The truth about trans must be defended. It’s ridiculous to slander Australian legal academic Patrick Parkinson as ‘transphobic’

/in , , , , , /by

The T.C. Beirne School of Law at the University of Queensland was established by a £20,000 donation from Thomas Charles Beirne, a devout Catholic businessman and Papal Knight who was warden of the University from 1928 to 1941. The vast tract of beautiful riverside land on which the university sits in St Lucia was donated by pioneering doctor and Catholic philanthropist James O’Neil Mayne.

One wonders what these two benefactors would think of the current push by students to remove the Dean of Law, Professor Patrick Parkinson, for making “transphobic” remarks in The Australian, on February 14. Reporter Bernard Lane wrote:

University of Queensland law dean Patrick Parkinson, speaking in a personal capacity, conceded authorities would be worried and busy with the coronavirus but said the explosion in transgender-identifying teenagers, chiefly girls, was “another epidemic” — one that had “so far escaped public attention”.

“Social contagion” via online platforms — such as Tumblr, Reddit and YouTube — and peer groups is suspected to be a factor in the rapid rise of atypical teenage cases of the condition “gender dysphoria”, or distress about the conflict between the body and an inner feeling of “gender identity”.

In response to Professor Parkinson’s remarks, a petition was started at Change.org by student Jean Emmett, aka “Johnny Valkyrie”, titled “No Transphobia At University. Condemn Prof. Patrick Parkinson.” It reads:

…  Parkinson compared transgender people to the coronavirus, declaring it an “epidemic.” Previously, he has compared transgender and gender diverse people to those with eating disorders, campaigned against LGBTQIA+ adoption and has ties to Freedom For Faith and The Australian Christian Lobby…

The School of Law should not be figureheaded by an individual who does not uphold discrimination, vilification and human rights protections. Further, it is highly unprofessional to breach The University of Queensland’s official policy on LGBTQIA+ people, especially when transgender and gender diverse people work and study at the institution …

We call for Prof. Patrick to cease and desist his discriminatory, vilifying behaviour or to be removed from The University of Queensland.

As of writing, the petition has garnered 432 signatures.

Emmett seems to misunderstand what Parkinson said. The professor compared the explosion of transgender-identifying teens to the coronavirus epidemic, not the teens themselves to the virus.

A social contagion of body dysmorphia

Last year, 38 members of staff at the T.C. Beirne Law School signed an open letter in support of LGBTQIA+ students after Professor Parkinson delivered a paper, “Is Gender Identity Discrimination a Religious Freedom Issue?” at the Freedom for Faith conference in Sydney. Here’s what he said:

“[A] crisis of conscience may arise from a genuine belief that it is not in the best interests of the child or young person to affirm his or her transgender identification, any more than it would be in the best interests of an adolescent girl with an eating disorder to affirm her body image as overweight.”

Parkinson is not alone in issuing these warnings. Miranda Yardley, a 52-year-old transsexual who was the first person in Britain to be sued for committing the “hate crime” of making “transphobic” remarks on Twitter, wrote:

There seems to me something uniquely cruel in telling children their bodies are wrong because they do not match the interests our culture deems appropriate for their sex. The adults who promote this lethally toxic culture should feel ashamed of themselves. Of course, they never will: they are fanatics.

Philadelphia-based clinician Lisa Marchiano wrote at Quillette:

While transgender advocates have derided the notion that the sudden surge in trans identified teens – and natal female teens in particular – could be influenced by social contagion, the idea is not so far-fetched. Bulimia was virtually unknown until the 1970s, when British psychologist Gerald Russell first described the condition in a medical journal. Author Lee Daniel Kravetz interviewed Russell for his recent book Strange Contagion. According to Russell, “once it was described, and I take full responsibility for that with my paper, there was a common language for it. And knowledge spreads very quickly.” Scientists have been able to track bulimia’s transmission even into culturally remote enclaves following the introduction of Western media sources. It is estimated that bulimia has since affected 30 million people.

People with body integrity identity disorder claim to be “transabled”, longing for amputations of perfectly healthy limbs, or wilful blinding. Should we also affirm them in their quest to become physically disabled? What about “transracial” people?

A chilling effect

Meanwhile in the UK, University of Exeter economics professor Dr Eva Poen has been accused of transphobia by feminist and LGBT students for tweeting: “Only female people menstruate. Only female people go through menopause.”

She also tweeted in response to insurance company Aviva promoting LGBT+ inclusion in sports:

“Let’s keep female sports for FEMALE PEOPLE. Stay in your lane, Aviva. We don’t tell you how to do insurance; it would be great if you could stop telling women to give up their hard earned place in society. Women’s sport is not yours to give away.”

Adam Deloit, the 22-year-old transgender representative of the university’s LGBTQ+ society, states:

“What she is doing isn’t a debate. It’s constant harassment and discrimination. I don’t think anyone who sees her tweets can say that they are not an attack on trans people. She can try to define us out of our existence, but we are still here. The fact the university tolerates her is really frustrating.”

A spokeswoman for the university’s feminist society said:

“The university must investigate the allegations thoroughly and look at it from, if nothing else, a well-being standpoint for groups of students within that community.”

In 2018, the Bristol University student union backed proposals to ban any TERF (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist) speakers who questioned whether men who identified as women were actually women.

In 2017, 60-year-old Maria MacLachlan was beaten up at Speaker’s Corner in London’s Hyde Park by young trans-identifying men, enraged that she was about to attend a feminist talk entitled, “What is Gender”.

Why are trans activists so afraid of questions and statements which are grounded in basic biology? So much for inclusivity and a grasp on reality, not to mention common civility! Must the whole world conform to their perception? Do “trans rights” override the basic human right of free speech?

