Is Fauci a Liar? Is Conservative Inc. Tucker Carlson like the Leashed Dog in the Foghorn Leghorn Cartoon?
Fauci attacks Tucker Carlson, saying critics who ‘weaponize lies are killing people’
While Fauci declared his career to have been focused on preserving 'the health and lives of the American people,' a new book by Robert F. Kennedr Jr. says otherwise, documenting Fauci’s record of forcing drug trials on children, using HIV drugs known to be toxic to adults. - LifeSiteNews [https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/fauci-attacks-tucker-carlson/]
I found it darkly humorous that Anthony Fauci called Tucker Carlson a liar because of the pure irony of it. It is like the bus with the sign that said "Safety begins with you" that smashed a car or when Bill Clinton lied about "sexual relations with that woman" because it "depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
I also find Tucker Carlson ironical humorous because he is supposed to be the great conservative truth teller, but when the chips were down during the Joe Biden Steal and truth telling was needed he became the leashed dog in the Foghorn Leghorn cartoon.
First, is Facui a lair?
Feminist Naomi Wolf who voted for Joe Biden wrote "Twitter Censored Dr. Baric’s CV and Its Documentation of Gain-of-Function Research and Me for Accurately Reporting the Bombshell Story" about "Dr. Anthony Fauci’s funding, using U.S. tax dollars, for dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab—funding that Fauci had denied in testimony to Sen. Rand Paul." [https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/twitter-censored-dr-barics-cv-and-its-documentation-of-gain-of-function-research-and-me-for-accurately-reporting-the-bombshell-story_4005419.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-09-20&mktids=a3b6977a9371945db08f956e422afd10&est=fOez%2Bc%2B2z50%2BuEZjHdZWlikyozSeee0B57sEq%2Bp8HTIwXLxtq3u8P%2BiEbCz7]
On February 28, 2019, in The Vaccine Reaction for the article "Dr. Fauci,
It's Not Nice To Fool Congress About Vaccine Reactions" it was
reported:
"On Feb. 27, 2019, the U.S. House Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations... that was also broadcast live on C-span. Parents across
the nation watched... Anthony Fauci... either tell a bald faced lie or
show his ignorance when he testified, under oath, that MMR vaccine does
not cause encephalitis. This large dose of disinformation drew gasps of
protests from parents attending the Capital Hill hearing."
Vaccine zealot Fauci is so famous for his apparent lying (or ignorance)
under oath to Congress about the MMR vaccine on February 27, 2019 that
he was used as an example of what is meant by the word "Anti-Factser".
Next, is Tucker Carlson the leashed dog in the Foghorn Leghorn cartoon?
Theand Catholic Monitor posts answer that question:
In the old Warner Brothers cartoon the rooster Foghorn Leghorn's
archenemy and fall guy George P. Dog was on a leash which meant he could only go as
far as the length of the rope leash and had to stop.
Foghorn even painted a line on the ground with a sign reading "Rope Limit" which George P. Dog could never go beyond.
Why are Tucker Carlson and 90 percent of "conservative" media such the
the New York Post and Washington Times as well as "conservative" talk
radio like Leghorn's archenemy George P. Dog not allowed to go passed
the line with the sign that reads "Rope Limit"?
Why is the massive voter fraud "constitutional travesty" Biden Steal cover-up of the liberal media and FBI the "Rope Limit"?
Why is even discussing the possibility of the massive voter fraud
"constitutional travesty" Biden Steal cover-up of the liberal media and
FBI beyond the "Rope Limit"?
Who and/or what has made Tucker Carlson and 90 percent of
"conservative" media into George P. Dog with a rope leash and a "Rope
Limit."
Who or what controls them?
Why are they forbidden to even give reasoned arguments, instead of straw
man arguments that don't counter the stated dissertations or name
calling, against constitutional experts like Kenneth Starr and the sworn
testimony of voter fraud by hundreds of whistleblowers as well as
expert statisticians and voter machine experts?
