Friday, June 24, 2022

Shared "Values"

"It can't happen here?"

Authoritarianism is here.

The US is under minority rule, with a Supreme Court packed with liars by a criminal president.

History warns us how that can turn out:

“The National Government...regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life." - Adolf Hitler "My New Order" - Proclamation to the German Nation, Berlin, February 1, 1933

On October 10, 1936 Heinrich Himmler created the Reich Central Office for Combating Homosexuality and Abortion, or Special Office (II S), a sub-department of Executive Department II of the Gestapo.

In 1941 Hitler said, “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

The Supreme Court is infected with traitors, theocrats and perjurers who violated the law and Constitution. IMPEACH them.



Shaw Kenawe said...

A majority of Americans support a woman’s right to choose. 6 unelected justices, 3 of whom were appointed by a criminal president, made a decision against the will of millions and millions of Americans.

The activist and extremely political GOP justices ruled that states like Massachusetts (which is the 2nd safest state in the country vis-a-vis gun deaths) is now compelled to change its concealed weapons laws so that ANYONE who wishes, qualified or not, can carry concealed.

In a country awash in guns and where firearm deaths outnumber deaths by car accidents, and where firearm deaths are the leading cause of childhood fatalities, the SCOTUS just upped the ante for more death.

There will be more deaths from botched abortions and to women who have pregnancies that are lethal to them for whatever medical reasons and who will die, and more wackos who now can carry conceal.

We are America the Stupid, no more the Beautiful.

Dave Dubya said...

The treasonous Thomas is targeting even more freedoms for destruction.

The additional element of horror to this is the radical Right understands chaos and instability will "justify" their reactionary authoritarian crackdowns.

Impeachment, additional Justices, or both are needed to detoxify the radicalized and corrupt Supreme Court.

Anonymous said...

against kids shooting kids but okay with adults killing baby’s. Got it.

Anonymous said...

States cannot force a women to have a baby they can freely go to a legal state and get it done. Like a vaccine mandate you refuse the jab find another job nobody is forcing this.

Dave Dubya said...


A zygote or embryo is not a baby. A fetus is not a person. No law makes this claim.

Most people understand the difference, and are pro-choice for the first two trimesters.

Funny how you can't see the hypocrisy in "my body my choice" for vaccinations, but not for government mandated pregnancy up to birth.

A woman should have every right to control what happens within her body. Denying that right, and forcing her to bear the offspring of her rapist is nothing but government cruelty and tyranny.

You are essentially pro-zygote and pro-fetus, and ANTI-baby once it is born. You don't give a damn about supporting the mother and the unwanted child she cannot afford.

Rich Republicans will always afford to have access to abortions.

You don't understand freedom. "they can freely go to a legal state".

No. They are FORCED to go to a legal state.

You remind me of the people who say, "But Jews were free to leave Nazi Germany".

That's NOT freedom. It is escape from tyranny.

A significant number of abortions are due to women or teenagers who are not financially able to raise a child.

According to the USDA the average cost of raising a child to age 18 is $284,570.

Try doing that in addition to housing, food and transportation on $7.25 and hour.

Dave Dubya said...

It amounts to emotional and financial cruelty, but the American Taliban are quite comfortable with the suffering of others.

“Studies reveal what abortion ban means for women forced to cross state lines”

Researchers estimate that from the center of 85 of Ohio’s 88 counties, travel distance to the nearest abortion clinic or provider would be 191 to 339 miles.

“The ability to access abortion care will be retained for the most privileged Ohioans and those who have the most reproductive autonomy. They can fly, pay for hotels, take time off to deal with any waiting periods. But for so many seeking abortion care — including those experiencing financial insecurity — those options are out of reach.”


The Christian Taliban want to go further with their massive and intrusive BIG government interference with women’s personal life choices.

“Can red states regulate abortions performed outside their borders?”

Legislation introduced this year in Missouri is an extreme example of how anti-abortion lawmakers are looking to crack down on abortions that happen beyond their states' borders.
One measure sought to allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a Missouri resident obtain an abortion out of state, while also targeting efforts to provide medication abortion to residents. Another bill would apply Missouri's abortion laws to abortions obtained out of state by Missouri residents and in other circumstances, including in cases where "sexual intercourse occurred within this state and the child may have been conceived by that act of intercourse."

