Dr. Richard Land once called our country, “the divided states of America.” How apt—especially when we survey the various responses to the coronavirus. They are lessons in liberty and lessons in tyranny.
To paraphrase what a friend of mine wrote me recently, “We have 50 real-world government examples of liberty or tyranny—50 real-time experiments in whether state governments moved towards liberty (as in Texas and South Dakota) or absolute control (as in California, Michigan, and New York).” As a resident, I would add: Florida’s leadership is doing a great job.
Nowhere can this contrast be better seen than in how the state authorities deal with churches versus how they deal with abortion, ordering churches closed while deeming Planned Parenthood and other abortionists “essential services.”
How fitting. In her classic book, Godless, Ann Coulter postulates that abortion is the left’s “sacrament.” The sacraments of the church are out. The left’s new sacrament is in. The most pro-abortion leaders are the ones who are most cracking down on real constitutional freedoms in their states. If a politician gets abortion wrong, they tend to get everything else wrong too.
This anti-religious spirit at work is exceedingly ironic because America was born as a religious nation. In the Mayflower Compact, the Pilgrims explained their reason for coming: “for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith.”
Our First Amendment declares our first freedom—freedom of religion. The founders stipulated there would be no national denomination and there would be no prohibition on the “free exercise” of religion. They didn’t add, “except in times of pestilence.”
Indeed, Attorney General William Barr sides with the churches (following social distancing guidelines, etc.) in this conflict. He said, “There is no pandemic exception to the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.”
But many of the left today have used the pandemic crisis to try and shut down a lot of religious services:
The mayor of Kansas City, Missouri was demanding that churches hand over a list of anyone who attended any of their services. When Mat Staver and Liberty Counsel threatened to sue, the city backed down.
The governor of Illinois postulated that church services may need to be banned for a year. This is the same governor who prohibited residents in his state from traveling—while apparently his wife vacationed in Florida.
Overzealous administrators have sought to ban churches even from holding “drive-in” church services, which follow the mandates to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.
If your church parking lot permits, holding a drive-in service is a clever way to worship the Lord together. Usually, the pastor would preach to the congregation in their cars though a low frequency on the FM dial in such services.
But even in the Bible belt, such as in Kentucky and Mississippi, some overzealous administrators have tried to shut such services down. First Liberty Institute has threatened lawsuits, and the cities have relented.
The Wall Street Journal (5/12/20) had an editorial entitled, “Caesar, God and the Lockdowns,” in which they note, “A federal court ruling on religious liberty is a lesson to governors.”
The editorial talks about Maryville Baptist Church in Louisville, which held a modest Easter service—with some worshipers inside and others in the parking lot, hearing the service through a loudspeaker.
To harass the worshipers, notes the WSJ, “The police took down license-plate numbers. The church sued.”
A panel on the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the church: “It’s not always easy to decide what is Caesar’s and what is God’s—and that’s assuredly true in the context of a pandemic….Why is it safe to wait in a car for a liquor store to open but dangerous to wait in a car to hear morning prayers?”
A new report out of Chicago over the weekend shows the lengths to which the anti-God forces will go. Wirepoints (5/18/20) observes that the mayor sought to punish a church, Philadelphia Romanian Church, to prevent it from holding services. They stated, “On Sunday morning the tow trucks descended—not just on churchgoers, but on residents and everybody else, and on a private lot used by parishioners.”
The pastor of the church said, “The mayor is inciting hate against the church which is very sad. A lot of our members risked their lives to escape Communism, only to find it germinating in 2020 under Mayor Lightfoot in Chicago.” Lightfoot is so committed to abortion rights, she helped drive out of office one of the last Democrat, pro-life U. S. Congressmen.
Wirepoints adds, “It should also be a clarion call to the churches across the city as to how far the left will go to crush the faithful of all denominations.”
Freedom-loving Americans can look at a map of the country and see how those on the left versus those on the right are delicately handling the crisis. The abortion-loving, church-hating politicians stand in great contrast with their freedom-loving counterparts in the red states.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jerry Newcombe, D. Min.http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJerry Newcombe, D. Min.2020-05-21 07:21:242020-05-21 07:21:24Freedom Versus Tyranny on Display
The debate over COVID-19 lockdowns has thrust Sweden into the global spotlight. Anders Tegnell, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, said he’s confident Sweden’s approach is the right one.
As nations around the world begin to ease lockdown restrictions passed amid the scariest pandemic since the 1918 Spanish Flu, a new battle is brewing among disease experts and the punditry class.
On one side, are lockdown proponents who compare lockdown skeptics to anti-vaxxers who endanger lives because they are drunk on “freedom” and want to prematurely ease restrictions, which they say could result in a new spike in COVID-19 cases and deaths.
Lockdown skeptics, on the other hand, draw the battlelines differently.
“On one side are ideologues heavily invested in the idea of lockdown, regardless of the cost,” The Wall Street Journal recently described one skeptic’s take. “On the other are scientists with data that the lockdowns are overkill.”
While there is room for middle ground here—I know several medical professionals who say lockdowns made sense initially to “flatten the curve,” but that stage is now over—it’s fair to say the political debate around lockdowns has become largely a two-front war.
As I wrote last week, the costs of lockdowns become clearer every day: nations around the world staggering into recessions and Great Depression-level unemployment. The benefits of the lockdowns, at least for lockdown skeptics, are less easy to quantify.
“There is no correlation between fatalities and lockdown stringency,” columnist Simon Jenkins recently observed in The Guardian. “The most stringent lockdowns—as in China, Italy, Spain, New Zealand and Britain—have yielded both high and low deaths per million.”
The debate over lockdowns has naturally thrust Sweden, which has foregone a hardline approach to the COVID-19 pandemic in favor of a softer one encouraging voluntary action, into the global spotlight. The results of Sweden’s policy have so far been mixed.
While Sweden’s outbreak has to date been deadlier than its Scandanavian neighbors, The New York Times recently conceded that “it’s still better off than many countries that enforced strict lockdowns.”
While Sweden has endured a great deal of criticism for its “laissez-faire” approach, Anders Tegnell, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, recently defended his policies, stating that while a degree of social distancing is the right approach, lockdowns are not grounded in actual science.
“Nothing to do with [them] has a scientific basis,” Tegnell said, according toThe Guardian.
It’s an astonishing claim. If the lockdowns are not based on science, what are they based on? As it happens, The New York Times recently traced the history of social US social distancing policy.
The origins apparently stem from a trip President George W. Bush made to the library in the summer of 2005 over concerns about bioterrorism, which prompted him to read The Great Influenza, a book on the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 written by John M. Barry.
Shortly thereafter, the Bush administration enlisted two federal government doctors, Carter Mecher and Richard Hatchett, to develop ideas to implement during the next pandemic. Mecher— who “had almost no pandemic policy expertise,” according to the Times—then met with Dr. Robert J. Glass, a New Mexico scientist at Sandia who specialized in developing models to explain how complex systems function.
And that’s where the story gets interesting. Via The Times:
Dr. Glass’s daughter Laura, then 14, had done a class project in which she built a model of social networks at her Albuquerque high school, and when Dr. Glass looked at it, he was intrigued.
Students are so closely tied together — in social networks and on school buses and in classrooms — that they were a near-perfect vehicle for a contagious disease to spread.
Dr. Glass piggybacked on his daughter’s work to explore with her what effect breaking up these networks would have on knocking down the disease.
The outcome of their research was startling. By closing the schools in a hypothetical town of 10,000 people, only 500 people got sick. If they remained open, half of the population would be infected.
“My God, we could use the same results she has and work from there,” Dr. Glass recalled thinking. He took their preliminary data and built on it by running it through the supercomputers at Sandia, more typically used to engineer nuclear weapons. (His daughter’s project was entered in the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in 2006.)
Dr. Mecher received the results at his office in Washington and was amazed.
If cities closed their public schools, the data suggested, the spread of a disease would be significantly slowed, making this move perhaps the most important of all of the social distancing options they were considering.
If the Times is correct, it would appear that federal social distancing policy is to some extent the brainchild of a trip George W. Bush made to the library in the summer of 2005 and a 14-year-old girl’s science project. (You can read more about Laura’s Glass’s science project, which reportedly took third place at the 2006 Intel fair in Indianapolis, in this Albuquerque Journal article.)
To be clear, there’s no direct evidence to my knowledge that this is what Tegnell, who earned a PhD in Medicine from Linköping University in 2003 and a MSc in Epidemiology from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in 2004, was referring to when he said the lockdowns are not based on science.
