Reminder: New Home

Just a reminder that meaning in history has a new home (with initial caps)--this is where new content will appear. This link will take you directly to the archive of all posts. I wish it could be broken down by year/month, but:

https://meaninginhistory.substack.com/archive?utm_source=menu-dropdown

As you'll see if you go back a bit in the archive, while all prior posts were imported, 1) not all embedded content appears as in the original, and 2) comments were not imported.

If you subscribe to this substack--which you can do for free--new posts will be emailed directly to you as they appear. That may prove more convenient. I have no plans to try to monetize this.

Alternatively, there is an RSS feed available if you use a feed reader:

https://meaninginhistory.substack.com/feed

For me that required a restart of the application to get it working correctly.

 

NEW UPDATE: RSS Feed For Meaning In History

Don't ask me why Substack hides this, but for those--like me--who use RSS readers, this is what you want:

https://meaninginhistory.substack.com/feed

UPDATE: I spoke too soon. While that address will fetch the titles of items, 

1) I can't mark them as read, and 

2) the items don't appear to link to anything--i.e., if I double click on them they don't open in a browser tab/window.

Frustrating.

NEW UPDATE: I just tried the substack feed in my RSS reader (Akregator) this morning and it's working perfectly now. As far as I can tell the restart did the trick.

Comments at Substack

Still learning. At Substack I have to manually enable free commenting on a per-post basis. All the archived posts from here that were imported are default pay-to-comment except for "You're not a dog, Ya'll!" which I just now manually changed to test it. I'll check for an alternative setting, but that's what I'm stuck with for now.

The result is I'll need to get to editing some of the recent posts. A pain. Going forward I can do that as part of writing and publishing a post. 

Later.

My New Home

Regular readers will be aware that I've been looking for a place to write where I won't be unreasonably unpublished with no real recourse. Blogger has been a good home and there are lots of things I like about it. Because it's relatively simple, it has allowed me to just let it run on its own without much managing.

You may have noticed that I only did one brief post today. Besides it's being a slow news day, I've been setting up a new home--with major help from MC:

https://meaninginhistory.substack.com/

My plan for now is to try to do my new writing there. The setup is all new to me, and I don't really understand it fully. It seems that if you subscribe you may get new posts sent by email--or is it just a notification? Not sure.

I'm not planning on trying to monetize anything, so that part stays the same.

One thing that may change--comments. Comments are enabled. As most of you know, I've managed all comments here--meaning, I've enabled all comments individually and in a relatively small number of cases have declined to enable comments. The benefit in that for me has been that it has kept me close to readers who care to comment, since I've read every single comment that has appeared. I'd like to continue in that mode, but right now I don't see how to do that. 

Thanks to MC I've been able to import all the posts here--incredibly, to me, the number is approaching 2800. Unfortunately, as I said above, the archive section at Substack isn't at all user friendly, and for now I don't see any way to change that. Two additional things about the imported posts:

1. We couldn't import comments. So we'll be starting from scratch.

2. Substack has a method for embeds that's different than Blogger's. As a result, if you look at an old post that has a video or a tweet or image embedded, there will be a link, but not embed. You can follow the link, or come over here and look up the original.

Some of you understand Substack better than I do. If you want to make suggestions, feel free--I'll appreciate any help I can get. This will be a work in progress for some time.

Thanks for your support here. I hope to see you at the new place.

 

You're Not A Dog, Ya'll!

Start the day with a laugh:

I took some dog pain killer the other day. The human version. But dogs take it too. It's pretty much the same. But theirs is savory and chewable. Wrong end of the stick? pic.twitter.com/Ywv8NVBI6O

— Alexandros Marinos (@alexandrosM) September 2, 2021

Totally unrelated, but also gave me a good laugh. This knucklehead thought he was gonna change the world by leaking DIOG? He was obviously living in a complete fantasy world. Thought leaking DIOG would lead to a new Church Commission? As if the Church Commission didn't enable the modern Deep (National Security) State as we know it--the one that took out Trump--by establishing the partnership between the Legislative Branch and the Intel agencies:

‘I Helped Destroy People’

Another Sign That The Narrative Is Breaking Down

Today the NYT ran an article, the significance of which is not so much what is said, but the fact that the article appeared in such an ueber-MSM outlet. The article is a call to America to ask the "hard Covid-19 questions." The point is that, two years on, we have yet to really face up to those questions:

The Hard Covid-19 Questions We’re Not Asking

The authors, two public health professors, focus on the issue of how to deal with children's health concerns. Nevertheless, the manner in which the entire article is framed basically throws the doors wide open to discuss just what we've been doing and to re-examine what we should be doing. Make no mistake about it--the authors are not anti-vaxxers, However, one position they stake themselves to is that Zero Covid is not a realistic goal. But that, tacitly, has been the goal up until know, and to that extent this article is a frontal assault on the official narrative--the Covid Regime as we have known it. The editors at the NYT certainly understood that.

An open discussion that accepts that Zero Covid is not a realistic policy goal necessarily opens the door to any number of ideas that, until the Israeli study blew the doors open, were considered heretical. That dynamic is changing day by day, and this article could be a significant marker of progress toward questioning everything that's been going on.

Excerpts:

What Is Kevin McCarthy Talking About?

A number of commenters have questioned the efficacy of GOP pushback against the Dem House's request for  telecom records that probably targets GOP representatives in the context of the January 6 Event "insurrection" witchhunt that Pelosi hopes will save her House. Initial reports characterized these requests as congressional subpoenas, but it now appears that they are simply request letters issued by the Dem House. Commenters questioning the efficacy of any GOP pushback assume that the telecom companies will simply and joyfully turn over all records to the Dems, ignoring McCarthy's threats of payback if or when the GOP retakes the House.

Commenter aNanyMouse cites a sentence from The Hill's generally good account, which questions McCarthy's assertion that it's illegal for the telecom companies to comply with these request letters:

"McCarthy did not cite which law prohibits telecommunications companies from complying with the committee’s request."

To understand what's in play here, we need to review some basic matters of criminal and national security investigations.

MAJOR UPDATE: Is This Pelosi's Master Plan For Election 2022?

If so, my bet is that it's headed for a fail. Perhaps even a backfire.

Law prof Jonathan Turley has the story at The Hill:

Democrats' Jan. 6 subpoena-palooza sets dangerous precedent

For "Dems" I think it's entirely fair to read: Pelosi. As Turley details, the Dems are going full witch hunt on the GOP side in the House, issuing an tidal wave of subpoenas for their phone records. Given that the FBI has announced that, woops! there really wasn't any "insurrection", one assumes that the idea behind this tactic is to find in the phone records contacts that might prove embarrassing for GOP members and useful in the campaigns of endangered Dems.

My view is that Americans, for all their foibles and gullibility, have a constitutional aversion to witch hunts. This will NOT distract them from the many manifest failures of the Zhou regime. It just may anger many Americans, who all polling shows have moved past January 6.

Anyway, Turley has some points to make, and they're worthwhile.  This tactic may never get the chance to backfire--it could get quashed in court:

Another Sign The Wheels Are Coming Off?

This article appeared yesterday at the Epoch Times. If a former medical school professor, a current Pfizer board member, and former head of the FDA--that's all one person--is openly saying that natural immunity needs to be included in policy discussions, does that signal that the wheels are coming off the establishment narrative of the Covid Regime? The person in question is Scott Gottlieb, and he specifically cites the recent Israeli study everyone's been talking about:

Pfizer Board Member: ‘Natural Immunity’ Against COVID-19 Needs to Be Included in Policy Discussions

Former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, who is also a Pfizer board member, noted that “natural immunity” gained from a prior COVID-19 infection needs to be included in discussions about virus-related policies and mandates.

“The balance of the evidence demonstrates that natural immunity confers a durable protection,” Gottlieb said during an Aug. 30 interview, referring to a landmark new preprint Israeli study that found that prior COVID-19 infection confers more protection against the virus than any of the vaccines. “It’s fair to conclude that.”

