Marketing Covid Panic In Carolina — NationalFile.com has obtained a copy of a Zoom call from Novant Heath New Hanover Regional Medical Center revealing that the administration is distorting Covid-19 data to panic the public.
They literally talked about involving the marketing department.
And they wonder why there is reluctance to take the jab.
Proven, malicious lies told during this global plandemic — just quoting Biden shill Jen Psaki — involved the denial of the successful use of hydroxychloroquine (Fox 26 Houston); that ivermectin is not meant for people (the FDA); that the possibility that Covid came from a Chinese lab was a conspiracy theory (The Lancet, Facebook, Google Scripps Research Institute, etcetera, etcetera); that gain of function research was not occurring at that lab and the U.S. wasn’t funding it (Tony Fauci); that Nobel Prize winning French virologist Luc Montagnier is promoting a conspiracy theory and mRNA vaccine inventor Robert Malone is promoting misinformation when they express concerns about the vaccine (Wikipedia and others); and masks are necessary (Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, etcetera, etcetera).
And now we have the Novant Heath New Hanover Regional Medical Center freely admitting they are purposely distorting the data.
Answer to yesterday’s William Lawrence Sr Cryptowit quote puzzle: I lift up my eyes to the mountains— where does my help come from? My help comes from the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth.
Psalms 121: 1-2
Eyes to the mountains William Lawrence Sr Cryptowit 9-13-21
Answer to yesterday’s William Lawrence Sr Cryptowit quote puzzle: The world is indebted for all triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression.
Thomas Jefferson
World is indebted William Lawrence Sr Cryptowit 9-12-21
Peter Boghossian Shrugs And The Trembles Are Starting — Swarthmore’s Bob Small has informed us that Portland State’s truth-telling philosophy professor Peter Boghossian has had enough of the school’s Orwellian wokeness and called it quits.
Peter Boghossian
Portland State’s loss.
Boghossian earned the ire of the arbitrary rule setters when he began inviting speakers with views contrarian to what the school held as dogma. Their ire increased as their hypocrisy became more revealed.
Don’t think of this as a defeat for the cause of good. Think of this as Atlas Shrugging. You are going to see a lot of shrugging as Biden tries to impose his anti-science health fiats.
Boghossian included this beautiful letter with his exit.
Dear Provost Susan Jeffords,
I’m writing to you today to resign as assistant professor of philosophy at Portland State University.
Over the last decade, it has been my privilege to teach at the university. My specialties are critical thinking, ethics and the Socratic method, and I teach classes like Science and Pseudoscience and The Philosophy of Education. But in addition to exploring classic philosophers and traditional texts, I’ve invited a wide range of guest lecturers to address my classes, from Flat-Earthers to Christian apologists to global climate skeptics to Occupy Wall Street advocates. I’m proud of my work.
I invited those speakers not because I agreed with their worldviews, but primarily because I didn’t. From those messy and difficult conversations, I’ve seen the best of what our students can achieve: questioning beliefs while respecting believers; staying even-tempered in challenging circumstances; and even changing their minds.
I never once believed — nor do I now — that the purpose of instruction was to lead my students to a particular conclusion. Rather, I sought to create the conditions for rigorous thought; to help them gain the tools to hunt and furrow for their own conclusions. This is why I became a teacher and why I love teaching.
But brick by brick, the university has made this kind of intellectual exploration impossible. It has transformed a bastion of free inquiry into a Social Justice factory whose only inputs were race, gender, and victimhood and whose only outputs were grievance and division.
Students at Portland State are not being taught to think. Rather, they are being trained to mimic the moral certainty of ideologues. Faculty and administrators have abdicated the university’s truth-seeking mission and instead drive intolerance of divergent beliefs and opinions. This has created a culture of offense where students are now afraid to speak openly and honestly.
I noticed signs of the illiberalism that has now fully swallowed the academy quite early during my time at Portland State. I witnessed students refusing to engage with different points of view. Questions from faculty at diversity trainings that challenged approved narratives were instantly dismissed. Those who asked for evidence to justify new institutional policies were accused of microaggressions. And professors were accused of bigotry for assigning canonical texts written by philosophers who happened to have been European and male.
