Great COVID News!
A report came out that said 33% of Americans got COVID in 2020. Now, that's really good news. We were at an 11.6% infection rate and a 1.6% death rate, but if this news is true, the death rate is down to 0.6% and we're much, much closer to herd immunity. In fact, this should all be done with pretty soon. I'm counting the minutes.
In other COVID news, from what they tell us, the only hope we have to survive COVID at all is the vaccine. If we can all get vaccinated, COVID will end. It is, they tell us, a pandemic of the unvaccinated. Except ... now we're finding that something like 30% of cases in Los Angeles are breakthrough cases. In other words, the vaccinated (with a vaccine that is "95% effective") isn't nearly as effective as they promised. Who knew?
That Makes Sense
A chaplain is by definition a clergyman. His job is to conduct religious exercises for the military, institution, etc. That's why it is that Harvard has opted to choose for their latest Chief Chaplain an atheist. Because who better to conduct religious exercises than someone who declares, "We don’t look to a god for answers." Yale is considering an equally sensible chaplain, a Tesla.
The Obviously Impossible
That sleazy media. They're reporting on the impossible. They say that the U.S. did a drone strike in Afghanistan. They say it "targeted a vehicle carrying at least one person associated with the Afghan branch of the Islamic State group." Now, we know that can't be since the Taliban made the agreement that no terrorist groups would be allowed in Afghanistan. And the Taliban is nothing if not true to their word ... right? (By the way, to the "It's all Biden's fault" side, please note that the original agreement with the Taliban that we would withdraw if they would play nice was with Trump. This is not one of those "If you losers would only have voted for the right guy" situations.)
Judicial Mandate
An Illinois mother went to a court hearing on expenses and child support and lost custody of her son. What horrible thing had she done? She hadn't been vaccinated against COVID. The father didn't ask for it. It was just the judge's decision. Now, I've known so many cases where judges leave kids with a parent who abuses and misuses their children -- far too common -- but this is one for the books. What's best for any kid is to rip apart his family and call it "child welfare."
Equally disturbing is the judge who ordered an Ohio hospital to give one of its COVID patients Ivermectin, a horse deworming drug that the CDC and FDA have issued warnings against. For all those "I'm not getting the vaccine because it hasn't been FDA approved" types, just stop. Just ... stop. This judge mandated it.
Alarm Bells?
Maybe it's nothing. Maybe it's business as usual. Or maybe ...? The story is that President Biden is hosting Ukraine President Zelensky at the White House along with all the support the U.S. can offer. Now, I don't know how many others the president has hosted like this (I haven't heard of any), but wasn't it exactly this that the "Hunter Biden" issue was over? "I didn't offer any influence peddling" while the Ukraine receives more attention than most? I'm just wondering. Oh, don't worry. The American people have already forgotten about Hunter Biden. The media made it so.
Pride
A California teacher was placed on administrative leave after she urged her students pledge allegiance to a gay pride flag because the American flag made her "uncomfortable." Your "public schools" at work, inculcating your kids one at a time ... or in groups. (Please note: This took place in Orange County, normally considered a "conservative bastion" in California.)
I'll Bee Back
The Bee offered an op-ed titled, "Your Freedom Is Not More Important Than My Fear Of Your Freedom." Another one of those satire pieces that just might be true. Maybe more like "Your Freedom is nor more important than my right not to be offended ... or have to think about it"?
I'm sure you've heard about the Texas pro-life law that went into affect this month, so I'm sure you get the story from the Bee of Texas being overrun by unborn babies seeking asylum from other states.
Must be true; I read it on the internet.
25 comments:
An elderly couple (both 89) are good friends with us; they got both “vaccine” shots earlier this year and this week got really sick to where they went to the ER on Thursday. Both have COVID. She is hospitalized as they try to reduce the fluid levels around her heart. He was sent home and can only communicate with his wife by phone. I visited him this morning (risking COVID) and he says her chances are slim and he feels worse by the day. Yep, keep forcing those “vaccines” on people.
