3 States Account for 42 Percent of All COVID-19 Deaths in America. Why?

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

Despite the recent coronavirus surge in southern states, three states—New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts—account for about 42 percent of COVID-19 deaths in America. Why?

In a recent article in The Atlantic, Thomas Chatterton Williams decried America’s handling of the coronavirus.

The words “utter disaster” are used, and Williams, an expatriate, contrasts America’s response to that of France, where he currently lives.

“As Donald Trump’s America continues to shatter records for daily infections, France, like most other developed nations and even some undeveloped ones, seems to have beat back the virus,” Williams writes.

To be sure, the US response to the coronavirus was far from perfect (more on that later). But the article shows one of the challenges with this pandemic: even as more data is acquired, the picture doesn’t always get clearer.

In some ways, COVID-19 data are like a Rorschach blot from which writers, politicians, and experts can glean whatever conclusions they wish to find. Take Sweden, where daily COVID-19 deaths recently reached zero.

According to Newsweek editorial director Hank Gilman, Sweden’s “lighter touch” approach was a failure because seven times as many people died there than in neighboring Scandnavian countries such as Finland and Norway. He is not alone in the assessment.

On the other hand, Sweden suffered far fewer deaths per capita than several European neighbors that instituted strict lockdowns—including Belgium, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom—and has avoided some of the economic fallout other nations have endured. Unlike other countries, its currency is growing stronger.

Indeed, Sweden’s death rate is remarkably close to that of France, which Williams praised as a model in contrast to the “utter disaster” in the US. However, the US actually has a lower per capita death rate than both Sweden and France—at least for now. (While it’s true COVID cases are on the rise again in the US, deaths recently reached three-month lows.)

This raises questions about how we measure success in the age of COVID-19. While most attention is being paid to rising case numbers, death tolls would seem to be the most important metric. While US deaths per capita (401/1M) put the country among the ten highest in the world—ahead of France and Sweden, but just below the Netherlands—those numbers also don’t tell the entire story.

Few may have noticed that 42 percent of all COVID deaths in the US come from just three states—New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts. These three states account for nearly 56,000 of the nearly 133,000 deaths in the US, even though they represent just 10 percent of the population. If these three states are excluded, the US suddenly finds itself somewhere in between nations such as Luxembourg (176/1M) and Macedonia (166/1M), where some of the better fatality numbers in Europe are found.

Why have New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts suffered so much more than other US states? We don’t yet know the answer to that question, but evidence suggests it could be policy related.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo earlier this year received a great deal of criticism when the state’s policy of prohibiting nursing homes from screening residents for COVID-19 came to light. Cuomo eventually reversed that decision under intense criticism from public health experts and trade group leaders.

This week, the New York State Department of Health issued a report that concluded 6,326 COVID-positive residents were admitted to nursing homes between March 25 and May 8 as a result of the order.

”The data shows that the nursing home residents got COVID from the staff, and presumably, also from those who visited them. Unfortunately, we did not understand the disease early on, we did not realize how widespread it was within our community, and therefore, it was able to be introduced into a vulnerable population,” said New York Health Commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker.

The report, however, also claimed that “most patients admitted to nursing homes from hospitals were no longer contagious when admitted and therefore were not a source of infection … [and] … nursing home quality was not a factor in nursing home fatalities.”

The report cites the high nursing home fatality rates of Massachusetts and New Jersey as additional evidence that New York was not an outlier in nursing home deaths.

“…an examination of fatalities in our neighboring states—despite having populations much smaller than New York’s—illustrates fatalities at these facilities were not a New York-specific phenomenon: Connecticut reports 3,124 deaths in these facilities, New Jersey reports 6,617, and Massachusetts reports 5,115, to New York’s 6,432 fatalities.”

However, it’s worth noting that both New Jersey and Massachusetts had similar policies in place, according to the AARP and other news stories. Moreover, the actual number of nursing home deaths in New York is difficult to know, since New York changed its reporting so that nursing home residents who die of COVID-19 are not counted as a nursing home death if they die at a hospital.

The context of the US numbers matters for several reasons. For one, understanding why New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have suffered so much more from the coronavirus may hold keys to combating the virus.

Secondly, there is currently a great deal of scrutiny on states such as Florida, Texas, and Arizona, which have seen case numbers increase in recent weeks, a spike that began in mid-June after states reopened their economies. The implication is that these states dropped the ball by reopening too soon.

None of these states, however, has a per capita fatality rate that even approaches New Jersey, Massachusetts, or New York. Below are the figures as of July 7.

  • New Jersey: 1,728.7
  • New York: 1,660
  • Massachusetts: 1,189
  • Arizona: 265
  • Florida: 179
  • Texas: 94

Considering these numbers, one would not expect to see a governor from New Jersey, New York, or Massachusetts lecture these other states on their handling of the coronavirus. But that’s exactly what Gov. Cuomo did, claiming his state-ordered lockdown “saved lives” and chastening governors who opened their economies.

“I say to them all look at the numbers,” Cuomo said, referring to leaders in the states seeing rises in COVID-19 cases. “You played politics with this virus, and you lost. You told the people of this state, you told the people of this country, the White House, ‘Don’t worry about it. Go about your business.’”

Cuomo makes no mention of the social costs of the economic lockdowns—mass unemployment, widespread bankruptcy, and surging mental health deterioration, drug abuse, and global poverty. Nor does he mention his state’s catastrophically high COVID death toll.

The extent to which policy decisions are linked to the high fatality rates in these states is still unknown. We’re in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic and still learning about the virus. But that is precisely why lawmakers should exercise caution in their policy prescriptions.

In his 1974 Nobel Prize speech, the economist F.A. Hayek warned against the temptation to use collective action with incomplete knowledge, saying such action would likely cause more harm than good.

“To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm,” Hayek stated. “The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society – a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.”

Hayek saw a world that increasingly seemed to believe central planners could solve any and all social problems. Such a worldview carried the seed of great harm, he believed.

We don’t yet know how this pandemic or economic collapse will end, but some have predicted it shaping up to be a blunder of historic proportions.

“The first half of 2020 will go down in history as the largest nationwide public policy failure since the Great Depression,” the economic historian Phil Magness recently observed. “A part of that failure derives from the largest wide-scale suppression of economic and social liberties in most of our lifetimes, all executed to negligible effect at solving the problem it intended to target.”

If Magness is correct, the crisis, though tragic, may also offer a healthy dose of an elixir Hayek would say humans desperately need: humility.

“The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society,” Hayek concluded in his address.

The lockdowns and the nursing home tragedies show just how destructive and fatal such striving to control society can be.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Colorado City to Mandate Face Masks, Violators Face up to a Year in Jail

The “Old” vs. the “New” Liberalism

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

J.K. Rowling and the Cursed Woman

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

Breaking the transgender spell has cost the author a lot.

Did she impose the Unforgivable Curses? Did she condemn anyone to Azkaban? No; she claimed that a woman should not have forfeited her job for maintaining that men and women are different. And she followed that up by arguing that in fact they are different.

The position J.K. Rowling defended was one which, a few years ago, nearly everyone would have agreed with. In fact, I believe that today also nearly everyone would agree. But a violent and vocal minority not only believe otherwise but viciously attack anyone who disagrees with them. Ms Rowling has been the target of vicious verbal attacks and has even received death threats.

It is sad to see the three principal actors in the Harry Potter stories criticising the author without whom they would not be millionaires. Harry, Hermione and Ron would be ashamed of them.

It is an evident biological and psychological fact that men and women are different; a matter of science and of common sense: they complement each other. This is so obvious that no reasoned case can be made against it: which is why those who oppose it must resort to blind emotion and even physical threats.

Rowling’s statement in defence of her position is moderate and reasonable, yet it has provoked outrage. But the critics have not answered her arguments. Why? Because they can’t.

Through her personal experience and her study of the issues involved she has become deeply concerned about the detrimental effects the trans rights movement is having, and its push to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender.

She points out that there is an explosion of young women wishing to transition, and increasing numbers are taking steps that have permanently altered their bodies and taken away their fertility. In those transitioning “autistic girls are hugely over represented in the numbers”.

Rowling refers to researcher Lisa Littman, who wrote a paper expressing concern about Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, and who “…had dared challenge one of the central tenets of trans activism, which is that a person’s gender identity is innate, like sexual orientation. Nobody, the activists insisted, could ever be persuaded into being trans”.

Littman was “subjected to a tsunami of abuse and a concerted campaign to discredit both her and her work”.

Rowling shows great sympathy for young people who want to transition, partly because of her own experience when young. She suffered severely with OCD, and her father said openly that he would have preferred a son. Had she been born 30 years later she might have tried to transition. “The lure of escaping womanhood would have been huge.”

Noting that we are living through the most misogynistic period she had experienced, she points out that it’s not considered enough for women to be trans allies. “Women must accept and admit that there is no material difference between trans women and themselves.”

That statement expresses the essence of the problem: women are expected to annihilate themselves. Instead of there being two complementary ways of being human, male and female, the trans activists would blur the distinctions and cancel out the distinct qualities of each sex.

This program has dire consequences for both men and women, but holds special dangers for women, as in the insistence that biological men (there’s really no other kind!) be free to use women’s bathrooms and showers.

As Rowling observes: “When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he is a woman – and as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones –then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside”

It should really be no surprise that Rowling takes the stand that she does, for it is in accord with the healthy outlook on human nature implicit in the Harry Potter stories. Women there are portrayed as equal to men, but expressing their humanity in a feminine way. Large families are implicitly defended, as in the Weasley family: seven children with a loving father and mother: a rather poor family but happy.

And when Harry and Ron become romantically interested in girls, it is a healthy attraction.

An underlying theme is the power of a mother’s love, exemplified by Harry’s mother sacrificing her life to save him from the evil Lord Voldemort.

In fact, the theme of a mother’s unique love for her children is manifested when Molly Weasley hurls herself into battle against the formidable Bellatrix Lestrange, in order to defend her daughter Ginny. It is shown too when Narcissa Malfoy, in gratitude to Harry for telling her that her son is alive, lies to Voldemort, thereby risking her own life.

The Potter stories show a contrast between a healthy world and the world of Voldemort and his Death Eaters. And in this vendetta against Joanne Rowling we see something of a parallel. She defends a healthy view of Woman against a sick view that implicitly annihilates Woman.

J.K Rowling deserves support for her courageous stand. And it is good to read in her letter that the overwhelming majority of responses she received were positive, grateful, and supportive.

Professor Dumbledore warned the students at Hogwarts that a time may come “when you have to make a choice between what is right, and what is easy” (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, chapter 37) It is all too easy right now to buckle to a fashionable trend, against all reason.

COLUMN BY

John Young

John Young is a Melbourne based writer on theological, philosophical and social Issues. He is author of several hundred articles and three books: The Natural Economy, Catholic Thinking, and The Scope of… More by John Young

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

UK Perspective on Covid 19 – Subliminal Programming or Propaganda – Where Do We Go From Here?

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

(These are my views as a woman living in England, on how the culture and spirit of my country has changed over 50 years.   Why the country does not feel protected or strong any more, how it has lost, and is losing it values and decency, and how we are daily losing our free speech.)

Propaganda.