Although Gottlieb said he would “be careful” about concluding whether natural immunity provides better protection against transmitting the virus, officials “should start assimilating that into our policy discussions.”

“Natural infection confers robust and durable immunity,” he said, citing the Israeli study and others.

...

Last week, researchers from Maccabi Healthcare and Tel Aviv University said that individuals who had recovered from COVID-19 had superior protection against the Delta variant of the CCP virus compared to those who received the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, the most commonly used shot in Israel.

“This analysis demonstrated that natural immunity affords longer-lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease, and hospitalization due to the Delta variant,” the study reads, noting that the findings came from the “largest real-world observational study” in the world.

Support from a figure like Gottlieb is important for a reset of the narrative. The feeling is hard to shake--the establishment is on the defensive.

Updating The Boost Stage

Well, first a brief political update--although, really, it's all politics. And in a very real sense it seems almost pointless. Election 2022 is pointing toward being one of the few most consequential elections in American history, but until that happens most of the real political news is at the grass roots level. As Emerald Robinson recounted recently (How The GOP Committed Suicide Trying to Stop Trump), once Mitch McConnell and the RNC conspired with state GOP organizations to install Zhou in the White House, the stage was set. We're seeing the results of Mitch's perfidy and the only real question is what happens when people get to register their views. The Federalist summarizes the current situation well, and the highly predictable future for the next year: 

Biden’s Presidency Is Already A Total Disaster

The first seven months of Joe Biden’s presidency have been fraught with crises. First it was the coronavirus pandemic and the vaccine rollout. Then it was the border crisis. Then it was the economy.

And now Afghanistan, ...

The administration is stumbling from one disaster to the next, with no end in sight and public opinion plummeting on nearly every major issue. ...

...

The corporate press, keenly aware that things are not going well for this White House, will soon back away from their critical tone on Afghanistan and resume their usual routine of running cover for Biden. In the coming days we’ll almost certainly see outlandish polls showing that, aside from Afghanistan, Biden is doing pretty well, actually, considering all the crises his young administration has had to face.

But don’t buy this line. Biden has not been overtaken by events, he is not a hapless victim of history or coincidence. Every problem his White House has encountered, it has made worse. Every crisis his administration has faced has been of its own making. And as bad as things have been thus far, they are going to get even worse.

There's plenty more at the link, if you need the reminder. Remarkably, the author leaves out the near collapse of NATO, under the pressure of the Zhou regime's fecklessness. But there are just so many disasters you can cover in one article. 

Briefly Noted: Serious Pushback In WA, More

The Federalist carried a very interesting article this morning on a topic that's been out there--more or less waiting in the wings. I'm referring to the issue of mandates for employees to submit to experimental gene therapy injections. We're talking about two different but related issues. One is the issue of private companies issuing such mandates, while the other relates to governments doing so. The article in question has to do with an extremely broad mandate issued by Dem governor of Washington state, Jay Inslee. I've been predicting, based on early indications, that mandates of this sort will arouse opposition--especially now that the Dread Delta has revealed that the mandates could quickly develop into open ended demands with no set time limits. The initial time frame for a boost, for example, was 8 months, which has now decreased to 5 months--but these are all averages. The actual rate of decrease in effectiveness will clearly differ among individuals. Some wags have suggested IV implants so that a constant drip can be administered.

With that in mind, skepticism regarding these medications is increasing--what, people are asking, was the point of the "vaccines" in the first place? In the face of these developments, some Dem rulers on the state and local level have gone ahead with mandates for their employees, and opposition has quickly developed--usually led by unions:

Mass Resistance Arises As Washington Makes It Nearly Impossible To Get Vaccine Exemptions

It’s unlikely Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee expected this level of pushback. In progressive Washington, it’s rare to see such bipartisan ire towards an Inslee policy. How will he respond?

