Fauci Claims That When Lawmakers Criticize Him, “They’re Really Criticizing Science Because I am Science”…Can You Say “Smug”?

Fauci pleading

FoxNews.com reports that

Dr. Anthony Fauci escalated his spat with some lawmakers over the nation’s COVID-19 response by claiming they oppose “science.”

Fauci has served as the face of the government’s pandemic response, putting him at odds with lawmakers who remain critical of that response. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has frequently sparred with Fauci over various statements and policies the president’s chief medical adviser has made or endorsed.

Most recently, Paul blasted Fauci for “obfuscating the truth” about the National Institutes of Health funding gain-of-function research after the organization admitted in a letter to House Oversight Committee Ranking Member James Comer, R-Ky., that a “limited experiment” was indeed conducted.

Fauci, during an interview with “Face the Nation,” dismissed opposition from such lawmakers as “noise,” saying they’re “really criticizing science.”

“Anybody who’s looking at this carefully realizes that there’s a distinct anti-science flavor to this, so if they get up and criticize science, nobody’s going to know what they’re talking about,” Fauci said. “But if they get up and really aim their bullets at Tony Fauci, well people can recognize that there’s a person there, so it’s easy to criticize, but they’re really criticizing science because I represent science.”

Paul took to Twitter Sunday morning to respond to Fauci’s claims, calling it “absolute hubris” for Fauci to declare that he represents science.

“It’s astounding and alarming that a public health bureaucrat would even think to claim such a thing, especially one who has worked so hard to ignore the science of natural immunity,” Paul wrote.

Fauci also dismissed a suggestion from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, that he should be prosecuted by the attorney general over his comments about the gain-of-function research. Cruz tweeted that “It’s a crime to knowingly lie to Congress, so I asked AG Garland if he’d appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Fauci.”

Fauci laughed at the suggestion, asking, “What happened on January 6th, senator?” He “you’d have to be asleep” not to believe that Republicans are trying to “scapegoat” him.

In a five-tweet Twitter thread issued in response to Fauci’s comment against him on Sunday, Cruz excoriated Fauci as an “unelected technocrat who has distorted science and facts in order to exercise authoritarian control over millions of Americans.”

Saying that Fauci “lives in a liberal world,” Cruz went on to cite the section of the U.S. Code that both he and Paul allege Fauci violated when he testified before a Senate Committee in May that “the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

Cruz also blasted Fauci for attempting to deflect lawmakers’ criticism against him by resorting to “ad hominem insults parroting Democrat talking points,” and concluded by reiterating that the DOJ should prosecute him.

“Science”, my hindquarters.

Not since the Nazis has so much totalitarianism been advanced in the name of “science”.

The funding of research into bat viruses done by the Wuhan Institute, under the funding by the EcoHealth Alliance, lasted for over a decade.

Surprise! Surprise! Both the CDC and the NIH are partners of the Ecohealth Alliance.

Just as we found out during the whole charade known as “Russiagate”, there are Professional Bureaucrats who operate behind the scenes of our Federal Government, imperious and seemingly above the law.

Like a spider’s web of intrigue, they move in the shadows, spending our tax money on projects away from the eye of the public…projects like the Bat Virus Research done by the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the University Center For Animal Experiment.

These projects remain unknown by the general public, until something unforeseen happens, like the “accident” at the Wuhan Institute which released COVID-19 on an unsuspecting world.

Former President Trump tried to clean out this rats’ nest of Professional Bureaucrats, naming them the Washington Swamp.

Unfortunately, he did not succeed and they eventually were able to arrange for a demented old man to be appointed the 46th President of the United States of America.

The entire COVID-19 Catastrophe and Washington’s behind-the-scenes machinations during it, which resulted in a nationwide lockdown and a “radical change” to our American way of life, has been all about controlling average Americans to get them used to having their individual freedom taken away from them.

