☕️ THE OUTLAW ☙ Saturday, June 1, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Pfizer starts new mRNA trials outside US; Trump Verdict fallout continues; narrative busting Trump impression; NY Mag article torpedoes Trump Verdict logic; dems flee; great 9-0 Sup Ct decision; more.

Good morning, C&C, it’s Saturday! Time for another wonderful Weekend Edition. Whew! May is in the history books and we’re halfway to the wildest and wackiest election in U.S. history, and there have been some humdingers. In the roundup: Pfizer talks deluded country into new mRNA cancer trials; hilarious Trump impression might be major narrative destroyer; media losing its marbles over Trump Verdict reaction; influencers continue evaluating a Trump win from the Verdict; Twitter to host Trump town hall; New York Magazine article torpedoes Trump Verdict; verdict fallout includes democrat senator party switch and silence from leftist chatty Kathies; Trump manages unprecedented miracle; and another terrific 9-0 Supreme Court decision that almost slid under the Trump Verdict radar.

🗞 THE C&C ARMY POST 🗞

🪖 MULTIPLIER UPDATE: As of yesterday afternoon, Trump’s campaign shattered fundraising records, raising an astonishing $53 million dollars from small donations in just 24 hours following the Manhattan Verdict. Maybe even more meaningfully, a full third of those donations were from new donors who had never previously participated.

I’ve no idea how to reckon C&C’s portion. But, based on the comments — toting up the highest numbers in C&C history (~1,300) — it was our strongest multiplier operation yet. And I lost count of our folks who offered remarks like this:

Great flex, everyone! We shall endeavor to persevere while finding even more ways to be ungovernable. Stay tuned.

🗞💬 WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY 💬🗞

💉💉 First up, for comic relief, behold the latest news on the Pfizer cancer shot. Yesterday’s over-enthusiastic headline from Futurism Magazine broadcast:

No thanks! I would rather inject myself with bleach. Into my eyeball. With a bent needle I found on the sidewalk in downtown San Fransisco.

So much to mock, so little time. The cowardly jab maniacs at Pfizer are conducting their mRNA trials in unaware England — which mostly missed out on the bizarre mRNA bonanza, since for most of the early years the English used a mad formula cooked up in Great Britain and now recalled.

So far though, PFizer has only convinced a handful of folks to volunteer:

Had they tried it here, in the U.S., only weird medical fetishists would have signed up. The few dozen naive victims mentioned in the story are the low-information Brits, who are understandably desperate for a cure and would probably try pretty much anything. I hope it works, and at least it doesn’t make spike protein, but I have some serious reservations.

When does the mRNA shut off? What about auto-immunity problems? And what about the fake lipid nanoparticles that cause blood clots?

Second, Pfizer somehow talked the UK government into going along with this in a fascistic public-private partnership. What do you want to bet Pfizer is getting immunity for injuries?

The first casualty was precise medical language.  Now, nobody knows exactly what is ‘a vaccine’, and so the government must proactively attempt to quell the confusion. From the UK government’s website about the trial:

These kinds of experimental drugs used to have their own name. They were called immunotherapies, which clearly distinguished them from ‘vaccines.’  But now everything is a vaccine! Whee! And now nobody knows what in Blue Moses anybody is talking about.

Science! Science means calling everything the same thing.

Futurism admitted it’s too soon to tell whether the trial’s mRNA first volunteer, cancer patient Elliot Pfebve, 55, is seeing any improvement from the mRNA treatments. They didn’t mention anybody else getting better either. But the researchers remain “extremely hopeful about the outcome.”

Safe and effective.

🔥🔥 This rollicking new bit from  Trump impersonator Shawn Farash is very funny, essentially true, and potentially brilliant.  Enjoy:

CLIP: Trump, the Outlaw (1:10).

Shawn has created a career out of fun Trump impressions. It’s remarkable. If you close your eyes, you almost can’t tell the difference. But this might be his best work yet; a truer-than-true parody that crashes into the Narrative like an ATACMS missile.

🔥 Corporate media is hysterically freaking out about the Republican response to the Trump Verdict and have gone into full-blown firefighting mode. The Associated Press rabidly warned its readers to beware a dark ‘campaign of vengeance’:

This faltering narrative is the media’s effort to make supporting Trump into some kind of dastardly immoral position. But a few days ago, I explained why this absurd vengeance narrative will wildly backfire. Shawn Farash’s delightful video is Exhibit A.

