FOR THE WEAPONS OF OUR WARFARE ARE NOT CARNAL BUT MIGHTY THROUGH GOD TO THE PULLING DOWN OF STRONGHOLDS AND EVERY HIGH THING THAT EXALTS ITSELF ABOVE THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD.2 Corinthians 10:4
That's our marching orders.
Sunday, May 16, 2021
WAR BY THE WORD OF GOD
That's our marching orders.
"News" that's Really Lying Provocative Propaganda for the Left is One of the Evils We Need to Stand Up To.
Speaking of standing up to evil powers, one of the headlin3es that greeted me yesterday created the usual helpless feeling of being cornered by lies we have no way of countering. It happens all the time, it was rampant in the Trump years but it hasn't stopped. Why the media want to destroy this country I'm not sure, I suppose they are duped by Communism same as so many others are these days and suppose themselvewas to be righteous instead of supporters of mayhem and murder.
Anyway the headline that punched me in the stomach this time was
"Falsely claiming" is the evil evil addition to what should be a simple statement of what Gohmert said and nothing more, if there were any such thing as honest objective reporting going on. But of course there isn't these days, we get headlines and stories all the time that pretend to objectivity but are really leftwing -- oh yes it is always leftwing -- opinion. Propaganda. We don't get to condsider what Gohmert said on our own, as intelligent human beings. we must be fed the Communist interpretation of what he said. We must be made to understand that what he said was false because that's the only line the leftwing will allow. And it's discouraging to think that there must be a lot of people who take it straight and that's why they know they can get away with it.
So I read the CNN story to find out what he said and why it's false. He was objecting to the media narrative that the entry into the Capitol building on January 6 was an "armed insurrection" and CNN won't let him make this objection cuz they want to paint a picture of an evil right wing insurrection fomented by Donald Trump. But if you read the story all they are saying is that ONE of the participants was "either carrying or had access to" a firearm. Golly Gosh, EITHER carrying or had access to and they don't knbow which. Does ONE participant maybe possibly carrying but not using, or merely having access to, a firearm, constitute an "armed insurrection?" Well, idiotically, insanely, they want their readers to think so and apparently think their readers are stupid enough to accept such a ridiculous statement. Also apparently some were "armed" with other kinds of "weapons" although oddly these "weapons" were not described. Surely even the average liberal out there can see through this craziness
I don't know how to judge the January 6th event myself but I know when all I'm getting is leftwing spin that prevents me from finding out what really happened. Even from CNN's article it's clear this was no "armede insurrection" for pete's sake. Oh I see farther down the page that they list a baseball bat, a chemical spray, and a knife? as other weapons found on a few people. But remember that onlyh one personwas killed by the violence itself, and that was a woman shot to death by the police as she climbed through a window. A polieman who died died of a heart attack or something like that though for a while the media tried to pin i t on the "violence." Anyway if this was an armed insurrection it was the most inept armed insurrection in the history of the world.
Also it had absolutely nothing to do with anything Trump did or said on that day. It was planned in advance and Trump hadn't even finished his speech when the first people entered the Capitol buliding. Also he said nothing in the slightest bit provocative. He mentioned the plans some had to peacefully protect in front ot fht eCapitol, that's all, and this constant line about how he caused the event is just lying propaganda, which i guess those on the left believe because, well, those on the left believe what the leftwing media tell them. Sad to say.
And that brings me to Liz Cheney. Sigh. She talkk a solid conservative line until she gets to her recent refrain about how the Republican Party has to give up on Trump because they must be a party of the truth. And her idea of how it isn't currently a party of truth is based totally on Trump's continuing belief that the election was unfair, and that he was responsible for the "insurrectioN" on January 6th.
Well, that second accusation is a complete lie. Does she believe it? I guess she must but I can't see how she talked herself into it. And concerning the election she seems to think Trump is the source of the allegations of fraud. But all that came from witnesses to the fraud. I don't know if I even heard Trump mention it until later, but I did hear many many witnesses on many news programs destcribe many kinds of fraud, some small scale but some big enough to raise serious questions about its effect on the election, such as truckloads of ballots delivered in the dead of night. For the courts to refuse to consider the evidence so that we could finally find out whether the election was affected or not is in my opinion some kind of crime.
All kinds of evil we need to stand up to these days. All kinds of drime, much of it actually treasonous. all of it coming from the Left.
Anyway the headline that punched me in the stomach this time was
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gohmert-downplays-january-6-riot-in-speech-from-the-house-floor-falsely-claiming-no-evidence-of-armed-insurrection/ar-BB1gK2A1?ocid=msedgntpGohmert downplays January 6 riot in speech from the House floor, falsely claiming 'no evidence' of armed insurrection.