Now the Christian Taliban want to murder women because they think a zygote is a baby.

“Just so we're clear: the pregnancy that ends up in the wrong spot, like the fallopian tube? The one that will NEVER turn into a baby and will rupture and kill your wife, daughter, or sister? Terminating that fetus is also an abortion, and they want to ban those, too.:” – Dr. Graham Walker

The most recent official data available on the incidence of ectopic pregnancies in the United States is from 1992, when the rate was estimated to be 19.7 per 1000 pregnancies, which represents an estimated incidence of 108,800 pregnancies per year. – Science Direct

Jews are already protesting the anti-abortion law because it discriminates against their religion, not that Christian Taliban respects ANYONE else’s faith.

With “the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

Genesis 2:7, KJV: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Anonymous said...

Who elected the president who appointed the 3 Supreme Court justices that made the overturn of Rope/Wade possible? The people of the United States.

Dave Dubya said...


You don't understand very much, do you?

First you said adults are "okay with killing babies". This is lie.

Then you said, "States cannot force a women to have a baby they can freely go to a legal state and get it done".

I explained the obstacles, disruptions of jobs, and financial difficulty many face in being forced to do that. Fleeing authoritarianism is not freedom. If they lack the means to leave, they are FORCED by the state to carry and bear a child of their rapist. You call that justice?

Finally you falsely believe Trump was elected by the people.

Most of the people didn't want Trump. Not even the majority of voters.

The president isn't elected by the people, but by electors. Therefore the Supreme Court reflects the will of the minority over the majority.

Do you think we forgot how the Black President's nominee was rejected without a vote? That president won most of the people’s votes twice. The will of the people was betrayed by McConnell.

You should read my post on the 5 poison pills:

Anonymous said...

You are just like Trump. Just declare the process corrupt (electoral college) and therefore Trump did not win the election. Do you have proof Trump installed a fake set of electors in the 2016 election? It seems the one denying democracy as was set up in the Constitution, is you.

Dave Dubya said...

Jennifer Taub, Law Professor and author of BIG DIRTY MONEY (Viking 2020) and OTHER PEOPLE’S HOUSES (Yale 2014) tweeted:

I am a Jewish American woman. Jewish law makes clear that a fetus is not a life. And, abortion is healthcare.

The Supreme Court just took away my religious liberty and personal autonomy. Resist Christofascism.

Anonymous said...

The late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who helped engineer the passage of abortion laws in New York in the 1960s and oversaw 75,000 abortions, admitted publicly that to get its way, the pro-abortion lobby lied, made-up statistics, and demonized the Catholic Church. After the development of ultrasound, Dr. Nathanson came to terms with what he was doing, faced the science, became pro-life, and was even eventually baptized a Catholic. Such are the ironies of life.

The one constant is that pro-abortion advocates are still lying and demonizing people of faith. Unlike Dr. Nathanson, they are not interested in what science says about the biology of the unborn child. The pro-aborts have never really had to fight for what they believe. It was handed to them on a silver platter by the Supreme Court only a few years after their movement had begun.

Foreigner said...

\\The president isn't elected by the people, but by electors. Therefore the Supreme Court reflects the will of the minority over the majority.

Still, protecting minorities from brutal force of majority is the central point of that thing called democracy.

Hope you remember my country situation, and understand why that question is not mere rethorical "trolling", but quite matterfull issue.

"That's NOT freedom. It is escape from tyranny."

Well, they was denied off even that "freedom"...

Forgive me my culturaly-diverse remark. But from this side of the globe -- that all thing about free access to abortion looks like complementary part of sexual freedom -- to have sex with just anyone, even without condom, and then just excreting unwanted results of it.
Well, even with rape victims... I may be wrong, but that is look like in America there is no danger to be raped while just walking around. That is because of deliberate choice of a woman to be in places and situations which allow such frivolous acts, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

Akhil Amar, the Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, “is a self-described liberal, pro-choice Democrat.” Yet he supports the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade because, he said, “Roe just doesn’t cut it as a constitutional opinion.”

