Archive
Whooping Cough Outbreak In Alabama Spread By Vaccinated Children
The Alabama Department of Public Health has confirmed that an outbreak of pertussis – also known as whooping cough – in the state was caused by children recently vaccinated against the contagious illness.
The number of people with confirmed whooping cough has risen to 19 in an outbreak linked to local schools in Chambers County, where it spread from recently vaccinated to children to adults.
The Alabama Department of Public Health began investigating the outbreak earlier this month after 6 students came down with the highly-contagious illness. All 19 of the infected adults and children in Chambers County with whooping cough received the pertussis vaccination.
AL.com reports: Dr. Karen Landers, assistant state health officer, said the pertussis vaccine is not 100 percent effective. Infants receive several doses during their first year of life, and boosters in early and late childhood. Doctors also recommend pertussis vaccines to pregnant women and unvaccinated adults.
The illness is particularly dangerous for babies younger than 12 months old who have not received the full course of vaccinations. Complications can lead to hospitalization and even death.
However despite the recent outbreak of potentially deadly pertussis caused by the pertussis vaccine, Landers said the best way to protect babies is still to vaccinate them and ensure all adult caretakers have also received vaccinations.
“I would advise any parent – first of all, you want to make sure your child is up-to-date on her vaccines,” Landers said. “We want mothers to be vaccinated during pregnancy. We want children to receive the vaccine on time. Adults that are going to be around infants should make sure they are up to date on their vaccines too.”
[Sweden Bans Mandatory Vaccinations Over ‘Serious Health Concerns’]
Vaccinated patients who become infected with pertussis have less severe illness than those who have not received the shots, Landers said. All the patients identified in the Chambers County outbreak have received treatment from local physicians and are recovering, she said.
Symptoms of pertussis include runny nose, fever and cough. The nickname whooping cough comes from the whooping sound patients make as they try to inhale between violent coughing fits.
Parents who believe their child might be infected with pertussis should contact the child’s doctor about testing.
Twitter Suspends WND For Linking Donna Brazile to Seth Rich Case
Social media giant admits bombshell tweet led to suspension
Twitter suspended WND News for 12 hours for revealing that DNC insider Donna Brazile reportedly panicked over the private investigation into the death of staffer Seth Rich.
The social media giant even admitted WND’s tweet “Bombshell: Donna Brazile warned off private eye on Seth Rich murder” was the reason for the suspension.
“A WND company official confirmed the tweet was deleted per the company’s instructions,” reported WND’s Bob Unruh. “The news story was about a private detective’s revelation that former Democratic National Committee interim chairwoman Donna Brazile was the high-ranking DNC representative who allegedly called police and the Rich family and demanded to know why a private investigator was ‘snooping’ into the case.”
And that’s definitely news: why would Brazile care whether a private detective was looking into the case, as the source claimed?
Interestingly, the tweet apparently didn’t violate any of Twitter’s policies concerning copyright, harassment or spam, meaning that the content of the tweet – the news that Brazile allegedly freaked out over the private investigation into Rich’s murder – was the sole reason for the suspension.
Of course the story will now go more viral than it did before Twitter tried to censor the article.
“Brazile is the high-ranking DNC representative who allegedly called police and the family of murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich and demanded to know why a private investigator was ‘snooping’ into Rich’s death, the private eye revealed to WND on Monday,” the article in question stated.
Brazile made headlines last year when she was caught providing Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton with debate questions before they were asked at a televised CNN town hall so Clinton could prepare her answers ahead of time.
In March, the Rich family hired the private detective, Rod Wheeler, to look into the case, who later said there was information on Rich’s laptop that links him to Wikileaks.
“I have a source inside the police department that has looked at me straight in the eye and said, ‘Rod, we were told to stand down on this case and I can’t share any information with you.’ Now, that is highly unusual for a murder investigation, especially from a police department,” he said.