Propaganda is information, especially of a biased nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. Propaganda is often associated with the psychological mechanisms of influencing and altering the attitude of a population toward a specific cause, position or political agenda in an effort to form a consensus to a standard set of belief patterns. Propaganda is information that is not impartial and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (perhaps lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information presented.

This week the great British public have been released from their imprisonment, and they have been rewarded by being allowed to partake in the great British pastime of socially boozing together.   Yes, a trip to the local pub has been the long awaited relief that according to mainstream media many millions of citizens have been eagerly waiting for.  Apparently, It was our 4th July, our Super Saturday!

In view of this, TV personality, Dr Hilary also advised local Accident and Emergency units should be on stand-by for an increase in patients on the scale of New Year’s Eve admissions.

As pubs and restaurants once more opened their dusty bolted doors under safe and hygienic distancing measures of course, I drove past some of the most popular inns and restaurants in my area, which is well outside London, but saw little of the eager and long awaiting crowds lining up to get through the doors of the many pubs and restaurants that line our busy main roads and country lanes.  There was not the natural and normal buzz of enjoyment or laughter.  I witnessed a few solitary cars which were sadly socially parked on once empty car parks.     This was also confirmed in other parts of the country.

I wondered if the sobering up from a long three months of being socially distant from others had revealed a reality that only stillness and silence can convey, but I also wondered just how many people were still living under the fear of catching a virus and were more accustomed to their solitary confinement and perceived safety whilst sitting on ‘death watch’?

In contrast, the previous weekend had seen thousands descend onto the beech at Bournemouth in Dorset, reportedly creating widespread havoc with abandoned cars, overcrowding and leaving tons of litter in their wake.

Council leader Vikki Slade said she was “absolutely appalled at the sight of so many people tightly packed on the south coast’s beaches’.  Why was she surprised?

Stay at home, unemployed and employed workers and their families had decided that the predicted heat wave, the fresh air, sun, sand and ocean were just what the doctor really ordered rather than a pint of beer which they can buy at the local supermarket at any time.  It didn’t take a genius to understand that this type of freedom would then overcrowd certain outdoor areas when foreign travel and imposed restrictions elsewhere had been enforced.

It was also reported that there was also a certain rebellion from some of the beachcombers against officials who were trying to maintain some sort of order.

After witnessing crowded demonstrations/demonstrators in London being allowed to freely assemble and then trash statues with very little resistance; a sense of injustice and mistrust might just have been the key motivator in creating the division now being displayed against authority.

From an objective point of view, it is very cruel that innocent people are being expected to adhere to behavioural techniques, which includes continuous fear and injustice, being implemented against them, only to be ‘chastised’ by the very creators of such confusion and chaos.  A psychologist might call this the actions of narcissist parenting.

One of the saddest expectations is the muzzling of adults and children when there is no sufficient evidence to prove that mask wearing prevents a person catching a virus especially in situations where a mask might not be needed.   This adds to the isolation and the separation which is being implemented.  They also remove your identity.

The Naughty Step for Leicester

Elsewhere in the UK, the citizens in the city of Leicester have been put under lockdown again whilst the rest of England enjoys some freedom.   This conveys the message that if we don’t behave elsewhere, we will suffer the same fate once more.  We had better conform.

Emergency legislation was also put in place through government so that the police will have the ability to fine people from £100 to £3,000 for repeat offenders who break the lockdown. The Prime Minister, Boris Johnson has defended the decision to lockdown Leicester because of the spike in new cases of people testing positive for Covid-19.  There has been no such threat against demonstrators who trash statues.   You can watch a report here from the BBC which is biased in that it records only one person being distressed by the lockdown whilst others believe they should comply:

Psychological Warfare and using the virus to implement Communism/Godlessness

The false sense of freedom which citizens are now experiencing is conditional in contrast to the freedom which was once our human rights.  Lockdowns have happened quickly and unexpectedly but the curtailing of freedoms have been systematically happening over a period of many years. Resistance has been silenced.

In order to implement this demise, there has been an eradication of free speech, individualism, family and manhood.  However, authorities have given the impression that it respects free speech (but only to a few) and respects gender (worshipping homosexuality and promoting feminism).   It has also pandered to the over-sensitivities of those who are constantly offended.  Fatherless homes and single parenting have also been actively encouraged.

Many people in these groups have sadly been used to further the agenda of Communism which may soon become a One World Order of control.  It is a system of godlessness and the majority of church leaders have said or done nothing about it but meekly conformed to the godless system.

Communism, which has at its core Atheism, also has to eradicate any trace of history, including Christianity, which is why it is using a racial issue to stir up hatred.  Rebels without a real cause are also jumping on this bandwagon in order to demonstrate against the oppression they inwardly feel.

Instead of uniting us in a fight against Communism; social distancing and the separation of races is keeping us isolated and distracted whilst giving us the impression we are all still fighting the ‘virus’ together.

Entrepreneurship and individuals have also been severely penalized during lockdowns.   To deliver a message that only ‘essential’ or ‘key’ workers may go to work conveys a message that you are of no importance unless they say so. That is also the message of Communism.

Whoever would want a community to know that they have no father, no independent authority to look up to other than their leadership, we can look to China as an example who have recently shut down 48 state registered churches between 18 and 30 April.

According to Bitter Winter who are a religious liberty and human rights magazine, religious items have been stripped from churches in Yugan county and replaced with images of President Xi Jinping and Mao Zedong.  The ongoing crackdown is part of a five year plan announced in 2018 to ‘reinterpret’ Christianity. Bitter Winter have reported hundreds of state sanctioned churches have been closed, pastors arrested and imprisoned and surveillance cameras installed.

In Beijing, a famous Islamic street in the Miyun district, two structures with domes and stars and crescents were forcibly demolished and domes are being removed across the country.

It is also reported that hundreds of policemen were sent to demolish Buddhist temples.

In case the UK should think this could never happen here because we value our heritage too much, consider the ease we have given up our freedoms and the ease in which the recent recommendation to close churches became an order issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury.   It is only today, the 5th July, that churches have been allowed to open with a maximum capacity of 30 people and strictly no singing.  Consider how there is some agreement taking place in the removal of statues and monuments.

St Peter’s Church!

A strong Christian Church would never allow Communism to reign, but an infiltration of the church by non believers who have been put in high places has enabled the church to become weak, compromising and subservient, and this has been the plan that Communism and a One World Religion has had all along, to destroy Christian values and moral principles upon which many western countries are built upon, in order to displace it with their own evil agenda.

The photograph I have taken is from the notice board of a church called St. Peters informing parishioners that The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are advising public worship should be suspended until further notice.   The most significant memorial in this church, which visitors especially from the United States are drawn to, is that to Edward Winslow, born in St Peter’s parish in 1595.  He was one of the Pilgrim Fathers who sailed on the Mayflower.   The vestry built onto the church in 1973 is dedicated to his memory.

As much as possible we must talk about this without fear to other people and bring our focus back in line to what freedom is. Sing in the open and sing loud.  Under God’s umbrella freedom can still be found, built upon the foundations of the commandments, and not the laws of man.    They exist to provide good lives.

I believe people are waking up to the psychological manipulation which has been taking place upon them and many are turning back to God and praying.   We look often to the USA where our founding fathers travelled to in an escape from persecution to our relatives who also love the freedom upon which the country was built.

God Bless all the people who have fought for freedom and God Bless our countries.

©All rights reserved.

Is it better for people to mingle and allow them to be infected with COVID-19?

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

There are numerous national, state and local policies that require, and in some cases laws, that require Americans to self-quarantine and for businesses to shut down in order to reduce the spread of the Wuhan Flu also known as COVID-19.

I have now lived thru four pandemics.

According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control they are:

  1. 1957 – 1958 Pandemic (H2N2 virus)
  2. 1968 – Pandemic (H3N2 virus)
  3. 2009 – H1N1 Pandemic (H1N1pdm09 virus)
  4. 2019 – Cronavirus Disease of 2019 (COVID-19 or Wuhan Flu)

This is the first time in my lifetime that Americans have been required to self-quarantine and businesses to shut down.

In my county Sarasota, state of Florida and the United State and World wide as of July 4, 2020:

Cases overview
Sarasota County
Confirmed
1,707
Recovered
–
Deaths
98
Florida
Confirmed
190K
+11,458
Recovered
–
Deaths
3,702
+18
United StatesUnited States
Confirmed
2.89M
+50,445
Recovered
872K
Deaths
132K
+273
WorldwideWorldwide
Confirmed
11.2M
+212K
Recovered
6.03M
Deaths
528K
+5,134
QUESTION: Is it better to allow people to be infected with COVID-19?

There are three categories of COVID-19 infections:

  1. A-symptomatic infections. Those who have the COVID-19 virus but show no symptoms. This group has the antibodies that resist COVID-19.
  2. Symptomatic infections. These are people who are hospitalized and require medical care to recover. Some must be placed in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) before they recover and are released.
  3. Those who die because of COVID-19. This group of people are most likely suffering from other physical anomalies that weaken their bodies auto immune system.

This CDC chart shows the infection rates in America by age:

Age Group Cumulative Rate per 100,000 Population
Overall

102.5
     0-4 years

8.9
     5-17 years

4.0
     18-49 years

62.6

  18-29 years

34.7

  30-39 years

62.5

  40-49 years

98.6
    50-64 years

155.0
    65+ years

306.7

  65-74 years

222.5

  75-84 years

370.1

  85+ years

573.1

The idea is to allow people to become infected means that those infected will most likely recover and have the necessary antibodies to all them to resist COVID-19 and remain healthy.

Why haven’t we shut down America for previous pandemics?

ANSWER: Bad politics and bad science.

Jon Miltimore in an article titled Modelers Were ‘Astronomically Wrong’ in COVID-19 Predictions, Says Leading Epidemiologist—and the World Is Paying the Price reports:

Dr. John Ioannidis became a world-leading scientist by exposing bad science. But the COVID-19 pandemic could prove to be his biggest challenge yet.

In a wide-ranging interview with Greek Reporter published over the weekend, Ioannidis said emerging data support his prediction that lockdowns would have wide-ranging social consequences and that the mathematical models on which the lockdowns were based were horribly flawed.

Ioannidis also said a comprehensive review of the medical literature suggests that COVID-19 is far more widespread than most people realize.

“There are already more than 50 studies that have presented results on how many people in different countries and locations have developed antibodies to the virus,” Ioannidis, a Greek-American physician, told Greek Reporter. “Of course none of these studies are perfect, but cumulatively they provide useful composite evidence. A very crude estimate might suggest that about 150-300 million or more people have already been infected around the world, far more than the 10 million documented cases.”

So, if COVID-19 is far more widely spread then why don’t we stop the lockdown and allow Americans to get back to work?

Dr. Ioannidis stated:

“Major consequences on the economy, society and mental health” have already occurred. I hope they are reversible, and this depends to a large extent on whether we can avoid prolonging the draconian lockdowns and manage to deal with COVID-19 in a smart, precision-risk targeted approach, rather than blindly shutting down everything. Similarly, we have already started to see the consequences of “financial crisis, unrest, and civil strife.” I hope it is not followed by “war and meltdown of the social fabric.” Globally, the lockdown measures have increased the number of people at risk of starvation to 1.1 billion, and they are putting at risk millions of lives, with the potential resurgence of tuberculosis, childhood diseases like measles where vaccination programs are disrupted, and malaria. I hope that policymakers look at the big picture of all the potential problems and not only on the very important, but relatively thin slice of evidence that is COVID-19.”