Amar, whose legal scholarship was cited multiple times in the Opinion of the Court that overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, explained why he thinks the Constitution does not provide a right to terminate a pregnancy.

“A person, like me, could be pro-choice and anti-Roe because I think the Constitution, rightly read, is not the same as what my, Akhil Amar, personal preferences are,” he said. “Personally, I don’t have a gun, guns rather scare me, but I think Americans have a right to have a gun in their home for self-protection.”

Dave Dubya said...


Yes, many in your country are denied the freedom to just leave Ukraine.

Some of them are women who have been raped by Russians. Are those women to blame for being raped?

No. The rapist is ALWAYS to blame.

It happens in every country.

Some women are raped by strangers for "just walking around". Many know the rapist.

Even if a woman is stupid enough to go flirting with men in a bar, doesn't mean she's to blame for the actions of the rapist. Men can say or do stupid things and get killed, too.

But the killer is the one to blame, just like the rapist.

Dave Dubya said...

You didn't make it about me this time?

Good for you, even though you needed someone else's words to make your point.

Akhil Reed Amar has reasonable questions on the wording and basis of Roe v Wade. Ruth Bader Ginsburg had similar questions.

The words “right to privacy” are not in the Constitution.

But the 4th Amendment does state:

Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

An embryo, or the act of removing it, is definitely within her body and within her right to be “secure in their persons”. The only way law enforcement would know she is pregnant would be in violation of her 4th Amendment rights. And no, “probable cause” is not determined by her dating or marital status.

I can reasonably claim that forcing women to take government mandated pregnancy tests violates the 4th (against unreasonable searches) and 14th (equal protection) Amendments.

As Ginsburg suggest, the 14th Amendment should have been invoked for reproductive freedom.

“..nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Equal protection means equality under the law. Denying a woman reproductive rights is clearly an unequal application of law.

She is the person with the right to be “secure in their persons”, not the zygote or embryo. Until the law says they are “persons” entitled to equal protection, she is one with the Constitutional rights.

By Akhil Reed Amar Updated May 14, 2022
”...what I told the Senate back in 2018, testifying as a Never Trumper in support of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Court, remains true: “Americans generally and with good reason view today’s Court more favorably than today’s Congress and Presidency...In short, I am a Democrat who supports abortion rights but opposes Roe. The Court’s ruling in the case was simply not grounded either in what the Constitution says or in the long-standing, widely embraced mores and practices of the country. Perhaps I’m wrong in thinking that, and perhaps the Dobbs draft is wrong too.”

Credit is given for saying “Perhaps I’m wrong”.

He may have been correct in the past, but IS wrong about today’s Court. Americans are less favorable with the Court than with Biden:

Quinnipiac isn't the only pollster to show a major degradation in the court's standing. The percentage of Americans (25%) who have great or quite a lot of confidence in the court is at the lowest level ever recorded by Gallup since 1973.... Most (62%) felt that the Supreme Court is mainly motivated by politics.

At the other end of the range of approval, the Court and Biden both get 39% approval.

NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll.

Just 39% said they have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the Supreme Court; 58% said they have not very much or no confidence at all in the institution.

Dave Dubya said...

Our friend Burr Deming discussed his viewpoint:

9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The logic applied half a century ago in Roe v Wade is not hard to understand.

The 9th Amendment says that, just because some rights are not listed in the Constitution, it does not mean those rights are not to be protected.

Those freedoms are secured, enshrined as unenumerated rights.

The 14th Amendment says those protections apply not only to federal law, but to state and local laws as well.

14th Amendment
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This principle, that unenumerated rights must be protected, was applied in many cases.
In 1967, Loving vs Virginia became one of those cases. It involved marriage between couples of different races.

My wife and I have been married for 22 years. Had we met and gotten married as teenagers here in Missouri, our marriage would have been dissolved. She and I would have been imprisoned, presumably in separate cells, for 2 years. Interracial marriage was a felony under Section 563.240 of the Missouri Criminal Code.

