More Proof Biden's Attacks on Trump's Vaccine Distribution Plan Are Based on Lies By Matt Margolis Earlier this week, Joe Biden falsely claimed that President Trump “failed to order enough” COVID-19 vaccines. It was the latest in a series of attacks from the Biden administration criticizing the vaccine distribution plan—or lack of one—left by the Trump administration. “There was no national strategy or plan for vaccinations, we were leaving it to the states and local leaders to try and figure it out. And so in many ways, we are starting from scratch on something that’s been raging for almost an entire year.” Kamala Harris claimed during an interview with Axios. Even Dr. Fauci dismissed that claim. “We’re certainly not starting from scratch,” he said. “We’re coming in with fresh ideas, but also some ideas that were not bad ideas with the previous administration. You can’t say it was absolutely not usable at all. … It’s taking what’s going on, but amplifying it in a big way,” he added. But the Biden administration is still using the same vaccine distribution model developed by Operation Warp Speed under President Trump. “It’s more or less the plan that we put together frankly that’s happening and maybe there are improvements and that’s really great, some acceleration. But clearly, we didn’t go from no plan to a plan, and from no vaccine to a vaccine,” Dr. Moncef Slaoui, the former head of Operation Warp Speed, told Fox Business last week. He also said he was surprised that the Biden administration is gloating about a vaccine distribution plan that isn’t their own. The data also proves that attacks from the Biden administration are unfounded. According to a graph generated by Newsy, vaccine production and distribution under Biden hasn’t accelerated, but rather followed the same trajectory as it was under Trump. Joe Biden’s Department of Defense also doesn’t dispute that the distribution plan is the same as it was under Trump. In fact, General Gus Perna, who led the effort under Trump, is still there in the same capacity. “Centralized distribution is being managed by the CDC through an existing contract… to deliver vaccines and supply kits… We continue the mission to accelerate the development, manufacturing and delivery of safe and effective vaccines and therapeutics, and Gen. Perna continues in his role overseeing this effort,” Perna’s spokeswoman Laura Ochoa told Newsy. So, Joe Biden, who said he wants to unify the country, rather than give President Trump the credit he deserves, is actually trying to take credit for the vaccine and a distribution plan he has nothing to do with. _____ Matt Margolis is the author of Airborne: How The Liberal Media Weaponized The Coronavirus Against Donald Trump, and the bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. --More Proof Biden's Attacks on Trump's Vaccine Distribution Plan Are Based on Lies – PJ Media --https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/02/21/more-proof-bidens-attacks-on-trumps-vaccine-distribution-plan-are-based-on-lies-n1427164 -RETRIEVED-Sun Feb 21 2021 21:44:35 GMT+0100 (Central European Standard Time)
thumb_up7thumb_downchat_bubble1

More from entryreqrd

Even Bill Gates Is Struggling To Go Completely Green by Haley Zaremba We’ve all heard about campaigns urging institutions, wealthy individuals, and world leaders to divest from fossil fuels. On the surface, it makes a lot of sense: in order to keep global temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial averages, which scientific consensus has demarcated as a necessary threshold to avoid the worst effects of catastrophic climate change, somewhere between two-thirds and four-fifths of the Earth's remaining fossil fuels must remain in the ground. While the act of divestment and the reasons behind it seem simple enough, however, the reality--as always--is more complicated. First of all, divestment campaigns are generally based on a two-pronged set of reasoning: moral and financial responsibility. But the reality is that divestment alone is not going to successfully defund the fossil fuels industry. One of the pitfalls of divestment campaigns is that when morally and environmentally conscious investors decide to sell off their shares in a company that is ethically dubious, there will always be another investor with no ethical hangups and an eye for opportunism to step in and buy up those shares at a discount. In fact, these “sin-vestors” are fantastically successful. One such opportunistic “sin stock” fund, the Barrier Fund (formerly known as the Vice Fund) “has beaten the S. & P. 500 by an average of nearly two percentage points per year since 2002” according to a 2015 report by the New Yorker. In fact, for this reason, divestment not only stands to potentially make no economic impact on the company it’s targeting, but could even wind up doing more damage than good. “By divesting from unethical companies, ‘ethical’ investors may effectively transfer money to opportunists like the Barrier Fund, who will likely spend it less responsibly than their ‘ethical’ counterparts.” While piecemeal