If it wasn’t for double standards, Democrats wouldn’t have any standards at all.
The people will say and do anything to obtain or hang on to power.
MORE NEWS: Bernie Sanders Upset At Republican Laughter
“COVID-19 vaccines and liberal hypocrisy, Democrats were seeing a much different tune about the safety of Coronavirus vaccines when President Trump was in office, stopping just shy of calling them poison. Oh, but now that Biden occupies the White House, the Democrat hypocrites are doing in about face, practically forcing unvaccinated folks to get the shots. In fact, it was just last month when Joe vowed to send his foot soldiers into neighborhoods across America.” – Natalie J Harp
“Now we need to go to community by community, neighborhood by neighborhood and off times door to door literally knocking on doors to get help to the remaining people protected from the virus.” – Joe Biden
Natalie Harp: Meantime, the liberals are crying foul over the continued criticism of the nation’s so called expert on infectious diseases, the infamous Dr. Anthony Fauci. In fact, one liberal elitist is taking it one step further. Baylor Professor Peter Hotez wants those who questioned Dr. Fauci and other scientists to be charged with hate crimes. Professor Hotez shares his radical beliefs in a paper he published last month, titled mounting anti science aggression in the United States. In it he writes, a band of ultra conservative members of the US Congress, and other public officials with far right leanings, are waging organized and seemingly well coordinated attacks against prominent us biological scientists. The aggression against science and scientists in America arises from three sources, one far right members of the US Congress. Two, the conservative news outlets, and three, a group of thought leaders who provide intellectual underpinnings to fuel the first two elements. Hotez concludes his diatribe with the following statement. For researchers working in the pandemic response to continue to do so effectively., we seek help in halting the aggression. A bill known as the scientific integrity act of 2021, would protect us government scientists from political interference. Still, Another possibility is to extend federal hate crime protections.
Big brother in the thought police will come after you, charging you with hate crimes, if you dare differ in your opinions, Orwell would indeed be pleased. What happened to the First Amendment and free speech in America? Since when did expressing a different point of view constitute a crime? Joining me now representing Florida’s first congressional district, Congressman Matt Gaetz. Mr. Congressman, I’m assuming you would be first on the list to be charged with a hate crime against Dr. Fauci.
Matt Gaetz: Hey if I’m first, maybe you guys at OAN would be second. But I think we need to live in a society where we’re allowed to ask questions, right? Does it make you far right if you are tracking the divergent and oftentimes contradictory statements of some of these people? But it goes to a broader dynamic. First, they want the power to be able to lock us down, change the American way of life do the bidding of Big Pharma in many circumstances, not even just in COVID. And then they want the ability to be able to silence our voice, to be able to limit a legitimate critique. I mean, I think that some of these folks would likely have been right alongside those who threw Galileo in the Gulag. And the scientific process that I’m familiar with the scientific method allows questioning and research and analysis. And I think that that’s really what we need more of in this country.
Natalie Harp: There’s no hypotheses anymore. Science used to be based on asking questions. Now they’re going after the people that are asking the questions.
Matt Gaetz: Well, I mean, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, don’t give a damn about Coronavirus. If they did, they would shut down the illegal immigration that they’re inviting across our southern border. So we have to view this debate not as one about the virus, but one about control. A sad feature of history is that whenever the government gets control to do something to its citizenry, they’re very, very skeptical to ever relinquish. And that’s why it’s really important that we fight back against some of these tyrants, whether they exist at the National Institute of Health or in a local mayor’s office, and we continue to embrace the American way of life. I ultimately believe that if those, if there are people who are medically complicated if it’s the right decision for them and their doctor to get the vaccine, they should, and we shouldn’t judge people for making that choice. But similarly, we shouldn’t deprive just normal access to society. So that’s where I think a lot of the Faucism in politics is going.
Natalie Harp: Well, it’s interesting because they think since they can’t shut people down on social media or they do, people find alternative ways of expressing themselves, that then if they turn it actually into a crime, then people are gonna stop talking. But if you know anything about Americans, we love our freedom. We don’t just shut down or shut up simply because someone tells us to. That didn’t work too well, in 1776.
This piece was written by Zach Heilman on August 7, 2021. It originally appeared in RedVoiceMedia.com and is used by permission.
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Drew Berquist.