A new study from renowned University of Hamburg researcher Roland Wiesendanger concludes the Wuhan Institute of Virology was the “cause” of COVID-19.
The February study argues against two prevailing theories that COVID-19 was transmitted to humans either via a wet market or a lab accident.
“To date, there is no scientifically based rigorous evidence for either mentioned theories,” Wiesendanger, a three-time recipient of the prestigious European Research Council grant.
Wiesendanger’s 105-page report continues, asking: “is the current global crisis actually the result of a coincidence in nature — a coincidental mutation of a coronavirus a bat with the assistance of an intermediate host — or the result of a Scientist carelessness when carrying out the project is high-risk research with global pandemic potential?”
To answer the question, Wiesendanger cites 600 incontrovertible facts to bolster his theory that “the number and the quality of evidence clearly indicate a laboratory accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
A summary of the report outlines the primary arguments in favor of Wiesendanger’s case, emphasizing the fact that the host has still not been identified; the virus can “couple surprisingly well to human cell receptors”; The Wuhan lab “carried out genetic manipulations on coronaviruses for many years with the aim of making them more contagious, dangerous and deadly for humans”; and that there were “significant safety deficiencies” at the facility . . .
Read the whole thing. What we are looking at is this result of a Chinese experiment in developing a biological warfare weapon. Wiesendanger believes evidence indicates that the COVID-19 virus escaped the Wuhan lab as the result of carelessness by the lab’s staff. That is to say, China did not cause the pandemic intentionally, even though the virus was developed for malign purposes. You don’t manipulate a virus to make it more contagious and deadly just for the theoretical scientific value, eh?
Whenever police kill a black criminal, it is now predictable — as night follows day — that the media will run a story about how the family of the deceased suspect “demands answers” about the shooting. Generally speaking, there will be a “civil rights” lawyer at the press conference, and there will eventually be a lawsuit against the cops. We take this for granted nowadays, along with the media interviewing relatives of the deceased criminal, who had an extensive felony record, saying that he was really a wonderful person, a beloved father, blah blah blah.
All of this is part of building up the Black Lives Matter narrative that law enforcement is about “systemic racism.” It is necessary to mention in this context that cops kill white criminals, too. In fact, the majority of suspects shot by cops are white, and sometimes the circumstances surrounding these shootings are tragic (e.g., Sage Crawford, shot in front of her small children after she charged cops with a knife), but cops shooting white people doesn’t become a 24/7 story on CNN, and nobody’s rioting over these cases. No, it is only black criminals getting shot by cops that get CNN saturation coverage, and we are not supposed to notice the upside-down values involved in this liberal media narrative, wherein everyone is expected to sympathize with lifelong criminals.
OK, but what happens when cops don’t kill criminals? What happens when fear of being accused of racism convinces people that it’s a good idea to turn criminals loose, just because they’re black?
It’s been over one week since a four-year-old and her 67-year-old grandfather were stabbed to death inside their Chickasha home. All of it was allegedly by one of their own family members, 42-year-old Lawrence Anderson.
Monday night, investigators said that same family member may be responsible for a third murder.
The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigations is still investigating the unfolding story in Chickasha, but the family of the third woman killed are demanding answers. They said they want to know why the man’s sentence was commuted in the first place.
“We’ve lost a part of our heart that we will never get back,” said Brooke Burris Wofford, a cousin of 41-year-old Andrea Blankenship, who was found dead in her Chickasha home.
Anderson was just released from prison in mid-January. He was out for less than three weeks on a commuted sentence when the crimes occurred.
Investigators said Anderson stabbed his uncle and 4-year-old Kaeos to death. However, the alleged spree didn’t end there. Detectives now believe Anderson also murdered Blankenship, who was found dead in her home on the same street as the first two murders.
“We need some more answers,” Burris Wofford said.
OSBI officials said on Thursday they now have evidence that Anderson killed Blankenship before he killed Leon Pye and Kaeos and stabbed Delci Pye.
Wofford said Blankenship was a single mother of two who lived alone and worked from home. She said the family is unaware of any relationship between her and her alleged killer. “We want to know why this monster who is dangerous was released,” Wofford said.
Anderson was originally sentenced to prison in 2006 for attacking and pointing a gun at his girlfriend. He went back to prison in 2012 for selling crack cocaine near an elementary school. Anderson was sentenced again in 2017 for having a gun and sneaking drugs into jail. However, just three years later, Gov. Kevin Stitt signed off on a commuted sentence, which was granted by the state pardon and parole board. Anderson was released from prison for a third time on Jan. 18. “Let us know the reasoning behind why he would release such a violent criminal,” Burris Wofford said.
He attacked his girlfriend and sold cocaine near an elementary school, but why he should be in prison? That’s “systemic racism”! No, let’s turn him loose, because what could possibly go wrong?