The plain language of the 9th Amendment means our unenumerated right to interracial marriage has been constitutionally protected even before we found ourselves in love.

Other cases decided on the unenumerated rights covered by the 9th Amendment have included:
• The right to birth control.
Laws making contraception illegal were overturned.

• The right of gay people to gay relationships.
The practice of imprisoning gay people for having gay relationships was ended.

• The right of gay people in love to marry each other.
Prohibitions against gay marriage were overturned.

• The right to privacy.
Up to then, even adult heterosexual couples could be prosecuted for the wrong kind of sex. The 9th Amendment said the right to privacy would take government bureaucrats out of the bedrooms of ordinary citizens.

The logic applied this week to overturn Roe v Wade is not hard to understand.

The 9th Amendment no longer means what it says.

Those unenumerated freedoms, the ones that exist even though they are not mentioned in the Constitution, are protected, but only if they were deeply rooted in the nation’s history and traditions when the first ten Amendments were adopted in 1791.
“The 9th Amendment no longer means what it says.” This is the conservative argument.

If we apply the same flawed logic, we can say the 2nd Amendment only applies to the right to bear muzzle-loaded muskets.

Foreigner said...

Good news from our Ukrainian front too.
ruSSians yet again performed their "cunning plan of khuylo" withdrawal tactical move.
While saying that they did that "out of benevolence".
It should... no, must became a meme.
Q: What is "benevolence of russians" mean?
A: That is when they are beat to a pulp, as result of their criminal acts or homicidal plans neutering... they flea screaming "We not fleeing, we just demonstrate how noble we are in our benevolence and humanity".

I hope you'd help to spread that truth about hypocrisy and cowardice of that dirty little scumbags... to which even highest mightiest people of West liked to shake hands. Jusr recently. Like Trump did. To shame em into oblivion of misery and distaste. I think it's an utterly worthy goal. Shame compaign to denigrate such behavior and such people. That would span generation for the very least.

Foreigner said...

\\Even if a woman is stupid enough to go flirting with men in a bar, doesn't mean she's to blame for the actions of the rapist. Men can say or do stupid things and get killed, too.

There is no moral disagreement in between us.
And hardly there can be political one.
As I see it.
But there is differences of other kinds I would like to discuss intelligently, instead of cross-fence barking, like it happens here in your blog and elsewhere.
What do you think, can we?

There is two types of cultures (well, obviously there is many more, but for the sake of our discussion here this two are most important)

Traditional. In which place of a woman was very detailed and with safety nets provided: against violence, against rapes, life preservation and living support providing.

And Modern, there weman was "liberated". But in a nutshell that mean that all that specifical woman-centered protections became void.

And there is biological base -- woman need to have intercource with a man, to became pregnant, to have children. And that is why that "woman walking in a bar" scenario is so widespread and unavoidable.

I do not try to promote return to old ways.
But, there must be some carefull social engineering performed, to resolve that problem.
What do you think?
Instead of current situation of never ending passing blame game.
When at first man stigmatised for behavior that is natural and assigned by Nature itself on them.
Then weman suffer from backlash of it, resulting in performing again their natural and Nature assigned role becaming more difficult and prone to error mode abotrions.
Then again man.
Then again weman.

Anonymous said...

\\If we apply the same flawed logic, we can say the 2nd Amendment only applies to the right to bear muzzle-loaded muskets.

Yeah... but who cares about logic? :-)))

Dave Dubya said...

One Republican woman gets it:

Rep Liz Cheney (R-WY), in a speech on 6-29-22: “… to the little girls and to the young women who are watching tonight: these days, for the most part, men are running the world, and it’s really not going all that well...At this moment, we are confronting a domestic threat we have never faced before– a former President who is attempting to unravel the foundations of our Constitutional Republic.”

Of course she also opposes women's reproductive rights.

Anonymous said...

It’s surprising to no one that the Left has lost its mind over the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling. What’s maybe a little more surprising is the vicious rancor directed at Justice Clarence Thomas, specifically.

Why Thomas? Why are they going after one out of six?