The most controversial element of the mandate is a gotcha question that all employees seeking a religious exemption must answer:

Briefly Noted: Recommended Reads 8/29/21

Yesterday I recommended an article by Paul Gottfried,  The Emerging One-Party State. Today Emerald Robinson has an article at her Substack (H/T Ray So-Cal) that offers a bit of a contrast:

How The GOP Committed Suicide Trying to Stop Trump

America Has Never Been Closer to Uni-Party Rule

As you can see, each perceives our traditional two party system--traditional, but never actually envisioned by the Founders--as in danger of giving way to One Party Rule under the form of two parties. Robinson focuses on the GOP leaders--McConnell and McCarthy--and understandably so. The picture she paints is dark, and that's also understandable. I accept that. Gottfried sees possibilities for moving past the situation we find ourselves in, and I accept that, too. I see hope, especially, in the House, where the Representatives are in closer contact with the People.

See what you think.

Matt Welch today hits on another topic that we covered yesterday in the same post referenced with regard to Paul Gottfried: Christian Schools Vastly Outperforming Public Schools During COVID-19, According to New Survey of Parents.

I won't repeat the data here, but I do recommend Welch's article, which is written specifically from a New York City perspective:

Families Are Fleeing Government-Run Schools

Brooklyn elementary loses one-third of its student population and eight teachers, as the first 2021–22 enrollment numbers straggle in.

Reminder: Things Could Always Be Worse

Everyone complains about the GOP, but here are three articles--all related in a general way--that remind us that things could be worse and that our votes and choices really do matter:

Paul Gottfried sees the threat clearly enough. Voters need to somehow get through to their representatives

The Emerging One-Party State

Republicans would do well to abstain from misleading talk about “bipartisanship” and refer to the Democrats as what they really are: a totalitarian threat to our constitutional system.

Amid Gottfried's warnings of the dangers we face and of the frustratingly myopic GOPe, there is this:

Despite all these obstacles, Republican victories in 2022 and beyond are still possible, providing the party pays attention to the guile and determination of its well-organized adversary. Republicans should not approach elections as ritualized contests in which sportsmanship is de rigueur. At stake will be the very possibility of meaningful opposition to the Left. Republicans would do well to abstain from misleading talk about “bipartisanship” and refer to the Democrats as what they really are: a totalitarian threat to our constitutional system.

Can this make a difference? In fact, yes.

Jonathan Turley On The Byrd Interview

Law prof Jonathan Turley weighs in on the shooting of Ashli Babbitt. This follows the exoneration of the Capitol police lieutenant who shot her and his subsequent interview. The point that Turley makes that is most remarkable is that Byrd, in his interview, demolished the rationale that had been advanced to exonerate him. One wonders--at least I do; Turley doesn't mention this--was he not represented by counsel? How could his lawyers have possibly allowed him to say the things he said--in public, on TV? What does this say about America?

Here's Turley's Twitter advert for his article at The Hill. I reviewed some of the comments and the majority of them were ... pretty wild, from the perspective of this lawyer and retired LE guy. Who knew Lefties were such hard assed--not to say, bloodthirsty--law and order types?

I have long expressed doubt over the Babbitt shooting, which directly contradicted standards on the use of lethal force by law enforcement. But what was breathtaking about Byrd’s interview was that he confirmed the worst suspicions about the shooting ...

Justified shooting or fair game? Shooter of Ashli Babbitt makes shocking admissionHe proceeded to demolish the two official reviews that cleared him.https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/569827-justified-shooting-or-fair-game-shooter-of-ashlii-babbitt-makes-shocking

...Of all of the lines from Byrd, this one stands out: “I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are.” So, Byrd admitted he did not see a weapon or an immediate threat from Babbitt beyond her trying to enter through the window... 

...No other officers facing similar threats shot anyone in any other part of the Capitol, even those who were attacked by rioters armed with clubs or other objects. Under Byrd's interpretation, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6.

Turley's article today goes into the specifics of the case from the standpoint of legal principles that have long been "settled". In a way, DoJ's handling of the shooting seems similar to FDA's recent "authorization" of Pfizer's vaccine--or whatever actually happened.

Justified shooting or fair game? Shooter of Ashli Babbitt makes shocking admission

...

At the time, some of us familiar with the rules governing police use of force raised concerns over the shooting. Those concerns were heightened by the DOJ’s bizarre review and report, which stated the governing standards but then seemed to brush them aside to clear Byrd.