If they really think those who follow President Trump, constitutional experts like Kenneth Starr and sworn testimony by voter
fraud whistleblowers as well as expert statisticians and voter machine
experts are lying and headed to hell for lying then out of
simple charity for our souls they should counter our dissertations and
arguments.
If they are Christians and really believe we are wrong and headed to
hell for lying and refuse to give us real arguments then they apparently
have
lost the supernatural virtue of charity.
If they really believe what they say then for charity's sake they should
attempt to save us from hell for lying on such an important matter:
But, all we hear are straw man arguments that don't counter our stated
dissertations, name calling propaganda, silence or the noise of them
running away as fast as they can from serious reasoned back and forth
argumentation.
Just to give fair warning:
We are not going away.
We are growing.
Soon we will be to be too big to ignore and your credibility will forever be destroyed:
"Most Say Mail-In Voting Worked, But 47% Say Fraud Likely - Rasmussen Reports" [https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/most_say_mail_in_voting_worked_but_47_say_fraud_like]
Why are Tucker Carlson and 90 percent of "conservative" media like the leashed dog fall guy in the Foghorn Leghorn cartoon?
Why are Tucker Carlson and 90 percent of "conservative" media such the
the New York Post and Washington Times as well as "conservative" talk
radio like Leghorn's archenemy George P. Dog not allowed to go passed
the line with the sign that reads "Rope Limit"?
Why is the massive voter fraud "constitutional travesty" Biden Steal cover-up of the liberal media and FBI the "Rope Limit"?
Why is even discussing the possibility of the massive voter fraud
"constitutional travesty" Biden Steal cover-up of the liberal media and
FBI beyond the "Rope Limit"?
Who and/or what has made Tucker Carlson and 90 percent of
"conservative" media into George P. Dog with a rope leash and a "Rope
Limit." - Catholic Monitor [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/is-tucker-carlson-ridiculous-cartoon_31.html?m=1]
In 2016, Michael Anton wrote the article “The Flight 93 Election” that Rush Limbaugh said was “one of the greatest columns ever written" explaining that that election was "the most important one America has faced in more than a century."
He said immediately after the 2020 election night that this election was "the most important one America has [ever] faced" and showed that the Joe Biden Steal is a deadly real "coup" that will kill America as a free nation.
The Anton essay “The Flight 93 Election” is more overwhelmingly important now than then if we are to save America from Tucker Carlson's Conservatism Inc.'s betrayal of the United States to the Biden Steal. Here is part of that important article:
Conservatism, Inc.’s, “answer” to the first may, at this point, simply be dismissed. If the conservatives wish to have a serious debate, I for one am game—more than game; eager. The problem of “subjective certainty” can only be overcome by going into the agora. But my attempt to do so—the blog that Kesler mentions—was met largely with incredulity. How can they say that?! How can anyone apparently of our caste (conservative intellectuals) not merely support Trump (however lukewarmly) but offer reasons for doing do?
One of the Journal of American Greatness’s deeper arguments was that only in a corrupt republic, in corrupt times, could a Trump rise. It is therefore puzzling that those most horrified by Trump are the least willing to consider the possibility that the republic is dying. That possibility, apparently, seems to them so preposterous that no refutation is necessary.
As does, presumably, the argument that the stakes in 2016 are—everything. I should here note that I am a good deal gloomier than my (former) JAG colleagues, and that while we frequently used the royal “we” when discussing things on which we all agreed, I here speak only for myself.
How have the last two decades worked out for you, personally? If you’re a member or fellow-traveler of the Davos class, chances are: pretty well. If you’re among the subspecies conservative intellectual or politician, you’ve accepted—perhaps not consciously, but unmistakably—your status on the roster of the Washington Generals of American politics. Your job is to show up and lose, but you are a necessary part of the show and you do get paid. To the extent that you are ever on the winning side of anything, it’s as sophists who help the Davoisie oligarchy rationalize open borders, lower wages, outsourcing, de-industrialization, trade giveaways, and endless, pointless, winless war.