Moreover, there’s nothing to say the lockdowns don’t work simply because the policy stems from George W. Bush and a child’s school project. (The lockdowns will ultimately be judged on their results, not their intellectual genesis.)
Nevertheless, Tegnell’s assertion that there is no “scientific basis” for the lockdowns deserves attention. There’s a tendency to assume central planning is inherently rational and scientific, but this is hardly true. Karl Marx, perhaps the most famous central planner in history, was horribly unscientific in his methods, explained the historian Paul Johnson.
“[Marx] failed precisely because he was unscientific: he would not investigate the facts himself, or use objectively the facts investigated by others,” Johnson observed in the book Intellectuals. “From start to finish, not just Capital but all his work reflects a disregard for truth which at times amounts to contempt. That is the primary reason why Marxism, as a system, cannot produce the results claimed for it; and to call it ‘scientific’ is preposterous.”
For his part, Tegnell says the science of COVID-19 is becoming clear on at least one point, whatever the models of Laura Glass’s hypothetical town said in 2006.
“We feel more and more confident about [not] closing schools,” Tegnell told TV host Trevor Noah in a May interview. “It’s not something that really is going to be effective for this kind of disease. Schools don’t seem to be very much of a motor of this epidemic.”
Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2020-05-21 07:11:012020-05-21 07:13:17Sweden’s Top Infectious Disease Expert Says COVID-19 Lockdowns Are Not Based on Science. History Shows He Could Be Right
For the second time since the COVID-19 pandemic became a daily battle between disease control and civil liberties, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has taken to Twitter to criticize the peaceful assembly of Jews in a city that boasts over a million Jewish residents.
This time, de Blasio specifically targeted children meeting at a yeshiva, an Orthodox Jewish elementary or secondary school.
Earlier today the NYPD shut down a Yeshiva conducting classes with as many as 70 children. I can’t stress how dangerous this is for our young people. We’re issuing a Cease and Desist Order and will make sure we keep our communities and our kids safe.
Just a few weeks ago, the mayor slammed his city’s Jewish community for gathering to grieve at a large funeral for a beloved rabbi.
In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>
My message to the Jewish community, and all communities, is this simple: the time for warnings has passed. I have instructed the NYPD to proceed immediately to summons or even arrest those who gather in large groups. This is about stopping this disease and saving lives. Period.
Writing for The Daily Signal, I said de Blasio’s behavior was un-American and unconstitutional. His tweet Monday is not much different, and unfortunate on several fronts.
For starters, New York City was undoubtedly the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic and two boroughs with a significant Jewish population, Brooklyn and Queens, were the hardest hit by the disease.
When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here.
Many of these devout religious people have suffered along with their loved ones, either from the coronavirus itself or months of strict quarantine, a difficulty in and of itself in a crowded city such as New York.
This is not to say that Jews or anyone else should defy shelter-in-place orders, only that religious believers have paid their proverbial pandemic dues while trying to balance their commitment to their faith, and that is admirable.
Even though city officials have extended stay-at-home orders until at least June 13, exasperated citizens have slowly pressed the boundaries of these executive orders.
On a nice sunny day, many groups, faith-based or not, enjoy themselves outside or at restaurants, or, as these young people were, studying Jewish texts at yeshiva.
As careful as people want to be and were, especially at the beginning, urban life is hardly conducive to an eternal quarantine and New York City is hardly a model of restraint: Residents simply were not going to be physically, mentally, or spiritually able or willing to be locked down forever.
Yet de Blasio fails to direct his ire at the crowds of young people gathering at a park or outside restaurants or in the city streets. Instead, the mayor consistently targets the Jewish people. It’s morally abhorrent, fiscally stupid, and still un-American.
How is a crowd of 60-plus young people studying Jewish texts at a school any more of a public nuisance than crowds at Prospect Park? The answer, of course, is that they are not.
But these are a people of devout faith and the subject of concentrated, increasing anti-Semitism and even violent anti-Semitic attacks, as this piece in The New York Times recounts in horrifying detail.
If de Blasio and other officials want to keep the city on lockdown for nearly another month, they are going to have to come to terms with the fact that there is little precedent for such a broad ban of civil liberties spanning several months.
De Blasio might want his New York to be a bastion of freedom, commerce, creativity, and success—as its reputation surely reflects—but he again has targeted some of his own residents for their faith.
These two things do not go hand in hand, especially for people who draw from their faith the strength, courage, and inspiration to make America creative and successful.
In the late 1800s, Americans of all faiths flocked to New York City to pursue their dreams. How unfortunate that this very city would come to reflect a particular religious bigotry and that people of faith there would need to shield themselves from verbal attacks on their faith by the city’s elected leaders.
Americans’ right to free exercise of their religion is basic to a foundation of other equal and powerful rights, including the right of assembly.
What’s worse is that de Blasio knows this and he casts it aside just as Brooklyn residents are shrugging off the newest quarantine extension.
Nicole Russell is a contributor to The Daily Signal. Her work has appeared in The Atlantic, The New York Times, National Review, Politico, The Washington Times, The American Spectator, and Parents Magazine. Twitter: @russell_nm.
This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.
The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.
They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2020-05-21 06:06:502020-05-21 06:08:06New York’s Mayor Goes After Jewish Residents Again
America’s economy is in the early stages of “reopening” after dealing with the coronavirus pandemic for months. It’s a process that won’t be easy, simple, or without hiccups.
Meanwhile, many in the mainstream media are being true to form in making it a game of ensuring conservatives and Republicans look like reckless, heartless monsters for wanting to reopen the economy sooner rather than later.
That might sound like an exaggeration, but it’s hard to come to any other conclusion when viewing the media’s coverage of the various states and their divergent approaches to controlling the coronavirus and plans for reopening their economies.
When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here>>>.
In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>
Consider, for example, how the media have treated Georgia, with its Republican governor, Brian Kemp, and Colorado, with its Democrat governor, Jared Polis. Both states have moved forward with aggressive reopening plans, but only one has received a torrent of criticism from legacy media outlets.
Can you guess which one?
Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank wrote a piece in April that carried the headline, “Georgia leads the race to become America’s No. 1 Death Destination.”
“Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp is proposing to offer a new nonstop service to the Great Beyond,” he wrote. “He has a bold plan to turn his state into the [emphasis in original] place to die.”
And Milbank wasn’t alone. Countless other articles, both straight news stories and commentaries, were published suggesting pretty much the same thing. One writer in the Atlantic called Georgia’s approach an “experiment in human sacrifice.”
But perhaps the most egregious example of the phenomenon is the disparity in the treatment of Florida versus New York.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has been regularly attacked by many in the media for his state’s initial approach to the coronavirus pandemic and for its early reopening, while New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, has been widely praised.
“The Sunshine State has a bigger population than New York and arguably is just as international. It has a disproportionately vulnerable and older population. Yet Florida’s COVID-19 deaths per capita are less than one-tenth of New York’s,” noted an editorial in the Washington Examiner. “DeSantis’s state has not only avoided the fate of Italy, but it has done better than Germany, Denmark, and other European countries that have received lavish praise for limiting the human cost of the coronavirus.”
My colleague, Fred Lucas, reported Monday on the starkly different outcomes in New York and Florida.
“New York has had about 348,000 COVID-19 cases and more than 28,000 deaths as of May 17, according to the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)],” Lucas wrote. “Florida, meanwhile, had about 46,000 cases and 2,000 deaths. The population of New York state is 19.5 million, while Florida is home to 21.5 million.”
In some respects, the circumstances that led to the outcomes in those states might be comparing apples and oranges, but in terms of population, as Lucas noted, Florida and New York are comparable in size.
While Cuomo has often struck the right tone and certainly dealt with a massive challenge as New York was rocked by COVID-19, his leadership and decisions have been far from perfect.
There was a delay in shutting down the New York City subway system for a deep cleaning and nightly sterilizations, which could have occurred much sooner. Perhaps even more consequentially for the state’s COVID-19 fatality rates, Cuomo’s administration forced nursing homes to take in sick coronavirus patients, which led to many deaths and furthered the spread of the pandemic.
Cuomo has partially admitted to this mistake, but one does wonder whether, if he were the governor of another state and a member of another party, we would be seeing articles calling him unfit to lead the state.
It should be noted, too, that while DeSantis took heavy criticism for Florida’s open beaches, he also actually took early steps to ensure that sick coronavirus patients did not return to nursing homes, where there were far more vulnerable populations.