Atheists are always poking fun at religion so I was shocked to discover from the news about Harvard that there is such a thing as an atheist chaplain! To me that is an oxymoron.
Not a day goes by when I DON’T see another article about LGBTQXYZ and socialist indoctrination in the government schools. I really don’t understand why any conservative or Christian would continue sending their children to these indoctrination centers.
Great COVID News!
I suspect we've been at or very close to herd immunity for quite some time. The difficulty is in getting truthful data from those tasked with heading up the "fight" against Covid-19. The case count is flawed because of the type of test used (PCR) which can't really tell the difference between covid and influenza, gives both false positives and negatives, is calibrated to include that which doesn't at all indicate one is sick or infectious and wasn't designed for that purpose anyway. Add to the the many who've had it, gotten over it, thought it was just a cold and aren't counted because they didn't report their condition. And that's just case counts. I believe it was you who posted that joke "I know there's an arrow in your eye, but I'm going to test for covid" and all the deaths falsely attributed to the virus.
And there are those of whom I may be one, who are simply immune for whatever reason, usually because there are many forms of coronavirus from which the body's immune system creates protection and goes into action when anything invades that looks like what it has fought in the past. Thus, a cold I had ten years ago may have provided me with all the immune protection I need. (I hope so)
That Makes Sense
What the...? That's like a guy saying he's a woman and...wait.
The Obviously Impossible
By the way, to all those who presume to criticize those they regard as the "It's all Biden's fault" side, note that Biden did nothing that aligned with the agreement Trump made, nor did Biden give the impression he's respond to failures to comply in the manner Trump demonstrated twice. This is indeed one of those "If you losers would only have voted for the right guy" situations. In spades.
Judicial Mandate
Regarding the first story, my wife brought it to my attention, and later, I believe she learned they returned the child to its mother. A fine ending to a moronic story.
As to the Ohio story, I'm not clear on your meaning. For me, lack of FDA approval was not in and of itself a reason why I won't take the jab. And of course, the FDA did not say what will be jabbed is any safer than it was before the "approval". THAT version of Pfizer's drug is still in clinical trials as well as in the arms of tens of thousands of people. So, is this your famous sarcasm?
Alarm Bells?
I'm guessing Sleepy Joe hopes to reassure Zelensky America has his back when Russia takes Biden's Afghanistan disaster as the sign of weakness it is, which wouldn't be necessary if losers would only have voted for the right guy.
Pride
This is the consequence of "only voting". It's clear the American people have ceded authority to morons by not staying actively involved in politics on any level. Here, we see another example of how the kids suffer as a result of adult apathy and abdication of responsibility.
On the FDA approval, the FDA approved Pfizer this last week.
There's that Christian love from Marshall again.
Regarding the alleged FDA approval:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/08/the_fda_did_not_grant_full_approval_to_the_pfizer_shots.html
So, there's that. As regards the Ohio story, the judge mandated the hospital use ivermectin for a particular patient. The CDC/FDA warnings against doing so are lies which don't acknowledge dosages suitable for humans, or that supposedly some people are self-medicating with animal dosages.
You follow that with a reference to the hesitant, telling them to "stop it". Why? Because of the alleged FDA approval which doesn't confirm the safety of the Pfizer drug? This is why I was seeking clarification of your meaning.
David,
What seems to be the problem now?
I was telling them "Don't base your 'I won't take the vax' on 'the FDA hasn't approved it' and then leap to treatments ... that the FDA hasn't approved." Nothing more.
Calling those that didn't vote for Trump "losers". Not exactly a term of endearment.
Stan,
OK. I was pretty much assuming that, but the way it was worded made me second guess it. Thanks for the clarification.
David,
Frankly, given the seven months since Jan 20, the term I would have preferred would not pass the censors, as this is a family friendly blog. But the level of harm and danger to the nation since then is such that I'm not concerned about endearing myself to those responsible. It's the lack of Christian love behind the placement of this horror in the White House which does.