At first, I didn’t realize how systemic this was and I believed I could question this new culture. So I began asking questions. What is the evidence that trigger warnings and safe spaces contribute to student learning? Why should racial consciousness be the lens through which we view our role as educators? How did we decide that “cultural appropriation” is immoral?
Unlike my colleagues, I asked these questions out loud and in public.
I decided to study the new values that were engulfing Portland State and so many other educational institutions — values that sound wonderful, like diversity, equity, and inclusion, but might actually be just the opposite. The more I read the primary source material produced by critical theorists, the more I suspected that their conclusions reflected the postulates of an ideology, not insights based on evidence.
I began networking with student groups who had similar concerns and brought in speakers to explore these subjects from a critical perspective. And it became increasingly clear to me that the incidents of illiberalism I had witnessed over the years were not just isolated events, but part of an institution-wide problem.
The more I spoke out about these issues, the more retaliation I faced.
Early in the 2016-17 academic year, a former student complained about me and the university initiated a Title IX investigation. (Title IX investigations are a part of federal law designed to protect “people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance.”) My accuser, a white male, made a slew of baseless accusations against me, which university confidentiality rules unfortunately prohibit me from discussing further. What I can share is that students of mine who were interviewed during the process told me the Title IX investigator asked them if they knew anything about me beating my wife and children. This horrifying accusation soon became a widespread rumor.
With Title IX investigations there is no due process, so I didn’t have access to the particular accusations, the ability to confront my accuser, and I had no opportunity to defend myself. Finally, the results of the investigation were revealed in December 2017. Here are the last two sentences of the report: “Global Diversity & Inclusion finds there is insufficient evidence that Boghossian violated PSU’s Prohibited Discrimination & Harassment policy. GDI recommends Boghossian receive coaching.”
Not only was there no apology for the false accusations, but the investigator also told me that in the future I was not allowed to render my opinion about “protected classes” or teach in such a way that my opinion about protected classes could be known — a bizarre conclusion to absurd charges. Universities can enforce ideological conformity just through the threat of these investigations.
I eventually became convinced that corrupted bodies of scholarship were responsible for justifying radical departures from the traditional role of liberal arts schools and basic civility on campus. There was an urgent need to demonstrate that morally fashionable papers — no matter how absurd — could be published. I believed then that if I exposed the theoretical flaws of this body of literature, I could help the university community avoid building edifices on such shaky ground.
So, in 2017, I co-published an intentionally garbled peer-reviewed paper that took aim at the new orthodoxy. Its title: “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct.” This example of pseudo-scholarship, which was published in Cogent Social Sciences, argued that penises were products of the human mind and responsible for climate change. Immediately thereafter, I revealed the article as a hoax designed to shed light on the flaws of the peer-review and academic publishing systems.
Shortly thereafter, swastikas in the bathroom with my name under them began appearing in two bathrooms near the philosophy department. They also occasionally showed up on my office door, in one instance accompanied by bags of feces. Our university remained silent. When it acted, it was against me, not the perpetrators.
I continued to believe, perhaps naively, that if I exposed the flawed thinking on which Portland State’s new values were based, I could shake the university from its madness. In 2018 I co-published a series of absurd or morally repugnant peer-reviewed articles in journals that focused on issues of race and gender. In one of them we argued that there was an epidemic of dog rape at dog parks and proposed that we leash men the way we leash dogs. Our purpose was to show that certain kinds of “scholarship” are based not on finding truth but on advancing social grievances. This worldview is not scientific, and it is not rigorous.
Administrators and faculty were so angered by the papers that they published an anonymous piece in the student paper and Portland State filed formal charges against me. Their accusation? “Research misconduct” based on the absurd premise that the journal editors who accepted our intentionally deranged articles were “human subjects.” I was found guilty of not receiving approval to experiment on human subjects.