DeSantis laid out his approach to the coronavirus pandemic in a superb interview with National Review’s Rich Lowry, in which he explained how he gave counties latitude to pursue the policies that work best for their specific conditions.
“I said from the beginning,” DeSantis said in the interview, “we’re a big, diverse state. The epidemic is not going to affect this state uniformly, and what’s appropriate in Miami and Broward may not be appropriate for Jacksonville or the Panhandle. And that’s pretty much the way we did it.”
On Wednesday, DeSantis torched the mainstream media over their coverage of his approach to the coronavirus pandemic and the positive data coming out of his state.
“You’ve got a lot of people in your profession who waxed poetically for weeks and weeks about how Florida was going to be just like New York,” he told reporters.
Gov. DeSantis also says Rebekah Jones is under "active criminal charges" for cyber stalking and cyber sexual harassment.
Though American government has centralized dramatically over the past century, our system continues to retain a fair amount of federalism. States around the country have pursued their own policies, and that’s a good aspect of our system.
After all, the geography, population, and circumstances of, say, Wyoming, are far different from those of New York or California. It would make sense that states would have different strategies with respect to how they seek to contain the pandemic and how they approach their reopening.
Unfortunately, all too many in the media want to make this complicated process a mindless game of blaming conservatives and Republicans for bad things that happen and praising Democrats and progressives for things that go well (or simply remain silent when they don’t).
It would be nice if our national media committed to an evenhanded treatment of the pandemic and the states’ divergent plans for reopening, but that appears to be too much to ask for.
This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.
The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.
They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2020-05-21 05:50:022020-05-21 05:54:54The Media’s Double Standard on States’ Different Approaches to COVID-19
Billionaire Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft Corp., is called entrepreneur, normal guy, and Potential Savior of the World. Gates’s raison d’etre, however, is his father’s globalism, to have one world under one master because most humans are superfluous “reckless breeders,” the concept behind Planned Parenthood, supported by Melinda Gates. He believes in Lebensunwertes Lebens, life unworthy of life, the term I chose judiciouslybecause of the Gateses’ eugenicist ideology of population control. The family legacy is domination and control ofthe world’s systems, including technology, medicine, and agriculture. The foundation has provided unbidden contraception to 120 million women across the globe, which is social engineering and authoritarian eugenicist thinking. The basic premise is that it is easier to eliminate the poor and suffering than it is to eliminate the sources of poverty and suffering. Click here for more on the notorious Gates family.
Much has been written about Common Core, the nationalization of American schools forced by the Obama administration, the United Nations, Bill Gates, and others for globalized education, which caused our academic disintegration. The children’s reading skills were intentionally reduced, their math proficiency scores worst internationally, their creativity discouraged, and overall achievement degenerated. They’ve been robbed of their pride in country, their individuality supplanted by a tribal mentality, the very young exposed to myriad sexual activities. The essence of their femininity and masculinity is under constant attack, adding to depression and seriously increased incidence of suicide – an end to family life – population reduction. And where G-d and religion have been disparaged and removed from daily life, Gates seized the reins. The schools are collecting unprecedented data from the students for the total regimentation of human society, all linked to the globalist UN Agenda 21.
Bill Gates has admitted to his failed educational experiment, but his underlying goals remain unaltered. He is undeterred from pursuing another treacherous scheme with impunity. Not only has he new ideas for the next student generation, which academics already rated inferior, he has assumed a leading role in the coronavirus pandemic, with the ultimate goal of enforced vaccinations with properties that result in sterilization.
The Gates Foundation funds international consortia that influence vaccination policies and disseminate propaganda, despite Gates’s lack of medical background and expertise. The effort to replace President Trump and capitalism with a new global economy and humanism is supported by the Vatican, George Soros, and Jeffrey Sachs, American economist and special advisor to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on the Sustainable Development Goals. Their vision is to ensure population control through universal sexual and reproductive “healthcare,” through family planning, abortions, gay marriage and sterilization.The globalists are conducting a clandestine war, using misinformation and subterfuge to attain their goals.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chairman, Children’s Health Defense, nailed it in his article, “Gates’ Globalist Vaccine Agenda: A Win-Win for Pharma and Mandatory Vaccination,” dated April 9, 2020. “Gates has many vaccine-related enterprises that give him dictatorial control over global health, all geared to increase pharmaceutical companies’ profits” (and reduce human life). Funding $450 million alleged to eradicate polio in India enabled experimentation on 490,000 children who, as a result, became disabled by a Non-Polio Acute Flaccid Paralysis; he and his vaccine program were expelled. India’s Supreme Court is suing the foundation for ethical violations for their 2009 experimentation with HIV vaccines on 23,000 young girls, 1,200 of whom suffered severe side effects and seven died – poor health decreases population.He has never acknowledged or apologized for his wrongdoing, and he continues to sow pain and death with his pseudo-scientific pursuits, encouraged by pharmaceutical corporations.
Italian Parliamentarian, Sara Cunial, accused Bill Gates of sterilizing millions of women in Africa, paralyzing hundreds of thousands of children in India, causing the coronavirus lockdown and isolation, and violating people’s free will and sovereignty. She demanded his arrest for crimes against humanity.
In 2002, The Gates MenAfriVac campaign forcibly vaccinated thousands of African children, presumably against meningitis. At least 40 of the 500 children were left paralyzed and suffering hallucinations and convulsions. In 2010, the foundation funded a malaria vaccine trial on 5,949 children, ages 5-17 months; 151 African infants died and 1,048 had serious side effects. A 2017 study showed that 500 African children were vaccinated with DTP vaccine, of which 50 developed paralysis. Many such experiments are reported as failures from a medical view, but perhaps considered successes from the globalist-eugenicist’s perspective.
With his self-proclaimed vision of saving the world, Gates is collaborating with the government of Bangladesh to establish a means whereby all who are vaccinated are free to return to an active world, their private information held by the globalists; but those who are not immune to disease are penalized, ostracized from society. Bangladesh is hardly technologically equal to an enormously wealthy globalist with authoritarian tendencies. The end game of Gates’s vaccination plan is total power over population size. More than immunity, “the infamous ID2020” is an electronic identification program using vaccination as a platform for digital identity. With his history, and fully supported by the UN and civil society, it could carry elements that are destructive to health and the reproductive system.
Closer to home, Gates is partnering with the City of Austin (Texas), working with their vulnerable homeless and 3,000 refugees from the International Rescue Committee in Thailand who are receiving treatment for chronic conditions. They fall outside the purview of America’s regulations over ethical and safe procedures, and are prey to the ID2020 experimentation.
The Global Vaccine Action Plan (announced in 2010) was the discovery, development and delivery of lifesaving vaccines to the most vulnerable populations in the poorest countries, as agreed by the World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (Dr. Anthony Fauci, director), George Soros, David Rockefeller, Dr. Deborah Birx, Bill Gates’s father, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – globalists all – who would conspire to peddle vaccines worldwide. How does one define “lifesaving” when the purpose is population reduction and siphoning riches into the globalists’ coffers?
Consider Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which has been used in high dosage on millions of patients worldwide since its FDA approval in 1934 and 1955, with an excellent success rate. Dr. Vladimir Zelenko used HCQ with Azithromycin, a $20 treatment, on 669 patients, with a 100 percent success rate, their breathing restored within 3 to 4 hours. When eighty patients and staff members came down with the Coronavirus at a Texas nursing home, HCQ was used for treatment and all but one patient survived (patients were debilitated from other conditions). Why are Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx reluctant to admit that an inexpensive drug is successful, and advocating instead for something with the potential of generating enormous wealth for the patent holders?
Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet, woman’s health specialist, revealed that healthcare workers in several countries are using HCQ prophylactically when dealing with infected patients – which negates the need for expensive preventive vaccinations. Where HCQ is used worldwide, there is a high patient success rate. Before this pandemic, “the WHO ranked HCQ as among the safest and most effective medicines in our arsenal!” The media’s unprecedented fear mongering is against common sense, except that globalists may be testing and preparing for more fears and greater acquiescence, and that HCQ’s replacement will produce greater profits.
Despite obvious HCQ successes reported, Dr. Fauci repeatedly urged extreme caution, until he had to walk back his skepticism. He would rather wait months or years to develop another vaccine or recommend Remdesivir, at a cost of $4,460 per ten-day course of medication, with a mere 52% success rate, but of greater financial gain to hospitals. Project Veritas investigated News York’s higher illness and death statistics and reported that physicians were told to write COVID as cause of death even if it was the secondary condition. Such protocols yield Big Pharma more federal dollars, and Bill Gates had already begun discussing his mandatory digital-tracking implants. The power and freedom of the individual is relentlessly being leeched into the globalists’ camp.
