How Did Omar's Husband Get $634,000 in Pandemic Bailout Cash? by Daniel Greenfield and Do Masks Cause Infections? By Patrick D Hahn and The End of Movie Theaters, Daniel Greenfield and Lockdown Mania is UN-American | Michelle Malkin and a short clip of John Lennon singing in Hebrew and Rabbi Firer Gets Vaccinated
Yehuda Lave is an author, journalist, psychologist, rabbi, spiritual teacher, and coach, with degrees in business, psychology and Jewish Law. He works with people from all walks of life and helps them in their search for greater happiness, meaning, business advice on saving money, and spiritual engagement.
Rabbi Avraham Elimelech Firer received his COVID-19 vaccine at Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, on Sunday, Dec. 20. His message to the public: Get vaccinated!
Rabbi Firer is the founder of Ezra LeMarpeh, a volunteer organization established in 1979 that provides medical guidance and assistance. He matches sick people with the appropriate hospitals, doctors, and treatments for their illness.
He was awarded the Israel Prize in 1997. He has an Honorary Doctorate from the Weizmann Institute (2002) and an Honorary Doctorate from the University of Haifa (2008).
A 1981 study published in the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England looked at the effects of masks on post-operative wound infections in a forty-bed surgical ward. All kinds of surgeries were performed there: cholecystectomies, gastrectomies, thyroidectomies, bowel resections, prostatectomies, herniorrhaphies, cystoscopies, bronchoscopies, and gastroscopies. No masks were worn in the operating room for the six-month period from March-August 1980.
The number of post-operative wound infections dramatically decreased.
Why did anyone think wearing a warm, moist rag a millimeter away from his or her mouth, for hours at a time, creating the ideal conditions for bacteria to multiply, would be a good thing?
A 2016 Cochrane Collaboration review summarized the results of randomized controlled trials on the effect of masks on post-operative wound infections. The review included only so-called "clean" surgeries (i.e., ones that did not involve organs that contain pathogens such as lungs, gut, genitals, and bladder, and in which it was expected masking might be most likely to make a difference in infection rates), so the 1981 Annals paper was not included. The researchers found no effect of masks on the rate of post-operative wound infections.
And remember all the subjects of these studies were trained medical professionals, wearing masks or respirators specifically designed for the purpose of infection control. These results stand in stark contrast to over a century of received wisdom.
Why might that be so? A 2013 Indian study gives us a hint. The researchers measured the number of bacteria exhaled by operating theater personal just prior to donning masks, and thereafter at 30-, 60-, 90-, 120-, and 150-minute intervals. At the 30-minute mark, the number of bacteria exhaled had dropped dramatically, but then it began to climb, reaching the pre-masking levels by the 120-minute mark and exceeding them at 150 minutes.
Is anyone surprised? Why did anyone think wearing a warm, moist rag a millimeter away from his or her mouth, for hours at a time, creating the ideal conditions for bacteria to multiply, would be a good thing? This is a gigantic, uncontrolled experiment.
Could the staggering death toll of the 1918-1919 Spanish Flu pandemic have been exacerbated, rather than alleviated, by the widespread masking practiced at the time?
The only other time this experiment in mass masking has been tried was during the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918-1919, in which untold millions died. A 2008 study looked at post-mortem tissue samples from fifty-eight autopsies and reviewed 109 autopsies series that described 8,398 individual autopsy investigations from that pandemic.
Histological examination of lung tissue samples as well as pathological and bacteriological findings from the published autopsy reports all revealed that virtually all the subjects died of bacterial—not viral—pneumonia.
The increased fatality rate of the Spanish Flu pandemic could not be chalked up to an increased incidence of influenza, nor to an increased death rate for those afflicted with broncho-pneumonia. The bacterial pneumonia cases were attributed to a wide variety of strains, refuting the notion that the fatality rate was due to some sort of new "super-bug" strain of bacteria. Patients who were not afflicted with bacterial pneumonia usually recovered.
By the way, this study was performed by Anthony Fauci and two of his colleagues at the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases—the same Dr. Fauci who first advised the public not to wear masks, then reversed his advice, and then was spotted ignoring his own advice (and not social distancing) while attending a Major League Baseball game.
Since then, a randomized controlled trial from Denmark showed that masks for the general public had no effect on Covid-19 infection rates. The study did not look at the rate of all respiratory infections. On Friday, October 2, Shepherd School District in central Michigan has canceled face-to-face classes after more than a dozen cases of strep throat were reported among students and staff, "despite Covid-19 protocols." The possibility that these infections were transmitted because of Covid-19 protocols was not considered.
