Trump Confirms He Spoke With ‘Great Gentleman’ Tommy Tuberville, Projects Optimism About January 6 Challenge

“I spoke to a great gentleman, Tommy Tuberville, last night, and he was so excited. He said, 'You made me the most popular politician in the United States'"

President Donald Trump confirmed this week that he has spoken via telephone with Alabama Sen.-elect Tommy Tuberville, and appeared to be feeling optimistic about Tuberville’s willingness to contest the electoral college results of the 2020 election on Jan. 6.

“I spoke to a great gentleman, Tommy Tuberville, last night, and he was so excited. He said, ‘You made me the most popular politician in the United States,'” Trump stated during an appearance on New York Radio station 770 WABC. “He said, ‘I can’t believe it.’ He’s great. Great senator.”

Tuberville had previously stated that he would “fight hard” for President Trump, as reported last week by National File:

In a video edited together by a left-wing activist on Twitter, Tuberville said “They’re going to steal it” in reference to the Senate runoff election in Georgia. He also showed support for President Donald Trump’s claims of a rigged election, noting “It’s impossible, it’s impossible what happened” in reference to Joe Biden’s purported victory.

“We’re going to get that all corrected,” Tuberville promised. “Don’t give up on [Trump].”

When asked to elaborate later on what “tricks up your sleeve” Senate Republicans may have to help with contesting the election, Tuberville stated, “Well, you see what’s coming. You’ve been reading about it in the House, we’re going to have to do it in the Senate.”

“We’re going to fight hard,” Tuberville promised.

Tuberville appeared to waffle after those remarks went viral, however, telling Yellowhammer News last week, “They asked me, ‘Are you going to support President Trump?’ And, of course, I’m always going to support President Trump. He’s the best president of my lifetime and has done more for the people of this country and the state of Alabama than anybody. But we want to make sure we do the right thing.”

If Tuberville does choose to contest the election on Jan. 6, he would join a coalition of Republican representatives who have made the pledge to contest on behalf of President Trump, led by Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL).

Republican Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have all indicated that they will not support the President on Jan. 6.

https://nationalfile.com/trump-confirms-he-spoke-with-great-gentleman-tommy-tuberville-projects-optimism-about-january-6-challenge/

Lockdowns Do Not Control the Coronavirus: The Evidence

The use of universal lockdowns in the event of the appearance of a new pathogen has no precedent. It has been a science experiment in real time, with most of the human population used as lab rats. The costs are legion.

The question is whether lockdowns worked to control the virus in a way that is scientifically verifiable. Based on the following studies, the answer is no and for a variety of reasons: bad data, no correlations, no causal demonstration, anomalous exceptions, and so on. There is no relationship between lockdowns (or whatever else people want to call them to mask their true nature) and virus control.

Perhaps this is a shocking revelation, given that universal social and economic controls are becoming the new orthodoxy. In a saner world, the burden of proof really should belong to the lockdowners, since it is they who overthrew 100 years of public-health wisdom and replaced it with an untested, top-down imposition on freedom and human rights. They never accepted that burden. They took it as axiomatic that a virus could be intimidated and frightened by credentials, edicts, speeches, and masked gendarmes.

The pro-lockdown evidence is shockingly thin, and based largely on comparing real-world outcomes against dire computer-generated forecasts derived from empirically untested models, and then merely positing that stringencies and “nonpharmaceutical interventions” account for the difference between the fictionalized vs. the real outcome. The anti-lockdown studies, on the other hand, are evidence-based, robust, and thorough, grappling with the data we have (with all its flaws) and looking at the results in light of controls on the population.

Much of the following list has been put together by data engineer Ivor Cummins, who has waged a year-long educational effort to upend intellectual support for lockdowns. AIER has added its own and the summaries. The upshot is that the virus is going to do as viruses do, same as always in the history of infectious disease. We have extremely limited control over them, and that which we do have is bound up with time and place. Fear, panic, and coercion are not ideal strategies for managing viruses. Intelligence and medical therapeutics fare much better.

(These studies are focused only on lockdown and their relationship to virus control. They do not get into the myriad associated issues that have vexed the world such as mask mandates, PCR-testing issues, death misclassification problem, or any particular issues associated with travel restrictions, restaurant closures, and hundreds of other particulars about which whole libraries will be written in the future.)

1. “A country level analysis measuring the impact of government actions, country preparedness and socioeconomic factors on COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes” by Rabail Chaudhry, George Dranitsaris, Talha Mubashir, Justyna Bartoszko, Sheila Riazi. EClinicalMedicine 25 (2020) 100464. “[F]ull lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.”

More

https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-coronavirus-the-evidence/