Cast your memory back to 1976’s ‘The Outlaw Josie Wales.’ The classic movie starred Clint Eastwood as a peaceful Missouri farmer whose wife and child were brutally murdered by a gang of pro-Union militants during the Civil War. The tragedy turns peaceful plower Josie Wales from placid farming to a dark quest for violent revenge. He was the hero.

In other words, the Democrats are busily transforming the former president into The Outlaw Donald Trump.

🔥 The massive wave of Trump support is making the media lose its propaganda-addled mind. Laughably, and wildly ironically, the BBC accused Republicans of enforced groupthink:

That’s pretty rich coming from a party that has exiled every single pro-life democrat. They literally cannot believe Republicans all feel the same way about this absurd parody of a travesty of a trial. Projecting, liberals concluded it could only be because Trump is somehow forcing us to question the legal system.

🔥 The New York Times’ deplorable David French scraped up a couple more Trump-deranged buddies yesterday, and ran another liberal mosh pit of an editorial, with an upgraded salty headline. Republicans aren’t really mad about the imbecilic two-tiered justice system. No, we must all be in a cult:

David’s co-opiner Michelle Goldberg gushed she was “thrilled” by the Verdict because it punctured Trump’s “aura of invincibility” and proved “no one is above the law.” Or, she was thrilled because of her Trump derangement. Either way.

Yesterday evening, the Times published a grotesque parody of new in an article featuring this buffoonish headline:

The dementia-patient-in-chief is one box on the flowchart away from calling criticism of the Verdict “an attack on democracy.” It’s as predictable as Joe getting distracted by a four-year-old girl in the audience and stumbling over a sandbag trying to sniff her hair.

Commenters retaining their sanity observed what the Verdict really punctured was not Trump’s aura of invincibility, but rather the left’s contorted claims that MAGA folks are violent extremists, since our reaction to the Verdict was not to riot but to flood Trump’s fundraising website.

What do you think? Is Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams right?

🔥 Bear with me for a little history lesson. In 1960, Alabama’s democrat officials indited Dr. Martin Luther King on charges of perjury, related to alleged underpayment of his state income taxes in 1956 and 1958. Dr. King’s intial charges were misdemeanor tax evasion. But democrat prosecutors later upgraded the charges to felony perjury — for lying on his tax returns — with a possible prison sentence of two to five years for each count.

Boosting misdemeanor tax evasion — which requires dishonest tax reporting — into a felony required some very creative prosecutorial thinking.

The technical basis for charging Dr. King with felony perjury instead of misdemeanor tax evasion was the Orwellian allegation that he had perjured himself in signing his evasive tax returns. Note that, like with Trump, Dr. King’s alleged unreported Alabama income was related to political donations.

And as with Trump’s prosecution, it was the first time in Alabama history that any defendant was ever charged that way.

Both cases were brought by democrats against their political enemies. Both cases involved charges for victimless process crimes.  Both cases involved creative bootstrapping of misdemeanors into felonies. Both cases included unprecedented interpretations of the law, charging prominent political figures with crimes never brought against others. Both cases involved charges deeply intertwined with their political activities and public roles: campaign donations in Dr. King’s case, and “legal expenses” argued rather to be campaign expenses for Trump.

Dr. King’s case might help explain why black Americans resonate with Trump’s conviction. And it might also help explain yesterday’s Daily Mail’s headline, which explains in part what has forced corporate media into its desperate efforts at damage control:

Whoops. One of corporate media’s biggest headaches is Twitter, the only social media platform where they can no longer order “justice questioners” to be brutally suppressed as online misinformers. Now consider this headline in yesterday’s New York Post:

If I had to guess, this might be the most well-attended online “town hall” in history, breaking yet another record. To be fair, Musk invited all three candidates — Trump, Kennedy, and Biden — to town halls, and only Biden declined. Dates and times are TBA.

🔥 Yesterday, New York Magazine ran what might be the best post-Verdict analysis yet, in a remarkable story headlined, “Prosecutors Got Trump — But They Contorted the Law.”

Author Elie Honig — a former New York state and federal prosecutor — described how creative and unusual were the charges levied against President Trump:

Next, Honig described how trivial and stale the main misdemeanor charges were, comparing the legal weight of Trump’s “mischaracterization of legal expenses” to stealing a bag of Cheetos:

These trivial and expired charges, the author explained, were then jumped up by democrat prosecutors to felonies — just like with Dr. King — who electroshocked them back into zombie-like life, a legal Frankenstein custom-constructed to convict the former President:

Among a vasty swamp of bad reporting, this article might be the best island of clarity about the Verdict anyone has yet assembled. Read the whole thing, and forward it to all your relatives who claim they don’t understand what the big problem is.

