It was only going to be a matter of time when Dr. Anthony Fauci’s inconsistent reports on how to respond to the outbreak of the novel coronavirus would be openly criticized. The damn has finally broken.
Those who have questioned Fauci’s statements openly, however, have become the target of both the Main Stream Media and Fauci’s long list of allies. After all, he’s been around a long time and has been praised for his expertise in fighting infectious disease. He has worked with the federal response to AIDS, Ebola, the Zika virus and anthrax scares, and now of course, the novel coronavirus. But that doesn’t mean Fauci is infallible and it doesn’t mean he’s immune from questioning.
So when Peter Navarro, director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, penned his opinion editorial in USA Today Wednesday, it wasn’t surprising that the media came out in a vengeance against him to support Fauci.
Strangely, as a whole the media doesn’t like to question Fauci’s decision making. Why? Because Fauci, along with his Coronavirus Task Force team, made medical recommendations at the federal level that has turned our nation’s economy on its head, removed stability from our children through school closures and has put tens of millions of Americans in the unemployment line.
Arizona Republican Rep. Andy Biggs, who has been openly critical of Fauci’s decision process to shut down the country Tweeted Wednesday that “the mainstream media upset that Fauci & Birx have undermined their own credibility over the past four months.”
“Notice that NO ONE in the mainstream media is questioning the content of the oped, but that the oped was published. Apparently no one can hold Fauci & Birx accountable,” he added.
Bigg’s is right. Read below and you’ll see what I mean. Navarro lays out the inconsistencies in Fauci’s statements and decision process and all the media cares about is who at the White House approved the editorial.
From Navarro’s USA Today Opinion Editorial
“Dr. Anthony Fauci has a good bedside manner with the public, but he has been wrong about everything I have interacted with him on.
In late January, when I was making the case on behalf of the president to take down the flights from China, Fauci fought against the president’s courageous decision — which might well have saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.
When I warned in late January in a memo of a possibly deadly pandemic, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases was telling the news media not to worry.
When I was working feverishly on behalf of the president in February to help engineer the fastest industrial mobilization of the health care sector in our history, Fauci was still telling the public the China virus was low risk.
When we were building new mask capacity in record time, Fauci was flip-flopping on the use of masks.
This is why so many people in the country are confused about the virus. I talk to people in my neighborhood, my friends, at the grocery store and strangers on the street and no one seems to have a consensus on the virus. Some people are terrified, while others are unsure if even wearing a mask will actually do anything.
This isn’t misinformation but the reality of what is happening in our country. The novel coronavirus is not only mysterious but it has, without any real understanding of how it operates, completely changed our nation.
So Navarro’s opinion about Fauci is not just his opinion, but the opinion of so many Americans. Most people are confused with all the different news and medical reports regarding the virulency of the virus. There are questions as to whether or not masks actually work, what type of mask would work and can the virus spread from an asymptomatic person to someone that may be more susceptible to the virus.
What’s wrong with asking questions and why should Navarro, or others, be vilified by the media for speaking their mind.
Instead, the media needs to be investigating. Reporters need to be asking the same questions and questioning Fauci on some of his wishy washy advice on ways to mitigate the virus.
Investigative journalists shouldn’t just be a mouthpiece for the ‘stay home, stay safe and healthy’ crowd, without getting the answers to how unsafe or unhealthy we really are at this point in time.
The Trump administration also needs to make sure that its task force gets the facts to the American people so that the decisions we make will be based on reality and not on fear.
You may like
WSJ: Corporate Dirty Pool in Washington’s Senate Race
The Wall Street Journal’s, Kimberly A. Strassel wrote a piece identifying how the Democrats are so worried about Washington Senator Patty Murray’s re-election “that Seattle’s corporate heavyweights are playing dirty pool on her behalf.”
Murray, a leftwing progressive, has faced little competition while in office; until now. Tiffany Smiley, a Republican nurse and entrepreneur “is pummeling Ms. Murray from every direction and laying out her own detailed reform agenda” adds the WSJ.
A RealClearPolitics average has Ms. Murray winning by 8 points. Another poll has Smiley within 2 points. Regardless, It’s close enough that “Majority Leader Chuck Schumer recently transferred $500,000 of his own campaign cash to Ms. Murray’s campaign.”