However, on May 16 the Rich family’s spokesman, Brad Bauman, denied the claim and publicly blasted Wheeler for bringing up Wikileaks.
The family, along with Bauman, sent Wheeler a “cease and desist” letter to force him to stop the investigation.
Interestingly, Bauman manages a “a crisis communications and full service public relations firm,” according to his LinkedIn account, and has deep ties to the Democratic Party leadership.
And, even more interesting, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) was caught on tape threatening the U.S. Capitol Police Chief for holding a laptop as evidence in an investigation into her former technology adviser Imran Awan, a Pakistani IT specialist who was accused of data breaches at the Capitol.
“The laptop in question was used by Awan and was found ‘hidden in an unused crevice of the Rayburn House Office Building,” reported HotAir. “Police seized the laptop believing it could be important to their investigation.”
“Obviously, Wasserman Schultz is claiming the laptop belongs to her and therefore should be returned regardless of who was using it or what information might be on it.”
Does the Democratic leadership bully and control the DC police the same way?
Listen to Katy Perry’s ridiculous response to the Manchester terror attack
Social media mocked pop singer Katy Perry for politicizing the terror attack Monday night in Manchester, England, and using the horrific event to promote a liberal agenda.
“You know I can’t really tell anyone else how they should feel but I just feel devastated,” she said on “The Elvis Duran Show” Tuesday when asked about the attack. “The thing of it is, you know, besides all the weird stuff that goes around on the internet, which is, you know, sometimes a great place, but an absolute you know underbelly mob pit of horribleness, I think that the greatest thing that we can do now is just unite as people, as fan bases, all of it, you know?”
“Cuz I think like, there, like,” she continued, “as much you know, whatever we say behind people’s back, cuz the internet can be a little bit ruthless as far as fan bases go, but I think that the greatest thing we could do is just unite and love on each other, and like, no barriers, no borders, like, we all need to just co-exist.”
Listen to the interview here (relevant portion begins at 3:30 mark):
The Manchester attack appears to be the work of Manchester-born 22-year-old Salman Abedi, a Muslim man of Libyan descent. Police believe Salman Abedi detonated a suicide bomb in the foyer of Manchester Arena on Monday evening as attendees were exiting an Ariana Grande concert. The explosion carried shrapnel, including nails, that ripped into the victims, killing 22 and injuring 59. Authorities are investigating the incident as a terror attack, and the Islamic State has claimed responsibility.
Many took to Twitter to mock the pop music star’s suggestion that borders with no barriers were the answer to solving terrorism in the world.
Perry wasn’t the only one to politicize the terror attack for the sake of a left-wing political agenda. A CNN analyst suggested that perhaps the attack could have been a right-wing cover-up — social media was just as unkind to him as it was to Katy Perry.
Why China’s Slick Strategy to Dominate the South China Sea Is Working
A year ago, there were real fears that contested claims over tiny specks of coral in the South China Sea could spark a war in Southeast Asia involving China, the 10 ASEAN member states and the US. The risks greatly multiplied after a special tribunal convened in The Hague under the Law of the Sea ruled in July 2016 that China’s territorial claims in Philippine waters had no legal basis. What has transpired since then demonstrates the pragmatism of regional states, the limited extent of US influence in Asia, and says a lot about how China intends to wield power.
There was some dangerous brinkmanship in the lead-up to the July ruling. The US and China postured aggressively, using a mixture of rhetoric and sabre-rattling. China showed no sign of backing down from its claims, swiftly building runways and installing weaponry on some of the disputed islands. The US sailed warships and flew aircraft close to some of the islands, claiming the right to conduct freedom of navigation operations.
For ASEAN member states, these belligerent maneuvers were deeply unsettling. Much as China’s militarization of the South China Sea alarms the littoral states, there’s no desire to either pick a fight or choose sides. Nor was there much faith in the Obama administration’s much-touted pivot towards East Asia. The US expected ASEAN to stand up to China and wholeheartedly endorse the Law of the Sea tribunal’s ruling, but some governments were unsure whether the US had their back in case China refused to comply. Instead, under heavy pressure from Beijing, ASEAN blinked and issued a series of watered-down statements—or took no position at all.