Dr. Deborah L. Birx, American physician and diplomat, serving as the Coronavirus response coordinator for the White House, explained that whenever someone dies of any cause but also has COVID19, cause of death must be listed as COVID19. Many doctors’ objections were overruled. This deceptive tactic, combined with quarantine, will have fearful people begging for Gates’s vaccinations.
Dr. Judy Mikovits, PhD, virologist, has clarified that people do not die WITH, but FROM, an infection. The deceptive death certificates are financially beneficial to hospitals. She exposed Dr. Fauci and President Obama as the chief financiers and benefactors of Wuhan’s labs (confirmed by Mayor Giuliani); the virus was lab-manipulated. Fauci had unethically appropriated Mikovits’s work, delayed testing her findings, thereby killing millions of HIV victims since 1984. Dr. Fauci has become the trusted voice of medical wisdom; he merits close examination.
In 2006, Mikovits co–founded and developed the first neuroimmune disease, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, originally dismissed as feminine hypochondria. She later discovered that vaccines were being tested on mouse brains, and were uncontrollably contagious, causing an alarming national health crisis, including cancers and women having children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Fauci silenced her and confiscated her computers and notebooks. He abused his power, misused his office, and removed her funding, which resulted in hundreds of millions of Americans’ being inoculated with the injurious vaccines.
Dr. Mikovits says Hydroxychloroquine, used with azithromycin, has proven to cure coronavirus victims at ~50 cents per treatment, but came under attack by the manufacturer of a competing, higher priced drug, Remdesevir. President Trump recommends HCQ to help victims immediately, which Dr. Fauci strongly opposes and recommends Remdesevir, patented by Gilead Sciences. Gilead, George Soros and Unitaid are working to penetrate China’s closed pharmaceutical market for enormous royalties.
Leo Hohmann reminds us that the compliance of governors, mayors, church leaders, the richest foundations, and leftist mainstream media, have censored those who would speak against the damage being done to our air traffic system, automobile traffic, food chain, healthcare system, school system, our once-bustling cities – the foundation of our entire society. Bill Gates and his corrupt associates at the United Nations – World Health Organization medical-industrial complex are responsible for engineering the Great Panic of 2020.
If all the previous information doesn’t alarm, consider this: once we accept the enforced vaccination, the slide into population enslavement will be precipitous and impossible to reverse. It is becoming more evident that vaccinations are being linked to identification in order to constrain and control human activity. People who comply with the digital implants will be able to get financing, secure jobs, purchase products, participate in democracy, etc.; those who do not will be pariahs of the state and have their freedoms rescinded. Thus, world population will be subjugated to the globalist elite, and too many in authority are already wilting before the globalists who are making the most of this crisis to further their agenda.
The damage to the health of countless thousands has been a crime against humanity but the proposed ownership of millions by a few wealthy, influential people will be a crime against heaven. It must not be permitted, ever.
Florida and New York are states with similar population sizes, but dramatically different approaches to the COVID-19 pandemic.
New York has almost 30 times as many coronavirus-related deaths as Florida, with a heavy concentration among senior citizens, according to numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, gained praise in the media for his performance in press conferences if nothing else, while Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has been heavily criticized in media reports.
When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here>>>.
In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>
New York has had about 348,000 COVID-19 cases and more than 28,000 deaths as of May 17, according to the CDC. Florida, meanwhile, had about 46,000 cases and 2,000 deaths.
The population of New York state is 19.5 million, while Florida is home to 21.5 million.
“Gov. DeSantis understands Florida and knows how to interpret data and use science to guide the state during this health care pandemic,” the governor’s communications director, Helen Aguirre Ferre, told The Daily Signal in an email. “He worked quickly to protect the vulnerable, increase testing, promote social distancing, support hospitals and protect health care workers, and prevent introduction [of the virus] from outside of the state.”
Ferre added:
When the media was howling because there were folks on the beach, Gov. DeSantis prohibited visitations to assisted living facilities and nursing homes. In addition, Gov. DeSantis prohibited nursing homes and long-term care facilities to [allow] COVID-19 patients who were discharged from hospitals to be returned to their facilities.
He established COVID-19 dedicated nursing homes. In addition, he required comprehensive screening of staff and vendors entering these long-term care facilities. Testing and contact tracing was a priority for all Florida residents in addition to providing precious PPE [personal protective equipment]. Impeding those who were fleeing from other states where there was community spread of this virus was also important.
In New York, senior Cuomo administration officials contend that the federal government was too slow to ban European flights that primarily stop at major airports in New York or New Jersey.
From January through March, about 13,000 flights came through these airports from European locations carrying about 2 million passengers, the officials told The Daily Signal on background.
New York also does more testing for the coronavirus than other states, which is one reason the recorded rates are higher, they said. Add to that, New York City has the most dense population in the United States.
New York and Florida have a similar percentage of total COVID-19 deaths among those 65 and older. Seniors made up 83% of deaths in Florida, 77% in New York.
“In general, on a statewide basis, Florida is doing much better than New York,” Norbert Michel, director of the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “Florida has much fewer deaths and deaths per capita and per 100,000 than New York; this fact holds even if you remove New York City from the state data, though the differences are much smaller.”
The high fatality rate in New York City from the coronavirus skews the statewide numbers, he said.
Florida also is doing better during the pandemic across every category of those 45 and older, as the New York death toll is 15 to 20 times higher than Florida across every category, Michel said.
“Regardless, the death rates by age are worse in New York. If New York City is the primary driver of high death totals and high death rates, then the same comparison still applies; the only thing that would change is that we would have to say New York City is doing much worse than Florida,” Michel said.
Cuomo also has faced criticism for a March decision, later reversed, to send patients back to nursing homes after they tested positive for COVID-19.
“Florida and New York had very different protections for nursing home patients,” Michel said. “The nursing home policy [in New York] was insane. The state was basically sending someone to an early grave. … If it is the case that the infection was already widespread before anyone knew about it, the state was still literally sending people back into it.”
To help free up beds in hospitals in late March, the New York state Health Department issued an order to nursing homes: “No resident shall be denied re-admission or admission to the [nursing home] solely based on a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19.”
The Long Term Care Community Coalition in New York opposed the Cuomo policy of sending COVID-19 patients back to nursing homes.
Similarly, the American Medical Directors Association, in a March 26 statement, said: “Unsafe transfers will increase the risk of transmission in post-acute and long-term care facilities, which will ultimately only serve to increase the return flow back to hospitals, overwhelming capacity, endangering more healthcare personnel, and escalating the death rate.”
Cuomo administration officials said residents returning to nursing homes after testing positive for the virus were quarantined from other residents, following federal guidelines for them to be kept in separate facilities with different caretakers from the rest of the population.A total of 12% of the state’s fatalities were from nursing homes, aCuomoadministration official said.
“It was one of the giant red herrings of all time,” the official told The Daily Signal. “I would take our state law over any state law that says you can discriminate [against] potentially the most feeble, at-risk, vulnerable people in our society.”
In early May, The New York Times reported that 1,600 previously undisclosed deaths occurred in New York nursing homes, bringing the total number of deaths at nursing homes to almost 5,000.
One more factor: Cuomo didn’t order the New York City subway to be sterilized on a nightly basis until early May, even though the first COVID-19 cases were reported March 1.
Another Cuomo administration official contended that new cleaning policies were in place March 3, two days after the state’s first confirmed coronavirus case.
New York is unique among U.S. cities in having a subway that operates around the clock; closing it was not an option. As more people stayed home more often, however, it was feasible to close down for nightly sterilization beginning May 5, the official said.
COVID-19 deaths in New York City total 1,403.72 per 100,000 for those ages 75 and older, according to the city’s data. The death rate drops to 560.85 per 100,000 for those 65 to 74; 171.49 for ages 45 to 64; and 18.4 for ages 18 to 44. The rate is 0 for those under 18.
Although New York City has more people living in close proximity than any other American city, specific policies played a role in the death toll for both the city and state, said Arpit Gupta, an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute who co-authored a report with recommendations for reopening New York City.
“I would point to large, dense cities in Asia such as Seoul, Taipei, Tokyo, and in Hong Kong,” Gupta told The Daily Signal. “Density is not destiny. Those cities made policy decisions that New York didn’t that have contributed to the death toll we’ve seen.”