Under President Trump our hospitals have the necessary equipment and personnel to deal with COVID-19.

Blue States lead the nation in COVID-19 deaths

Jon Miltimore in an article titled Blue States Have Been Hit Much Harder by COVID-19. Why? reports:

Eleven of the 12 states (including the District of Columbia) with the highest COVID-19 fatality rates are traditional blue states. Leading the way, unsurprisingly, is New York, which posted the highest deaths, total (31,346) and per capita (1,611 per 1M).* New Jersey is not far behind New York, however (1,478/1M). These states are followed by Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia. Just one red state—Louisiana, seventh highest with 680/1M—cracked the top twelve.

[ … ]

The question is, why?

After all, blue states tended to have the most stringent lockdowns. Indeed, eight red states—Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming—declined to issue stay-at-home orders at all (though some took less severe measures).

None of these states were among the states hardest hit by COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

As more people mingle more will become infected, however more will survive with the antibodies needed. As more people are tested for COVID-19 we will have more positives results for the virus. Most of those tested positive will recover completely from the virus.

So, is it better to allow people to mingle and get infected or not? This is a personal decision on each American. Government should not be mandating. Rather government should get out of  the way.

If you have symptoms of COVID-19 go to the hospital. If you don’t feel well because you have the flu, or any other notable social diseases, stay home.

©All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Blue States Have Been Hit Much Harder by COVID-19. Why?

Abortionism – Cult of Death

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , , /by

What is “abortionism”? When you search the word “abortionism” on Google, you get a paltry 7,010 results and not a whole lot of substance. Even as I type the term into my word processor, a squiggly red “error” line appears underneath it telling me it’s not a word. Yet, abortionism is very real. It is my purpose today to introduce you to abortionism and raise my warning voice against this evil.

In a brilliant 2014 article for LifeSiteNews, one of the premier sources for pro-life news, Jonathon Van Maren gave us this description of abortionism:

““Abortionism” is essentially a philosophy that raises abortion to a sacred status, above all other democratic principles.

“. . . Abortion’s now-sacred status is symptomatic of something far more sinister: the sweeping success of the Sexual Revolution. So-called “sexual rights” are now considered to be the most important “rights” our society has, and take precedence over all other rights, regardless of how fundamental they are.”

Abortionism is part and parcel of a creed that places sex on an altar. For adherents, sex and self-gratification is a religion. Anything connected with sex, such as “sexual rights” – of which abortion ranks first – is considered sacrosanct. “My body, my choice” has become their mantra. And abortion is their highest sacrament. The deluded parishioners of this death cult view any opposition to abortion-on-demand and the hedonistic culture that necessitates it as an attack on their core beliefs.

This sycophantic assembly of abortion-lovers is oblivious to the fact that they are imitating the cultures of the past which sacrificed precious babies to pagan gods. In my article “Moloch’s Modern Children,” I wrote:

“Abortion is nothing if not child sacrifice. It is perhaps more systematized and sanitized by impersonal medical jargon than its ancient counterpart, but the result is the same – the mass slaughter of infants. Whereas the heathen peoples of the past sacrificed their children to false gods and idols for religious purposes, we sacrifice our children on the altar of political ideology. . . .

“Truly, abortion is modern human sacrifice disguised in medical terminology and deceptively euphemistic language. It is just as grotesque and cruel today as when the heathens did it anciently. . . .

“Abortion is infanticide, plain and simple. It is our modern-day version of public ritual sacrifice. We don’t sacrifice our children to Moloch by making them “pass through the fire” (2 Kings 23:10), but we do sacrifice them in murder facilities known as abortion clinics. We don’t burn them to death, but we do rip their little skulls apart and suck out their brains, inject them with fatal chemicals, snip their spinal cord, leave them in freezers to die, or cut them apart while still alive in order to harvest their organs. How are we any different than the pagan peoples of the past? If anything, we are worse because we deny that our actions are wrong and turn a blind eye to the gruesome ways in which our children are butchered.”

Like the Hebrews of the past in their times of wickedness, modern peoples sacrifice their children to false gods – whether those gods be ideologies, political parties, or religious beliefs. Though we don’t usually burn our children to death before a chanting crowd, we nevertheless butcher them – and then feminists and LGBT maniacs clamor for this “right” in mass protests. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Al Lemmo, a self-declared “pro-life activist” and current Republican congressional candidate running against the radical socialist feminist Muslim Rashida Tlaib, has written some of the most scathing rebukes of abortionism you can find on the net. Lemmo defined abortionism as an “idolatrous cult . . . based in a philosophy of human self-worship.” He further observed:

“Its standard practices are three “abortions”:

“1) The Theological Abortion of the authority of God to grant us our human rights . . . This act of idolatry is at the heart of all sin. It can also be described as idolatrous worship of the human intellect as competent to choose criteria for who deserves the recognition and protection of the human community as persons under the law. This enables the second abortion, which is…

“2) The Mental Abortion, by which the target population, however defined, is mentally relegated to some subhuman category such that anything can be done to it. This step is essential to overcoming the moral obstacles to committing the most egregious violations of other human beings that all human societies prohibit. Conscience is effectively removed from the picture by this process such that the third and final abortion can be done. This is…

“3) The Physical Abortion of lives or liberties by some form of murder, enslavement, plunder or bodily violation. In the case of prenatal child-slaying it is literally [a] living human sacrifice (abortion rites) to the idols this nation has come to worship (money, power, reputation, convenience, unrestricted sexual expression, etc.).”

The self-worship premise of abortionism brings to mind a statement from the ex-communist Whittaker Chambers. In his exposé Witness, Chambers observed:

“Communism is what happens when, in the name of Mind, men free themselves from God” (Whittaker Chambers, Witness, xxxvii).

As will be discussed later, the plague of abortion – modern human sacrifice – has been promoted most fervently by the Marxists. But in a broader sense, abortionism, hedonism, feminism, and all other selfish, me-centered ideologies, are a result of man’s rejection of God. This amalgam of Devilish philosophies is a complete repudiation of reality and nature. It is a rebellion against the very notion of eternal law and order!

Abortionism is a rejection of God and, with Him, a rejection of moral laws. The creed deifies man – though not unborn humans, apparently. It negates all just laws and the decrees of the Constitution. It abolishes the notion promulgated in the Declaration of Independence that we have certain natural rights from our Creator, such as the right to life. It completely dismisses the basis of Western civilization as incorrect and instead embraces the might-makes-right barbarism of the past.

I cannot emphasize this too strongly. And so at the risk of sounding like a broken record, let me restate these points. As Americans, it is particularly crucial that we understand that abortionism strikes at the heart of everything that made our Republic great and that those who promote it are inherently anti-American. Abortionism is not merely another lifestyle – it is alien and hostile to Americanism. It is incompatible with our traditional culture and societal system. The United States was founded on the idea of eternal law. Our nation’s first law, first creed, and first public declaration proclaims that we are all “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It is to “secure these rights, [that] Governments are instituted among Men.” The U.S. government was brought into being to protect life and all that a free existence entails!

Americanism, at its core, is based on the concept that there is a God, that the universe is governed by immutable laws, that human beings are bound by those laws, and that the primary purpose of individuals forming civil societies and erecting governments is to better secure those rights and defend against those who would destroy them. Abortionists, by default, are at open war with the first of all rights, the right of life, and with our Constitution which guarantees this right. The malicious destruction of innocent human life, therefore, is an attack upon God’s laws, Christian culture, the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Americanist philosophy.

In another editorial, Al Lemmo wrote the following about this vile death cult and further explained why it is incompatible with the American Freedom philosophy, rule of law, and Christian civilization:

“Abortionism is the world’s oldest and most destructive cult. Its central dogma, unchanged through millennia, has held that the fundamental and inalienable rights to life, liberty and property are not rights at all but conditional grants that may be terminated or aborted at any time on the basis of whatever criteria those who have the power to do the aborting choose to recognize. Any portion of the human community may be summarily excluded from recognition and even destroyed based on these criteria. The criteria may include race, color, creed, national origin, class, sex, abilities and birth.

“The Abortionite dogma is totally opposed to that of the originally established “religion” of America which was an inclusive philosophy of unconditional and intrinsic human rights. The only criterion for inclusion was to be a living member of the human species, born or unborn. I choose to call this philosophy “Intrinsicism”. The Abortionite dogma is then an extreme subset of a philosophy that can be called “Extrinsicism”, or the belief that fundamental human rights derive from extrinsic human sources rather than being inherent with each individual.

“The extremism of the Abortionite lies in his willingness to destroy (or abort) the fundamental human rights of those he has refused to grant recognition or personhood. . . .

“Regardless of exclusionary criterion, the central dogma and guiding philosophy of Abortionism – that rights are granted to powerless people by powerful people rather than intrinsic with every individual – remains intact from one sect to the next. The reverence for power, especially the power to decide whose lives and liberties may be destroyed, has always been the common thread among all Abortionites. . . .

“The first objective of any Abortionite campaign has been to breach the wall of separation between freedom and oppression (or civilization and barbarianism) which is the philosophical foundation of a free or civilized society. This wall is the philosophy of Intrinsicism. Once the wall is breached by compromising the integrity of the philosophy that protects life and liberty, all the criteria of the various Abortionite sects then compete on an equal basis because they are justified in principle.

“Abortionism is humanity’s original false religion . . . Eternal vigilance is the price of keeping Abortionism in check, yet it has such an amazing capacity to evade detection, mutate and adapt itself to any culture, that it has continued to plague humanity, even infecting a society as dedicated to human rights as our own in epidemic proportions.”

We can debate some of Lemmo’s definitions perhaps, but there is no debating the fact that the death cult of abortionism is hostile to everything America has traditionally stood for – Faith, Families, and Freedom. It is inimical to the rights declared in our founding documents. It is antithetical to the Christian norms that have undergirded our society for centuries. It is an offensive, perverse, murderous ideology born in and suckled on blood. The voices of millions of infants cry out to the God who gave them life against this ritualized slaughter.

The Lord anciently said “all they that hate me love death” (Proverbs 8:36). It is an eternally true proverb. Those in rebellion against the Lord’s laws in our day are part of a massive death cult. Communism is the ultimate murder cult and all those who support and tolerate the socialist/communist ideology – which advocates abortion as a “human right” – hate the Lord and love death.

In 1971, the great religious leader Spencer W. Kimball took to the pulpit to admonish society for adopting hedonistic practices. He spoke of the lax sexual norms that lead to ideologies like abortionism and how these trends destroy families and will eventually upend our entire society. He stated:

“Men and women are “lovers of their own selves.” They boast in their accomplishment. They curse. They blaspheme. Another sin is disobedience of children to parents and parents’ disobedience to law. Many are without the natural affection, which seems to be eroding family life as they seek to satisfy their own selfish wants.

“There are said to be millions of perverts who have relinquished their natural affection and bypassed courtship and normal marriage relationships. This practice is spreading like a prairie fire and changing our world. They are without “natural affection” for God, for spouses, and even for children.