Meanwhile, ideological intolerance continued to grow at Portland State. In March 2018, a tenured professor disrupted a public discussion I was holding with author Christina Hoff Sommers and evolutionary biologists Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying. In June 2018, someone triggered the fire alarm during my conversation with popular cultural critic Carl Benjamin. In October 2018, an activist pulled out the speaker wires to interrupt a panel with former Google engineer James Damore. The university did nothing to stop or address this behavior. No one was punished or disciplined.
For me, the years that followed were marked by continued harassment. I’d find flyers around campus of me with a Pinocchio nose. I was spit on and threatened by passersby while walking to class. I was informed by students that my colleagues were telling them to avoid my classes. And, of course, I was subjected to more investigation.
I wish I could say that what I am describing hasn’t taken a personal toll. But it has taken exactly the toll it was intended to: an increasingly intolerable working life and without the protection of tenure.
This isn’t about me. This is about the kind of institutions we want and the values we choose. Every idea that has advanced human freedom has always, and without fail, been initially condemned. As individuals, we often seem incapable of remembering this lesson, but that is exactly what our institutions are for: to remind us that the freedom to question is our fundamental right. Educational institutions should remind us that that right is also our duty.
Portland State University has failed in fulfilling this duty. In doing so it has failed not only its students but the public that supports it. While I am grateful for the opportunity to have taught at Portland State for over a decade, it has become clear to me that this institution is no place for people who intend to think freely and explore ideas.
This is not the outcome I wanted. But I feel morally obligated to make this choice. For ten years, I have taught my students the importance of living by your principles. One of mine is to defend our system of liberal education from those who seek to destroy it. Who would I be if I didn’t?
Sincerely,
Peter Boghossian
Peter Boghossian Shrugs And The Trembles Are Starting
Peter Boghossian Shrugs And The Trembles Are Starting
Peter Boghossian Shrugs And The Trembles Are Starting
Peter Boghossian Shrugs And The Trembles Are Starting
Peter Boghossian Shrugs And The Trembles Are Starting
Peter Boghossian Shrugs And The Trembles Are Starting
Answer to yesterday’s William Lawrence Sr Cryptowit quote puzzle: The attacks of September 11th were intended to break our spirit. Instead we have emerged stronger and more unified. We feel renewed devotion to the principles of political, economic and religious freedom, the rule of law and respect for human life. We are more determined than ever to live our lives in freedom.
Rudolph W. Giuliani
Answer to yesterday’s William Lawrence Sr Cryptowit quote puzzle: Choose the life that is most useful, and habit will make it the most agreeable.
Francis Bacon
Choose the life William Lawrence Sr Cryptowit 9-10-21
8kun Responds To Congress — The lawyers for Jim Watkins, who owns the social media message board 8kun, have responded to a letter from the One Hundred Seventeenth Congress Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol demanding he provide [m]isinformation, disinformation, and malinformation related to the 2020 election that appeared on 8kun.
The lawyers gave a excellence response that Watkins has posted on Telegram, Gab and Gettr that all should read so we are posting it with some minor formatting edits:
8kun Responds to Congress
September 7, 2021
One Hundred Seventeenth Congress Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol
U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Microsoft Word – 8kun Jan 6 Committee Response.docx
Re: Select Committee 8kun Inquiry
Chairman Thompson and Members of the Committee:
We write in response to your letter dated August 26, 2021 asking 8kun to produce a broad range of information related to “[m]isinformation, disinformation, and malinformation related to the 2020 election.” Without doubt, it is the duty of all citizens to cooperate with congressional efforts to obtain relevant facts needed for legislation. Equally so, it is incumbent upon Congress to respect the constitutional rights of the witnesses it calls upon. To be more direct, the “Bill of Rights is applicable to investigations as to all forms of governmental action.”1
8kun will respond to appropriate requests issued by this Committee. But as the Supreme Court reminded Congress just last year, congressional investigatory and subpoena requests are valid only when they are “related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of Congress and must serve a valid legislative purpose.”2 Because of constitutional and pertinence concerns, we seek to narrow and better identify the information this Committee would like produced.