"the term I would have preferred would not pass the censors"
Perhaps that's the kind of thinking that David was referring to. (Matt 5:21-22)
I'm pretty sure calling people names is not an attribute of love. We can disagree on politics and still be loving Christians to each other. Or do you think that because we allowed this that we are in fact not brothers in Christ and not deserving of love and respect?
I've been thinking on Christ's admonishing about being careful about what comes out of your mouth rather than what goes in. For what comes out of the mouth shows the heart of the person. And if the Lord's Prayer, "forgive us as we forgive others" for we have been forgiven much, so we must forgive much.
"Perhaps that's the kind of thinking that David was referring to. (Matt 5:21-22)"
Again with the irrelevance. Yeah. I'm hacked. But the terms I choose are for accuracy's sake. Is it truly only anger explains calling those who do foolish things "fools", or is it honest perception of reality? I'm not angry because Terry Kath played around with a gun a shot himself to death in the process. He was a fool for not treating a deadly weapon with more respect. The choice was clear. The fools (or "losers" to use your word) are equally easy to identify.
"I'm pretty sure calling people names is not an attribute of love."
I'm pretty sure one can disparage another without the use of name calling. You're doing an excellent job of it. Worrying about name calling is a diversionary tactic and the presumption of "not being loving" due to stronger language is as insulting as any strong language. I don't waste my time with it and consider the message along with the source, but the message is far more important to consider.
"Or do you think that because we allowed this that we are in fact not brothers in Christ and not deserving of love and respect?"
The above is another example of diversion. Good people make stupid mistakes. I'm concerning myself with the clearly stupid mistake here, and not the character of you all who made it (unless you're Dan). And to be clear, continued bad choices does indeed impact how deserving one can be of respect by others.
"I've been thinking on Christ's admonishing about being careful about what comes out of your mouth rather than what goes in."
What you're not thinking about is the consequences of choice and harm the wrong choice here has invited upon your fellow Americans. It's no wonder you think of other things. You ignore what such shows about your heart in the process. Cut the c**p. I'm not impressed by your Dan-like posturing.
Let me ask you a question. Let's suppose that there was, oh, I don't know, maybe an actual quote of Jesus commanding His followers to "Love one another even as I have loved you." Okay? You tracking so far? If that was an actual command, and if another Christian came to you and said you were a loser, a fool, an idiot, a menace to society ... that sort of thing ... for doing what you believed was required of you by God's Word, would you say, "Why, thank you very much. I can certainly see the love in that?" Or not?
You have unrepentant sin, Marshall. I will pray for you.
I would respond, "Why do you say that?" and hopefully engage in an exchange that informs, explains, clarifies and provides that person with my reasoning in as much detail as would inform that person properly so as to enlighten and possibly persuade. I certainly wouldn't wet myself
"I certainly wouldn't wet myself."
Nice. Pushing the Trabue envelope. I haven't. I was asking if you considered such behavior "love." You won't answer. Got it.
Anger and vitriol. Not good signs of love.
I've been mulling this whole thing over, Art. First, by "pushing the Trabue envelope" I merely meant you're getting closer to (not within) his mode of treating those with whom he disagrees. But my primary thought was about you. Your mode of communication doesn't sound like gentleness or respect, "at peace with all men," edification. But I know you to be a believer, so I had to ask myself, "How does he see this approach as those things?" Recently you said that your job required this mode of communication. I think that was a hint. I think that, perhaps, your life experience is far outside my own. I think, maybe, that your experiences have brought you along this path that says that this is the proper way to talk to others, that Jesus would certainly approve. To be honest, that is far outside my own grasp. So, rather than ascribe sin and intent to you, I'll just back off and let you be. I can't visualize how this mode of communication is edifying and loving, but I'm guessing you can, so I'll leave you be.