All of Trump’s 16 Republican competitors would have ensured more of the same—as will the election of Hillary Clinton. That would be bad enough. But at least Republicans are merely reactive when it comes to wholesale cultural and political change. Their “opposition” may be in all cases ineffectual and often indistinguishable from support. But they don’t dream up inanities like 32 “genders,” elective bathrooms, single-payer, Iran sycophancy, “Islamophobia,” and Black Lives Matter. They merely help ratify them.
A Hillary presidency will be pedal-to-the-metal on the entire Progressive-left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is even that the worst. It will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most “advanced” Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England. We see this already in the censorship practiced by the Davoisie’s social media enablers; in the shameless propaganda tidal wave of the mainstream media; and in the personal destruction campaigns—operated through the former and aided by the latter—of the Social Justice Warriors. We see it in Obama’s flagrant use of the IRS to torment political opponents, the gaslighting denial by the media, and the collective shrug by everyone else.
It’s absurd to assume that any of this would stop or slow—would do anything other than massively intensify—in a Hillary administration. It’s even more ridiculous to expect that hitherto useless conservative opposition would suddenly become effective. For two generations at least, the Left has been calling everyone to their right Nazis. This trend has accelerated exponentially in the last few years, helped along by some on the Right who really do seem to merit—and even relish—the label. There is nothing the modern conservative fears more than being called “racist,” so alt-right pocket Nazis are manna from heaven for the Left. But also wholly unnecessary: sauce for the goose. The Left was calling us Nazis long before any pro-Trumpers tweeted Holocaust denial memes. And how does one deal with a Nazi—that is, with an enemy one is convinced intends your destruction? You don’t compromise with him or leave him alone. You crush him.
So what do we have to lose by fighting back? Only our Washington Generals jerseys—and paychecks. But those are going away anyway. Among the many things the “Right” still doesn’t understand is that the Left has concluded that this particular show need no longer go on. They don’t think they need a foil anymore and would rather dispense with the whole bother of staging these phony contests in which each side ostensibly has a shot.
If you haven’t noticed, our side has been losing consistently since 1988. We can win midterms, but we do nothing with them. Call ours Hannibalic victories. After the Carthaginian’s famous slaughter of a Roman army at Cannae, he failed to march on an undefended Rome, prompting his cavalry commander to complain: “you know how to win a victory, but not how to use one.” And, aside from 2004’s lackluster 50.7%, we can’t win the big ones at all.
Because the deck is stacked overwhelmingly against us. I will mention but three ways. First, the opinion-making elements—the universities and the media above all—are wholly corrupt and wholly opposed to everything we want, and increasingly even to our existence. (What else are the wars on “cis-genderism”—formerly known as “nature”—and on the supposed “white privilege” of broke hillbillies really about?) If it hadn’t been abundantly clear for the last 50 years, the campaign of 2015-2016 must surely have made it evident to even the meanest capacities that the intelligentsia—including all the organs through which it broadcasts its propaganda—is overwhelmingly partisan and biased. Against this onslaught, “conservative” media is a nullity, barely a whisper. It cannot be heard above the blaring of what has been aptly called “The Megaphone.”
Second, our Washington Generals self-handicap and self-censor to an absurd degree. Lenin is supposed to have said that “the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” But with an opposition like ours, why bother? Our “leaders” and “dissenters” bend over backward to play by the self-sabotaging rules the Left sets for them. Fearful, beaten dogs have more thymos.
Third and most important, the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty means that the electorate grows more left, more Democratic, less Republican, less republican, and less traditionally American with every cycle. As does, of course, the U.S. population, which only serves to reinforce the two other causes outlined above. This is the core reason why the Left, the Democrats, and the bipartisan junta (categories distinct but very much overlapping) think they are on the cusp of a permanent victory that will forever obviate the need to pretend to respect democratic and constitutional niceties. Because they are.