1. Introductory Constitutional Principles
Congress has sporadically wrestled with contentious issues of the day by means of investigatory committees. Unfortunately, Congress also has a history of abusing that power through targeting disfavored political actors and associations.3 This is forbidden by the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.4
a. New Deal and “Un-American Activity” Analogues
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and Supreme Court struck down congressional investigatory attempts to chill political speech and association in U.S. v. Rumely. There, the New Deal Congress was irritated with the conservative agitator Dr. Edward Rumely and the Committee for Constitutional Government (“CCG”). They organized business opposition to New Deal legislation, perhaps too effectively.5 The House Committee on Lobbying Activity demanded the names of anyone who purchased books, pamphlets, or other literature from CCG.6 The D.C. Circuit found this inquiry to be outside the power of Congress.7
The Court concluded the House Committee could never be constitutionally empowered to generally investigate all aspects of lobbying. It could investigate particular abuses, particular people, particular records, or particular criminal endeavors. But the First Amendment would forbid Congress from examining, publicizing, or reporting the “names and addresses of purchasers of books, pamphlets and periodicals” because that would serve as a “realistic interference with the publication and sale of those writings.”8 The investigation into Rumely and CCG suffered from another malady: the congressional mandate to investigate was flawed. Congressional desires to examine attempts to influence, encourage, promote, or retard legislation or to influence public opinion are simply void under the First Amendment.9
Courts have sometimes upheld limited inquiries where authorizing resolutions are sharply focused about threats to overthrow the government. But the congressional power to investigate even serious threats to overthrow the government is not limitless. In Watkins I, Congress stressed the urgency of its need to root out domestic extremists and to “be informed of efforts to overthrow the Government by force and violence so that adequate legislative safeguards can be erected.”10 But the Supreme Court cautioned that broad congressional authorizations for investigations could produce disastrous results:
From this core, however, the Committee can radiate outward infinitely to any topic thought to be related in some way to armed insurrection. The outer reaches of this domain are known only by the content of ‘un-American activities.’ Remoteness of subject can be aggravated by a probe for a depth of detail even farther removed from any basis of legislative action. A third dimension is added when the investigators turn their attention to the past to collect minutiae on remote topics, on the hypothesis that the past may reflect upon the present.11
In short, congressional resolutions setting few boundaries on nebulous topics violate constitutional norms.12
b. Constitutional Limits at Hand: Watkins II13
Forcing raucous businessmen of the 1930s or unorthodox platforms of the 2020s to answer questions about the most nebulous of topics—the underlying causes of political violence—is an unworkable congressional command. Worse yet, prying into intimate ideologies and thoughts is a serious censorial chokehold. As courts have realized, the requirement that one reveal purchasers of books, pamphlets, or papers marks the start of a surveillance state. And just as courts would not embrace a surveillance state arising out of congressional investigations in the past, so too is this approach inappropriate today.
Compelling online platforms to share information about users who posted about efforts to “overturn, challenge, or otherwise interfere with the 2020 election or certification of electoral college results” chills the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans who were concerned about electoral integrity during the 2020 election. They have every bit as much a First Amendment right to peacefully gather with others, exchange ideas, and let their discontent be known by public officials as Rumely and CCG did. 14 Demanding that platforms produce mal-, mis-, or disinformation—terms that are undefined but that are usually euphemisms for speech the powers that be disagree with—works an equally pernicious chill against political speech in America. Once government is free to demand the names of users espousing unpopular, unorthodox ideas, free speech and free press rights on the internet disappear.