The revelations of the last several months concerning the Washington Swamp’s involvement and especially that of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s subterfuge concerning the funding of COVID-19 is just the beginning of horrifying things which were done in the darkness by bureaucrats which are about to find themselves illuminated by the light of truth.

Dr. Tony Fauci is an egomaniacal career bureaucrat advancing the cause of totalitarianism and governmental control of Americans’ lives from cradle-to-grave in the name of “science”.

And, since Biden and his Handlers will not fire his…it is time for Americans to simply ignore him.

Until He Comes,



Earth Day Celebrated. The Climate Changed: An Analysis of a Psuedo-Science

untitled (137)

Look, if Godzilla appeared on the Mall this afternoon, Al Gore would say it’s global warming, because the spores in the South Atlantic Ocean, you know, were. Look, everything is, it’s a religion. In a religion, everything is explicable. In science, you can actually deny or falsify a proposition with evidence. You find me a single piece of evidence that Al Gore would ever admit would contradict global warming and I’ll be surprised. — Charles Krauthammer

Foxnews.com reports that

March for Science rallies were held across the country Saturday in response to what organizers and attendees see as increasing attacks on science and concerns about looming cuts in government spending.

“When scientists were told on January 25 to be silent, this rally was conceived,” poet Jane Hirshfield told a rain-soaked crowd at a rally near the Washington Monument, footsteps from the White House that President Trump took over on January 20.

Hirshfield was preceded on stage by New Wave star Thomas Dolby, who sang his 1982, techo-influenced hit “She Blinded Me with Science.”

Federal scientist cooked climate change books ahead of Obama presentation, whistle blower charges

Trump critics say they are concerned about the president’s proposed cutbacks for the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institutes of Health, his administration’s skepticism about the cause of climate change and other science-related issues.  

However, organizers say the march was political but not partisan — to in fact promote the understanding of science and defending it from attacks, including a proposed 20 percent cutback at the NIH.

“It’s not about the current administration,” said co-organizer and public health researcher Caroline Weinberg. “The truth is we should have been marching for science 30 years ago, 20 years, 10 years ago. … The current (political) situation took us from kind of ignoring science to blatantly attacking it. And that seems to be galvanizing people in a way it never has before.”

The rallies, coinciding with Earth Day, were held in more than 500 cities worldwide including New York, Chicago and Geneva.

Marchers in Geneva carried signs that read, “Science — A Candle in the Dark” and “Science is the Answer.”

“We are marching today to remind people, especially our lawmakers, about the significance of science,” Bill Nye, a TV science educator, said at the Washington rally.

“Rigorous science is critical to my administration’s efforts to achieve the twin goals of economic growth and environmental protection,” Trump said in a statement as the rallies began.

“My administration is committed to advancing scientific research that leads to a better understanding of our environment and of environmental risks. As we do so, we should remember that rigorous science depends not on ideology, but on a spirit of honest inquiry and robust debate.”

In London, physicists, astronomers, biologists and celebrities gathered for a march past the city’s most celebrated research institutions. Supporters carried signs showing images of a double helix and chemical symbols.

The protest was putting scientists, who generally shy away from advocacy and whose work depends on objective experimentation, into a more public position.

Signs and banners readied for the Washington rally reflected anger, humor and obscure scientific references, such as “No Taxation without Taxonomy.”

Taxonomy is the science of classifying animals, plants and other organisms.

Scientists involved in the march said they were anxious about political and public rejection of established science such as climate change and the safety of vaccine immunizations.

“Scientists find it appalling that evidence has been crowded out by ideological assertions,” said Rush Holt, a former physicist and Democratic congressman who runs the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “It is not just about Donald Trump, but there is also no question that marchers are saying ‘when the shoe fits.”

Have you ever wondered why Modern American Liberals are still so preoccupied with the faux science of Global Warming/Climate Change?

I mean, how arrogant do you have to be to believe that you can make a change in the very weather itself, which is controlled by Someone way above your pay grade?