As of May 13 in Florida, COVID-19 had claimed the lives of 53 people ages 45 to 54, or 0.24 per 100,000; 138 ages 55 to 64, or 0.64 per 100,000; 296 ages 65 to 74, or 1.4; 391 ages 75 to 84, or 1.82; and 378 ages 85 and older, or 1.8.
In New York state as of May 13, COVID-19 had killed 1,267 people ages 45 to 54, or 6.5 per 100,000; 3,039 ages 55 to 64, or 15.6 per 100,000; 4,818 ages 65 to 74, or 24.7; 5,603 ages 75 to 84, or 29; and 5,881 ages 85 and older, or 30.2.
This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.
The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.
They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2020-05-19 05:26:462020-05-19 05:28:33Tale of 2 States: New York’s COVID-19 Death Toll Far Greater Than Florida’s
The policy represents a betrayal of the pioneering platform’s founding principles.
YouTubers are being silenced if they don’t agree with the United Nations on public health. As The Verdict reports:
YouTube will ban any content containing medical advice that contradicts World Health Organisation (WHO) coronavirus recommendations, according to CEO Susan Wojcicki.
Wojcicki announced the policy on CNN on Sunday. WHO is an agency of the UN, charged with overseeing global public health. The Verdict report continues:
Wojcicki said that the Google-owned video streaming platform would be “removing information that is problematic”. She told host Brian Stelter that this would include “anything that is medically unsubstantiated”.
“So people saying ‘take vitamin C; take turmeric, we’ll cure you’, those are the examples of things that would be a violation of our policy,” she said. “Anything that would go against World Health Organisation recommendations would be a violation of our policy.”
While the decision has been welcomed by many, some have accused the streaming giant of censorship.
To be clear, for American YouTubers, this kind of censorship is not a violation of their constitutional right of free speech. The First Amendment protects citizens against government censorship, and YouTube is a private platform. Were the US government to force the private owners of YouTube to continue broadcasting certain videos against their will, that would be much more a violation of the First Amendment.
While YouTube’s decision is not unconstitutional, it is unwise, exhibiting far too much deference to central authority in general and to WHO especially.
WHO’s Track Record on the Issue
The World Health Organization is far from infallible. Its handling of information throughout the coronavirus emergency has been a long string of failures. As policy analyst Ross Marchand has recounted here on FEE last week, WHO failed to raise the alarm as the coronavirus rapidly spread through China during the crucial early period of the global crisis in January of this year. Then, as Marchand wrote:
The global bureaucracy uncritically reported that Chinese authorities had seen “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus” on January 14, just one day after acknowledging the first case outside of China (in Thailand). WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus praised Chinese President Xi Jinping for his “political commitment” and “political leadership” despite these repeated, reprehensible attempts to keep the world in the dark about the coronavirus.
President Donald Trump recently announced that the US would cease its funding of WHO over its many coronavirus-related failures.
And it is not just American conservatives who have been critical. As FEE’s Jon Miltimore wrote:
Our World in Data, an online publication based at the University of Oxford, announced on Tuesday that it had stopped relying on World Health Organization (WHO) data for its models, citing errors and other factors.
This raises an interesting question: would YouTube censor Oxford if it posted a video on the coronavirus issue with recommendations based on data that contradicts WHO’s?
As Miltimore wrote, “Recent reports suggest US intelligence agencies relied heavily on WHO in its national assessment of the COVID-19 threat.”
This is gravely concerning because bad information leads to bad policies. This is true not only for government policy (like mayors, governors, and heads of state deciding to largely shut down the economy in their jurisdiction), but for the policies of private decision-makers like doctors, business-owners, and individuals making decisions about the health and overall lives of themselves and their families.
Indeed, WHO’s misinformation early in the crisis squandered the most precious part of the world’s prep time, which likely crippled the public’s responses and may have cost many lives.
YouTube risks compounding that tragedy by now insisting that the public’s response to the coronavirus emergency conforms even more strictly with WHO’s dubious pronouncements. Wojcicki wants to protect WHO’s recommendations from contradiction. But WHO’s recommendations are necessarily informed by WHO’s information, which has proven to be extremely suspect. Sheltering untrustworthy pronouncements risks amplifying their dangerous influence.
Why Censorship Is Counter-Productive
So, it is ironic that YouTube justifies this policy in the name of protecting the public from dangerous misinformation.
It is true that many videos contradicting official pronouncements are themselves full of medical quackery and other misleading falsehoods. But, censorship is the worst way to combat them.
For one, censorship can actually boost the perceived credibility of an untruth. Believers interpret it as validation: evidence that they are onto a truth that is feared by the powers-that-be. And they use that interpretation as a powerful selling point in their underground evangelism.
Censorship also insulates falsehoods from debunking, allowing them to circulate largely uncriticized in the dark corners of public discourse.
This makes censorship especially counterproductive because it is open-air debunking that is one of the most effective ways to counter misinformation and bad ideas. As Justice Louis Brandeis expressed in a US Supreme Court opinion, the ideal remedy for bad speech, “is more speech, not enforced silence.”
Again, YouTube has a right to set the terms of service of its own website. But the general principle applies here as well: the truth has a much better fighting chance with a proliferation of competing voices than with inquisitorial efforts to circumscribe discourse within a narrow orthodoxy.
A Systematic Problem
Moreover, WHO’s track record of misinformation is not exceptional among government organizations in neither its degree of error nor in its disastrous impact. Governments and the experts they employ not only get things wrong but have frequently proven to be fundamentally wrong-headed on big questions.
To take another example in the realm of public health, it is increasingly widely recognized that the high-carb, low-fat diet recommendations, as depicted by the the USDA’s “Food Pyramid,” and successfully promoted for decades to the population by the US government and the most respected authorities on dietary science and epidemiology, was basically backward. Science journalist Gary Taub tells the whole story of bad science, corrupt influence, and obtuse orthodoxy in his book Good Calories, Bad Calories.
Again, bad information leads to bad advice which leads to bad choices. So how much illness and even death was caused by generations of Americans uncritically swallowing “official” diet advice and by Americans largely only having one choice on the “menu” of diet advice?
The more we centralize decision-making and the management of actionable information, the wider the scope of the damage caused by any single error. But if we let a thousand errors bloom along with a thousand truths, any single error will be circumscribed in its damage and more likely to be corrected through experience and counter-argument.
Knowledge Problems
Champions of policies like YouTube’s like to cast the issue in simplistic terms: as a black-and-white battle between respectable experts and wild-eyed crackpots. But the issue is more complex than that.
It is just as often a matter of overweening technocrats making pronouncements on matters that are way beyond them in complexity, that involve factors that fall way outside their domain of expertise, and that drastically impact the lives of millions or even billions. For example: a few dozen epidemiologists, with limited understanding of economics and a great many other relevant disciplines, holding sway over whole economies.
It is also a matter of dissenting experts being silenced along with the actual crackpots.
And, perhaps most fundamentally, it is a matter of weakening the individual’s ability to discern between truth and falsehood, good advice and bad, by denying them the responsibility and practice of doing so in the first place—of turning self-reliant, free men and women into irresponsible wards to be led by the nose like dumb, deferential livestock by their “expert” caretakers.
That is not where we are, but that is the direction that the rigid enforcement of centralized orthodoxies tends toward.
A Challenge
Let’s choose a different direction. YouTube, do better. Trust your users more. Treat them like human beings with all the capacities for learning, growth, discourse, and cooperation that are the distinctive glories of being human.
After all, that is what made you great in the first place. Your very name is derived from your original faith in the individual. YouTube (a crowd-sourced, individual-driven, pluralistic platform) is what made the boob tube (centralized, institutionalized, and homogenizing broadcast television) largely obsolete. As such, you had a starring role in the internet’s democratization of information and learning.
Don’t betray that legacy. Not now. Not when we need open platforms for the free flow of information and discourse more than ever.
COLUMN BY
Dan Sanchez
Dan Sanchez is the Director of Content at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and the editor-in-chief of FEE.org. He co-hosts the weekly web show FEEcast, serving as the resident “explainer.” … More by Dan Sanchez.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2020-05-18 07:38:122020-05-18 07:41:26YouTube bans content that contradicts WHO on Covid-19, despite its track record of misinformation
How do you explain the vastly different approach to the pandemic from two red states with similarly low coronavirus impact?