divestment may not work, however, at a large enough scale it can make a genuine financial impact. Royal Dutch Shell Plc, for example, ruminated in its 2017 annual report that divestment “could have a material adverse effect on the price of our securities and our ability to access equity capital markets.” And while the financial aspect of divestment is not as cut-and-dry as it may initially seem, the moral aspect is pretty black and white. That’s what finally got Bill Gates, the third richest man in the world, to pull his money out of fossil fuels in 2019. “I don’t want to profit if their stocks prices go up because we don’t develop zero-carbon alternatives,” he writes. “I’d feel bad if I benefited from a delay in getting to zero [emissions],” Gates wrote in his new book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster. While on the surface Gates’ own moral dilemmas may not seem as impactful as targeting a fossil fuel extraction company’s funding, this kind of ethical debate is actually the biggest potential victory for a divestment campaign. Divestment may not be able to sharply decrease a company’s stock price, but it can harshly damage a company’s public perception and create lasting social stigma that can and will make a difference in that company’s conduct. So yes, divestment, especially when paired with other climate-conscious initiatives and ESG investing, is worthwhile. Unfortunately, it’s not so easy to do. “Divestment isn’t a straightforward process,” Bloomberg Green reports. “That’s why activists calling on large institutions and rich people to stop supporting fossil fuels tend to allow up to five years for full extrication from carbon-heavy industries.” Gates’ divestment experience is a perfect example of the sticky business of extracting oneself from fossil fuels when the economy itself is still predominantly carbon-based. While Gates was able to sell off most his direct oil and gas holdings with relative ease, at the end of 2019 the Gates Foundation (a separate entity from Gates’ own $137 billion of private wealth) still had about $1.2 billion of its total $40 billion endowment tied up in funds that may indirectly hold some stocks in fossil-fuel companies, and over $100 million still directly invested in oil and gas stocks and bonds, including Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and BP Plc. What’s more, Gates still has significant investments in extremely carbon-intensive sectors such as Signature Aviation Plc, the single-biggest operator of private-jet bases on Earth. But while Bill Gates illustrates how difficult, complex, and slow divestment can be, he also exemplifies its potential benefits. When a man with as much of a public profile and respected financial scruples as Gates makes headlines highlighting the importance of furthering clean energy innovations and keeping fossil fuels in the ground, the world listens. By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com
60 views · Feb 22nd
#indigenousrights #minnisota #siouxindians Minnesota returns land to Lower Sioux Indian Community after decades-long battle The Minnesota Historical Society (MNHS) officially returned 114 acres of land to the Lower Sioux Indian Community, four years after the transfer was approved by the state legislature. The Star Tribune reports the land transfer became official on Feb. 12, with the MNHS returning around half of its southern property along the Minnesota River back to the tribe. "I don't know if it's ever happened before, where a state gave land back to a tribe," Lower Sioux President Robert Larsen told the Tribune. "[Our ancestors] paid for this land over and over with their blood, with their lives. It's not a sale; it's been paid for by the ones that aren't here anymore." The decision was finalized when the MNHS board cast its votes in January. "We can try to reclaim that relationship with the land and hopefully we can continue the healing," Larsen said. "It's great for Indian Country in all." There are currently around 1,000 registered members of the Lower Sioux tribe, according to the Tribune. The tribe is currently trying to revive its traditions. The land is referred to as Cansa'yapi, meaning "where they marked the trees red," as it is the site where the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862 began, the Tribune reports. The Lower Sioux tribe has sought to reclaim the land for 20 years. The newspaper notes that before this transfer, the Lower Sioux Tribe's land totaled to roughly 1,800 acres. "There are local farmers that have more land than the tribe does," Larsen said. The tribe president said he hopes that this transfer will start a conversation about tribal land and shifting sacred sites to tribal management, the Tribune reports. "This isn't the end," Larsen added. "We hope this is just a kick-start to showing people that it can be done." --Minnesota returns land to Lower Sioux Indian Community after decades-long battle | TheHill --https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/539788-minnesota-returns-land-to-lower-sioux-indian-community-after-decades -RETRIEVED-Sun Feb 21 2021 22:47:17 GMT+0100 (Central European Standard Time)