Invented by Al Gore, and propagandized in the book and the movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”, “Climate Change” has become both a Secular Liberal Religion and an industry, a failed one, but an industry none the less.

Ranging from washouts like Solyndra to GreenTech Automotive, millions of taxpayer dollars were sunk into these so-called green projects, through all 8 years of the Obama administration.

The Climate Change Hoax was a big money-maker for Liberals under the Obama Administration.

It is so much a part of Congressional Liberals personal mantras, they believe that literally EVERYTHING is secondary to this faux science.

When you attempt to discuss the Global Warming/Climate Change/Whatever-They-Decided-To-Call-It-Today Hoax with one of the members of the Cult, they will tell you that 97% of the World’s Scientists are believers.

Have you ever wondered where they get that outlandish figure from?

Back on May 26, 2014, Joseph Bast, of the Heartland Institute, and Dr. Roy Spencer, Founder of The Weather Channel, wrote the following article for The Wall Street Journal

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in “Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

So, why do Modern American Liberals continue on their Quixotic Crusade to make a belief in a pseudo-science his legacy an “International Crisis”?

Per usual, I have some opinions on that…

1.  Appeasing the Gullible –Hey “The Facts Are In.” The “science” is true. And, as P.T. Barnum said,

There is a sucker born every minute.

Remember…these “true believers” of the Goreacle, also voted for Obama and Hillary. They are easily fooled.

2. Money, Money, Money – Too much money invested by Democrat “Power Brokers” and to much of American Taxpayers money spent needlessly to back down now. Obama’s got political promises to keep.

3. Hey, look! Squirrel! – Liberals continue to grasp for whatever national distraction they can come up with to attempt to sabotage Trump’s Presidency, in the hope that, somehow, Trump will get impeached, recall, or something, and they can continue their quest to turn America into a Third World Socialist Utopia.

4. Modern American Liberals are heartbroken – Obama left, Hillary lost, and they have to have something to worship. Mother Gaia and Captain Planet will have to suffice.

5. Man is his own god – It is an unbelievable arrogance that allows those who believe in “Climate Change” to proclaim that man can lay claim to the Sovereignty of the God of Abraham, by controlling the very weather around us, by recycling plastic bottles, etc.

So, there you go. I wonder how the “Gaia Worshippers” will distract the American Public from the immature, absurd, and corrupt nature of their ongoing National Temper Tantrum over the lost of the 2016 Presidential Election?

Perhaps, they can get the Goreacle to present a showing of “The Day After Tomorrow”, the movie starring Dennis Quaid, which bombed spectacularly at the Box Office, in which the ice was chasing everybody.


Until He Comes,


Surgeon General C. Everett Koop: A Man of Science. A Man of Faith

koopThe finest Surgeon General of the United States in our generation, C. Everett Koopp, passed away this past week.

The following very fair biography is courtesy of msnbc.com (Can you believe it?)

To judge from the reaction on the left, when Ronald Reagan announced his choice for Surgeon General 32 years ago, you would have thought the man he’d chosen had a horn and tail.

C. Everett Koop, who passed away this week at the impressive age of 96, had been the chief of surgery at Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia, where he’d pioneered revolutionary techniques that saved countless infant lives. He was also a committed Christian whose faith and medical work had made him a fervent opponent of abortion. Democrats roared in protest and sent months fighting the nomination. Reagan had been elected with a major assist from the burgeoning Christian Right, and Koop perfectly symbolized the hard-right, almost theocratic direction liberals believed the new president wanted to take the country.

“The nomination” The New York Times declared in one of many editorials condemning Koop’s selection, “is a disservice not only to the Public Health Service and the public itself, but also to Dr. Koop. He is being honored for the most cynical of reasons–not for his medical skills but for his political compatibility.”