The DOJ report did not read like any post-shooting review I have read as a criminal defense attorney or law professor. The DOJ statement notably does not say that the shooting was clearly justified. ... It seemed simply to shrug and say that the DOJ did not believe it could prove “a bad purpose to disregard the law” and that “evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent.”

While the Supreme Court, in cases such as Graham v. Connor, has said that courts must consider "the facts and circumstances of each particular case," it has emphasized that lethal force must be used only against someone who is "an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and ... is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight." ...

Under these standards, police officers should not shoot unarmed suspects or rioters without a clear threat to themselves or fellow officers. ...

Byrd went public soon after the Capitol Police declared "no further action will be taken" in the case. He proceeded to demolish the two official reviews that cleared him.

Byrd described how ... their failure to comply required me to take the appropriate action to save the lives of members of Congress and myself and my fellow officers."

...

Of all of the lines from Byrd, this one stands out: “I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are.” So, Byrd admitted he did not see a weapon or an immediate threat from Babbitt beyond her trying to enter through the window. Nevertheless, Byrd boasted, "I know that day I saved countless lives." ... No other officers facing similar threats shot anyone in any other part of the Capitol, even those who were attacked by rioters armed with clubs or other objects.

Legal experts and the media have avoided the obvious implications of the two reviews in the Babbitt shooting. Under this standard, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6 — and officers in cities such as Seattle or Portland, Ore., could have killed hundreds of violent protesters who tried to burn courthouses, took over city halls or occupied police stations during last summer’s widespread rioting. ... According to the DOJ’s Byrd review, officers in those cities would not have been required to see a weapon in order to use lethal force in defending buildings.

Politico reported that Byrd previously was subjected to a disciplinary review when he left his Glock 22 service weapon in a bathroom in the Capitol Visitor Center complex. He reportedly told other officers that his rank as a lieutenant and his role as commander of the House chambers section would protect him and that he expected to “be treated differently.”

Is This Some Sort Of Parable Or Metaphor?

This story has been out there for a few days, but now we have a link to a pretty detailed account:

Secret Service Records Show Biden Dog Major Repeatedly Bit Secret Service Personnel

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it received 36 pages of records communications from the Secret Service that show the Bidens’ dog Major was responsible for numerous biting incidents of Secret Service personnel. One email notes that “at the current rate an Agent or Officer has been bitten every day this week (3/1-3/8) causing damage to attire or bruising/punctures to the skin.” The documents show that agents were advised to protect their “hands/fingers” by placing their hands “in their pockets.” Photos of the dog bite injuries were redacted (blacked out) by the agency.

...

“We’re sure Major is a good dog but these records show he was involved in many more biting incidents than the Biden White House has publicly acknowledged,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is disturbing to see a White House cover-up of numerous injuries to Secret Service and White House personnel by the Bidens’ family pet.”

 

Law prof Jonathan Turley has written about the law of dog bites in the past, and he reengages today with a link to an article he wrote back in March:

It appears that the Biden's dog Major is continuing to bite people regularly. https://t.co/J9jr6xK3hS It appears that the "one free bite" accorded under common law is well exhausted for the Bidens. https://t.co/fAGDuWVyI4

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) August 27, 2021

Briefly Noted: Full Disclosures

This should come as news to no one--I've always assumed that Dr. Robert Malone is liberal in his inclinations. It's just one of things that goes with the territory he has inhabited all his life, so I assume liberal inclinations on those that live and work there. I'm always happy to be wrong, but it's one of those show-me things.

To his credit, this morning he provides that full disclosure, and to his greater credit he acknowledges at least part of it to being mistaken rather than offering it as a belated effort to return to the woke world's good graces:

Robert W Malone, MD

@RWMaloneMD

To those that think I am posting due to my political bias.  News 4 you - it is because of my upbringing. I was taught to not lie. And I got fed up with the lies, misrepresentations, obfuscation, censorship, and imbicilic factchecking. I actually donated to the Biden campaign.

