So … that’s right, it’s really over. The author, regular Times columnist Brett Stephens, allowed it’s POSSIBLE that SOME people might be disciplined enough to wear their masks “right” all the time, without ever slipping, even for a second, and so they — the rare good ones — could POSSIBLY see SOME benefit from masking, but for most people it’s a complete and utter waste of time:
[W]hen it comes to the population-level benefits of masking, the verdict is in: Mask mandates were a bust. Those skeptics who were furiously mocked as cranks and occasionally censored as “misinformers” for opposing mandates were right. The mainstream experts and pundits who supported mandates were wrong. In a better world, it would behoove the latter group to acknowledge their error, along with its considerable physical, psychological, pedagogical and political costs.
That’s super-nice to hear, especially after what we’ve been through, but Stephens is not very optimistic that we will ever get our well-deserved apologies:
[T]he people who had the courage to say as much deserved to be listened to, not treated with contempt. They may not ever get the apology they deserve, but vindication ought to be enough.
I don’t know. I’m not sure vindication IS enough. I’m thinking some people and institutions need to be held accountable for their “errors.” How about you?
Take the CDC, for example. After noting that the CDC refused to change its mask guidance in the wake of the Cochrane Review, which is widely considered the “gold standard” of study reviews, and which found that the very best studies show masks DO NOT WORK, Mr. Stephens tore into the loathsome health agency:
The C.D.C.’s increasingly mindless adherence to its masking guidance is none of those things. It isn’t merely undermining the trust it requires to operate as an effective public institution. It is turning itself into an unwitting accomplice to the genuine enemies of reason and science — conspiracy theorists and quack-cure peddlers — by so badly representing the values and practices that science is supposed to exemplify.
…If [CDC Director Rochelle Walensky] ever wonders why respect for the C.D.C. keeps falling, she could look to herself, and resign, and leave it to someone else to reorganize her agency.
It’s true that the spineless Times was too chickenhearted to run this story in the Science section where it belongs, instead sequestering it in the Opinion pages. But it DID run the story. And there’s a surprising advantage to running it as an op-ed. As an opinion piece, it could be much more critical of the CDC and Rochelle Walensky, and could offer kind words for misinformers, like me.
Happy as I am to see this information penetrating the liberal strongholds, I have to say: do you have ANY idea how helpful something like this might have been back when I was arguing to judges about the masks? What I would give for a time machine.
🔥 NTD News ran a hopeful story yesterday headlined, “Republicans Push Back Against Accord Giving WHO Power Over US Pandemic Response.” Meanwhile, corporate media is completely ignoring the story.
The story is that Joe Biden is about to sign a WHO pandemic response “accord” that would give the WHO authority to declare health emergencies and issue binding mandates for all 194 member countries. Mandates like lockdowns, vaccines and medical treatments, disinformation management, and so forth. So this week, seventeen Republican senators filed a bill requiring the “Accord” be approved the same as if it were a treaty, requiring approval by two-thirds of the Senate.
Unfortunately, it’s not going anywhere. First of all, Biden WILL sign the WHO accord; there’s no legislature process that can stop him. It’s an “emergency.” Second, the accord is specifically drafted to evade the U.S.’s treaty approval process. It purports to take effect immediately on a “provisional” basis regardless of whether the Senate approves it or not. Under the accord, the WHO would have complete authority to say what is and isn’t a pandemic. So goofy political movements like climate change or equity could, and probably will, conceivably apply.
Presidents have previously used this technique to bypass the Senate over two dozen times. It has been upheld by the Supreme Court at least twice. Called an “Executive Agreement” instead of a “treaty,” these workarounds have become more popular during the last fifty or sixty years.
This is probably obvious, but Executive Agreements should’ve been shut down the FIRST time a President tried it.
Under the U.S. Constitution, states have jurisdiction over health policy, as we saw play out during the covid pandemic. But the WHO Pandemic Accord would bring health policy under the jurisdiction of the federal government whenever the WHO declares a pandemic. In that case, states like Florida would not be able to make their own pandemic policy — everyone would have to follow the same WHO protocols.
In other words, there will be no control groups.
During the pandemic, they discovered you can easily run the entire world in a uniform and standardized way from Geneva, Switzerland, because every country has “health emergency” laws that circumvent normal democratic processes in the interests of speed and efficiency. There’s your one-world government; it’s already on the books. All it needs is this final WHO accord to make everything official.
All of that said, it is not at all clear that Biden has the Constitutional authority to execute the WHO Pandemic Accord. I haven’t done the research, but I doubt that either of the two cases previously upheld by the Supreme Court dealt with Executive Agreements affecting every man, woman, and child in the United States.
In other words, I could see the Court possibly agreeing with an Executive Agreement binding an executive agency, or binding something the Executive Branch has control over. But this seems like a higher level. After all, what’s the point of “advise and consent” if the President can just unilaterally agree to whatever he thinks best?