Money from Schumer isn’t the only liberal panic dough. “Starbucks, the Seattle Times and the Seattle Seahawks—are actively attempting to sabotage the Smiley campaign, albeit in a distinctly underhanded fashion” writes the WSJ. “Their targets are two effective Smiley campaign ads.”
At the center of the fight are two of Smiley’s ads: “Game Day” and “Cup of Coffee.”
In “Game Day” the Republican is in a kitchen preparing to watch a football game, hitting Ms. Murray and Democrats for the spiraling cost of food. In “Cup of Coffee,” she stands in front of a derelict building. Barely visible at the top, and seen backward, is the store’s faded Starbucks sign. Ms. Smiley hits Ms. Murray for rising crime, while the ad flashes two Seattle Times headlines, one of which reads: “Starbucks to Close 5 Seattle Stores Over Safety Concerns.”
“Game Day” hit the airwaves Sept 1. Five days later, according to documents I obtained, the Smiley campaign received a terse email from the Seahawks claiming a trademark violation. The ad briefly shows Ms. Smiley’s husband, Scotty—a retired U.S. Army Ranger who was blinded by shrapnel in Iraq—expressing alarm that “even beer” prices are rising. You only see his shoulders above a tall couch—and if you get a magnifying glass you might make out a letter or two from the word “Seahawks.” The letter insisted the Smiley campaign “immediately cease” its “unauthorized commercial use.” Nothing like your local sports franchise dumping cease-and-desist orders on wounded veterans.
“Cup of Coffee” went live on Sept. 20. The next day, the Seattle Times sent an email to the “Jane Smiley” campaign—apparently without running it past its fact-checking desk—accusing it of “unauthorized use of The Seattle Times logo and two headlines” in violation of the paper’s “copyright and trademark.” It demanded the campaign remove any references to the paper not only in its own ad, but in an NBC News article about the ad’s launch.
Two days later, Starbucks sent a certified letter saying the campaign was appropriating its intellectual property, and complaining it might “create an unfounded association in the minds of consumers between Starbucks and your campaign.” It insisted the campaign either pull the ad or alter it to strip both the (barely visible, backward) sign and the Seattle Times headline referencing Starbucks.
One such letter may be the product of an overzealous lawyer, but three in a row looks like more than a coincidence. One might even wonder if some Murray staffer was putting bugs in Seattle business leaders’ ears. And while corporate political-action committees routinely play politics by making donations, it’s something else for individual companies to go to bat for a candidate via behind-the-scenes threats based on tenuous legal claims. These letters were bound to cost the Smiley campaign money and headaches and might have pushed it off the airwaves.
The campaign didn’t roll over. It made a painless accommodation to the “Game Day” ad, blurring the jersey colors to obscure anything distinct. In a legal letter sent Thursday to Starbucks, the campaign rebutted the company’s infringement claims, running through political speech protections and noting that no reasonable person would ever think a factual ad about shuttered Starbucks stores amounted to a coffee-chain endorsement. It suggested Starbucks focus on its own problems, like its recent union woes.
The Seattle Times also received a letter refuting its claims, but it got something in addition. The Smiley campaign on Thursday filed a Federal Election Commission complaint, charging the paper with providing the Murray campaign a prohibited in-kind contribution. It turns out that Ms. Murray has also used a Seattle Times headline in her ads. Her “First 2016 Ad” sports the newspaper’s logo under the headline: “Patty Murray’s and Paul Ryan’s Teamwork Is a Model for Congress.” It seems the Times has a different legal standard for candidates it endorses.
As the FEC complaint notes, the Smiley campaign would have to spend an estimated $5,000 to remove and update the ad—“costs that Patty Murray does not have to accrue.” It cites FEC regulations that provide “if a corporation makes its resources available for free, it must do so for all candidates.”
Don’t expect the Seattle corporate set to do anything on behalf of Ms. Smiley soon. But it shouldn’t be too much to ask that they do their politicking straight—and out in the open.
You may like
Nation3 days ago
MD nuclear scientist, wife, face life in prison after pleading guilty in nuclear secrets case
Immigration3 days ago
IG Audit shows nonprofit wasted $17 million taxpayer dollars on hotels to not house illegal foreign nationals
War on Drugs2 days ago
‘Mass poisoning:’ Officials seize 15,000 fentanyl pills disguised as candy
Immigration5 days ago
Texas has raised over $55 million from private donations to secure border, build a wall