🔥 The Verdict chickens have only started roosting. Yesterday, NBC reported politically seismic news in an article headlined, “Sen. Joe Manchin leaves the Democratic Party and registers as an independent.” Buh bye.

Lifelong democrat Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) announced yesterday he is departing the Democrat party with prejudice and registering as an Independent. “To stay true to myself and remain committed to put country before party, I have decided to register as an independent with no party affiliation and continue to fight for America’s sensible majority,” Manchin explained.

The effects aren’t clear yet. Manchin — as he must — vowed to keep caucusing with Senate Democrats, preserving their increasingly tenuous one-seat majority.

If you needed more evidence of democrat disarray, many top Democrat politicians aren’t sure what to do. Unaccountably but very tellingly, motormouth Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has not taken any delirious victory laps on Twitter. She’s been uncharacteristically quiet online the last couple days. Her most recent tweets are about Israel, deepfakes targeting women, and Justice Alito’s flag controversy. I couldn’t find a single tweet from the loquacious Congresswoman about the Trump Verdict.

Trump managed to shut AOC up. Another miracle.

Successful politicians know which side of public sentiment’s toast has the butter of survival. All in all, one imagines desperate rats and sinking ships.

🔥 The maelstorm of manic reporting over the Trump Verdict concealed another terrific development on Thursday. Vox, of all places, reported the story under the astonishing headline, “The NRA just won a big Supreme Court victory. Good.” You can add Vox praising good news for the NRA to your 2024 historic bingo card. The article’s sub-headline grudgingly allowed, “Even truly repulsive speakers have First Amendment rights.”

This might be the first time in history Vox has allowed that truly repulsive speakers (to Vox) have First Amendment Rights.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court delivered a nine to zero decision in favor of the despised-by-democrats National Rifle Association. Even more remarkably, the decision was penned by ultra-liberal, anti-gun Justice Sotomayor, who began the decision unqualifiedly favoring the guns rights group and slapping government overreach like this:

Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors. Petitioner National Rifle Association (NRA) plausibly alleges that respondent Maria Vullo did just that. As superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, Vullo allegedly pressured regulated entities to help her stifle the NRA's pro-gun advocacy by threatening enforcement actions against those entities that refused to disassociate from the NRA and other gun-promotion advocacy groups.

Those allegations, if true, state a First Amendment claim.

In a case that rings distinctly familiar to we who have watched the unfolding saga of government threats against social media companies to force censorship of heterodox covid commentary, the Court admonished even implied threats by government actors against private actors, when the threats are really intended to suppress citizens’ free speech.

In this case, the New York Insurance commissioner leaned on private insurance companies like Lloyd’s of London, encouraging them to refuse to insure NRA members, and implicitly threatening that insurers could be swept into ongoing criminal investigations if they didn’t cooperate.

That’s a nice insurance company you have there; it would be a shame if anything bad happened to it.

Though the Court framed its unanimous decision as merely reiterating long-standing Supreme Court precedent, it was a clear shot across the federal government’s bow in the ongoing social media wars.

This case is a good reminder of why the Founders created the insular third branch of government. Many folks raise valid concerns about nine unelected Justices wielding power for life, but the Supreme Court does act as a last-ditch emergency brake during runaway electoral periods.

In other words, because each president has the chance to slowly change the ideological character of the Court, America is insulated from rapid shifts in the political composition of the executive and legislative branches. The Supreme Court always drags behind it a long tail of sanity from previous political periods, backstopping sudden changes in party power.

We are watching that peculiar benefit play out right now. These days, any good news is widely underreported and concealed under billowing clouds of controversy. Let’s continue keeping our optimistic eyes peeled.

Have a wonderful weekend! And get back here Monday morning to celebrate free speech with another titillating and informative Coffee & Covid essential news roundup.

I can’t do it without help. Consider joining with C&C to help move the nation’s needle and change minds.  I could use your help getting the truth out and spreading optimism and hope, if you can:  ☕ Learn How to Get Involved 🦠

How to Donate to Coffee & Covid
Twitter: jchilders98.
Truth Social: jchilders98.
MeWe: mewe.com/i/coffee_and_covid.
Telegram: t.me/coffeecovidnews
C&C Swag! www.shopcoffeeandcovid.com