59 views · Feb 21st
BLUE STATE UPDATE: YOU GOT LAID OFF, THEY GOT RAISES. Boston city workers making $100G, $200G, $300G increases. An ongoing coronavirus pandemic wasn’t going to stand in the way of city employees making big bucks, with more earning six figures, $200,000 and $300,000 in 2020 than they did in 2019. As always, the top of the list is dominated by the city’s cops and firefighters, according to the city’s 2020 payroll data released Friday. The year’s top earner was police Lt. Sean Smith, who enjoyed stacking $124,396 in overtime, $45,210 in detail work, $36,447 in Quinn Bill bonuses and $13,161 in “other” on top of his $145,788 in base pay to bring home $365,001. Following right after him was Detective Waiman Lee, who took home $96,127 in OT and $111,688 in detail pay to bring the gumshoe to $360,143. Then came Sgt. Detective John Brown, who benefited in $155,123 in OT pay to bring home a total of $345,758, and then Capt. John Danilecki — frequent target of lefty activists’ ire and resident of the district attorney’s list of “questionable” police officers due to a reported internal-affairs investigation — made $339,928. The top nine names on the list are all police officers. Then there’s a fire deputy chief, followed by 10 more cops, and then Boston Public Schools Superintendent Brenda Cassellius, who was sitting on a salary of $280,000 padded by $31,712 of unspecified “other” dough to end up with a total of $311,712 in her first full year leading the district.
54 views · Feb 21st

More from entryreqrd

Even Bill Gates Is Struggling To Go Completely Green by Haley Zaremba We’ve all heard about campaigns urging institutions, wealthy individuals, and world leaders to divest from fossil fuels. On the surface, it makes a lot of sense: in order to keep global temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial averages, which scientific consensus has demarcated as a necessary threshold to avoid the worst effects of catastrophic climate change, somewhere between two-thirds and four-fifths of the Earth's remaining fossil fuels must remain in the ground. While the act of divestment and the reasons behind it seem simple enough, however, the reality--as always--is more complicated. First of all, divestment campaigns are generally based on a two-pronged set of reasoning: moral and financial responsibility. But the reality is that divestment alone is not going to successfully defund the fossil fuels industry. One of the pitfalls of divestment campaigns is that when morally and environmentally conscious investors decide to sell off their shares in a company that is ethically dubious, there will always be another investor with no ethical hangups and an eye for opportunism to step in and buy up those shares at a discount. In fact, these “sin-vestors” are fantastically successful. One such opportunistic “sin stock” fund, the Barrier Fund (formerly known as the Vice Fund) “has beaten the S. & P. 500 by an average of nearly two percentage points per year since 2002” according to a 2015 report by the New Yorker. In fact, for this reason, divestment not only stands to potentially make no economic impact on the company it’s targeting, but could even wind up doing more damage than good. “By divesting from unethical companies, ‘ethical’ investors may effectively transfer money to opportunists like the Barrier Fund, who will likely spend it less responsibly than their ‘ethical’ counterparts.” While piecemeal divestment may not work, however, at a large enough scale it can make a genuine financial impact. Royal Dutch Shell Plc, for example, ruminated in its 2017 annual report that divestment “could have a material adverse effect on the price of our securities and our ability to access equity capital markets.” And while the financial aspect of divestment is not as cut-and-dry as it may initially seem, the moral aspect is pretty black and white. That’s what finally got Bill Gates, the third richest man in the world, to pull his money out of fossil fuels in 2019. “I don’t want to profit if their stocks prices go up because we don’t develop zero-carbon alternatives,” he writes. “I’d feel bad if I benefited from a delay in getting to zero [emissions],” Gates wrote in his new book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster. While on the surface Gates’ own moral dilemmas may not seem as impactful as targeting a fossil fuel extraction company’s funding, this kind of ethical debate is actually the biggest potential victory for a divestment campaign. Divestment may not be able to sharply decrease a company’s stock price, but it can harshly damage a company’s public perception and create lasting social stigma that can and will make a difference in that company’s conduct. So yes, divestment, especially when paired with other climate-conscious initiatives and ESG investing, is worthwhile. Unfortunately, it’s not so easy to do. “Divestment isn’t a straightforward process,” Bloomberg Green reports. “That’s why activists calling on large institutions and rich people to