“Paul speaks of continence—a word almost forgotten by our world. Still in the dictionary, it means self-restraint, in sexual activities especially. Many good people, being influenced by the bold spirit of the times, are now seeking surgery for the wife or the husband so they may avoid pregnancies and comply with the strident voice demanding a reduction of children. It was never easy to bear and rear children, but easy things do not make for growth and development. But loud, blatant voices today shout “fewer children” and offer the Pill, drugs, surgery, and even ugly abortion to accomplish that. Strange, the proponents of depopulating the world seem never to have thought of continence!

“Libraries are loaded with books with shocking pictures, showing people how to totally satisfy their animal natures, but few books are found on the self-control of continence. With a theory that “life is for sex,” every imagination of the minds of men devises ways to more completely get what they call “sexual fulfillment,” which they demand at the expense of all else—family, home, eternal life. There should be from press and lecture platform and pulpit deep and resounding voices urging man to rise above the carnal and rest his mind on things clean and sacred” (President Spencer W. Kimball, “Voices of the Past, of the Present, of the Future,” General Conference, April, 1971).

Yes, society is wrapped up in self-love to the detriment of everything holy and good. People want the benefits of sex without marriage, of intimacy without responsibility, and of pleasure without “burdens” like children. They use devices, pills, and procedures to ensure that they won’t fulfill the highest purpose of sexual intimacy – having children. But of course they’ll happily receive the sexual benefits formerly reserved for marriage! They are so self-absorbed and care only about themselves and their own convenience and pleasure to such an extreme degree that they’re willing to murder their offspring.

Let’s make no bones about it. Abortion is infanticide! It is de facto murder. It is the premeditated destruction of another human being – a little child with fingers, eyes, and a heartbeat. Mortal life begins at conception. In spite of all the propaganda to the contrary, science has conclusively proven this to be the case. With this in mind, we can positively state that elective abortion – which accounts for 99% of all abortions whereas exceptions for rape victims account for less than one percent of procedures – is the willing, deliberate, and unnecessary taking of life and has no place in a free and ordered society.

Feminists and their ilk say “my body, my choice.” But this is not true. It is such an intellectually flimsy argument that every honest person can see through it. In a 2008 sermon, the world-renowned heart surgeon and current president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Russell M. Nelson, spoke of abortion and the “my body, my choice” myth. He said:

“This war called abortion is a war on the defenseless and the voiceless. It is a war on the unborn. This war is being waged globally. Ironically, civilized societies that have generally placed safeguards on human life have now passed laws that sanction this practice. . . .

“. . . Most abortions are performed on demand to deal with unwanted pregnancies. These abortions are simply a form of birth control.

“Elective abortion has been legalized in many countries on the premise that a woman is free to choose what she does with her own body. To an extent this is true for each of us, male or female. We are free to think. We are free to plan. And we are free to do. But once an action has been taken, we are never free from its consequences. . . .

“Yes, a woman is free to choose what she will do with her body. Whether her choice leads to an astronaut’s mission or to a baby, her choice to begin the journey binds her to the consequences of that choice. She cannot “unchoose.”

“When the controversies about abortion are debated, “individual right of choice” is invoked as though it were the one supreme virtue. That could only be true if but one person were involved. The rights of any one individual do not allow the rights of another individual to be abused. In or out of marriage, abortion is not solely an individual matter. Terminating the life of a developing baby involves two individuals with separate bodies, brains, and hearts. A woman’s choice for her own body does not include the right to deprive her baby of life—and a lifetime of choices that her child would make. . . .

“Life is precious! No one can cuddle an innocent infant, look into those beautiful eyes, feel the little fingers, and kiss that baby’s cheek without a deepening reverence for life and for our Creator. Life comes from life. It is no accident. It is a gift from God. Innocent life is not sent by Him to be destroyed. It is given by Him and is naturally to be taken by Him alone” (President Russell M. Nelson, “Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless,” General Conference, October, 2008).

Life is precious, indeed! Babies are cherished gems trusted into our care. A baby is a “reward” from our Father in Heaven (Psalm 127:3-5). No one has a right to snuff out an innocent life – and especially not for mere convenience sake. No one has a right to destroy another body while erroneously claiming it is their own body. No one has a right to deny nature or escape the consequences of their choices – including the beautiful gift that is a human child. And no unrepentant soul will escape the harsh judgment reserved for those who destroy innocent children.

Yet, despite these seminal truths, the selfish mindset of abortionism is spreading. It is so bad that some spiritually sick women are now getting pregnant just so they can abort their babies in what is nothing more than ritual murder! Despite recent pro-life legal victories, our culture is becoming continuously saturated with the death cult mentality. Life is little valued. The weakest among us are scarcely protected. And far too many otherwise good people are silent, thus becoming complicit in the criminality.

No civilized society, no society that is just, no society that values the rule of law, can allow abortion. It is a plague like slavery. As slavery did, it is tearing our society apart. And what Thomas Jefferson said of slavery applies to abortion:

“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever” (Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII).

I tremble for America when I think that since the infamous Roe v. Wade decision – an affront to the Bill of Rights’ guarantee of the right of life – over 70 million innocent, defenseless infants have been slaughtered. For context, this is a higher death toll than that accrued at the hands of the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union! It is many times more than all the deaths of American service men in all of our nation’s wars combined! How truly sad it is that more Americans have been killed by their own mothers than at the hands of all our enemies!

One final point should be discussed. Perhaps my readers tire of me mentioning the communists, but out of fidelity to truth, I must do so. In modern times, abortion has been popularized and normalized by the Marxists. Yes, the feminists have been at the forefront of promoting this infanticide as a woman’s “right,” but feminism itself is only part of cultural Marxism and the leading feminists were usually card-carrying members of the Communist Party (and, frequently, anti-Christian Jews). The LGBT movement which also promotes hedonism and abortion was started by a homosexual man named Harry Hay who was, you guessed it, also a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA (he originally married a fellow communist Jewess before divorcing her to pursue his homosexual fantasies). And the Soviet Union was the first nation to legalize abortion-on-demand (as well as no-fault divorce). All of this was introduced to fulfill The Communist Manifesto’s dream of “abolishing the family” and subverting Christian society to make way for global domination by the Marxist state.

It should be startling to Americans do know that we are following in the footsteps of the Soviet Union and adopting the avowed principles of Marxism – the world’s most murderous ideology. Not only did communism slaughter between 100-150 million people in Russia and China alone, but it has the blood of dozens of millions more on its hands through the wars its has started and the practice of abortion is popularized. I sincerely believe we will never win our fight against abortionism as an emerging religion if we do not identify it as a branch of the communism conspiracy. And we will never win that fight unless we acknowledge that communism is Satanism and that Satan is a real being who leads the forces of darkness in the fight against the Son of God. If we are to throw off the shroud of darkness that hangs over us, we must do so with the light of Christ – for only light expels darkness.

We battle, as Paul said, “against powers, against the rulers darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Ephesians 6:12). What wickedness could be greater than the deliberate mass slaughter of infants? What can be called “darkness” if not the genocide of unborn children being perpetrated in abortion clinics worldwide? What, if not abortionism’s assault on life, can possibly rouse us to stand up in defense of our God-given rights?

We have an option as a society. We can stand up and say, “No more” to those who advocate killing the next generation of Americans or we can continue to allow the slaughter of our infants until the act of killing for convenience so saturates our culture that we begin killing the elderly, the diseased, and others we think encumber our lives. Don’t fool yourself – history cries out that this is exactly where this genocidal road leads.

And so, what will you do? Will you sit silently, making yourself an accessory to this great crime of infant slaughter? Or will you exercise all your avenues for speaking out, swaying minds, and warning your neighbor? And what of President Trump? What is he doing? Does he not understand that when he swore his oath to uphold the Constitution that he also swore to protect our rights, including our right to life, regardless of what a rogue Supreme Court said nearly fifty years ago? Do we, as a People, not understand that Roe v. Wade was an unconstitutional, and, thus, void, opinion by an activist court that abused its authority? Do we, the American People, not understand that no ruling, no law, no decree from any leader is valid and enforceable unless it conforms to the Constitution – a document which defends life? Or do we simply not have the courage to hold our elected representatives accountable for fulfilling their oaths?

I make a plea for everyone to reject the scourge of abortion, to combat the cultish dogma of abortionism, and to only support men for office who will take their oaths to the Constitution seriously and defend our God-given rights. Stand firm against the onslaught of popular opinion – for we are on the Lord’s errand in defending His precious sons and daughters. He gives life not to be destroyed, but to be cherished and protected. As Americans, do your duty and rise in defense of those ideals which made ours the greatest nation on the face of the earth. Defend our Faith, Families, and Freedom against the demonic assault of the Marxist abortionists!

©2020 Zack Strong. All rights reserved.

Who pays the coronavirus bill?

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

The wealthiest generation since the Industrial Revolution is sucking up the savings of future income earners to safeguard the value of its assets.

Over 190 countries have taken fiscal or monetary action to mitigate the effects of the coronavirus pandemic, according to the International Monetary Fund.

The US Congress has authorized an additional US$2.8 trillion in government spending, with further appropriations expected. The fresh US spending, all debt funded, comes on top of a $1,022 billion pre-existing budget deficit for 2019. The US$21,216 billion US economy had already been supporting outstanding federal government debt of $23,224 billion at the start of 2020.

Supplementing government initiatives, the US Federal Reserve has dramatically lowered interest rates and committed an unlimited budget for the purchase of financial assets to shore up their value. It already holds $5,886 billion in government and mortgage backed securities. Now, it is moving along the risk curve to buy publicly traded equities and low-grade corporate debt.

The government of the world’s second largest economy has committed an additional RMB3.6 trillion to support economic activity. The Chinese central bank has flagged a boost to its lending by RMB6.0 trillion as well as offering fresh loan support by way of guarantees and rate reductions.

The UK government is committed to spending another £48.7 billion with an undefined amount in loans to support business activity. The normally fiscally conservative Germans are spending another €427 billion and offering €820 billion in loan supports.

Some of the most historically dogged fiscal conservatives are voicing support for spending and loan commitments beyond the dreams of the most wild-eyed socialists.

Fiscal reactions to the pandemic threat have not been especially well planned. Their breathtaking speed has emphasised getting cash out the door. Nor has the longer-term impact on economic performance and future living standards been widely canvassed.

Out the window has gone the now old-fashioned warning that governments, like families, should live within their means.

Central banks, having acquired their independence since the 1980s, have morphed from behind the scenes lenders of last resort to licensed banks into frontline buyers of financial assets. Now, markets throw a tantrum if central banks are not signalling their support regularly and frequently. Central banks are seemingly obligated to assuage the slightest investor anxiety.

The ambivalence of economists towards debt funding has worked against financial discipline. Governments have sprinted to take advantage of their teaching that not all debt is bad. Don’t blame Covid-19. Central governments in advanced economies started 2020 with debt levels already exceeding the dangerously high 100 percent of GDP benchmark.

A simple example can illustrate the reasons for economists’ schizophrenic mindset about deficit spending.

Let’s assume that a country’s GDP of $100 is growing at 5%, comprising real output growth of 3% and inflation of 2%. You can scale that up with as many zeroes as you like. The results will be the same.