"Falsely claiming" is the evil evil addition to what should be a simple statement of what Gohmert said and nothing more, if there were any such thing as honest objective reporting going on. But of course there isn't these days, we get headlines and stories all the time that pretend to objectivity but are really leftwing -- oh yes it is always leftwing -- opinion. Propaganda. We don't get to condsider what Gohmert said on our own, as intelligent human beings. we must be fed the Communist interpretation of what he said. We must be made to understand that what he said was false because that's the only line the leftwing will allow. And it's discouraging to think that there must be a lot of people who take it straight and that's why they know they can get away with it.
So I read the CNN story to find out what he said and why it's false. He was objecting to the media narrative that the entry into the Capitol building on January 6 was an "armed insurrection" and CNN won't let him make this objection cuz they want to paint a picture of an evil right wing insurrection fomented by Donald Trump. But if you read the story all they are saying is that ONE of the participants was "either carrying or had access to" a firearm. Golly Gosh, EITHER carrying or had access to and they don't knbow which. Does ONE participant maybe possibly carrying but not using, or merely having access to, a firearm, constitute an "armed insurrection?" Well, idiotically, insanely, they want their readers to think so and apparently think their readers are stupid enough to accept such a ridiculous statement. Also apparently some were "armed" with other kinds of "weapons" although oddly these "weapons" were not described. Surely even the average liberal out there can see through this craziness
I don't know how to judge the January 6th event myself but I know when all I'm getting is leftwing spin that prevents me from finding out what really happened. Even from CNN's article it's clear this was no "armede insurrection" for pete's sake. Oh I see farther down the page that they list a baseball bat, a chemical spray, and a knife? as other weapons found on a few people. But remember that onlyh one personwas killed by the violence itself, and that was a woman shot to death by the police as she climbed through a window. A polieman who died died of a heart attack or something like that though for a while the media tried to pin i t on the "violence." Anyway if this was an armed insurrection it was the most inept armed insurrection in the history of the world.
Also it had absolutely nothing to do with anything Trump did or said on that day. It was planned in advance and Trump hadn't even finished his speech when the first people entered the Capitol buliding. Also he said nothing in the slightest bit provocative. He mentioned the plans some had to peacefully protect in front ot fht eCapitol, that's all, and this constant line about how he caused the event is just lying propaganda, which i guess those on the left believe because, well, those on the left believe what the leftwing media tell them. Sad to say.
And that brings me to Liz Cheney. Sigh. She talkk a solid conservative line until she gets to her recent refrain about how the Republican Party has to give up on Trump because they must be a party of the truth. And her idea of how it isn't currently a party of truth is based totally on Trump's continuing belief that the election was unfair, and that he was responsible for the "insurrectioN" on January 6th.
Well, that second accusation is a complete lie. Does she believe it? I guess she must but I can't see how she talked herself into it. And concerning the election she seems to think Trump is the source of the allegations of fraud. But all that came from witnesses to the fraud. I don't know if I even heard Trump mention it until later, but I did hear many many witnesses on many news programs destcribe many kinds of fraud, some small scale but some big enough to raise serious questions about its effect on the election, such as truckloads of ballots delivered in the dead of night. For the courts to refuse to consider the evidence so that we could finally find out whether the election was affected or not is in my opinion some kind of crime.
All kinds of evil we need to stand up to these days. All kinds of drime, much of it actually treasonous. all of it coming from the Left.
Studies of Ivermectin Used for Prevention of COVID-19
My favorite liberal couple who do the Dark Horse Podcast once a week discussed studies of Ivermectin this week, among other things. Sometimes what they discuss doesn't interest me, but this one does. I started watching them last year because they were talking about the rioting in downtown Portland, and they still do from time to time but not in this podcast. They sometimes drive me crazy being liberals and evolutionists but their liberalism is mostly of the classical sort and not the current perniciously Marxist sort, they are honest observers too, and while their allegiance to evolution causes me a lot of painful eyerolling there's usually enough of what I appreciate about them to balance that out. \
Anyway, from about 26:oo they are discussing studies of Ivermectin mostly as a prophylaxis or preventative against the virus rather than a treatment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxTODvTNHlw
Although I still accept what Dr. Zelenko and many others (Drs. Harvey Risch, Simone Gold, Daniel Wohlgelernter among others) have said about the efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine for treating the virus in the early days of infection, for some time I've been convinced that Ivermectin is even better at both prevention and treatment than HCQ.
HCQ is to be taken with zinc because it works as an ionophore to get zinc into the cells where it is the zinc that does the antiviral work by interfering with replication; whereas Ivermectin works in some other way that's not clear to me yet, something to do with interfering with the spike protein the vurus manufactures. (That is discussed on this podcast but I'm adding the information about HCQ from other sources I've mentioned before.) Both are used with an antibiotic, HCQ usually with Azithromycin, which Dr. Zelenko explained as a treatment for the lung infection that is a part of infection with COVID-19. Maybe that's the same reason the antibiotic Doxycycline is used with Ivermectin but I don't see why it would be used before a person actually has the virus. Anyway there's more to understand about all this, but Ivermectin looks like the best way to go for anyone who has not yet had the virus, both as preventative and as treatment in the early days of infection if it occurs.