Could the staggering death toll of the 1918-1919 Spanish Flu pandemic have been exacerbated, rather than alleviated, by the widespread masking practiced at the time? And could any of the deaths attributed to Covid-19 in fact be due to bacterial pneumonia caused by mask-wearing? Neither Dr. Fauci nor anyone else in a position to do so seems interested in finding out.
The pandemic lockdowns have crippled and killed countless businesses across entire industries, but some industries will come back and others won't.
Here's one that won't be coming back.
Movie theaters were on their last legs even before the pandemic. Hollywood was cashing in over in China and while the American box office was still big, it was also narrowing. The actual box office revenues were coming from an increasingly narrow group even if you trust the MPAA's cheerleading stats.
Frequent moviegoers, defined as someone who goes to the cinema once a month or more, are always a coveted group. In 2019, there were 11 million such moviegoers in North America who were responsible for 47 percent of all ticket sold.
White people also had some of the lowest per capita attendance. Theater audiences are increasingly Latino and Asian men in their twenties and thirties watching disposable blockbusters.
That was last year. This year it's all past tense.
The theater business had spent generations fighting to keep up the wall between theatrical releases and home viewing. Before Netflix got a chance to crush it, Disney and Warners did, releasing movies through their streaming platforms. The wall is down and it's a lot easier to tear that wall down than to put it back up.
Movie theaters were already financially struggling. Theaters weren't even making money from movie releases as much as from concessions. Now the studios are cutting them out and going directly to audiences using their own platforms.
Combine all that together and we're looking at movie theaters going the way of phone booths. It was going to happen anyway with fewer people connecting in person and more people streaming at home, and Hollywood churning out more disposable blockbusters meant for China, but this has sped up the process.
My own feelings are mixed.
Considering the Chinese ownership or part ownership of some theater chains and the generally toxic products put out by Hollywood, it's hard to mourn the tangible reality of the movie theater, but there was something charming about the existence of the silver screen apart from the business and the politics of it. Like so much of American culture, it's unfortunate that it was corrupted into something ugly, vulgar, and radical. But there's also little to celebrate in the death of another part of the American way of life, especially as it's being replaced by the even more toxic content produced by Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Disney+.
Lockdown Mania is Un-American | Michelle Malkin
'LOCKDOWN MANIA?' Michelle Malkin sounds off on the "petty tyrants" who are mulling over possible new restrictions… - via Michelle Malkin Sovereign Nation, Saturdays at 7PM ET on Newsmax TV
Watch Newsmax TV on Directv 349, Xfinity 1115, Dish 216, Spectrum (see channels), Cox, Optimum, U-Verse 1120, FiOS 615, Suddenlink, CenturyLink 1209, Mediacom 277, Fubo, Sling, WOW!, Armstrong, YouTube live stream, or the Newsmax smartphone APP. Find your cable/streaming provider here: http://nws.mx/tv
A political consulting firm co-owned by Rep. Ilhan Omar's (D., Minn.) husband, Tim Mynett, received more than half-a-million dollars in pandemic bailout cash—even as it was raking in millions from Omar's campaign.
The E Street Group, a D.C.-based company run by Mynett and Will Hailer, received $134,800 in Paycheck Protection Program loans and $500,000 in Economic Injury Disaster loans, new data show. Both funds were established to help small businesses cope with the economic downturn caused by the coronavirus pandemic.
Mynett's firm, whose LinkedIn page says it has between 11 and 50 employees, received the aid as it was being showered with cash from Omar's campaign. Throughout the 2020 election cycle, Omar's campaign steered nearly $3 million to the E Street Group to cover advertisements, consulting, travel expenses, and production costs. It was by far the campaign's largest vendor.
PPP loans were meant to help organizations keep paying their employees. Economic Injury Disaster loans, the bulk of the E Street Group cash, was meant for organizations experiencing, in the SBA's words, a "downturn in revenue".
Specifically, they had to have, "suffered working capital losses due to the coronavirus pandemic, not due to a downturn in the economy or other reasons".
The Free Beacon report appears to document a thriving business swimming in cash from Rep. Omar and other lefties. Beyond that, a baseline question is how exactly a political consultancy would have suffered a downturn in revenue during an election year.
Conventional non-profits who live and die by donations might have, but there's no sign that the cash ever stopped flying to Omar or to E Street Group. Omar raised a ton of money this election cycle and passed a lot of it over to E Street Group.
The EDL loans are supposed to cover "six months of working capital". That would mean E Street Group was going through $1 million a year for working capital, while at the same time was receiving a sizable cash influx from politician campaigns that was far in excess of that.
This represents another angle for those investigating Omar's interesting financial situation.