Because the Left is racist. They expect Clarence Thomas to think the way a black man should, based on the color of his skin. And Clarence Thomas for 30 years, 40 years has refused to do that, and they want to destroy him. And that is what they’ve been doing in coming after him and the bottom line is: Clarence Thomas doesn’t care at all what they think.

Mark Paoletta

Dave Dubya said...

Poor Anonymous.

He still can't think clearly enough to express any thoughts of his own.

Mark Paoletta is a radical Right Trumpist, projecting his party's and his boss's racism onto the Left. What else can we expect from a man who worked for a racist and seditionist liar like Trump?

He cites no facts or words from "the left" to support his dishonest accusation. Just the classic radical Right method of bad faith discourse.

Want to see what "vicious rancor" looks like?

It's in Paoletta's own words:

"Why are they going after one out of six? Because the Left is racist."

Bullshit. The left is "going after" all the liars, sex predators, and traitors on the Supreme Court.

Thomas is the radical Right one with the insurrectionist wife.

But for some reason Paoletta is upset about what people think of him.


Foreigner said...

Oh, I'd like to ask a question or two to that Mark Paoletta too?

So what, independent behavior is the thing in itself?
Means it's O.K. to do even amoral things, while you do it destinctively? :-)

Why I asking? Because Putin, seems like he trying to say exactly same thing -- that USA and EU, and all West is trying to deter him... just because they do not like his frivolous independent acts. And not because that acts amoral and non-humane.

And very next question. How do you think?
He saying that to mimic your rethoric and aspirations?
Or that is you, just repeating ruSSian propaganda they deseminated your minds with?
Another word, is it egg... or chicken, was first? :-))

\\Yes, the US has many Republican scumbags who kiss up to Putin and other dictators.

Yeah, that is the case.
To denigrate em, to laugh at them, by the way of showing how cowardice and comical those "brave and mighty big men, dictators" really is.

\\I wish we could shame them, but they and their followers have no sense of shame, honesty or decency.

That is highly unlikely.
I thnk that you just not tryed to find their weak spots enough.
For example, russian version of your trumpists -- russian "vatniks".
They are very vulnerable.
You just need to stick your finger into really bleeding points to do that.
Like in this recent "we did it out of good will, to show our benevolence". :-)))

\\If not, we are no longer a nation of laws, but of men. Like Russia.

That is your problem.
You still.
That their mere posturing is the real thing.
While that is not the point.
That is just a facade. Potiomkinskaya derevnia/village.

That is from old tzarist's times. When governor of some region. Potiomkin was his name.
While waiting for royal inspection. Ordered to make up villages by that road carriae of empress will be going with a quicky repairs and painting, and give people there new cloth.
That repairs was a pecular type -- only parts looking at road was painted and repaired. And people was robbed of that new cloth, which then was in haste delivered to other villages further by that road, to give to new imposters of "excellent governance under such a good master".

And for last 200-something years there is nothing changed in russia/RFia.

I think you and other people in USA need to know more of such facts and do spread it even wider. So, even reps would know and would be ashamed to follow such "men of might". :-)
(well, I see Trump's Border Fence Project is just the same in nature)

\\Republicans have blocked it. They oppose the very idea of racial and gender equality, whether in voter rights, civil rights, and equal justice and protection under law. They prefer women and Blacks to be second-class citizens, to know their place, and let conservative rich white men run the country.

Well, we have it quite different here.
As you probably know, we have had quite equal gender rights here. Ensured by soviet regime.
To the extent that women was bestowed with a "right" to work in most dirtiest, dangerous and hard places... as equal with a men.

So, at our place, idea of such total equality of men and women... pretty much discredited.

Dave Dubya said...

"That their mere posturing is the real thing.
While that is not the point.
That is just a facade"

The US has a its version of the Potemkin Village: "In politics and economics, a Potemkin village is any construction whose sole purpose is to provide an external fa├žade to a country that is faring poorly, making people believe that the country is faring better."

Politicians brag about "American exceptionalism" and the US being a "Shining City on a hill" and "Beacon of Democracy".

All bullshit. US public healthcare is far below the standards of many countries. Poverty, crime, homelessness and hunger shouldn't be so bad in the wealthiest country in the world.