9:28 AM · Aug 28, 2021·Twitter Web App

@RWMaloneMD

Replying to 

@RWMaloneMD

And I am not the only one that made a mistake that I regret in this case.  I am confident that there are many others.  We all make mistakes, including myself. I should not have taken Moderna after having been infected in late Feb 2020.  That was also a mistake.

I see two major admissions in these tweets.

Covid Update 8/27/21

It's been a bit of a rough day, but I'm finally catching up with things--well, with some things. The big Covid news today was a new Israeli study. Israeli, perhaps the most vaxxed country on earth, has developed into a sort of canary in the coal mine. Also, along with the UK, they've been pushing out some good quality data and analysis.

This is the study that has created a real buzz:

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections

Here's a summary--but the long and short is simply that natural immunity is significantly superior to vaccine immunity (if that's the correct terminology):

Apologies

This morning I received the following email from Blogger:

 Hello,

          As you may know, our Community Guidelines  
(https://blogger.com/go/contentpolicy) describe the boundaries for what we  
allow-- and don't allow-- on Blogger. Your post titled "Fascinating  
Interview With Dr. Peter McCullough" was flagged to us for review. We have  
determined that it violates our guidelines and have unpublished the URL  
http://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2021/07/fascinating-interview-with-dr-peter.html,  
making it unavailable to blog readers.

     Why was your blog post unpublished?

     Your content has violated our Misleading Content policy. Please visit  
our Community Guidelines page linked in this email to learn more.


     If you are interested in republishing the post, please update the  
content to adhere to Blogger's Community Guidelines. Once the content is  
updated, you may republish it at  
https://www.blogger.com/go/appeal-post?blogId=1608697421187043479&postId=1220180228810939539.  
This will trigger a review of the post.

     For more information, please review the following resources:

     Terms of Service: https://www.blogger.com/go/terms
     Blogger Community Guidelines: https://blogger.com/go/contentpolicy

     Sincerely,

     The Blogger Team

My take on this is that the team of lawyers that has been targeting Dr. McCullough has been scouring the internet looking for opportunities to erase content that references his work.

As a result I've been trying to set up a new site--and I'm finding it a very hard job. Blogger has the virtue of being dead simple to use and manage. Right now, I'm floundering--and haven't had time to read a single bit of news. I'll take time to enable comments.

This is all very discouraging.

Does The Sergeant Major Want Me In The Room With Him?

Because I'm pretty sure I don't think like Sergeant Major Grinston.

For example, I'm open to the idea that cohesiveness and thinking differently (diversity?) may actually militate against each other. How can a group of people who all think differently be cohesive? And lethal? I can't imagine how low morale must be if our soldiers have to put up with this sort of bafflegab from on high.

Jessie Jane Duff is a Marine vet. I get the impression she isn't interested in being in the room with Grinton, a guy who's willing to mouth whatever nonsense it takes to stay in charge. Maybe that's part of how this happened today:

This is what matters: 11 Marines and one Navy Corpsman killed. Americans.

I'm positive they didn't look or think like you, Sergeant Major. Every flag drapped coffin looks the same.

We have an #AfghanistanCrisis and this is your tweet. Shameful. https://t.co/tVYbi8ROlM

— Jessie Jane Duff (@JessieJaneDuff) August 26, 2021

UPDATED: Who Wrote The List?

There's not much point in discussing the utter shame that the political and Deep State establishment has brought America to. They think we deserve this. So be it. It's up to us to react and prove that we don't. I doubt anyone actually cares what Zhou said--I know I don't, and I can't imagine any serious person caring. The interesting question is: Who wrote the list? Ron Klain or someone else? Miss-Information? 

Who really runs the country? 🤔🤦🏻‍♂️ https://t.co/ldqrLfTees

— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) August 26, 2021

The great thing would have been if Kelly O'Donnell had asked: Uh, who wrote that list?

Sadly, that's not the most shameful list we heard about today. That would be the list of Americans and Afghan friends that we reportedly turned over to the Taliban.

UPDATE 1: As usual, ER is on to something--it's not just Zhou's credibility (did he ever have any?) that's swirling downward ...