Then comes an exogenous shock of some sort, like a pandemic, which causes the government in this example to debt fund expenditure of $100. Let’s say that the interest payable on the debt, also debt funded, is 7%. If nothing else changes, after 25 years, the original debt and ongoing interest liability will have mounted to $543, more than a fivefold increase.

Debt will have risen to 168% of the higher GDP with dimming prospects of repayment unless residents cut back on their spending or find new sources of income. GDP would have more than tripled but 11% of the larger GDP would be committed to debt servicing.

The US government can issue bonds denominated in US dollars. Other countries’ governments, forced to borrow in US dollars, face currency risks. The debt of US dollar borrowers escalates even faster to the extent the value of their currencies declines as investors grow more fearful of a repayment default.

Governments in this predicament are usually forced into harsh spending cuts to keep a lid on the mounting debt burden. Think here about Greece, Italy and Argentina as conspicuous examples of the consequences among more advanced countries.

Let’s say, in our example, that the government spends its borrowings solely on productivity enhancing initiatives like new roads, ports to boost exports, public health services to improve life expectancy and education to raise the technical competence of the workforce. Let’s assume that these measures boost the GDP growth rate from 5% to 7%.

Also, interest rates have plummeted. Today, the US government can borrow for 10 years at around 0.8%. Almost incredibly, German rates are negative. So, let’s drop the assumed debt servicing charge in the example from 7% to 1%.

The economic outcome is radically different with these two changes. GDP is 57% higher. The debt rises to only $128 or 25% of GDP. Rather than 11% of GDP going in interest payments, only 0.3% is being absorbed in debt servicing. Spending on more productivity enhancing measures, social programs or lowered taxes becomes possible.

Done right, debt-funded government spending could greatly enhance future living standards. But here’s the rub. The coronavirus spending splurge is largely bereft of measures to improve long term growth potential. It is focussed, instead, on getting consumers to buy stuff now.

Without more investment, the bill for today’s spending will show up in lowered living standards in the future. Education, health and public welfare service delivery will seem to fall mysteriously short of what was expected as anonymous lenders take a growing chunk of income.

The intergenerational sharing of wealth, largely ignored in advanced economies, has received more attention in resource-rich developing countries which have had to plan for the exhaustion of their mineral or petroleum wealth.

Circumstances have forced governments in resource-rich countries to set aside a part of current revenue from the sale of natural resources to underwrite future provision of government services. Sovereign wealth funds are set up for such a purpose.

A sovereign wealth fund used to manage national savings does not of itself solve the problem. Generally accepted guideposts about what constitutes a fair intergenerational share of well-being are also needed.

Even if debt and savings rules were legislated, opting out of a self-imposed fiscal straight-jacket is tempting when an unanticipated emergency, like a pandemic or a financial crisis, hits.

History has not helped foster fiscal discipline. Warnings over the past 40 or 50 years of impending economic calamity as a result of governments having lived beyond their means have been ignored with little obvious consequence.

The emergence of China as an economic power has especially eased pressures for more conservative budgeting. China’s globally significant savings levels have removed an important fiscal constraint on the rest of the world.

Advanced economy budget deficits, funded by Chinese savings, have fuelled spending on Chinese goods. Propping up that nation’s employment and income base has, in turn, sustained the pool of savings on which Western countries have come to rely for their deficit funding.

Freely flowing capital and unhindered movement of goods have been at the heart of this benign circle of economic life.

Even before the new coronavirus hit, these mutually beneficial trade and financial arrangements were crumbling. Their restoration, at a minimum, would help ease the burden of the newly imposed debt.

If, on the other hand, capital mobility and trade freedom are scaled back, the enormity of recent policy actions will require governments to come up with new ways to mitigate their effects on future living standards. Governments owe that to those involuntarily footing the Covid-19 bill.

COLUMN BY

John Robertson

John A. Robertson is a consulting economist with a background in investment management, corporate strategy and public policy. He writes the weekly ‘From the Capital’ column for London-based Mining… 

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Catholic Priest asks Bishops to Lift Clerical Speech Restrictions

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

PAVONE DEMANDS ACTION

A pro-life priest is begging the United States’ bishops to lift their restrictions on clerical, political speech.

On Thursday, Fr. Frank Pavone wrote an open letter to the U.S. Catholic hierarchy, asking them to either act — or permit the clergy to act — in the upcoming election.

Father Pavone told Church Militant that he and his organization, Priests for Life, have faced a consistent internal roadblock with the bishops, calling their lackluster response to Democrats’ abortion policies “embarrassing” and saying they need to “stop being hamstrung by their attorneys and act according to their own judgments.”

Canon 287, §2 states that clerics shouldn’t have an active part in political parties unless allowed by an ecclesiastical authority for the “defense of the rights of the Church or to promote the common good.”

Specifically regarding the partisan divide on abortion, he claims, “We do not have a division simply on policy, but on principle. Our political divide is not simply about prudential judgments, but about ‘the fundamental rights of man’ and ‘the salvation of souls.'”

Pavone has taken fire in the past for his support of President Trump after becoming a member of the Catholics for Trump advisory board and co-chairing the Trump 2020 campaign’s pro-life coalition.

Pro-life priests are currently banned from telling their parishioners to prefer the Republican Party, though it’s the only major party fighting abortion. And without the bishops’ approval, priests like Fr. Pavone will continue to be hindered in their fight for the unborn.

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Lack Of Constitutional Standing For Interstate Quarantines

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

You can’t order quarantines forever, and at some point a state of medical emergency becomes a new reality.

In an article last updated yesterday, The Wall Street Journal reported that New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut have instituted a mandate requiring travelers from states they designate as “experiencing a surge in COVID-19 cases,” to observe a 14-day quarantine upon arrival.

This mandate that took effect on midnight Wednesday carries with it varying consequences for non-compliance.  In New York, a first-time violation merits a fine of $2,000.00 with subsequent violations earning fines of $5,000.  Higher penalties would be enforced if the non-compliance caused harm.  In Connecticut, there will be no fine, and in New Jersey, the quarantine would take the form of an “advisory.”

There’s one overarching problem with these mandated quarantines.  They’re of questionable constitutional legality.

Following our independence from England, our nation stood as an inept giant. Yes, it was young.  It was also financially broke, but perhaps even more importantly a powerless Congress led it.  Under the Articles of Confederation, our first system of government, the states created a very loose alliance of sovereigns, so loose in fact that they were able to impose harsh restrictions upon each other.  Each state could print its own currency, ignore other states’ currencies, and restricted interstate travel and commerce.  Protectionist laws casting advantages to those citizens living within each state at the expense of their fellow countrymen loomed large, and there was nothing Congress could do about it.  Such divisions could never work, and it is for this very reason that the nation’s leaders convened a Constitutional Convention with the aim of preventing the disintegration and fractionalization of the young confederacy.  Protections against limitations in travel and interstate commerce were chief amongst the corrective measures implemented in the new Republic’s founding document.

Clearly, a state restricting an individual to a certain location for a fortnight simply because he or she is from a targeted state acts in a manner repugnant to interstate commerce and individual travel rights.  The Supreme Court was explicit in this regard when it decided Saenz v. Roe, (1999).  Here, the Court ruled that there are constitutionally prescribed travel protections including “the right of a citizen of one State to enter and to leave another State, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second state, and for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that State.”  Mandatory interstate quarantines violate all three.

It is true that the governments may claim certain latitudes during times of crisis. For example, Congress is given the authority to suspend the privilege of Habeas corpus, “when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require.”  And the states are afforded certain liberties if “actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”  But these contentions do not apply to a pandemic.

President Trump declared a health emergency regarding SARS-CoV-2 on March 11, over 90 days ago.  Since that time, we have been able to establish that there is no imminent exhaustion of our medical supplies.  Despite “surges” in certain states, the nation’s daily new-case rate has flattened. As of this writing, the nation’s daily death rate has not been this low since March 30.  In New York, arguably the state guilty of the nation’s worse COVID-19 mismanagement, there were a mere 742 new cases on June 23, the lowest since March 17, and the daily death rates rival those of March 22.

In the meantime, in Florida, one of those states experiencing a surge, the number of new cases for June 24 was 5,511, but the number of deaths was 45.  And to add to the inconsistency in the data, New York carries a 1,611 death per million rate compared to Florida’s 153, and an active case per million rate of 294,660 compared to Florida’s 84,570.

Adding to the absurdity, Florida presently has a quarantine still in place for visitors from New York similar to the quarantine New York implemented against Floridians on Wednesday, albeit it Florida’s is voluntary one, begging the question just who needs to be protected from whom?

As I explain in my book, Coronalessons, obtrusive interventions such as quarantines, shutdowns, and border closures only work to keep the virus out of a country.  But in America, the virus is already here. In Coronalessons, I also observe the Constitution, miraculous as it may be, is a very fragile document, easily ripped and irreparably destroyed.  The right to freely move from one state to another and engage in interstate commerce is one of the hallmarks of our Constitution. Although it may be appropriate to briefly restrict our interstate travel in the name of safety, morale, health, or welfare, prolonging these restrictions, as we are presently doing, threatens to hurt us much more than it will aid us.

The only real interventions we can take until the development of a vaccine or definitive treatment is for the elderly and the infirm to observe social distancing measures, for all of us to engage in frequent hand-washing, surface sanitation and mask use when in public places.  More aggressive interventions are mere opportunities for governments and people in authority to extend their ambits of power.  It is time for us to end these random and capricious interstate quarantines.

©All rights reserved.

Could Illegal Aliens be Responsible for Jump in Chinese Virus Cases in Border States?

/1 Comment/in , , , , , , /by

Todd Bensman, writing at the Center for Immigration Studies, thinks that is possible.

Mounting Evidence Points to Covid Refugees from Mexico as a Major Factor in Border-State Spikes

Evidence continues to mount that spikes in Covid cases in U.S. border states are due to successive waves of infected people fleeing Mexico’s dysfunctional and overwhelmed hospitals to get American medical care at least as much, if not more than, to the re-opening of those states’ economies.

This matters because officials in border states are beginning to base policy decisions for partial lock-downs on grounds that lifting them is what caused the spikes.

Although the states and hospitals do not release nationality or immigration status information, several Border Patrol agents told the Center for Immigration Studies that, per policy, they have been transporting to U.S. care facilities increasing numbers of illegal Central American border-crossers they apprehend who report Covid-like symptoms, as well as Cubans, Venezuelans, Ecuadorans, and other nationalities.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s media relations office was not able confirm the extent to which that was happening, but did release the following statement regarding Border Patrol hospital runs such as those the agents described.

“CBP has longstanding procedures in place to ensure that the individuals we encounter are able to receive treatment from local health authorities or other medical professionals. All persons in CBP custody who meet the Center for Disease Control’s Covid-19 travel history and enhanced screening guidelines are being referred to the CDC or local health officials for additional screening. CBP takes all necessary precautions to ensure that no communicable diseases are spread across populations in custody.”

Earlier, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal all reported a crush of infected people from Mexico coming over the Arizona and California borders, although the publications say all appear to be American expatriates, dual citizenship holders, and Mexican legal permanent residents.

States appear to be transporting many to interior facilities to keep bed space free on the border as the influx continues, adding to the impression that these imported patients were infected inside the United States due to lifting lock-downs rather than in Mexico, where few social distancing measures were implemented.

