First, are we even sure Biden has cancer?
Sure, there is a statement to that effect, but basically the statement was issued as a response to allegations that the Biden family (and the Democrats) had engaged in one of the biggest cover-ups in American political history.
I find the claim that he didn’t have a PSA since 2014 laughable given his time both as president and vice president. Nope.
As an aside, what is it with the Bidens and 2014? Remember the dating of the pardons to that year? Is it just a nervous tic or something else? Maybe Jake Tapper can get on it and find out.
So, given all of that, why are we taking what the Biden family has to say at face value? Even more than with the Clintons, with the Bidens it’s turtles all the way down.
I covered the suspicious nature of the timing earlier.
The claim that Biden’s cancer is so serious that it has metastasized to his bones, but also that it can be controlled by medication? That sounds a little too convenient. It’s basically telling everyone that this is very serious (it’s spread to his bones!) but not serious enough that he cannot get on with life, but serious enough that please stop talking smack about a very sick man.
Cannot say it didn’t work. Yesterday was the release date for Tapper’s book, and besides what amounted to a little below-the-fold coverage by the media, the story has disappeared from view.
Of course the overall five-year strategy of running the prevent defense to run out the clock on Biden’s mental condition worked beautifully. I think Whoopi Goldberg said it best, “Why is this important to know now?”
In reality, what the Biden crime family did, with that beautifully crafted and timed cancer statement, was to remind its former partners in crime that there are plenty of other dark secrets and cover-ups from the past five years, waiting to be revealed… and that the Biden family knows all of them.
Speaking of running out the clock…
From NY Times science writer David Wallace-Wells, one of the most infuriating pieces I have read in a long while titled “Why Does It Matter Whether COVID Came Out of a Lab?” Wallace-Wells is writing about the COVID Lab-Leak theory, still claiming that the world’s scientists “… tend to prefer a natural origin explanation.”
However, the goal of this piece isn’t the resolution of this debate, it is rather about why crushing the Lab-Leak Theory five years ago was a good thing, because it saved the world from ourselves:
These days, when Americans argue in favor of a lab origin, raging about a cover-up, they tend to focus on Fauci and the American scientific establishment — as though the stakes were somewhat confined to our own domestic culture war. But if the lab leak thesis had become elite conventional wisdom in 2020, the obvious implication would not have been that the pandemic was therefore the fault of U.S. scientists and federal funding (though we might have gotten to that conclusion eventually). The first implication would have been that it was the responsibility of a foreign adversary, the world’s other major superpower, with whom the country had been steadily intensifying tensions for years — indeed, has intensified them even further in the years that followed.
Perhaps you feel it never could’ve gotten that far, given that so many eminent scientists still believe the theory is a dead end. But if you believe that in 2020 the powers that be mishandled this question, that is the upshot: that, in the absence of interference the lab leak hypothesis would have and should have spread more rapidly, both through the American public and up through its leadership class.
Got it? No, I don’t mean Wallace-Wells, doing his star turn as Colonel Jessup, telling us we couldn’t handle the truth. No, I don’t mean trying to make the case that the Natural Origins Theory is still viable.
I mean he is reframing the debate regarding the origins of COVID, in order to prepare the way for the inevitable moment when the Lab Leak Theory becomes common wisdom: that the virus that disrupted the world and killed millions did indeed come from a lab. That we were lied to for years by our “elites.” That people who disagreed, and were ruthlessly suppressed, were right all along. That given the virus escaped from a lab, that there were people who knew for months before the lockdowns in Spring 2020 what it was, and that we could have had a head start on dealing with it.
He is telling us that, Yes, we lied to you, it did come from a lab, but that we did it for your own good.
Third, Trump met with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa. Trump proceeded to confront Ramaphosa with evidence that the latter’s supporters were engaged in a policy of genocide.
Here’s how the NY Times covered the story:
The meeting started with pleasantries and discussions about golf and foreign policy, with the leaders at first seeming to glide over the issue of the fringe narrative that Mr. Trump has amplified, claiming that there was a genocide of white South Africans.
Fringe narrative?
As I stated in an earlier post, the South African government is not only supporting a campaign of violence against a racial minority that has lived in the country for hundreds of years, a campaign that has caused people to flee the country, but that it will be implementing a policy of confiscating their land.
If we were to Mad Lib the story and replace Afrikaner with Ramaphosa and black South Africans with Israelis, I think there would be many on the Left claiming genocide. This is more than a “fringe narrative.”
Perhaps somebody should take this case to the ICC.
The reporters who wrote this dishonest, hate-filled piece of propaganda? Erica L. Green and Zolan Kanno-Youngs. Just keep those names in mind