David stepping in for the Lord in condemning me aside, I cannot get over how the two of you refuse to acknowledge your vote does indeed make you complicit in the consequences of the Biden presidential victory. It is simply a fact of voting. We all must accept what results from our vote. That's not to say you had any intent of allowing hordes of foreigners breech our border and commit crimes, suck up our generosity at the expense of others of our own also in need, allow criminal animals to gain more power and territory than they had prior to 9/11/01 and kill 13 of our soldiers and many civilians in the process and a host of other negatives. But your votes did indeed contribute to this horror which may go on indefinitely. And then to insist allowing this predictable situation it part of God's plan when you chose not to prevent it in the most meaningful and impactful way...that's bad enough. But to follow that up with derision over my reaction to that, as if the fact of it matters less than the manner in which I describe it...I'm struggling to know what to do with that. This is serious business, gentlemen. We are responsible and accountable for our actions regardless how sincere out intent to do God's will. And while God might let it slide because of that intent, our responsibility and accountability while here on this earth remain and those who suffer as a result are real people who suffered as a result. So forgive me for "raging" on their behalf. They mean something. So do those who will suffer in the future because you couldn't vote for a guy who tweets too much and talks trash to those who do trash. Condemn my behavior as unChristian anger and vitriol all you like...righteous anger hurts as much as uncontrollable anger...but it doesn't change the truth about responsibility for voting choices.
I wonder if you could just clarify something for me. Would you say that it is sin -- perhaps even grievous sin -- that I didn't vote for Trump? Is it your contention that God's will was to elect Trump and I failed to accomplish that?
I don't think anyone here disagrees that we are responsible for our voting choice. That was never the issue. Are we responsible for the outcome? That's where we disagree. Truth of the matter, I live in a state where my vote doesn't matter. It matters on a local level, but not for President. No amount of name calling will change the fact that even if I had voted for a man that wasn't against abortion on demand (I'd hazard a guess that he's funded a few in his life), it wouldn't have changed the outcome. You say character doesn't matter, I disagree. Why this has to be such an anger filled debate for you is beyond me. As for your "righteous anger", my vote didn't assault God, it annoyed you, so there is nothing righteous about your anger. How is it okay for you to call out my "sin" for not voting for your guy is alright, but my calling you out for unchristian speech is evasion and self-righteousness? You can believe we were wrong to vote for not Trump, but there is no command to vote in Scripture. I'm my view, both candidates were bad for the country and bad for Christianity. In that view, how could I vote for either? I don't believe in the "lesser of two evils" to be justifying, just as I don't believe the ends justify the means.
This has been fascinating to watch. As polls showed that our state was in play, I did choose to vote for Trump, but I did so with trepidation. This notion that we are responsible for the actions of others is foreign to both Christianity and conservatism. If one wanted to pursue this line of thinking, the problem wasn't so much that Biden won, but that the GOP didn't keep control of at least one house of congress.
But all of that aside, I think that Stan hit it right on the head, if God's will had been for Trump to win than Trump would have won. Nothing any of us could have done would have thwarted God's will. Beyond that, scripture is clear that God puts leaders in place for His purposes. If God put Biden in his position of leadership, then how could any of us have thwarted God's plan.
Without getting fatalistic, it seems that we either have a God who is sovereign over everything, or a god who is not sovereign. Personally, I have much more confidence in a sovereign God, than in a god who's plans can be disrupted by His creation.
Finally, while I'm not the best at living this out, I cannot see how anyone could offer Dan's words and actions as worthy of emulation or as an excuse to hurl vitriol of fellow Christians.
"Without getting fatalistic"
I think this is something often misunderstood by people that are not fully convinced of the Sovereignty of God. "You're just being fatalistic." Years ago my son asked me, "How can we know the will of God?" I told him it was easy. First, we have His Word. "Then," I told him, "whatever happened yesterday was God's will." He wasn't, of course, asking that. He wanted to know looking forward. I don't pretend to know all that is God's will looking forward. I DO know He doesn't always do what we expect or even think is best. On the other hand, I ALSO know that He expects us to take part -- to pursue Him, to seek His will, to obey, all that. Passivity doesn't work. But I can say without hesitation, "Whatever happened yesterday was God's will." And I can be absolutely sure that it was for good.
Post a Comment