The Times and now Reuters have reported that California, for instance, has been airlifting Covid patients from “saturated” border clinics to hospitals in the state’s interior.

Continue reading here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Face Masks: The Radical Leftist Symbol of Submission

/1 Comment/in , , , , , , , /by

Masks have been a part of societies for 9,000 years. The earliest masks were used for rituals and ceremonies. Later, they were used in hunting, feasts, wars, performances, theaters, fashion, sports, movies, and then as protection against medical and occupational hazards. Masks have become symbols for their various functions.

Different masks worn by different people have different motives. A masked bank robber is very different from a masked Halloween trick-or-treater. Masks are coverings that can also disguise messages. So it is with political masks.

The two most controversial political masks in America today are the Muslim niqab and the COVID19 face mask. What do these seemingly disparate face coverings have in common? Both are marketed as protective face coverings with the connotation of safety, both are worn with pride by their adherents, and both disguise a powerful political message of submission. The mask is the message.

Muslim women following supremacist, Islamic religious sharia law are subservient to their fathers, husbands, and brothers no matter where they live in the world, and no matter how protective equal rights laws for women are in the country where they reside. Sharia law does not recognize the authority of the United States Constitution.

Muslim women who embrace sharia law wear their niqabs with pride. They value their submission and, for them, wearing the face-covering is virtue signaling. For most Americans, the face mask worn by Muslim women is a detestable symbol of submission that violates American principles of equality and freedom. It is almost incomprehensible for Americans to understand these Muslim women without understanding that sharia law teaches the supremacy of Islam.

The 1991 Muslim Brotherhood Explanatory Memorandum explains in precise detail the strategic goal for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America. The plan is for settlement not assimilation. Settlement is another word for submission. In its own words:

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

For decades the radical leftist Culture War on America has been attempting to collapse America from within and replace our constitutional republic with socialism. The leftist promise is that destroying free market capitalism and replacing it with socialism will provide social justice and income equality. The radical leftists have common cause with the Islamists to destroy America from within.

The leftists and the Islamists both have established educational wings to propagandize Americans toward their respective ideologies. They both have established violent paramilitary factions in the United States to terrorize the public and impose their ideologies when persuasion and propaganda are not enough. The Islamists have their jihadis and the radical leftists have ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter (BLM); all unapologetic domestic terrorists. Hawk Newsome, the president of the BLM of Greater New York movement, clarified his willingness to use any means necessary in a jaw-dropping June 23, 2020 interview with Fox News Martha MacCallum on “The Story.”

“You said ‘burn it down, it’s time,’” MacCallum told Newsome.

“I said if this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right?” he replied.

The radical 2020 Democrat party platform kneels to both radical leftism and Islamism. Blue state governors, mayors, and local Democrat authorities are exploiting the coronavirus with COVID19 mask mandates to prolong the economic shutdown, prevent an economic recovery, and collapse the U.S. economy in hopes of defeating Trump in November.

Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama’s chief of staff, famously said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” The coronavirus outbreak was a bonanza for the radical left, an economic bioweapon unleashed by the communist Chinese designed to collapse Trump’s roaring economy. Political medicine from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the globalist-infested Center for Disease Control (CDC) has been deliberately exaggerating the threat of COVID19 to create panic and social chaos to destabilize the country in advance of the 2020 election.

The stunning June 19, 2020 article by Patrick Wood in Technocracy News, “The Miserable Pseudo-Science Behind Face Masks, Social Distancing And Contact Tracing,” exposes the entire hoax. Wood begins, “Once upon a time there was something called science. It included the discovery of truth about nature . . . Then certain other scientists and engineers rose up and made a discovery of their own. If true science was ever-so-slightly skewed and engineering principles were applied to society at large, then they could indeed use their ‘knowledge’ to dominate and control other people, groups, entire societies or even, heaven forbid, the entire planet. The first group pursued science. The second group pursued pseudo-science.”

Patrick Wood explains that pseudo-science is the principal domain of technocrats. The fraudulent predictive models that the WHO and the CDC relied on to terrify the public were developed using politically driven data. The acronym GIGO means garbage in garbage out – it describes with precision British scientist Neil Ferguson’s doomsday pandemic model. Ferguson’s Imperial College report predicted that 2.2 million Americans would die from the virus, that hospital beds would be overflowing, and that there would be a critical shortage of ventilators. The report was used by CDC globalists Fauci and Birx to persuade President Trump to shut down the U.S. economy. Ferguson’s model was also used by the radical leftist Democrat site COVID Act Now that posted the disinformation used by local and state officials in the U.S. to issue shelter-in-place mandates.

Ferguson retracted his wildly inaccurate model but the economic damage was done and the political hysteria continues. The equally fraudulent Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) report from University of Washington written by institute director Christopher Murray was used by Fauci and Birx to support more political medicine mandating lockdowns to close businesses, schools, and keep people from their right to assembly. The mitigation measures were not intended to flatten the curve, they were designed to flatten America. IHME is committed to globalism and the United Nations 17 sustainable goals.

Medical science does not warrant any of the wildly exaggerated projections or draconian measures, the pseudo-science of political medicine does.

Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population. What this means is that the pseudo-science of leftist “settled science” is being used to achieve the radical leftist political agenda of fundamentally transforming America. Islamists want to make America Muslim. Leftists want to make America socialist.

The Culture War on America is part of the overriding globalist war on American national sovereignty. The leftist, Islamist, globalist, Chinese communist axis participating in the war on America now has its own symbol disguised as public health – the COVID19 face mask. The mandated face mask represents political medicine disguised as medical science. Leftists wear their face masks with pride because, for them, it is virtue signaling.

For those Americans who value their freedom and individual rights the COVID19 face mask is the symbol of submission to radical leftism. It is almost incomprehensible for Americans to understand the radical leftist commitment to collapsing America without understanding that cultural Marxism teaches the supremacy of radical leftist socialism. A Washington Times article 8.22.2019 written by James Veltmeyer defines the issue.

“Cultural Marxism is the father of the Democratic Party’s identity politics and political correctness. It is the father of transgender insanity and racial polarization. It is the father of open borders and rights for illegal immigrants. And, yes, it is even the father of the anarchy and nihilism that gives rise to mass shooters and to Hollywood movies that portray hunting human beings for sport as ‘entertainment.’”

The enemies of America are exploiting public fear of death and dying for political gain. It is a colossal humanitarian hoax. Mandated masks, mandated social distancing, mandated prolonged business and school closures are sinister efforts to establish a new normal of submission in America. This is how the radical left intends to settle America!

COVID19 face masks are now the symbol of submission in the United States. Leftist Democrat governors, mayors, and local authorities mandating masks are presenting their mandates as altruistic. Joe Biden just announced that he would use his federal powers to force Americans to wear face masks if elected. The COVID19 face masks are radical leftist Democrat pseudo-science and virtue signaling designed for submission.

Say NO to settlement by Islamists. Say NO to settlement by radical leftists. Say NO to settlement by globalists. Say NO to settlement by Chinese communists. Say YES to freedom in our constitutional republic, the United States of America!

Take off your masks America and refuse to submit!

©All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Joe Biden says if elected, he would make masks mandatory

Tell Pornhub and Planned Parenthood that Black Lives Matter

/1 Comment/in , , , , , , , /by

Activists are wasting their time tearing down old statues. Abuse is happening here and now.

Over the last month, global protests have been drawing attention to the unjust treatment of minority communities. As an organisation and as a slogan Black Lives Matter has captured the world’s attention.

In America particularly, police departments are facing serious scrutiny in an effort to root out racial bias and corruption. The Minneapolis Police—whose officers were responsible for George Floyd’s unjust death—is even being disbanded.

Many have suggested an unbroken link between systemic injustice today and the Trans-Atlantic slave trade to which most black Americans trace their roots. But for all the talk about a slavery that was outlawed 150 years ago, there’s an eerie silence about the slavery that continues today.

Pornhub is the world’s largest pornographic website, receiving some 42 billion visits every year. Users can upload their own content and view that of others, resulting in a vast video library of rape, revenge porn, abuse and torture—including that of children.

Several Pornhub-linked kidnapping cases have recently made the news, such as 15-year-old Rose Kalemba. As a result, Pornhub has been forced to remove the offending content. But even after 118 confirmed cases of child abuse, Pornhub itself remains untouched as a sex trafficker’s dream, rewarding the most popular content with monetised ads.

The company recently took to Twitter to polish its halo. It declared, “Pornhub stands in solidarity against racism and social injustice,” and it encouraged followers to donate to anti-racist charities.

But the New York Post has called Pornhub out on its hypocrisy. An article by anti-porn campaigner Laila Mickelwait highlighted recent Pornhub content like a video entitled “I Can’t Breathe” that made use of search tags such as “George Floyd” and “choke-out”.

Mickelwait went on: “Countless other titles on Pornhub feature variations on the N-word and “white master”. Exploited black teens” and “black slave” are suggested search terms deliberately promoted by Pornhub to its users.”

If you would like to tell Pornhub that black lives matter, you can join a million others in signing the Trafficking hub petition. The petition’s goal is to shut down Pornhub and hold its executives accountable for aiding sex trafficking. (Click here to sign the petition).

Planned Parenthood is another corporate giant causing immense harm to minority communities. In fact, if you were on the hunt for a still-thriving organisation to “cancel” for its racist past, you couldn’t find a better candidate.

With unblinking irony, Planned Parenthood also tweeted its self-righteous indignation, saying, “We’re devastated, grieving, and outraged by violence against Black lives.” This, despite the fact that Planned Parenthood kills an estimated 250 unborn black Americans every day.

Planned Parenthood was founded by the racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger, who had ties to the Ku Klux Klan. In a 1939 private letter, Sanger wrote, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” To this day, Planned Parenthood celebrates Sanger as a ‘woman of heroic accomplishments.’

And it continues to carry out her ambitions. The Guttmacher Institute, once Planned Parenthood’s research division, found that African-American women are five times more likely to choose abortion over white women. This data is used by Planned Parenthood with deadly effect.

In 2010, census statistics revealed that almost 80 percent of its surgical abortion clinics were within walking distance of African-American or Hispanic communities. Today, over one-third of Planned Parenthood’s 340,000 abortions are carried out on black babies, even though the black community makes up only 13 percent of America’s population.

As America’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood receives over US$500 million in federal tax dollars. If you would like to take a practical stand against systemic racism and tell Planned Parenthood that black lives matter, you can join 700,000 others in signing Live Action’s petition to defund the abortion giant. (Click here to sign the petition).

There really is no point saying that black lives matter if we don’t actually mean it.

Kurt Mahlburg

Kurt Mahlburg is a teacher and freelance writer, writing for the Canberra Declaration and occasionally the Spectator Australia. He also blogs at kurtmahlburg.blog. More by Kurt Mahlburg.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The challenge of changing a mindset to save Chicago lives

‘My Back Pages’ — Bob Dylan’s protest song about protests

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Gorsuch the Pharisee and Textualist Tomfoolery

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , , /by

The Supreme Court’s recent opinion that the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against “sex” discrimination offers protections for the “LGBT” groups has raised eyebrows and ire. But it’s not surprising: The decision’s author, Justice Neil Gorsuch, long ago made clear that he operates from false premises. One of these is what’s called “textualism,” which is not at all the same as originalism.