But greed and corruption have made is so.

We have presidents who win with fewer votes than than their opponent. We have a Senate that empowers a rural white minority over the majority. We have a Supreme Court packed with corporate-owned religious fanatics.

The US is obviously NOT a representative democratic republic. The will of the majority of people and voters is rarely, if ever, considered by our corporate-owned politicians.

We essentially have a puppet government built on lies and corruption.

And will be far worse in the next couple years. The Republican Party is winning their war on our democratic process of voting, fair elections, and proportionate representative legislation.

We not only have inequality with men and women, but with the voters. Rural white votes count more than urban votes. White voters have more power than Black voters.

It's like our Civil War never ended. The radical Right is getting more violent, fueled by the lies of Trump and his totally corrupt party.

Its no wonder Trump admires Putin. He wants to be him.

The US will be one-party Republican dictatorship as it collapses into fascism, political violence, and ruin.

And we know the fascists will blame minorities and pro-democracy people. History tells us that.

Anonymous said...

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade on June 24, a renewed surge of terrorism has been unleashed against churches and pregnancy resource centers, with at least 25 attacks occurring across the country over a seven-day span.

More old fashion American values.

Anonymous said...

You people lost it when you demanded vaccine mandates for a vaccine that did not work.

Dave Dubya said...


Have you made a scientific breakthrough the rest of the medical science community could not?

If so, show us your work, please.

Otherwise I call out your bullshit:

COVID vaccines have proven the best way to decrease the risk of hospitalization and death from COVID-19.

The Lancet:
Vaccine effectiveness against severe disease is higher and retained for longer than effectiveness against mild disease

New England Journal of Medicine:
Primary immunization with two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 vaccine provided limited protection against symptomatic disease caused by the omicron variant. A BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster after either the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 primary course substantially increased protection, but that protection waned over time.

Anonymous said...

Omicron is mild for most people 40% of covid deaths were in the vaccinated January 2022 Wisconsin Nice try drug pusher My Body My Choice I here your cult leader Double boosted Fauci is sick Wonder how many he spread it to? You people have lost the my body my choice. The narrative keeps changing with the failures . Remember heard Immunity you are funny.

Dave Dubya said...

You just admitted more unvaccinated people die than vaccinated.

Here's your Wisconsin data:

Milwaukee Journal:

Data shows vaccinated U.S. citizens made up more than 40% of COVID-19 deaths during omicron peak

During the omicron variant surge, the vaccinated made up 42% of deaths in January and February, compared with 23% of the dead in September, the peak of the delta wave, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Data still shows that the unvaccinated are more likely to suffer severe illness or death compared to the vaccinated

"It’s still absolutely more dangerous to be unvaccinated than vaccinated," Andrew Noymer, a public health professor at the University of California at Irvine who studies COVID-19 mortality, said to the Post.

The vast majority of vaccinated deaths are among people who did not get a booster shot, according to state data provided to the Post.

So how else have you displayed your ignorance?

"Heard" immunity? This tells us how educated you are. It was the Trump crew that wanted HERD IMMUNITY. They would allow rampant spread of covid.
'We want them infected’: Trump appointee demanded ‘herd immunity’ strategy, emails reveal
Then-HHS science adviser Paul Alexander called for millions of Americans to be infected as means of fighting Covid-19.

A top Trump appointee repeatedly urged top health officials to adopt a “herd immunity” approach to Covid-19 and allow millions of Americans to be infected by the virus, according to internal emails obtained by a House watchdog and shared with POLITICO.

“There is no other way, we need to establish herd, and it only comes about allowing the non-high risk groups expose themselves to the virus. PERIOD,” then-science adviser Paul Alexander wrote on July 4 to his boss, Health and Human Services assistant secretary for public affairs Michael Caputo, and six other senior officials.

“Infants, kids, teens, young people, young adults, middle aged with no conditions etc. have zero to little risk….so we use them to develop herd…we want them infected…" Alexander added.

Wanting only some people infected is stupid. It is cruel and ignores the fact those people would spread it.

Care to show us another example of your stupidity and ignorance?