Like the problematic scope of inquiry in Watkins I, the present inquiries at hand here in “Watkins II” are just as troubling. Where Congress sets out to investigate nebulous topics like “subversion and subversive propaganda,” unlimited “influencing factors” behind the January 6 attack, or how misogyny and racism might impact political violence, constitutional problems grow exponentially.15 But the scope of this authorization is beyond Congress’s power due to its invasion into protected First Amendment rights and its failure to offer pertinent queries related to its otherwise legitimate concern—the spread of real political violence. Much like Rumely, particular queries focusing on particular people, particular records, or particular criminal acts may be examined. Fishing expeditions into the closely-held thoughts and beliefs of the American people rest beyond Congress’s prying eyes. The controversies surrounding the 2020 election, well settled within the Beltway, are hardly settled for many Americans. Roughly one-third of Americans—almost 110 million people—believe that President Biden’s 2020 victory was the result of widespread voter fraud.16 The First Amendment encourages citizens to debate and talk about issues of self-government—without fear of the government collecting and pouring over their communications. As Congress continues in this direction, some citizens will fear to espouse, and some will fear to read, messages that those in power dislike. The million-fold eyes of Argus Panoptes become a reality by congressional fiat.17 The resulting shadow the government will cast over online discussion that does not conform to the dominant party’s narrative should frighten every American.
2. Past Compliance with the Committee on Homeland Security
Mr. Watkins, as a representative of 8kun (formerly 8chan) freely appeared before the House Committee on Homeland Security in September 2019 to address that committee’s concerns over the proliferation of online extremist content. In doing so, 8kun produced relevant documents and Mr. Watkins answered relevant inquiries about the site’s operations. We attach the submitted “Congressional Primer on 8chan” for your reference as ADDENDUM A. Notably, 8kun included more than fifty pages of voluntary interactions with law enforcement about particular criminal investigations. Where requests are focused and particular and do not run afoul of constitutional norms, 8kun is enthusiastic to aid Congress and law enforcement in their operations. We hope we may be equally helpful here.
3. ClarificationofExistingRequests
It is Mr. Watkins’s desire that we continue 8kun’s practice of responding to lawfully issued requests and to provide as much respectful cooperation with your committee’s investigation as the First Amendment allows. However, the requests contained in your form letter dated August 26, 2021 are an unworkable starting point for cooperation. For example, item 1 requests production of “All . . . data . . . regarding your platform . . . .” Even if this sentence is read in conjunction with the items described in items “i.” through “iv.,” this request is so broad as to render compliance impossible. Other form requests, such as requests for “internal or external reviews and reports” regarding 8kun’s “algorithms” seem misdirected. 8kun is a small organization and a relatively simple website. There are no “internal or external reviews” nor are there website “algorithms.” This is but an entrée of errors— the requests, as written, need substantial clarification and focus for 8kun to attempt cooperation.
Please contact Mr. McDonald at your convenience to discuss your requests and determine if there is any specific information that the Committee is constitutionally empowered to seek and that Mr. Watkins is capable of producing. Alternatively, 8kun may be accessed through the internet at https://8kun.top/index.html. All of the information the Committee appears to seek is likely available in an open manner for viewing on the website. Should any substantive issues arise over related constitutional concerns, please contact Mr. Barr directly.
Benjamin Barr BARR & KLEIN PLLC 444 N. Michigan Ave. Ste. 1200 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (202) 595-4671 ben@barrklein.com
Stephen R. Klein BARR & KLEIN PLLC 1629 K St. NW Ste. 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 804-6676 steve@barrklein.com
Tony McDonald The Law Offices of Tony McDonald 1501 Leander Dr., Ste. B2 Leander, Texas 78641 Telephone: (512) 923-6893 tony@tonymcdonald.com
Footnotes
1 Watkins v. U.S. (“Watkins I”), 354 U.S. 178, 197 (1957). 2 Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S.Ct. 2019, 2031 (2020). 3 Barsky v. U.S., 167 F.2d 241, 263 (D.C. Cir. 1948) n.8 (“‘Hollywood Fires 10 Cited in Contempt. Film Heads Rule They Must Swear Theyre Not Reds To Be Rehired’. Washington Post, Nov. 26, 1947, . 1, col. 4.”). 4 See Rumely v. U.S., 197 F.2d 166, 173 (D.C. Cir. 1952) (Congress “represents the people, and its power comes from the people. It is not a source or a generator of power; it is a recipient and user of power”); see also U.S. v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 46 (1953).