Conservatives also err, in my view, in claiming that Gorsuch has “redefined ‘sex.’” In reality, his ruling is instead based on a certain rationalization. Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, while essentially applauding Gorsuch’s lawyer-craft, explained it well.

“As applied to Title VII, the classic 1964 anti-discrimination law, the textualist idea is very simple,” he wrote June 15. “The law prohibits discrimination ‘on the basis of sex.’ To discriminate against somebody because of sexual orientation necessarily entails discriminating on the basis of sex. After all, if you’re discriminating against a man because he is attracted to men, you would not be discriminating against him if he were a woman who is attracted to men.”

“The same is true for transgender status,” he continued. “if [sic] you are discriminating against somebody for identifying with a gender that differs from their biological sex at birth, you are necessarily discriminating on the basis of sex — because you would not be discriminating against the person if they had the opposite biological sex.”

(Note: By this logic, bisexuals wouldn’t be protected because the behavior a person could be fired for — being attracted to both sexes — would be the same for both sexes. Although, some future judge will no doubt spin this, too.)

Now, realize that the above isn’t even necessarily dictated by textualism, the legal theory holding that a law’s application should be based on a plain reading of its text, as opposed to its framers’ original intent or some other guide. After all, there’s a difference between discriminating “on the basis of sex” and on the basis of sexual attraction or “gender identification.”

Consider: If an employer won’t hire anyone with same-sex sexual attraction, there is no “sex discrimination” because he will reject lesbians along with homosexuals (he only might be engaging in sex discrimination if he applied the “no same-sex sexual attraction” prohibition to only one sex).

Not only is the same true of so-called “transgenderism” — an employer could reject all people identifying as the sex they’re not — but there’s another factor: The business owner could simply be rejecting anyone who misrepresents himself.

Some may now respond that a man claiming womanhood really is a woman. But this proposition’s validity is irrelevant. The fact remains that the hypothetical employer is discriminating based on perceived misrepresentation, not sex. This is just as how an employer rejecting someone with “species dysphoria,” who claims to be a ferret, isn’t discriminating based on species, but possibly misrepresentation or concerns about the prospective hire’s mental stability. (Though Gorsuch would no doubt say that such discrimination is okay because the employer wouldn’t hire an actual ferret, either.)

Of course, some will still prefer Gorsuch’s argument. Yet this conflict and confusion merely illustrate how textualism doesn’t live up to its billing. Late Justice Antonin Scalia is known for pushing the theory (one of his great mistakes), which he did because in “his mind, textualism discouraged judges from using interpretation to make the law say something different from what the law actually said,” explained Feldman.

Yet while Scalia would no doubt disapprove of Gorsuch’s textual interpretation, this is yet another example of how there just is no simple formula for preventing judicial activism; a judge lacking intellectual honesty and philosophical soundness can always tendentiously spin a ruling.

This said, Gorsuch’s opinion might not have been rendered if he adhered to the only legitimate legal philosophy: originalism. As Justice Samuel Alito pointed out in his dissent, no one in 1964 even imagined that banning sex discrimination would include prohibitions against “homophobic” or “transphobic” discrimination; in fact, neither of these terms even existed, and “transgender” status hadn’t been conjured up yet.

By the way, Gorsuch essentially admitted as much, writing in his opinion that when “the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.”

Moreover, he also rather haughtily insisted that “the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.”

Now, the contrast between textual tomfoolery and sound judicial theory can be illustrated with a simple analogy: 10-year-old twins Timmy and Oliver and five-year-old Malcolm are siblings. One day mom hears Malcolm crying wretchedly, investigates, and learns that the two older boys had been punching him.

After scolding the twins, the mother warns, “Now, stop hitting Malcolm! If you hit him again and I come in here and find him bawling, you’re gonna’ be in big trouble!”

Yet an hour later Malcolm is crying his eyes out, again. The mother learns that Oliver understood not to hurt his kid brother and that Timmy is the culprit. Instead of being contrite, however, Timmy says, “Mommy, you said not to hit Malcolm; you didn’t say anything about not choking him and twisting his arm…and that’s all I did!”

Then too-clever-by-half Timmy adds, “The limits of your imagination, mommy, are no reason to ignore your rule’s demands. Only what you said matters — and I’m entitled to the rule’s benefits!”

In the above analogy, Oliver is the originalist, understanding and accepting his mother’s command’s spirit. Timmy is the textualist, doing things not expressly forbidden by her rule’s language even while knowing it contravenes her intent.

The problem with this “philosophy” is that insofar as you don’t consider what was intended, you increase the chances of experiencing the unintended. Gorsuch’s approach is every bit as maddening as Timmy’s (because it’s the same), as it places an unrealistic burden on legislators. If their laws are to meet Gorsuch’s textualist standard for being applied as intended, the legislators must have godlike capabilities: They must see into the future so they can craft language covering every social innovation, bizarre fashion or collective insanity that may eventually, one day, manifest itself.

So it’s bad enough we have the “law of unintended consequences.” Now we have textualists turning the law of unintended consequences into a legal philosophy and legislating it from the bench.

I don’t know Gorsuch personally, but he wouldn’t be a very pleasant person to associate with if he were a Timmy the Textualist in everyday life. Would you thus conduct yourself, parsing every friend’s words to seek a loophole and essentially punishing him for not being a seer who speaks like Mr. Spock? You’d have few friends and deserve none.

Interestingly, Gorsuch and his fellow travelers aren’t the first textualists. Two-thousand years ago they were called Pharisees, a group of pseudo-intellectuals whom Jesus excoriated for following the letter of the law, but ignoring its spirit. It’s tragic that we’re back to that, but convenient for today’s Pharisees.

It is ironic, though, that in order to avoid abiding by the intent of laws from a half century ago, some today are resorting to a mistake from two millennia ago.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab (preferably) or Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

©All rights reserved.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD: ‘Black Lives Matter’ [Video]

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

DETROIT (ChurchMilitant.com) – Planned Parenthood (PP) is the newest vocal supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement, despite the cognitive dissonance involved. The abortion giant has demonstrated no regard for human lives in general and black lives in particular.

At least two Planned Parenthood affiliates in different regions of the country are now publicly backing Black Lives Matter. Yet racial equality and respect for human life — particularly black lives — is exactly what Planned Parenthood is not concerned with, recognizes Stan Guthrie, author, minister, and contributing editor for Breakpoint, a Christian website whose content “cuts through the fog of relativism … with truth and compassion.”

Guthrie speaks for countless thinking people when figuratively scratching his head, he points out the clear hypocrisy.

Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon states:

Black and Brown communities in the United States have suffered murder, violence, trauma and overt and covert racism perpetrated by white people and white-led systems and institutions throughout our country’s entire history. This state-sanctioned violence and murder is not new, but it is intolerable and horrific and must stop. Black lives matter.

Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast says:

The over-policing of black bodies extends far beyond the actions of individual police officers. It is in our workplaces, our schools, our public institutions. It is in our health care system. It is that same policing of black bodies that makes the promise of reproductive freedom unattainable for so many black people in this country.

The first, obvious contradiction is that Planned Parenthood kills preborn babies. That is a prime money-maker for the abortion giant.

According to Planned Parenthood’s most recent annual report for 2018–2019, it committed 345,672 prenatal murders in the United States in fiscal year 2018. That means 1,768 babies every single day. Its approximately 3 million abortions since 2011 is 38% of all surgical abortions committed in the United States.

Black lives: ‘human weeds’ to ‘exterminate’

With regard to race, Planned Parenthood was founded by eugenicist Margaret Sanger.

“Birth control does not mean contraception indiscriminately practiced,” Sanger once said. “It means the release and cultivation of the better elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.”

Who she may have meant by “human weeds” was clarified in a letter of Dec. 10, 1939, to Clarence Gamble. Sanger explained the nature of her organization’s outreach to the African-American community, saying: “The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Sanger also said in her writings that immigrants, the “unfit,” the “delinquent and dependent classes,” and the “feeble-minded” should be controlled, if not weeded out.

Contraception, in her mind, was a great tool for doing so. She said it is a “powerful weapon against national and racial decadence.” Ostensibly, Sanger wanted her Birth Control League, the precursor of Planned Parenthood, to use birth control as a weapon against racial minorities as well as the mentally and physically handicapped.

Black Lives Still Targeted

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood tends to target minorities in impoverished areas of the country. “In 2014, 36% of all abortions were performed on black women, who are just 13% of the female population,” reported Jason Riley of the Wall Street Journal.

According to Illinois Right to Life and the 2010 Census, 79% of the Planned Parenthood surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of minority communities. And this is not without effect. In some cities, such as New York, black abortions outnumber black live births by thousands every year.

This is why groups such as Blacks for Life and BlackGenocide.org have sprung up to defend black babies from the abortion suction machine and black communities from the disproportionate number of babies lost each year due to abortion

As commentators note, Planned Parenthood and Black Lives Matter are certainly strange bedfellows.

RELATED ARTICLE: Vatican Hails BLM as ‘Non-Violent’

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: The Vortex — Take Their Money, Mr. President. Choke ’em off.

/1 Comment/in , , , , , /by

TRANSCRIPT

The whole Washington, D.C. establishment (a.k.a., “the Swamp”) has gone completely in publicly to ensure President Trump does not remain president. General Colin Powell over the weekend added his voice to a growing chorus of Trump-haters within the Swamp to say he will not vote for Trump.

By the way, he added in an interview that he didn’t vote for him in 2016 either: So who cares what he thinks, really? And this is key: The U.S. hierarchy and especially its political arm is an active member of the D.C. Swamp. They have been for decades, and they hate Trump because it’s all being exposed.

It’s high time the Catholic Church in the United States loses its tax-exempt status. There are simply too many crooked shepherds who profit from the deal and who are not using the money they save to fulfill the Church’s mission. Accused homosexual bishops like D.C.’s Wilton Gregory — so gay that in Church circles he’s known as the African Queen — are enemies of Christ and His Church and uncover themselves more and more every day.

Gregory and the entire leadership of the U.S. hierarchy for decades has been fomenting revolution in politics, pretending to care for the poor. They care nothing for the poor, except to mobilize them and use them to keep the Party of Death in power, which in turn keeps giving the bishops money to keep the Swamp filled.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is a very active part of the D.C. Swamp, and that’s why the tax-exempt status needs to go away. You would be hard-pressed to find a more wicked, sinister cabal of liars and thieves — and that’s saying a lot in D.C.

The men who built the USCCB bureaucracy and who now keep it going developed secret pipelines to bring in homosexual men from South America and flood U.S. seminaries. They lied to the faithful, shredded documents, committed perjury, engaged in and/or covered up the rape of thousands of mostly teenage boys and they maintained their control to keep up these moral outrages partially through their tax-exempt status.

The Church as we see it in America today, in the hands of these corrupt shepherds, is little else than a crime syndicate that Donald Trump should break up. Major dioceses and archdioceses are sitting on enormous endowments and not telling the people they continue to soak. For example, the archdiocese of Detroit has an endowment in the hundreds of millions; yet it still applied for and received over $2 million in Wuhan economic-stimulus money.

Even rolling in that much cash, they still laid off a huge portion of staff and are now at the beginning of the most incredible shrinking of a diocese practically on record.