You can count on there being a lawsuit filed against the Accord, probably brought by one or more State Solicitors General, since States clearly have standing to oppose this. What’s less clear is whether courts will agree the matter is ripe for adjudication before the WHO actually declares a pandemic and tries to use the Accord.
So stand by. Anything like this must be resolved in the courts. Still, I applaud what the Senators are doing; if nothing else, it creates a legislative record that Congress objected to Biden’s decisions.
🔥 From everything we’ve heard, Project Veritas’ board was scheduled to meet yesterday. But there’s been zero news so far. Here are the latest developments:
First, a group of investigative reporters loyal to O’Keefe told the Board they would all quit unless the Board immediately resigned:
Gateway Pundit broke the story — apparently it has an insider contact — but did not provide more detail. We don’t know who or how many, for example.
Next, Project Veritas’ former board chairman also called on the current board members to resign:
Rasmussen raised a good point:
There are actually two great points here. First, the fact that PV was independently audited — and the auditors never complained. So, in trying to score points off James O’Keefe, the Board just publicly accused itself (Project Veritas) of tricking its auditors. Second, the Board’s airing of its public grievances against O’Keefe opened the company up to potential liability, since they are claiming they — the company — have been misusing donor funds.
You can’t shove this cat back in the bag. It will be very hard for Project Veritas to defend a lawsuit based on something that the Board claimed was a fact. What will they offer in defense? That they didn’t mean it? They were wrong? They were only bluffing? But they’re doomed, either way: If they disavow their allegations to avoid a lawsuit from donors, then they invite a lawsuit from O’Keefe for defamation.
It wasn’t smart, to put it mildly. The board members need to resign before they do any MORE damage.
Finally, independent journalist Andy Ngo reported that a high-net-worth donor angrily disputed a Board claim that James O’Keefe had mistreated her and her husband:
Whoops. This leaves the Board in the unenviable position of calling their own major donor a liar, or recanting their own story. They haven’t done either, so chalk it up as yet another Board lie.
I tried REALLY HARD find a Board supporter somewhere so I could argue off their position, but it’s almost impossible to find anyone supporting the Board at this point. The right thing for them to do is RESIGN FOR THE GOOD OF THE COMPANY.
🔥 Erin Brockovich tweeted yesterday that the Flynt, Michigan moms are now helping the East Palestine moms:
I was also gratified to see Erin echoing what I always say: it’s LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL. Waiting for Superman always disappoints.
💉 Public Heath expert “Doctor” Nurse Monica McLemore locked her twitter down yesterday for a very good reason. First, let’s meet the good doctor, or nurse, or whatever she is:
As I said, acting quite prudently, Monica locked her tweets down tight yesterday:
Why did she lock down? Well, she got frustrated about another positive covid test after “3 years, 5 shots, [and] still masking.” In her frustration, she broke the narrative when she tweeted this:
Then, rightfully horrified after her unintentionally anti-vaxx tweet went viral, Monica locked down her account. After all, the nurse-doctor doesn’t want to make anybody hesitate to take the vaccine. It’s just that she’s heartbroken, and she needs sympathy. And who can blame her? She signaled all the virtues, she took all the shots, she put the pronouns on. And now THIS.
It just seems SO unfair.
Maybe it IS unfair. But I say, it’s no time to give up! Medical Justice requires sacrifice. Monica! Toughen up! If it’s not working, do MORE of it, sweetheart, the EXACT SAME WAY.
Have a wonderful Wednesday, and I’ll see you tomorrow for more delicious Coffee & Covid.
Join C&C in moving the needle and changing minds. I could use your help getting the truth out and spreading optimism and hope, if you can: https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/-learn-how-to-get-involved-
Truth Social: @jchilders98.
C&C Swag! www.shopcoffeeandcovid.com
Emailed Daily Newsletter: https://www.coffeeandcovid.com
Just posted this comment on the NYT op-Ed. We’ll see if it sneaks past the “moderators.” Based on past experience, I’m skeptical. Here it is:
“I’ve repeatedly had my comments censored on this website for years now for saying exactly this. Meanwhile, I’ve watched as the top “recommended” comments on article after article display unwavering confidence in the efficacy of masks and the immorality, evilness even, of those, like me, who do not share their faith.
This newspaper has constantly fed fanaticism over the masking issue, misinforming it’s readership and exacerbating partisan hatred. In what other areas is this paper providing a similar disservice to its readers and to society at large? I used to read the NYT to learn what’s happening in the world. Now I read it only to learn what’s happening in the Twitter-addled minds of the cloistered elites seeking constantly to assert more and more control over our lives using pseudoscience and emotional blackmail.
Good on the Times for finally publishing something reasonable on the masking issue. Shame on the Times for putting ideological interests over the pursuit of truth time and time again over these tumultuous few years.”
It’s so easy to not get Covid...stop testing. 😂 then it’s a regular cold.