Against this volatile background, there was considerable relief when towards the end of 2016 Rodrigo Duterte, the maverick newly elected President of the Philippines, who campaigned on taking a firm stand against China, unexpectedly decided to shelve the ruing and vie for better relations with Beijing.
What happened next was instructive about China’s behaviour towards the region. First, China’s belligerent tone subsided. Next, Chinese officials fanned out across the region, offering bilateral cooperation on maritime security. Then, to everyone’s surprise, Beijing promised progress on a code of conduct for the South China Sea—a quest that’s been languishing for more than a decade.
To some extent, China was lucky. The momentum against Beijing’s claims, spearheaded by the Hague ruling, started flagging as soon as the US election season got underway. One of the considerations driving Manila’s backdown from pressing its legal victory was a sense that Washington was distracted and that there was no certainty that the US would come to the defense of the Philippines, whatever the treaty guarantees. The pivot turned into a U-turn after President Trump took office in January 2017.
All this allowed China to make its own pivot to a more cooperative posture on the South China Sea. Towards the end of 2016, China’s coastguard, which is the most visible presence in disputed waters, offered bilateral agreements to Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines. In early 2017, Chinese Foreign Ministry officials made encouraging noises about completing a framework for the code of conduct.
Sure enough, by the end of April a draft framework of the code finally materialized. The framework is threadbare and doesn’t appear to be binding. The first of its general provisions states that the aim is to provide a ‘rules based framework containing a list of norms to guide the conduct of parties and promote maritime cooperation in the South China Sea’. However, the first item under the heading of ‘Principles’ states that the code is ‘not an instrument to settle territorial disputes or maritime delimitation issues’.
The code essentially preserves the status quo vis-a-vis territorial claims. At best, when completed, it might facilitate practical maritime cooperation and encourage the implementation of existing international agreements for managing incidents at sea. Most observers expect the completion of the code to take years, however.
Meanwhile, China has kept up construction activities in the disputed area of the South China Sea. Its vessels have even appeared in new areas to the east of the Philippines in a major shipping route, particularly for ore-bearing Australian vessels. What has changed is the appetite for challenging Beijing.
The Trump administration has shown little inclination to resume freedom of navigation operations—although this could reflect the vacuum in the chain of command because of the slow appointment of senior positions at the US Defense Department. A series of phone calls President Trump made to ASEAN leaders in late April suggest that Washington is reasserting its interests in Southeast Asia, but for now the main security challenge for the US is further north on the Korean peninsula.
ASEAN remains uncomfortable. Despite the Philippine government’ steering of a final statement that avoided any reference to China’s building activity in the South China Sea at the 28–29 April ASEAN summit in Manila, there was no real consensus on the issue. But the silence of objecting member states suggests that ASEAN has neither the stomach nor the means to challenge China’s strategic advance. Australia has come under pressure from Washington to fill the gap but, with so much trade at stake, Canberra favours a more balanced approach—much like its ASEAN neighbors.
China appears to have sensed an opportunity to modify its hard diplomatic posture, which did considerable damage to its image in the run-up to the Hague ruling. There was a palpable sense of relief in Beijing that constructive cooperation could replace harsh uncompromising rhetoric after President Duterte signaled his back-down from pressing compliance with the legal ruling.
Instead, Beijing swiftly deployed bilateral security engagement and smothered the region with the economic promise of the Belt and Road Initiative. Indonesia found itself being wooed by the Chinese coastguard months after a serious clash between its navy and the coastguard in the Natunas. The Philippines was told its fishermen could return to Scarborough Shoal, although there was no evidence that Chinese vessels were pulling back. Surprised Malaysian maritime law enforcement officials were presented with a draft agreement by their Chinese counterparts after a single meeting.