Bret and Heather, the podcast couple, also discuss the political issues involved in this which are depressing in the extreme. That is, ivermectin was known to be both safe and effective for COVID long before the vaccines came out, and that being the case there was no justification whatever for the emergency use authorization for the vaccines since Ivermectin effectively prevents and treats the virus. This has bothered me for months already in relation to HCQ which was banned last year although it was known -- KNOWN -- to cure the virus if used in the first week of infection with COVID. This was said over and over and over by doctor after doctor after doctor, starting with Zelenko and including at least the other three I mention above but manyh more than that. As Bret and Heather point out, withholidng an effective drug is criminal. As many others have been saying for a year now, it's a crime against humanityh. This applies to the banning of HCQ as well as to Ivermectin which is also discouraged. As the number of COVID deaths rose while HCQ was banned I just felt sick and helpless. This ban was killing people. Dr. Zelenko called the AMA the American Murder Association for banning HCQ. It's the same thing with Ivermectin, with ANY effective treatment and they've had both of these all along. The evidence of safety was known for botht over decades, and its efficacy had lots of evidence from indepencndent doctors, but they excused theirmurder by demanding trials that couldn't be done in the time allotted while the trials already done were sufficient to justify its use. And of course this kind of informqation is censored by nonmedical keepers of social media too. It's hard to avoid some pretty horrifying conclusions from all this.
What should happen is that all the medical personnel who have let themselves be politically intimidated into withholding effective treament should mount a huge protest en masse, defy the orders en masse, get hold of the effective drugs and administer them accordeing to the known protocols. It would have to be "en masse" because it would be less likely that large numbers would be fired. HOWEVER, what we need these days is GUTS to stand up against the evil powers.
Anyway, from about 26:oo they are discussing studies of Ivermectin mostly as a prophylaxis or preventative against the virus rather than a treatment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxTODvTNHlw
Although I still accept what Dr. Zelenko and many others (Drs. Harvey Risch, Simone Gold, Daniel Wohlgelernter among others) have said about the efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine for treating the virus in the early days of infection, for some time I've been convinced that Ivermectin is even better at both prevention and treatment than HCQ.
HCQ is to be taken with zinc because it works as an ionophore to get zinc into the cells where it is the zinc that does the antiviral work by interfering with replication; whereas Ivermectin works in some other way that's not clear to me yet, something to do with interfering with the spike protein the vurus manufactures. (That is discussed on this podcast but I'm adding the information about HCQ from other sources I've mentioned before.) Both are used with an antibiotic, HCQ usually with Azithromycin, which Dr. Zelenko explained as a treatment for the lung infection that is a part of infection with COVID-19. Maybe that's the same reason the antibiotic Doxycycline is used with Ivermectin but I don't see why it would be used before a person actually has the virus. Anyway there's more to understand about all this, but Ivermectin looks like the best way to go for anyone who has not yet had the virus, both as preventative and as treatment in the early days of infection if it occurs.
Bret and Heather, the podcast couple, also discuss the political issues involved in this which are depressing in the extreme. That is, ivermectin was known to be both safe and effective for COVID long before the vaccines came out, and that being the case there was no justification whatever for the emergency use authorization for the vaccines since Ivermectin effectively prevents and treats the virus. This has bothered me for months already in relation to HCQ which was banned last year although it was known -- KNOWN -- to cure the virus if used in the first week of infection with COVID. This was said over and over and over by doctor after doctor after doctor, starting with Zelenko and including at least the other three I mention above but manyh more than that. As Bret and Heather point out, withholidng an effective drug is criminal. As many others have been saying for a year now, it's a crime against humanityh. This applies to the banning of HCQ as well as to Ivermectin which is also discouraged. As the number of COVID deaths rose while HCQ was banned I just felt sick and helpless. This ban was killing people. Dr. Zelenko called the AMA the American Murder Association for banning HCQ. It's the same thing with Ivermectin, with ANY effective treatment and they've had both of these all along. The evidence of safety was known for botht over decades, and its efficacy had lots of evidence from indepencndent doctors, but they excused theirmurder by demanding trials that couldn't be done in the time allotted while the trials already done were sufficient to justify its use. And of course this kind of informqation is censored by nonmedical keepers of social media too. It's hard to avoid some pretty horrifying conclusions from all this.
What should happen is that all the medical personnel who have let themselves be politically intimidated into withholding effective treament should mount a huge protest en masse, defy the orders en masse, get hold of the effective drugs and administer them accordeing to the known protocols. It would have to be "en masse" because it would be less likely that large numbers would be fired. HOWEVER, what we need these days is GUTS to stand up against the evil powers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