In North Carolina, Gov. Roy Cooper has adopted the policy premise that anything done in the name of safety from the coronavirus trumps all other interests, including economic, religious, or other health considerations. Despite comparatively low numbers in the Tar Heel state, the ninth most populous state in the United States, and with no evidence of the healthcare system being overwhelmed, North Carolina has been in full lockdown for over a month.
It matters not if you live in the mountains or on the coast—rural or urban—all residents are required to shelter in place. Despite the crippling effect COVID-19 has had on the $25 billion tourism industry, the devastation to the small business community, and over a million job losses, “thou shalt not work” unless the good governor has deemed you “essential.”
In Mississippi, Gov. Tate Reeves has operated under an alternative premise: that medical safety is a major consideration, but so is allowing people to protest, or to fish, or to earn a living. The governor in the Magnolia State has taken a lot of heat for being slow to slam the economy shut and quick to discuss reopening it. He has also caught a lot of flak for allowing counties and cities to determine what works best in their own communities and for refusing to tell Mississippi churches how to conduct their affairs. Like North Carolina, Mississippi has relatively low numbers of COVID-19 deaths and no apparent strain on the healthcare system, despite having a very high rate of citizens with obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.
Small businesses are on life support across both states. Jobless claims have risen to historic levels in the state of the Dogwood and in the state of the Magnolia—now higher than during the financial crisis. Medical advisers in both states are giving warnings and covering all their bases at daily briefings as they stand beside their respective governors. There is no question that both governors have taken this disease seriously and offered intelligent advice about how we should protect ourselves. So, how do you explain the vastly different approach to the pandemic from two red states with similarly low coronavirus impact?
The difference is in the tone, in the language, and in the viewpoint of how best to mitigate risks and protect citizens. Cooper’s instincts are to restrict the personal freedoms of his citizens; Reeves’ instincts are to protect the personal freedoms of his. Cooper believes shutting down businesses won’t lead to shortages of food and paper products and that denying the constitutional rights of his residents won’t lead to a citizen uprising. (Note citizens are staging weekly protests at the state capital and the governor’s mansion in Raleigh.) By contrast, Reeves has moved to open retail shops, acknowledged the rights of protestors to peacefully assemble at the Capitol, and refused to accept the premise that we must choose between prudent healthcare measures and protecting our economy.
In the state of Michael Jordan, hospitals are losing revenue and laying off personnel because the governor won’t allow the treatment of non-coronavirus patients. In the state of Archie Manning, elective procedures have begun again because the governor recognizes cancer surgeries are pretty “essential” to the patient.
History will judge how these two governors, and the other 48, managed this pandemic. But as data comes in, it’s looking like the quarantines will not prevent us from getting sick. It appears we’re basically delaying the inevitable infection rate. As these long days go by, the models continue to indicate initial predictions were vastly overstated. However, the data on the destruction of our economies and on the hopes and dreams of our citizens may be far worse than ever imagined.
The American economy is the greatest in the world because of all of the interconnected and voluntary exchanges that take place every day, in every community. It remains to be seen if this economic miracle of free enterprise can survive the kind of body blows delivered by the heavy hand of government—especially by the kind of authoritarian governors who seem hellbent on taking a sledgehammer to our economies when a scalpel would have been more useful.
Jon L. Pritchett is president and CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, the state’s non-partisan, free-market think tank. Prior to his work in public policy, he worked as an investment banker, executive, and entrepreneur over a 28-year career in private business.
Ed Tiryakian is the chief strategist and managing director of Argentum Group; a former first vice president at UBS/Paine Webber, serving on the President’s Council. Ed is starting his 10th year at Duke University as a visiting associate professor, teaching corporate finance and business economics at Duke University and is a Contributing Fellow at the Publius Institute.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2020-05-18 07:24:252021-07-16 17:56:04Rigid Lockdowns vs. Relative Freedom: A Tale of Two Southern Governors
The White House pushed back on the media narrative that the Obama administration left behind a pandemic “playbook” for the Trump administration.
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said Friday that the playbook from the Obama administration was an insufficient packet of paper, and that the Trump administration’s own pandemic response exercise in 2019 exposed its shortcomings.
On Thursday, Dr. Rick Bright, a senior adviser at the National Institutes of Health who filed a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump, told a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health that the administration should have known more about the coronavirus.
As a result, Bright said, “we were not as prepared as we should have been.”
In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>
“We missed early warning signals and we forgot important pages from our pandemic playbook,” Bright said. “There will be plenty of time to identify gaps for improvement.”
Much of the mainstream media, including CNN, Politico, and PBS, ran with the narrative that the Obama administration left a pathway for the Trump administration to better handle the coronavirus.
That wasn’t the case., McEnany said during the Friday press briefing.
“Some have erroneously suggested that the Trump administration threw out the pandemic response playbook left by the Obama-Biden administration,” McEnany said, holding up documents from the podium. “What the critics fail to note, however, is that this thin packet of paper was replaced by two detailed, robust pandemic response reports commissioned by the Trump administration.”
“In 2018, the Trump administration issued our pandemic crisis action plan,” she said, adding:
Further, from August 13th to the 16th, the Trump administration conducted the Crimson Contagion 2019 Functional Exercise. This was a pandemic simulation to test the nation’s ability to respond to a large-scale outbreak.
In January of 2020, [the Department of Health and Human Services] issued the Crimson Contagion 2019 Functional Exercise after-action report. This exercise exposed the shortcomings in legacy planning documents, which informed President Trump’s coronavirus response.
This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.
The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.
They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!
As I discussed Wednesday, the Alameda County Health Department backed down in its face-off with Elon Musk over the closure of Tesla’s car plant in Fremont, California. Musk reopened the factory, openly defying the government’s order to remain closed. The health officials acquiesced to the fait accompli by granting it after-the-fact provisional approval.
As I argued previously, Musk’s act qualified as economic civil disobedience, especially since he expressly offered himself up for arrest and punishment. His ultimate success was a testament to the power of that peaceful strategy for political change. The government probably wanted to avoid the public controversy that would result from jailing someone like Musk.
But there was another consideration in play that probably influenced the official decision to relent. Shortly before daring the government to arrest him, Musk had also threatened to simply leave California over the COVID-19 lockdown, tweeting:
Frankly, this is the final straw. Tesla will now move its HQ and future programs to Texas/Nevada immediately. If we even retain Fremont manufacturing activity at all, it will be dependen [sic] on how Tesla is treated in the future. Tesla is the last carmaker left in CA.
This is a serious threat. As Tesla’s website states:
As one of the largest manufacturing employers in California, Tesla stimulated $5.5 billion in sales activity and generated $4.1 billion in direct spending in the state in Fiscal Year 2017 alone. The same year, Tesla also created 51,000 jobs in California, including our employees and jobs throughout our supply chain.
That surely amounts to a lot of tax revenue, which government officials are no doubt wary of letting slip away.
And it’s not like Tesla is lacking options. There is no shortage of American states eager to receive all that economic activity and revenue. Musk mentioned Texas and Nevada, but Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt, a Republican, immediately volunteered his state to be Tesla’s new home.
Stitt replied directly to Musk’s “last straw” tweet on the very same day, writing:
Oklahoma is open for business.
We’re doing it safely, responsibly and based on the data in our state.@elonmusk, let’s talk!
P.S. Route 66 would make a great place for a test drive…
Not to be outdone, Colorado Governor Jared Polis, a Democrat, also publicly courted Musk on Twitter, writing:
We want you here @elonmusk in Colorado, we are the best of all worlds. We’re very pro-business, low taxes, also pro-immigration, pro-LGBT, globally-minded. Bright, smart, motivated ppl love to live here. @Tesla HQ, Cybertruck, gigafactory look no further!
Musk graciously, though noncommittally, responded to his suitor, “Hi Jared, Colorado is great! I think your policies make a lot of sense.”
Contrast these welcoming invitations to his treatment in California, where Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez responded to the same tweet by writing, “F–k Elon Musk,” to which one Twitter user answered, “You already did. That’s why he’s leaving.”
Yet, as it turns out, even California cannot screw its tax-paying producers with complete impunity, and its officials know it.
And this is owing to another safeguard of freedom that is as deeply American as civil disobedience: federalism.
Imagine if states were not allowed to determine any policies of their own, if all policies were set at the national level, and if the Lorena Gonzalezes of the world reigned in Washington. There would be no place of refuge for producers like Musk, other than leaving the country (or maybe in Musk’s case, eventually the planet!).
With much fewer options, unruly entrepreneurs like Musk would be in a much weaker position when they push back against onerous government impositions.