In sum, Chinese policymakers might well reflect on the year since the Hague ruling and consider the outcome a ‘win–win’. While it seems likely that Beijing’s more cooperative mood will generate modest progress on confidence building measures that will help lower tensions in the South China Sea, the net result is that China’s strategic position in the region has been strengthened and is unlikely to be challenged.
This first appeared in ASPI’s The Strategist here.
Scared Steve Bannon in Saudi Arabia Is the Most Awkward Thing You’ll See This Week
(ANTIMEDIA) Have you stopped to wonder what the most awkward thing in the world was this week? Look no further. It was hands down a scared Steve Bannon surrounded by Sunni Muslims in Saudi Arabia.
We’re revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.
It really makes you wonder what’s going through his head. Breitbart Bannon — who has his finger on the pulse on the alt-right movement, which propelled Trump to his stunning electoral upset last year — seems to be worried about something.
His boss, Donald Trump, previously accused Saudi Arabia of being behind the 9/11 attacks. He called on Hillary Clinton to return the millions of dollars the Saudis gave to the Clinton Foundation, but an Ivanka Trump-inspired women’s fund just hypocritically accepted $100 million from Saudi Arabia and its allies.
Now Bannon, Trump, and company were just in the Arab state literally dancing and holding hands with Saudi princes.
One of the alt-right’s rallying cries is against “radical Islamic terrorism,” a term Trump refused to say while bowing to Saudi royalty. Anyone who has been paying attention knows Saudi Arabia is the main state-sponsor of ISIS. Yet Trump and Bannon were over there selling them a record amount of military arms that will likely wind up in ISIS’ hands and contribute to killing innocent people. It’s even possible they will eventually be used for terror attacks against Westerners. Was Bannon feeling bad about arming Wahhabi terrorists?
Maybe Bannon’s awkwardness comes from the realization that the Trump administration just betrayed its base by curtsying to the Saudi head-choppers. Or maybe he was just constipated, or high on opiates, or had severe social anxiety. Or maybe he’s just never seen a Muslim IRL before. Either way, it was awkward AF — and the three-second clip made for hours of entertainment on Twitter.
CNN Analyst Suggests Manchester Bombing Was A False Flag: “Right-Wing Extremists Have Tried To Frame Islamists For Terrorism”
Mac Slavo
Whenever there is a mass killing of any kind in Europe, every reasonable person jumps to the same conclusion every time. They assume that the attack was committed by a Muslim, and it’s not an outlandish assumption to make. Nine times out of ten they are right.
The media however, often tries to pin it on right-wing extremists. Or at the very least, they’ll try to leave that possibility on the table for as long as they can. They won’t commit to an Islamic terror narrative until the authorities confirm what everyone already knew.
That scenario played out again after the Manchester bombing. Shortly after the Ariana Grande concert was attacked, CNN terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank suggested that the incident could be a false flag perpetrated by right-wing extremists.
“But given the fact that they’re looking into this real possibility, and it is there would appear some evidence that this was a suicide bombing– that certainly takes you down the Islamist terrorist direction,” he continued. “It must also be noted that in recent months in Europe, there have been a number of false flag plots where right-wing extremists have tried frame Islamists for terrorism. We have seen that in Germany in recent weeks. But a suicide bomber does take you down the direction of Islamist terror.”
When you stop to think about it, that theory is incredibly dumb. Right-wing extremists in Europe have no reason to commit a terrorist attack, in an attempt to make Islam look bad. The countless radical Muslims living in Europe right now already do that on a regular basis. For the record, ISIS has since taken responsibility for the Manchester bombing.
This isn’t the first time that a CNN guest has tried to blame a violent incident on conservatives. When a Berkeley protest against Milo Yiannopoulos turned into a riot earlier this year, former Clinton Secretary of Labor and Berkeley professor Robert Reich was quick to suggest that the rioters could be right-wing extremists affiliated with Breitbart.