5 Rumely would not disclose donors after being served with a congressional subpoena asking him to do so. See 96 CONG. REC. 13882 (Aug. 30, 1950) (statement of Rep. Buchanan); see also 95 CONG. REC. 6431 (May 18, 1949) (statement of Rep. Sabath) (“[M]any more millions have been spent on the part of many corporations and businesses who are endeavoring to . . . stop legislation which they are opposed to . . . . I have attacked these professional lobbyists for years. . . .This committee will recommend ‘teeth’ that can properly be enacted into law thereby eliminating these abuses”).
6 Particularly pernicious for the House Committee were sales of “The Road Ahead,” “Labor Monopolies and Freedom,” “Compulsory Medical Care and the Welfare State,” and the “Constitution of the United States.” Rumely, 197 F.2d at 169–70. 7 Id. at 173.
8 Id. at 174. 9 Id. at 173–74. 10 See Watkins, 354 U.S. at 204; compare with H.Res. 282, 117th Cong., 1st Sess. (legislative purpose to examine “facts and circumstances surrounding the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol and targeted violence and domestic terrorism relevant to such terrorist attack”). 11 Watkins, 354 U.S. at 204.
Microsoft Word – 8kun Jan 6 Committee Response.docx
12 See Watkins, 354 U.S. at 214 (congressional subcommittee related to rooting out risk of Communist overthrow of government could not rest its basis for information on the need to learn about “subversion and subversive propaganda” because such a request was overbroad and indefinite); compare with H.Res. 282, 117th Cong., 1st Sess. (racism, misogyny, and Islamophobia may be drivers for domestic violence extremism; listed congressional purpose includes an examination of “influencing factors that fomented such an attack on American representative democracy while engaged in a constitutional process”).
13 “Watkins II” is the authors’ nomenclature for the impending dispute over the present congressional inquiry into Mr. Watkins and 8kun. 14 The National Park Service authorized a gathering of up to 30,000 people for the Washington, DC pro-Trump rally. Stephanie Dube Dwilson, How Many Were at the MAGA Trump March & Protest in DC? Crowd Size Photos, HEAVY, Jan. 6, 2021, available at https://heavy.com/news/maga-march-trump- dc-rally-crowd-photos/ It is currently unknown what small percentage of the peaceful rally attendees committed acts of political violence at the Capitol.
15 U.S. v. Peck, 154 F.Supp. 603, 608–09 (D.D.C. 1957).
Microsoft Word – 8kun Jan 6 Committee Response.docx
Answer to yesterday’s William Lawrence Sr Cryptowit quote puzzle: Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.
Frederick Douglass
Power concedes nothing William Lawrence Sr Cryptowit 9-9-21
Normally, my articles tend toward the Political, in one or another ways. However we will be discussing a yearly musical phenomenon (first heard in 1895) and how you can now hear it for free.
The BBC Proms aka Henry Wood Promenade Concert presented by the BBC began in 1895 as both Classical and Popular Music Concerts designed, via low ticket prices and an informal atmosphere, to bring music to the masses.
Over the years, the eight-week festival morphed into jazz, world music and many etceteras. Because Britain is no longer an empire but now a Commonwealth, they use this, as BBC itself, as what they themselves call “soft power,” as opposed to the massive military force they once had.
To find the BBC Proms on your search engine of choice (I use Duck Duck Go, so as not to be searched myself.) to get to BBC Radio 3. Click on BBC Sounds or any other link but I Player. (I Player requires you to live in England,) Then you can choose your Concerts. As of this writing , most are still available for a month, the earliest ones expiring first. I listen sequentially, but that’s also how I read a book or watch a movie, whereas others choose by Composer or Conductor, whether Classical or Jazz. I now use my Smartphone, which seems to work easier for me on BBC Radio 3 BBC Proms.
The Last Night of the Proms has traditionally featured the Anthem “Rule Brittania”and other highly Patriotic songs. Lately, though, what might be termed the ‘Woke’ crowd has been protesting that, seeing this as inconsistent with the aims of the British Commonwealth, especially as Britannia no longer ‘rules the waves’ or anything else. (Possibly not even Scotland if they get another referendum.) Rather, the Proms, like BBC itself, is a form of soft power, witness the many people, self included, who listen to at least one BBC program daily.