stop supporting fossil fuels tend to allow up to five years for full extrication from carbon-heavy industries.” Gates’ divestment experience is a perfect example of the sticky business of extracting oneself from fossil fuels when the economy itself is still predominantly carbon-based. While Gates was able to sell off most his direct oil and gas holdings with relative ease, at the end of 2019 the Gates Foundation (a separate entity from Gates’ own $137 billion of private wealth) still had about $1.2 billion of its total $40 billion endowment tied up in funds that may indirectly hold some stocks in fossil-fuel companies, and over $100 million still directly invested in oil and gas stocks and bonds, including Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and BP Plc. What’s more, Gates still has significant investments in extremely carbon-intensive sectors such as Signature Aviation Plc, the single-biggest operator of private-jet bases on Earth. But while Bill Gates illustrates how difficult, complex, and slow divestment can be, he also exemplifies its potential benefits. When a man with as much of a public profile and respected financial scruples as Gates makes headlines highlighting the importance of furthering clean energy innovations and keeping fossil fuels in the ground, the world listens. By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com
60 views · Feb 22nd
#indigenousrights #minnisota #siouxindians Minnesota returns land to Lower Sioux Indian Community after decades-long battle The Minnesota Historical Society (MNHS) officially returned 114 acres of land to the Lower Sioux Indian Community, four years after the transfer was approved by the state legislature. The Star Tribune reports the land transfer became official on Feb. 12, with the MNHS returning around half of its southern property along the Minnesota River back to the tribe. "I don't know if it's ever happened before, where a state gave land back to a tribe," Lower Sioux President Robert Larsen told the Tribune. "[Our ancestors] paid for this land over and over with their blood, with their lives. It's not a sale; it's been paid for by the ones that aren't here anymore." The decision was finalized when the MNHS board cast its votes in January. "We can try to reclaim that relationship with the land and hopefully we can continue the healing," Larsen said. "It's great for Indian Country in all." There are currently around 1,000 registered members of the Lower Sioux tribe, according to the Tribune. The tribe is currently trying to revive its traditions. The land is referred to as Cansa'yapi, meaning "where they marked the trees red," as it is the site where the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862 began, the Tribune reports. The Lower Sioux tribe has sought to reclaim the land for 20 years. The newspaper notes that before this transfer, the Lower Sioux Tribe's land totaled to roughly 1,800 acres. "There are local farmers that have more land than the tribe does," Larsen said. The tribe president said he hopes that this transfer will start a conversation about tribal land and shifting sacred sites to tribal management, the Tribune reports. "This isn't the end," Larsen added. "We hope this is just a kick-start to showing people that it can be done." --Minnesota returns land to Lower Sioux Indian Community after decades-long battle | TheHill --https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/539788-minnesota-returns-land-to-lower-sioux-indian-community-after-decades -RETRIEVED-Sun Feb 21 2021 22:47:17 GMT+0100 (Central European Standard Time)
59 views · Feb 21st
BLUE STATE UPDATE: YOU GOT LAID OFF, THEY GOT RAISES. Boston city workers making $100G, $200G, $300G increases. An ongoing coronavirus pandemic wasn’t going to stand in the way of city employees making big bucks, with more earning six figures, $200,000 and $300,000 in 2020 than they did in 2019. As always, the top of the list is dominated by the city’s cops and firefighters, according to the city’s 2020 payroll data released Friday. The year’s top earner was police Lt. Sean Smith, who enjoyed stacking $124,396 in overtime, $45,210 in detail work, $36,447 in Quinn Bill bonuses and $13,161 in “other” on top of his $145,788 in base pay to bring home $365,001. Following right after him was Detective Waiman Lee, who took home $96,127 in OT and $111,688 in detail pay to bring the gumshoe to $360,143. Then came Sgt. Detective John Brown, who benefited in $155,123 in OT pay to bring home a total of $345,758, and then Capt. John Danilecki — frequent target of lefty activists’ ire and resident of the district attorney’s list of “questionable” police officers due to a reported internal-affairs investigation — made $339,928. The top nine names on the list are all police officers. Then there’s a fire deputy chief, followed by 10 more cops, and then Boston Public Schools Superintendent Brenda Cassellius, who was sitting on a salary of $280,000 padded by $31,712 of unspecified “other” dough to end up with a total of $311,712 in her first full year leading the district.
54 views · Feb 21st