But his opponents didn’t really know Koop. And actually, Reagan didn’t either. [ I disagree…but, let’s move on] Because he was also a man of science, and of immense integrity–and when he was finally confirmed in the spring of 1981, Koop set about confounding critics and cheerleaders alike, becoming the most consequential surgeon general in the nation’s history and probably the single most important public health voice of the last three decades.

Smoking was one of his first crusades. The tobacco companies and their powerful allies in Congress denied it, but the evidence was overwhelming: Cigarette smoking was killing Americans in droves. Koop had little official power, but he did have a big platform, and he used it fearlessly–issuing blunt reports on the fatal risks of cigarettes, a landmark warning about the danger of second-hand smoke, and barnstorming the country to urge Americans to change their habits. Jesse Helms–one of the conservatives who’d championed his nomination–turned on him. The governor of North Carolina screamed for his impeachment. It all made Koop’s boss in the White House uncomfortable–but the smoking rate went down.

Then there was AIDS. The earliest reports of the killer virus coincided with the start of Reagan’s presidency, but as the death rate spiked and the mystery deepened, the president and his administration said little and did even less. Except for Dr. Koop, who saw AIDS not as a niche concern of gay men–a constituency much of Reagan’s political base was openly hostile to–but as the public health crisis it was. ”It is time,” Koop said, “to put self-defeating attitudes aside and recognize that we are fighting a disease–not people.” He issued a report that shocked the nation and enraged the right: the AIDS epidemic was only getting worse, Koop said, and while abstinence was the only sure way to stop its spread, the use of condoms by those who opted for sexual activity was essential.

When Reagan asked Koop to study the health risks that abortion posed to women, the surgeon general complied. Ardent abortion foes were hopeful: finally, a way to tilt the abortion debate back in their favor. But Koop did his study and reported back with words that bitterly disappointed the president and his supporters: “I regret, Mr. President, that in spite of a diligent review on the part of many in the Public Health Service and in the private sector, the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women.”

C. Everett Koop left office just as committed to his faith and just as opposed to abortion as he had been when he entered office. But his personal moral views never clouded his judgment, or his commitment to public health. He was–and still is–a model surgeon general and his legacy is a reminder that sometimes the worst thing you can do is to judge a book by its cover.

Of course, I disagree with MSNBC on one point. Dr. Koop’s “personal moral view”, aka his Christian Faith, guided the decisions he made, in all aspects of his life. This article first appeared in the March 6, 1987, issue of Christianity Today. At the time, C. Everett Koop was Surgeon General of the United States.

My mother was 87 when she died of uterine cancer. She was in a coma, during which people actually asked me if I wanted to put her on dialysis. That would have been ridiculous for personal, spiritual, and economic reasons.

I do not believe—and have never taught—that every patient should be kept alive for the longest time possible. Nor have I said every patient has to have the last bit of high-tech heroic treatment available. I do believe in the right of the patient to say, “I have lived my life,” and to choose his or her own treatment. But that question becomes complicated when we consider the decisions people make for others who are not cognitive and have not made their final wishes known.

Right now, I am 70 years old and in excellent health. If my kidneys shut down tomorrow, let’s say, after a severe infection, I don’t know how long I would want to be on dialysis. It would be foolish and a waste of resources for me to have a kidney transplant at my age. I would probably opt to clean up my affairs, say goodbye to my family, and drift out in uremia.

The important point is that my wife and I know exactly how each of us feels about the end of life. This will be crucial if the time comes to make such a decision and I’m not then able to do so.

Of course, all such talk has different connotations for the Christian than for the non-Christian. My wife knows I do not believe in being ushered out of this life with a lethal injection. I want to hang around long enough to be sure my family is taken care of. But after that, I don’t want my life prolonged in great discomfort when it is fruitless.

I don’t look forward to the manner in which I am going to die. But I do not fear death. Indeed, the way in which we face death is a matter of faith. For the Christian, it is not the end.

Thank you, Dr. Koop, for your service to this nation, and your love of God and Country. You will be missed, sir. Godspeed.

Until He Comes,