It’s also why they treat open borders as the “absolute value,” the one “principle” that—when their “principles” collide—they prioritize above all the others. If that fact is insufficiently clear, consider this. Trump is the most liberal Republican nominee since Thomas Dewey. He departs from conservative orthodoxy in so many ways that National Review still hasn’t stopped counting. But let’s stick to just the core issues animating his campaign. On trade, globalization, and war, Trump is to the left (conventionally understood) not only of his own party, but of his Democratic opponent. And yet the Left and the junta are at one with the house-broken conservatives in their determination—desperation—not merely to defeat Trump but to destroy him. What gives?
Oh, right—there’s that other issue. The sacredness of mass immigration is the mystic chord that unites America’s ruling and intellectual classes. Their reasons vary somewhat. The Left and the Democrats seek ringers to form a permanent electoral majority. They, or many of them, also believe the academic-intellectual lie that America’s inherently racist and evil nature can be expiated only through ever greater “diversity.” The junta of course craves cheaper and more docile labor. It also seeks to legitimize, and deflect unwanted attention from, its wealth and power by pretending that its open borders stance is a form of noblesse oblige. The Republicans and the “conservatives”? Both of course desperately want absolution from the charge of “racism.” For the latter, this at least makes some sense. No Washington General can take the court—much less cash his check—with that epithet dancing over his head like some Satanic Spirit. But for the former, this priestly grace comes at the direct expense of their worldly interests. Do they honestly believe that the right enterprise zone or charter school policy will arouse 50.01% of our newer voters to finally reveal their “natural conservatism” at the ballot box? It hasn’t happened anywhere yet and shows no signs that it ever will. But that doesn’t stop the Republican refrain: more, more, more! No matter how many elections they lose, how many districts tip forever blue, how rarely (if ever) their immigrant vote cracks 40%, the answer is always the same. Just like Angela Merkel after yet another rape, shooting, bombing, or machete attack. More, more, more!
This is insane. This is the mark of a party, a society, a country, a people, a civilization that wants to die. Trump, alone among candidates for high office in this or in the last seven (at least) cycles, has stood up to say: I want to live. I want my party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live. I want to end the insanity.
Yes, Trump is worse than imperfect. So what? We can lament until we choke the lack of a great statesman to address the fundamental issues of our time—or, more importantly, to connect them. Since Pat Buchanan’s three failures, occasionally a candidate arose who saw one piece: Dick Gephardt on trade, Ron Paul on war, Tom Tancredo on immigration. Yet, among recent political figures—great statesmen, dangerous demagogues, and mewling gnats alike—only Trump-the-alleged-buffoon not merely saw all three and their essential connectivity, but was able to win on them. The alleged buffoon is thus more prudent—more practically wise—than all of our wise-and-good who so bitterly oppose him. This should embarrass them. That their failures instead embolden them is only further proof of their foolishness and hubris.
Which they self-laud as “consistency”—adherence to “conservative principle,” defined by the 1980 campaign and the household gods of reigning conservative think-tanks. A higher consistency in the service of the national interest apparently eludes them. When America possessed a vast, empty continent and explosively growing industry, high immigration was arguably good policy. (Arguably: Ben Franklin would disagree.) It hasn’t made sense since World War I. Free trade was unquestionably a great boon to the American worker in the decades after World War II. We long ago passed the point of diminishing returns. The Gulf War of 1991 was a strategic victory for American interests. No conflict since then has been. Conservatives either can’t see this—or, worse, those who can nonetheless treat the only political leader to mount a serious challenge to the status quo (more immigration, more trade, more war) as a unique evil.