But since Americans are able to “vote with their feet,” state governments are at least partially incentivized to compete for their tax dollars: often by vying to be less oppressive than rival states.
That is exactly what you are seeing when you have state governors tweeting that they are “open for business” and promising “low taxes,” competing to woo a private citizen. It is also probably what you’re seeing when California bureaucrats stand down in the face of outright defiance.
America’s federal structure has withered under the constant assault of centralizers in Washington. But we owe much of the liberty and prosperity we retain to the extent to which it has survived.
And it may play an even bigger role in a post-COVID-19 America. While most states of the union have imposed some restrictions on freedom in the wake of the pandemic, there have been huge variations: with some governments grimly committing to draconian, economy-crippling lockdowns for months to come, and others imposing lighter restrictions that they are already beginning to lift.
Maybe the stricter governments are right, and they will become havens of survival while their rival states become death traps. Or maybe they’re wrong, and they will become economic wastelands while their rivals become prosperous refuges for producers.
In either case, federalism will prove beneficial, as taxpayers can vote with their feet to reward the wiser policymakers.
This is one of the biggest reasons that it is vital to avoid centralized, top-down solutions, even for the biggest and scariest problems, like pandemics. Decentralization is better, both for freedom and problem-solving.
Now that shelter-at-home has normalized remote work, tax bases will become even more mobile, as it is less necessary to live anywhere in particular (especially in big cities) for the sake of one’s career and earnings. This may make jurisdictional competition more fierce, which may bode well for freedom.
Another set of ideas that sheds light on these issues is the work of the economist Albert O. Hirschman, author of the widely cited 1970 book Exit, Voice, and Loyalty.
…differentiated between “voice” and “exit.” In any given system or organization, voice is essentially about expression: protesting, voting, speaking out, or otherwise raising your concerns and hoping the organization responds to them. Exit is about leaving the system to join — or maybe even to create — a new one.
It is important to note that voice and exit are complements, not substitutes. The power of exit enhances voice, ensuring decision makers have an incentive to listen to you.
Federalism afforded Elon Musk the power of exit, which in turn amplified his voice such that it could not be ignored, even by California bureaucrats. As state policies radically diverge in the wake of COVID-19, we may see a lot more of that, even among small business owners, and workers too.
Elon Musk is known as a pioneer in many industries, from cars to space rockets. He may have just pioneered new political territory as well. By flexing his “power of exit” to win back a measure of freedom, he may not only prove to be a maverick, but a forerunner.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2020-05-16 06:23:462020-05-16 06:25:31How Elon Musk Beat a California Dictate by Flexing the “Power of Exit”
Our small business success story this week comes from Arizona. A doctor who, after seeing his colleagues contract COVID-19 while providing care to COVID patients, became sick and tired of the risks and decided to act. He designed an intubation box to protect medical professionals during the intubation process and went to local businesses for help in creating it.
Reeser first took his design to Phoenix-based mattress company, Tuft & Needle, which has built and donated dozens of intubation boxes to hospitals across the Valley using his plans. Hundreds more have been sent across the country with the help of additional partners.
While Tuft & Needle didn’t have the resources on hand to make these boxes for Dr. Reeser, they did know who to call. Soon, they were on their way to building the boxes for Reeser and his colleagues.
However, Reeser wasn’t finished. He approached Urban Plough Furniture, which normally serves hospitality and office space firms, to make the same safety devices. Founder Matthew Moore, who had seen six months worth of business dry up, jumped on the chance to help his community and his company:
“And magically, Dr. Reeser shows up at our doorstep,” Moore said.
Like Tuft & Needle, Moore’s company has been producing the intubation boxes at cost and donating them to doctors in need — they’re not making up for lost profits. But he says the work has given him purpose.
This is what it means to “buy,” or in this case “ask,” local. Small businesses are always going to fight – and often lose – to faceless corporations that have lower per-product costs and thus can sell everything at a lower price. However, your local small business sees purpose in helping you and your family – whether it’s during the pandemic or during more normal economic times.
Serving communities takes all kinds of shapes. Buying local means that when times are tough, you have allies and friends to get you, your family, and your neighbors through tough times. Reeser and Moore are just a single example of the amazing community teamwork that is taking place across America.
How can you be a part of supporting local?
This post is part of 2ndVote’s coverage of business charity during the COVID-19 public health, social, and economic crises. We are highlighting companies large and small which are doing their part to help their communities.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png002ndvote .comhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png2ndvote .com2020-05-16 06:06:582020-05-16 06:08:39Ask and Ye Shall Receive: Local Businesses Keep Doctors Safe
Just as soon as the Christian organization Samaritan’s Purse came to the aid of overwhelmed New York City officials and sick residents struggling to combat the effects of COVID-19, New York City Council Speaker Corey Johnson decided the diverse, “tolerant,” progressive city had enough of its assistance, due to its Christian foundation, and effectively kicked the charity out.
My statement on Samaritan's Purse:
It is time for Samaritan's Purse to leave NYC. This group, led by the notoriously bigoted, hate-spewing Franklin Graham, came at a time when our city couldn't in good conscience turn away any offer of help. That time has passed. 1/
— NYC Council Speaker Corey Johnson (@NYCSpeakerCoJo) May 1, 2020
While it’s usually Christians who are scolded for their so-called intolerant beliefs that are rooted in centuries-old religious traditions, here it seems like it’s progressives who aren’t so tolerant of other people embracing views that are different than theirs—even if those very views inform their acts of charity and medical care.
Samaritan’s Purse is, of course, a renowned Christian relief organization that focuses mostly on offering medical aid in times of crises, setting up emergency field hospitals in disease-ridden, war-torn, or terrorist-ravaged hot spots around the world.
In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>>
When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here>>>.
It has gone everywhere from the Bahamas to Mozambique to Iraq and has treated everything from injuries caused by ISIS to Ebola. Now, it’s helping COVID-19 patients and public officials in New York and Italy.
When COVID-19 began to overwhelm New York City just a few weeks ago—at the peak of what we now think was the frightening “curve” of the outbreak—Samaritan’s Purse arrived, built a giant tent hospital in Central Park with the full knowledge and cooperation of the nearby highly acclaimed Mount Sinai Health System, and went to work.
We operated our respiratory care unit in Central Park from April 1 to May 5. Through our partnership with the Mount Sinai Health System, we treated more than 300 coronavirus patients in New York, including 190 at the park site.
More than 240 relief specialists served at various times on the Disaster Assistance Response Team there. We ran a similar medical facility outside of Milan, Italy, that opened on March 20 and closed May 7. The 14-tent unit was set up adjacent to the Cremona Hospital in order to treat an overflow of coronavirus patients.
Our DC-8 aircraft made two airlifts to Italy in order to deliver the hospital, 20 tons of supplies, and a large Disaster Assistance Response Team.
Those efforts sound not only peaceful and benign, but also quite remarkable. Not so, according to a number of New York City officials, who started a culture war where there wasn’t even a battle—except for those fighting for their lives due to COVID-19.
According to a May 4 New York Post column, “Four local Democratic members of Congress—Reps. Jerry Nadler, Carolyn Maloney, Adriano Espaillat, and [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez]—sent a letter to Mount Sinai expressing their ‘concern’ about the group’s efforts and demanding to know how it had received permission to operate in Central Park.”
Combine that with Johnson’s tweets and you have yourself a culture war coup d’etat.
Johnson specifically called out the organization’s religious views, tweeting they were too exclusive and hateful:
Their continued presence here is an affront to our values of inclusion, and is painful for all New Yorkers who care deeply about the LGBTQ community. …
The @NYCCouncil is committed to supporting [health care workers] and protecting our city’s public health. But as a city that values diversity and compassion for all, we can’t continue allowing a group with their track record to remain here when we’re past the point they’re needed.
Mount Sinai must sever its relationship with Samaritan’s Purse. Its leader calls the LGBTQ community ‘detestable’ and ‘immoral.’ He says being gay is ‘an affront to God,’ and refers to gay Christians as ‘the enemy.’ …
Johnson concluded his tweetstorm: “Hate has no place in our beautiful city.”
Samaritan’s Purse did indeed leave a few days later, although it’s unclear whether those tweets motivated it or whether it had already planned to leave New York City on May 5.
Johnson’s interpretation that Samaritan’s Purse is a bigoted, hateful organization because it espouses traditional Christian beliefs—specifically, that marriage is between a man and a woman—is not a new lens through which the left views Christians, though that doesn’t make it accurate.