That too was a pretty dumb theory. Especially when you consider how often conservatives are responsible for mob violence in modern America.
When there’s a riot in our country, it’s almost always safe to assume that it’s being led by far-left extremists. Likewise, whenever there’s a terror attack in Europe, you can bet your bottom dollar that it was committed by a Muslim. That may be uncomfortable for some people to admit to, but facts don’t care about your feelings.
In any case, if the mainstream media was even a little bit responsible, they would hold off the speculation until all of the facts are in. But if they are going to speculate, trying to coyly blame conservatives for riots and terrorism is just plain ignorant. It only makes these media outlets look foolish, and shows the whole world just how biased they really are.
Socialists Never Learn: California’s Universal Health Care Bill Would Double State’s Budget
Daniel Lang
In light of attempts by Trump’s administration to do away with Obamacare, the liberal states in our country are preparing to thumb their noses at him, and create their own socialist healthcare systems. We’re seeing the state legislatures in California and New York working on these single-payer healthcare plans, which the liberals in these states are quite giddy about. This is the kind of medical care that they’ve always wanted, not the watered down socialist medicine provided by Obamacare, which still offers a few token choices. No, they want full blown socialist healthcare, and they’re about to get it.
That is, if they can afford it.
Last month, California’s universal healthcare bill passed a major hurtle, despite the concerns of both Republicans and Democrats in the legislature.
The Senate Health Committee approved the measure on a 5-2 vote after a nearly three-hour hearing, but Democrats and Republicans alike signaled unease with the major question still unanswered in the legislation: how the program would be paid for.
The bill, SB 562, would establish a publicly run healthcare plan that would cover everyone living in California, including those without legal immigration status. The proposal would drastically reduce the role of insurance companies: The state would pay for all medical expenses, including inpatient, outpatient, emergency services, dental, vision, mental health and nursing home care.
But a recent analysis of the bill suggests that it’s going to cost a lot more than most supporters could have ever imagined.
The analysis, released in advance of the proposal’s hearing in a key fiscal committee, fills in what has so far been the biggest unanswered question concerning the plan to dramatically overhaul California’s healthcare coverage.
The analysis found that the proposal would require:
- A total cost of $400 billion per year to cover all healthcare and administrative costs.
- Of that, $200 billion of existing federal, state and local funds could be repurposed to go toward the single-payer system.
- The additional $200 billion would need to be raised from new taxes.
In case you’re not familiar with California’s annual budget, it currently rests at $170.9 billion, and is expected to rise another $9 billion later this year. So this bill would more than double California’s budget. If the money that employers currently spend on health insurance were siphoned off to pay for this healthcare monstrosity, the state would still need to increase taxes to cover an additional $100 billion.
And California isn’t alone. In every state where this has been attempted, the potential costs have been mind boggling.
If this sounds familiar, that’s because it is. Just last week, we reported on a similar single-payer proposal in New York State, which would require doubling (and possibly quadrupling, depending on which projection you believe) the state’s tax burden. Vermont’s attempt to implement a single-payer health care system collapsed in 2014 because the costs were too high. Colorado voters rejected a proposed single-payer system in 2016 when faced with the prospect of increasing payroll taxes by 10 percent to meet the estimated $25 billion annual price tag.
Ever since Trump was elected, liberals have been braying on about how awful Republicans are for wanting to get rid of Obamacare, even though so far they’re still trying to replace it with something comparable, much to the dismay of their supporters. They act like conservatives are evil monsters, worthy of punishment, for wanting to abandon socialized healthcare. But when they try to pull off socialized medicine in their own states, they’re gobsmacked by the costs.
I’d suggest that these Bernie supporting burnouts think things through before they waste our time with these proposals. But then again, if they were capable of foresight and critical thinking, they wouldn’t be socialists.
Please Support our work