Why did the Republican governor of Oklahoma approve this commutation? Without bothering to research that question, my guess is that someone in the governor’s office decided it was a good idea to release inmates who were imprisoned for “non-violent” offenses. Selling cocaine near an elementary school? That qualifies as a “non-violent” crime. Nobody bothered to check whether Lawrence Anderson had any previous history of violence, and this is what happens when “social justice” replaces common sense as the guiding principle of law enforcement. That some Republicans are buying into this mentality should concern us.
Throughout his entire time on air, there were genius GOP consultants who, in reaction to any electoral setbacks, would insist that what the GOP needed to do was come up with a way to ditch Limbaugh. As I said on air many years ago: Really? For almost a third of a century, Rush’s audience was over half the total Republican vote. How many do all you genius “Republican reformers” bring to the table? I’ve recounted previously the first time I was asked to guest-host, back in 2006, when I happened to be down in Australia and the Prime Minister, John Howard, asked me to some or other event a day or two hence. And I politely declined, saying I had to get back to America to host The Rush Limbaugh Show. “I hear that’s a pretty big show,” said the PM.
“Yeah,” I replied. “Twenty-five, thirty million listeners.”
“‘Strewth,” said Mr Howard. “Rush has more listeners than we have Australians.”
Indeed. And all these GOP clever-clogs never explain, once you throw Rush and his millions overboard, what’s going to replace them.
Most critics of Limbaugh simply never acknowledged this truth. From the time Fox News began to be recognized nationally — the 2000 election was a turning-point of sorts — there was an inordinate amount of attention paid to Fox while, the whole time, Rush was reaching a larger audience. Five days a week, three hours a day.
Rush was the best there ever was, and to all intents and purposes invented an entire new media category. Until Rush came along, “talk radio” was about interviewing guests. Rush seldom had guests, and instead focused on using actualities (“sound bites”) from current news events as the fodder for his commentary. His use of sound bites was the real innovative breakthrough in what Rush did, more so even than his interactions with call-in listeners. The main thing about Limbaugh was, he was a radio professional before he ever became a political commentator. He had worked as a Top 40 deejay from the time he was a teenager, and understood how radio works. His braggadocio — “Talent on loan from God,” etc. — was part of his genius as an entertainer.
To be successful on radio requires that the host establish a personal connection with the audience, and so Rush had to humanize himself for his listeners, to get them to think of him as a friend, to create a sense of shared experience — “we’re all in this together.” Listeners would sometimes complain when Rush would talk about anything except politics. He’d come on the air Monday afternoon and start talking about the previous day’s NFL games, or he’d talk about playing golf, and after 15 minutes or so, he’d remark that the callers were on the line complaining that he wasn’t talking about politics. But you can’t be 100% politics all the time, or you’ll burn out. Politics isn’t everything in life, so there was Rush on the radio talking to millions of people about the football game he’d watched on TV Sunday. This is what I mean by Rush humanizing himself to the audience. Radio was his job, and doing an occasional change of pace — that’s called entertainment.
Rush Limbaugh was the greatest broadcaster in history. The man created an industry from nothing and in the process taught several generations of Americans about the virtues of freedom and liberty. He was a giant, irreplaceable, a legend who made this country immeasurably better.
Three or four times, Rush actually read my articles on his show, and I’d get phone calls and messages from friends I hadn’t heard from in years: “Man, I heard you on Rush!” It was a pretty big deal.
One of the oldest maxims in show business is “always leave ’em wanting more,” and Rush Limbaugh has certainly done that. R.I.P.
Ramiro “Teflon” Carrasco began his life of crime at a young age, with a record dating back to 2003, the year he turned 14. In late June 2011, Carrasco was wanted on six active warrants, including failure to appear in court to face charges of fraud, domestic violence and probation violation, when police spotted him in Loveland, Colorado. Carrasco managed to elude police for two more days before he was finally arrested with the help of a SWAT team and a police K-9. Six years later, in February 2017, Carrasco was wanted on four outstanding warrants — including two felonies — when Loveland police tried to arrest him again, but he barricaded himself inside an apartment and once more, the SWAT team had to be called to take “Teflon” into custody.
You might think that a lifelong felon who had twice been the subject of SWAT interventions might have gotten a lengthy prison sentence. Oh, and I almost forgot to mention, “Teflon” was a known gang member, whose face was covered with tattoos. Despite his felonious history, Carrasco was released from prison in Colorado in January 2019. His obituary was published 13 months later:
Ramiro Carrasco, a loving father, son, brother, uncle, cousin and friend. Ramiro left this world unexpectedly at 30 years young on Feb 26, 2020.
“Unexpectedly”? His death was actually quite predictable. The cause of death was three gunshot wounds from a Greeley police officer’s pistol.