These thieves in miters have stashed away tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars collectively and yet still enjoy a tax-exempt status. For what? These Marxists work to undermine America and replace the nation-state system by ushering in a new world order, complete with its no-borders, globalist, save-the-planet, shrink-the-population, diabolical propaganda.

The latest example of their participation is D.C. Abp. Gregory’s quiet joining-of-forces to help destabilize President Trump by ordering his clergy to show up in cassocks at a protest in Lafayette Park yesterday, and then march on the White House at high noon.

There are a couple of issues here. Gregory hates cassocks, and the word is out in D.C. if you are a priest not to wear one around him, which is a little strange: You’d think he fancies a man in a frock. Second, the “Catholic protest” just happened, by sheer coincidence, out of the blue, to coincide with another leftist protest calling for the president to be deposed.

And the African Queen knows that the sight of priests dressed like priests mingled in with BLM and Antifa types and chanting and fist-pumping would potentially create a firestorm of TV news video as well as headlines like “Catholic Church Wants Trump Ousted.” And headlines like that would be little else than what the Marxist media has become so proficient in: fake news.

Authentic Catholics, as opposed to the ones lobotomized by bishops over the past 50 years, understand the stakes here. So too does Abp. Viganò, who published a letter to Trump saying essentially, “The moment has arrived, Mr. President. It’s good against evil, and you are the one in the Oval Office.”

Viganò also called gay Gregory a “false shepherd.” False shepherds run false churches that they poorly disguise as the true Church. But authentic Catholics can sniff out the smell of sulphur around this putrid lot in a heartbeat. Thousands of black Americans, most of them young men, have been gunned down in urban America — yet not a word about any of them.

Only 2% of black slayings came at the hands of police officers; so even if the police were all defunded, as Minneapolis is now saying it will, what about the other 98% of black Americans being killed? And what about the millions of black Americans who never make it past Planned Parenthood? That’s millions.

Why isn’t Wilton having his priests stampede the White House about all those black lives? Oh, wait — black babies have an ally in Donald Trump, so no need for a riot in cassocks.

Gay Gregory and all his brother Marxist bishops want Trump gone and are spinning the narrative that he’s to blame for all this. Inside operatives told Church Militant that the African Queen became enraged at the Knights of Columbus having invited Trump to the National Shrine and demanded they cooperate with his plan, ordering the local D.C. Knights to e-mail their pro-life list to try and get the troops mobilized to hit the streets.

President Trump, two things, please, for yourself and Catholics who are sick of the bishop tyranny:

  1. Turn off the spigot of funds flowing to the corrupt USCCB
  2. Get the Church’s tax-exempt status cancelled. They engage in politics, not religion.

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Destructive Coronavirus Agenda

/2 Comments/in , , , , , , , /by

Is there an agenda in which Covid-19 has a role?  And if so, what is that agenda?

Let’s discuss the New World Order and Covid-19.  World government, i.e., the New World Order is part and parcel of this virus.  According to Arthur Thompson, CEO of the John Birch Society, “It is a steppingstone to world order.” It definitely fits, and plays into the globalist’s modus operandi.

One of the left’s standard procedures or tactics for bringing about change is by using an existing issue to manufacture crises.  If there isn’t an issue which can be used, one can always be produced that will serve the purpose.

The way this begins to play-out, the issue is brought to the surface by propaganda agents, which is currently recognized as “Fake News.” Many instances will be reported as evidence of the dire consequences people will be confronted with if remedial action is not immediately forthcoming.

At this point the solution planners, i.e., the ones who planned it all before the start, will surface with the solution to the issue. Invariably, however, the result will always be more control and less freedom for the people.

This is only one example of how the proponents of change are able to incrementally destroy our society and replace it with a system that is diametrically opposed to individual liberty and independence.

It is quite evident that the forces behind the drive for global control, or world government, for some time, have planned to use something like the coronavirus to advance their plans for establishing a Global one World Government.

Dr. Anthony Fauci

Dr. Anthony Fauci, is an American physician and immunologist who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, within the National Institutes of Health.  He has been closely connected to the World Health Organization (WHO) for many years, and is a good friend of the Director, Dr. Tedros Adhanom whose main advisor is none other than Dr. Ezekiel Immanuel, the man who included “death panels” in Obamacare.  In 2015, Bill Gates forecast a coming pandemic, and in 2017, Anthony Fauci predicted a pandemic for President Trump during a speech at Georgetown University, when he said, “No doubt Donald J. Trump will be confronted with a surprise infectious disease outbreak during his presidency.”  (Dr. Fauci actually wrote adoring letters to Hillary Clinton after her Benghazi testimony and for years prior to that he had worked with Ted Kennedy on HIV/AIDS.)

Dr. Fauci was vaulted into prominence at the White House by Covid-19 Task Force leader, Mike Pence. He was made our infectious disease specialist in charge of our defense against the pandemic that he knew was going to happen, and quite possibly, because of the NIH’s grants to the Wuhan Lab, had been in on the planning.

The Goal is Control

The John Birch Bulletin reports that there are many examples of seminars, reports, and studies by globalists in the last few years that indicate they meant to use a pandemic to start the process of permanent control on a worldwide basis. It includes many of the people within the American government health community, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), who has been seen daily at White House briefings and on the mainstream media.

The Birch bulletin stated, “Some of these studies have been in partnership with the Chinese Communists. The Youth Innovation Promotion Association of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the China Scholarship Council, and the Natural Science Foundation of China have been cooperating with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Science Foundation, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Institute of Health in studies connected to pandemics.”  Dr. Fauci sits on the boards of many of these American organizations.

When you are cooking up a big mulligan stew, it attracts many participants. The high-sounding titles of the many entities shield the character and proclivities of many of those involved. For example, in studies connected to pandemics, why would the National Science Foundation, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Institute of Health be interested and involved in the studies of interest to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Chinese Communists? The answer is revealing.

Following is a video of Bill Gates being charged with crimes against humanity in a session of the Italian Parliament. The legislator is speaking in Italian but subtitles are in English.

Bill Gates

James Corbett’s fourth installment of his series on Bill Gates examines Gates’ youth, family history, business strategies, and surprising personal connections (Jeffery Epstein for example).  Altogether, they reveal a disturbing picture of Gates’ rise to fame, fortune, and power. Of particular interest is the fact that his banker father was the head of Planned Parenthood and that the family was connected to a group of wealthy intellectuals who called themselves “Eugenicists.” They advocated so-called public-health programs to sterilize those who are considered by the elite to be unworthy of procreation.

This was the same program that was applied by Hitler to create a super race in Nazi Germany. After the fall of the Nazi regime, American eugenicists needed to distance themselves from Hitler’s sterilization program, so they changed their vocabulary. Eugenicists henceforth were called Population Control. This finally connects the dots between present vaccine design and the Gates’ life-long support of population control.

I personally believe that his population control support goes much deeper than just sterilization of the unfavorable.

According to James Corbett, Gates is generally portrayed as a kindly philanthropist who generously funds projects to improve health and fight poverty. As shown in this report however, the image and the reality are far different. The reality is that Gates, throughout his entire career, has been obsessed with the idea that the human population needs to be drastically reduced and that any means to this end is acceptable, including the creation of vaccines to sterilize people but offered to them as a defense against disease.

Vaccines

With the extreme scare tactics employed regarding Covid-19, we most likely are being set-up.  The development of a vaccine that will meet Gates’ specifications is being done. Gates saw the potential for using vaccines for yet another hidden purpose, for injecting microchips and data tattoos into the skin that, in addition to pushing pharmaceutical concoctions into the blood stream, also embed digital data that can be read by scanners to identify every person on the planet.  Just think what else can be done with this technology. Link

Thomas Jefferson rightly stated, “When the people fear the government – there is tyranny.  “When the government fears the people – there is liberty.”

We are definitely at the point at which the people fear the government. Why? Because the government, for all practical purposes has been taken over by hordes of reprobates, those who God has destined for damnation. They have no regard for the feelings, the rights, or the total well-being of anyone other than themselves, or those who support them.

Bill Gates is obsessed with the idea that the human population of the earth should be drastically reduced and any means to this end is acceptable.

Our Supreme Court supports this.  According to G. Edward Griffin, in Need to Know, attorney Alan Dershowitz says we have no constitutional protection against being forcibly vaccinated because no one has a right to spread a deadly disease.  The Court contends that the state has an obligation to use force, if necessary, to protect the lives of its citizens against the threat of a deadly disease.  Totally and completely unconstitutional to God given freedoms.

This, supposedly, is a proper position, because the defense of life is one of the few proper functions of the just state, but there is no defense of the unborn, neither is there defense of the elderly. The problem is that this position is justified only if the deadly threat is real and not staged as a political ploy, and those who are staging the hoax are the ones who will decide if it is real.  Even the polio vaccines and sugar cubes of the 60s were unnecessary…polio was on its way out, but they continued their damning vaccines … vaccines they knew were grown on monkey kidneys and gave the recipients soft tissue cancers.

Those who challenge them will be imprisoned for spreading false information that endangers public health and safety. Furthermore, in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts the court said that the threat doesn’t even need to be real if those making the decision believe it is. That part of the ruling provided a loophole big enough to drive a truck through because it allows political criminals to escape punishment simply by claiming that they had bad advice. (All this per the comments of G. Edward Griffin)

Orwell’s 1984

We have arrived in Orwell’s 1984, and from the “Robespierre Public Safety ruling during the French Revolution, in which 25,000 Frenchmen were beheaded by the guillotine for acts against the ruling.  There is no guarantee history won’t repeat itself, especially with America’s history daily being destroyed by anarchists.

I believe that during my lifetime, many of the members of the Supreme Court were people who had been turned over to a reprobate mind, otherwise they could not have ruled as they did in so many cases.

In my previous article, Part 10 of The Path to Understanding, I said that Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion on the 5 to 4 ruling by the Supreme Court on the same-sex marriage case stated in his opinion that “gay people” have a fundamental right to marriage. Implicit in this statement is a veiled assertion that this right comes from God. Whether he and the other four justices who concurred in the ruling are aware of it or not, the reference to rights that are fundamental is a reference to God and His authority.

And then, there are all the pro-abortion rulings which many members of the court from 1973 to today will have to answer for. But they will have no answer – for there isn’t one – they will have to face the consequences at the Great White Throne judgment.

Many people have ridiculed scripture and the Great White Throne Judgment. They have laughed and made jokes concerning it. I can see in my mind’s eye that when they approach the throne of God, He says to them, “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

Conclusion

What I’ve written is only the tip of the iceberg relative to what we are being set-up for; the complete regimentation of society in which all individuals will act or react in unison with all others.

It is to prepare us for the future as world citizens. We will then do everything by the numbers; no one will have thoughts, or make comments that do not coincide with instructions passed down from the rulers.

Look at all the people wearing masks even after scientific reports have said that masks are completely useless and of no benefit whatever. The sheeple have complied.  It is part of the scenario to establish the national mind-set that we are in crises that all people must be involved in for us to survive, despite the fact that fewer people have perished from Covid than perish from seasonal flu.

Next up, the corruption and cover-up of dangerous vaccines where a doctor is being threatened for exposing the truth of this agenda and the Covid-19 conspiracy.  Link

©All rights reserved.