Trump’s vulgarity is in fact a godsend to the conservatives. It allows them to hang their public opposition on his obvious shortcomings and to ignore or downplay his far greater strengths, which should be even more obvious but in corrupt times can be deliberately obscured by constant references to his faults. That the Left would make the campaign all about the latter is to be expected. Why would the Right? Some—a few—are no doubt sincere in their belief that the man is simply unfit for high office. David Frum, who has always been an immigration skeptic and is a convert to the less-war position, is sincere when he says that, even though he agrees with much of Trump’s agenda, he cannot stomach Trump. But for most of the other #NeverTrumpers, is it just a coincidence that they also happen to favor Invade the World, Invite the World?
Another question JAG raised without provoking any serious attempt at refutation was whether, in corrupt times, it took a … let’s say … “loudmouth” to rise above the din of The Megaphone. We, or I, speculated: “yes.” Suppose there had arisen some statesman of high character—dignified, articulate, experienced, knowledgeable—the exact opposite of everything the conservatives claim to hate about Trump. Could this hypothetical paragon have won on Trump’s same issues? Would the conservatives have supported him? I would have—even had he been a Democrat.
Back on planet earth, that flight of fancy at least addresses what to do now. The answer to the subsidiary question—will it work?—is much less clear. By “it” I mean Trumpism, broadly defined as secure borders, economic nationalism, and America-first foreign policy. We Americans have chosen, in our foolishness, to disunite the country through stupid immigration, economic, and foreign policies. The level of unity America enjoyed before the bipartisan junta took over can never be restored.
But we can probably do better than we are doing now. First, stop digging. No more importing poverty, crime, and alien cultures. We have made institutions, by leftist design, not merely abysmal at assimilation but abhorrent of the concept. We should try to fix that, but given the Left’s iron grip on every school and cultural center, that’s like trying to bring democracy to Russia. A worthy goal, perhaps, but temper your hopes—and don’t invest time and resources unrealistically.
By contrast, simply building a wall and enforcing immigration law will help enormously, by cutting off the flood of newcomers that perpetuates ethnic separatism and by incentivizing the English language and American norms in the workplace. These policies will have the added benefit of aligning the economic interests of, and (we may hope) fostering solidarity among, the working, lower middle, and middle classes of all races and ethnicities. The same can be said for Trumpian trade policies and anti-globalization instincts. Who cares if productivity numbers tick down, or if our already somnambulant GDP sinks a bit further into its pillow? Nearly all the gains of the last 20 years have accrued to the junta anyway. It would, at this point, be better for the nation to divide up more equitably a slightly smaller pie than to add one extra slice—only to ensure that it and eight of the other nine go first to the government and its rentiers, and the rest to the same four industries and 200 families.
Will this work? Ask a pessimist, get a pessimistic answer. So don’t ask. Ask instead: is it worth trying? Is it better than the alternative? If you can’t say, forthrightly, “yes,” you are either part of the junta, a fool, or a conservative intellectual.
And if it doesn’t work, what then? We’ve established that most “conservative” anti-Trumpites are in the Orwellian sense objectively pro-Hillary. What about the rest of you? If you recognize the threat she poses, but somehow can’t stomach him, have you thought about the longer term? The possibilities would seem to be: Caesarism, secession/crack-up, collapse, or managerial Davoisie liberalism as far as the eye can see … which, since nothing human lasts forever, at some point will give way to one of the other three. Oh, and, I suppose, for those who like to pour a tall one and dream big, a second American Revolution that restores Constitutionalism, limited government, and a 28% top marginal rate.
But for those of you who are sober: can you sketch a more plausible long-term future than the prior four following a Trump defeat? I can’t either.
The election of 2016 is a test—in my view, the final test—of whether there is any virtù left in what used to be the core of the American nation. If they cannot rouse themselves simply to vote for the first candidate in a generation who pledges to advance their interests, and to vote against the one who openly boasts that she will do the opposite (a million more Syrians, anyone?), then they are doomed. They may not deserve the fate that will befall them, but they will suffer it regardless. [https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/digital/the-flight-93-election/]
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.