Even before the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in 2015, that was the premise of virtually every LGBTQ group, the plaintiff in that 2015 court case, the ACLU, and many others.
Since when is it “bigotry” to hold sincere religious beliefs that people have practiced for centuries?
The LGBTQ community claims to advocate tolerance and inclusion, but it is inviting and welcoming only when everyone believes what it does, even when, as we saw here, the issue at stake—medical care in a crisis—has nothing to do with political ideology.
There’s no evidence that Samaritan’s Purse came to New York City to condemn gay marriage or even to spread the Gospel. From the sound of it, Samaritan’s Purse pitched its tent, gave medical care to patients suffering with COVID-19, and after a few weeks, or perhaps when its presence became controversial, it left.
There is still a cultural divide between Christians and LGBTQ groups and their supporters. That’s unfortunate.
I know many Christians who grieve over that and desire harmony with everyone without compromising their beliefs. I’m sure many in the LGBTQ community do as well.
It’s possible that divide may always exist, but I wish that Christians could maintain their beliefs and still extend courtesy and grace, and that people like the New York City Council speaker would be as inclusive and tolerant as they claim to be toward Christians trying to help them.
Nicole Russell is a contributor to The Daily Signal. Her work has appeared in The Atlantic, The New York Times, National Review, Politico, The Washington Times, The American Spectator, and Parents Magazine. Twitter: @russell_nm.
This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.
The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.
They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!
If House Democrats are focused on helping Americans get through this global pandemic safely, they sure have a funny way of showing it.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s latest extravagant, $3 trillion spending proposal is Washington at its worst—and most predictable. While President Trump, governors of both parties, and frontline workers band together to fight this virus as one country, House Democrats see an opportunity to exploit this crisis to pass their partisan agenda.
Millions of Americans are out of work. President Trump is trying to get them back on the job by safely reopening our country. Instead of helping him do it, here is what Democrats in Congress have decided is worth holding Coronavirus relief hostage for:
A BAN on information about low-cost health insurance. That’s right—House Democrats want to forbid the government from sharing any information with you about lower-cost health options such as association plans or short-term plans. Even as families try to cope with job and wage losses, Speaker Pelosi doesn’t want them to learn about options that are up to 60 percent cheaper than Obamacare.
Mass voting by mail. A “Coronavirus relief” bill might seem like the wrong time and place to dictate how states run their elections. Democrats disagree.
Stimulus checks for illegal aliens. Rather than protect American citizens by requiring a Social Security Number for taxpayer-funded stimulus, Pelosi’s bill would give illegal immigrants the ability to receive up to $1,200 in direct payouts.
Bailouts… for government. Democrats want more than $1 trillion in cash for state and local governments, mostly in the form of unrestricted aid that doesn’t need to be used to offset Coronavirus costs. They also threw in a $25 billion bailout for the Post Office.
The list goes on. At a moment when Americans most need Washington to look out for them and cut the partisan drama, Democrat leaders once again chose to put their far-left base first.
President Trump is protecting our national stockpile
When the Coronavirus struck, President Trump knew that America needed to act quickly. He worked with Congress to secure $16 billion to build up our national stockpile with ventilators, masks, respirators, pharmaceuticals, and other critical supplies.
As a result, America today has an abundant supply of ventilators, N95 respirators, and resources for testing—a crucial area where we now lead the world.
But that’s only the start. President Trump knows that America’s long-term self-reliance depends on our supply chain. “Our goal for the future must be to have American medicine for American patients, American supplies for American hospitals, and American equipment for our great American heroes,” he says.
“Now, both parties must unite to ensure the United States is truly an independent nation in every sense of the word.”
Today, the President traveled to Pennsylvania, visiting a distribution center that’s played a key role in helping to restock America.
Just since February, the Owens & Minor Distribution Center in Upper Macungie has deployed 1.75 million N95 respirators, 3.4 million gowns, 80 million gloves, and much more across our country. “You’re making America proud,” President Trump told them.
— The White House 45 Archived (@WhiteHouse45) May 14, 2020
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png001600 Daily - The White Househttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png1600 Daily - The White House2020-05-15 06:49:392020-05-15 06:51:00See what Nancy Pelosi stuffed in her partisan ‘Coronavirus’ bill
David Daleiden, founder of the Center for Medical Progress, filed a lawsuit Tuesday against Planned Parenthood (PP), the former and current California Attorneys General Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra (respectively), the National Abortion Federation, and others for suppressing his undercover video exposing PP’s trafficking of the body parts of aborted babies.
The complaint “seeks justice for a brazen, unprecedented, and ongoing conspiracy to selectively use California’s video recording laws as a political weapon to silence disfavored speech.”
Daleiden wrote, “The California Attorney General first admitted that they are enforcing the video recording law solely based on how they feel about the message being published, and then further admitted they are not even trying to follow the text of the law as written.”
Breitbart News reports that emails showed Harris’s office collaborated with PP to produce legislation targeting Daleiden, who was accused of 14 felonies related to his damning undercover videos.
In an undercover video that was made public on July 14, 2015, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, who had been PPFA’s senior director of medical services since February 2009, spoke to investigators posing as buyers from a human biologics company and told them that her organization was selling — for $30 to $100 per specimen — intact fetal body parts that it harvested from abortion procedures. Trafficking in human body parts, however, is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.
In the undercover video (filmed by the Center for Medical Progress, or CMP, an anti-abortion group), Nucatola revealed that although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” she also had received requests for lungs and “lower extremities.” And while emphasizing that PPFA affiliates “absolutely” wanted to offer such organs, she noted that “[t]hey just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, ‘The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.’”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Discover The Networkshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDiscover The Networks2020-05-15 06:39:162020-05-15 06:40:51Videomaker Sues Planned Parenthood, Kamala Harris for Suppressing Exposé
As Heritage Foundation researchers have demonstratedthroughoutthe pandemic, the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. has been extremely concentrated in a small number of states—and among a small number of counties within all states.
These state-level figures do not, however, adequately describe the concentrated nature of the spread of COVID-19.
When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here>>>.
In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>
The 30 counties with the most COVID-19 cases, for example, account for 48% of all the cases in the U.S. and 55% of all deaths, three to four times greater than their 15% share of the U.S. population.
That is, just 1% of all counties, representing 15% of the U.S. population, are responsible for almost half of the country’s COVID-19 cases and more than half of the deaths.
Of those 30 counties, 24 are in the Northeast corridor between Philadelphia and Boston, the passageway served by a commuter railway system that runs through Manhattan.
Overall, only about 10% of all counties contain 95% of all the COVID-19 deaths, even though they account for 64% of the population.
Just as important, 50% of all counties (with 10% of the U.S. population) have zero COVID-19 deaths as of May 11. In fact, 63% of all counties (with 15% of the population) have no more than one COVID-19 death each.
So, while 1% of counties (mostly in the Northeast) have more than half of all COVID-19 deaths in the U.S., 63% of counties have no more than one COVID-19 death each—and both groups represent the same share of the U.S. population.
With many state and local governments starting to relax stay-at-home orders, it’s instructive to examine just how concentrated the spread of COVID-19 has been in the U.S.
The Heritage Foundation’s interactive COVID-19 tracker helps put these levels of concentrated cases in perspective. It provides county-level data that includes total cases, total cases as a percentage of the population, where that percentage ranks among all 3,145 counties, and a population density measure.
The tracker also describes whether the trend of cases is increasing or decreasing over the prior 14 days, and provides a visual depiction of new cases during this time period.
The information shows just how difficult it can be to use only one metric to gauge whether a county is doing well.
For instance, Jersey County, Illinois, on the state’s border with Missouri, has had an increasing case trend during the past 14 days. As the chart shows, however, the county has not had more than one new case per day since April 26.
Furthermore, the fact that Jersey County ranks almost squarely in the middle of all U.S. counties with a case total of just 0.08% of its population affirms that most counties have a relatively small number of COVID-19 cases.
Readers are invited to explore the information in the tracker and check back frequently for updates.
Norbert Michel studies and writes about housing finance, including the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as The Heritage Foundation’s research fellow in financial regulations. Read his research. Twitter: @norbertjmichel.
Drew Gonshorowski focuses his research and writing on the nation’s new health care law, including the repercussions for Medicare and Medicaid, as a policy analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation. He also studies economic mobility and the Austrian school of economics. Twitter: @Gonshorowskd.
This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.
The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.
They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2020-05-15 05:26:542020-05-15 05:28:321% of Counties Home to Half of COVID-19 Cases, Over Half of Deaths