At the time of his death, Carrasco was out on bond on charges in Larimer County. He also had an outstanding warrant in Boulder County. He and a woman named Keya Marie Pobanz (who had also done time in prison) had spent a few days smoking marijuana and methamphetamine. About 1 a.m. on February 26, 2020, Carrasco and Pobanz were in a green Honda in the parking lot of the Island Grove Village Apartments, “an affordable rental housing community” near a park on 14th Avenue in Greeley.
A police officer “was conducting crime suppression patrol” in the neighborhood, which was known “to be a high crime area specifically, narcotics and a dumping ground for stolen vehicles.” The officer spotted the Honda, which was “suspicious” because it did not have a front license tag and was backed into a parking space. Exiting his vehicle, the officer approached the Honda, and his bodycam video captured what happened:
Watching the video with an untrained eye, you might not realize why, at about the 42-second mark, the officer raises his pistol and orders Carrasco: “Stop moving. Put your hands up right now, dude.”
What happened? The officer shined his flashlight on Carrasco and saw he had a pistol on his lap. Carrasco moved his hand to try to conceal the pistol, and that’s when the officer drew his gun. A tense standoff followed for more than a minute, and the officer moved away from the car door for his own safety. Just about the time backup arrived, the officer saw Carrasco reach for the gun and BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!
Despite being hit with three shots, Carrasco still had the presence of mind to try to get rid of his gun — a Ruger .380 semi-auto — by tossing it out the open passenger door. You can actually hear it hit the pavement at about the 2:29 mark in the video. Despite this, Pobanz continued insisting that Carrasco did not have a weapon until the next day:
Pobanz told Commander Smith she was with Teflon for the last few days. During this time Teflon had told Pobanz he was not going back to prison as he has spent the better part of his life in prison. She didn’t know why he kept the gun lying on his lap as the officer approached. She said they knew the cop was going to contact them when he pulled into the lot, and she did not know why Teflon did not hide the gun prior to being contacted by the police.
Well, I think we all know the answer to that mystery. “Teflon” didn’t hide the gun because he wanted to have it handy, planning to shoot the cop and then try to escape. But the cop was smart, and when “Teflon” saw the backup police cars arriving, he made the only choice he had left.
Was he going to shoot, or was Carrasco reaching for the gun in a desperate last-minute attempt to hide it before more cops arrived?
Police say 47-year-old Leonardo Ortega pulled a shotgun on 68-year-old Phil Salmon, and stole his pick up truck Wednesday morning [Feb. 3] from a Chevron gas station in Seattle’s Greenwood neighborhood. Salmon’s son Dan says it could have been a lot worse.
“A lot worse if he had pulled the trigger, it would have been over he was only 3 feet away,” says Dan.
Authorities say Ortega then proceeded to take officers on a car chase with speeds reaching up to 75 miles per hour on city streets during the morning commute, ending with a huge crash several miles away at the corner of Broad St and Alaskan Way along the downtown waterfront. Ortega was immediately arrested.
Friday afternoon, Ortega waived his right to appear in court for his bail hearing. He’s facing multiple charges including motor vehicle theft and evading police.
Ortega has a lengthy criminal history including seven felony convictions such as being in possession of a stolen gun and stealing cars.
“We know from police they are investigating him for multiple cases not only in Seattle but in other cities as well,” says Casey McNerthney with the King County Prosecutor’s Office.
But there are now questions about why a judge released him last month after being arrested for allegedly stealing an empty FedEx truck in the Northgate neighborhood.
“In those docs that we got from police, law enforcement didn’t object to the release,” says McNerthney, which allowed Ortega to be on the street before this latest arrest.
“I’m not sure if the officer who looked at that case when they put together that form knew the extent of his history. So that’s not meant to knock the police at all,” says McNerthney.
Gosh, what has happened in Seattle recently that might result in a policy of unusual leniency toward criminals? But if you pay attention to crime stories, you see these kind of cases all the time — the suspect in a heinous case that makes headlines is almost always a career criminal who is out on probation or parole for an earlier crime. Most serious crime in this country is committed by lifelong criminals who will predictably return to their felonious habits as soon as they are released from prison.
Is leniency toward criminals “social justice”? Consider this story that ran in the Washington Post a couple of years ago:
You can, and should, read the whole thing, but think about what this means: There are more than 20,000 murderers on our nation’s streets. In reporting on these unsolved homicides, the liberals at the Washington Post undoubtedly intended to imply that law enforcement exhibits an indifference to the deaths of black people, because of “systemic racism.” But these unsolved murders are occurring mainly in liberal big cities, where leniency toward crime is usually the policy. In such cities, “social justice” translates to “turn ’em loose.” Allowing criminals to roam the streets will result in a lot more unsolved murders, and if most of the victims of these crimes are black, well, whose fault is that?
Good luck finding a liberal who can answer that question.