Detransitioners scarred for life

The growing trend of detransitioners speaking out about their irreversible physical and mental scars from rushed transitions should give us pause for thought. There are now rapidly-expanding groups on Reddit and Tumblr for those suffering transgender regret.

Trans-identifying Blaire White reports from Montreal:

A few years ago, there were a few detransitioners on Youtube talking about their experiences, but not many. Now, there appears to be almost as many people talking about their transition failures as there are people talking about their transition successes… Many of the teen detransitioners on Youtube cite falling into trans activist circles online as a contribution to the mistake they made.

Lisa Marchiano wrote, in an article titled “The Ranks of Gender Detransitioners Are Growing. We Need to Understand Why”:

… there is the problem of bias reinforcement. For adolescents struggling to understand themselves and their place in the world, a self-diagnosis as transgender can offer seemingly easy answers. But clinicians shouldn’t be “affirming” that sort of self-diagnosis on a no-questions-asked basis …

The detransitioners I see in my practice are all female, and they are all in their early twenties. At the time they became trans-identified, many were suffering from complex social and mental health issues. Transition often not only failed to address these issues, but at times exacerbated them or added new issues. These young women often became derailed from educational or vocational goals during their period of trans identification.

Twenty-three-year-old Keira Bell, who is now suing the Tavistock clinic in London for facilitating her sex transition, told the BBC:

“I should have been challenged on the proposals or the claims that I was making for myself… I was allowed to run with this idea that I had, almost like a fantasy, as a teenager… and it has affected me in the long run as an adult.”

The Christian Post reports that 41-year-old Marcus Fitz in California “believes it’s important that people learn about the deceptive practices at gender clinics that push cross-sex hormones and transgender surgeries, which he says have left him psychologically scarred, physically mutilated, and with a severely compromised endocrine system.”

Indeed, UnHerd reported this case of another detransitioner:

When she was 15, Livia was diagnosed with severe anorexia. “It’s so scary to realise that my anorexic thoughts were about [hating] my female body,” she tells a stunned room. “I really wish someone had been there to tell me not to get that body castrated at 21.”

Ovulation is essential for women’s health. Canadian endocrinology professor Jerilynn Prior states: “women benefit from 35 to 40 years of ovulatory cycles, not just for fertility but also to prevent osteoporosis, stroke, dementia, heart disease, and breast cancer.” What does the future hold for trans-men who have had their reproductive organs removed?

And what could happen to trans-women? The British Medical Journal published a study last year showing that men who take oestrogen to transition develop a 46-fold higher risk of breast cancer; the World Health Organization published a report in 2015 noting the measurably higher risk of cervical, ovarian, and uterine cancer faced by women who transition while retaining their genitalia.

Meanwhile, a study published in the American journal Pediatrics found that among transgender-identifying people, “the percentage of people who attempted suicide and were hospitalised in the last 12 months was DOUBLE for those who had blockers (45.5% versus 22.8%).”

Follow the money

The ABC’s Four Corners recently reported on an 11-year-old receiving puberty blockers, “one of a small but growing cohort of children around Australia seeking treatment because they don’t identify as either a boy or a girl.” She was diagnosed with gender dysphoria when she was only nine.

Writer Jennifer Bilek observed in a sobering post, “Capitalizing on the Destruction of Healthy Female Breasts”:

TomBoyX, Luna Pads, and Thinx corporations have all used the healthy breast amputations of young women in their ad campaigns, normalizing body dissociation and mutilations as self-expression, with barely any criticism in mainstream media.

At The Federalist, she unveils the billionaires funding the powerful LGBT lobby in the USA. Over at Populist Wire, Ben Kenobii published: “Meet Jennifer Pritzker: The Trans-Billionaire Big Tech Doesn’t Want You To Know About”.

Positive publicity on ABC’s Four Corners has been credited with a A$6 million grant to Australia’s most popular youth gender clinic.

Doing right by our children

Considering the well-documented physical and mental health implications of puberty blockers and sex change surgery, is it not irresponsible of our government, media and health institutions to keep advocating affirmation of gender dysphoria, particularly in vulnerable, malleable children?

Professor Parkinson is a specialist in family law and child protection. Instead of trying to quash his words, spoken from experience and a place of deep concern, we ought to act on his urgent warnings before even more youth are permanently maimed.

COLUMN BY

Mei Ling

Mei Ling is a Singapore born freelance writer and social media manager living in Queensland, Australia.

Please sign and share this petition in support of Professor Patrick Parkinson.

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

Trump Hits Democrats’ Coronavirus Bill as Stuffed With Unrelated ‘Goodies’

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

President Donald Trump said Thursday that he doesn’t support House Democrats’ coronavirus relief bill in its current form because it includes too many “goodies” that have nothing to do with the disease.

Although the bill addresses providing testing and masks to respond to the coronavirus, it also expands unemployment insurance and food stamps, requires the Social Security Administration to provide paid sick leave, and mandates that employers give paid permanent sick leave to their employees.

A reporter asked Trump at the White House if he supports the legislation.

“No, because there are things in there that have nothing to do with things we are talking about,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat with Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar.

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 >>

“It’s not a way for them to get some of the goodies that they haven’t been able to get for the last 25 years,” the president said of House Democrats.

As of Thursday afternoon, there were 36 deaths in the U.S. from the new coronavirus disease, called COVID-19, with a total of 1,215 diagnosed cases across 42 states and the District of Columbia, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Trump delivered a prime-time address to the nation Wednesday night in which he announced a ban on travel to the U.S. from most European countries and proposed a payroll tax cut and assistance for industries and employees hit hard by the virus.

The president previously restricted travel from China, where the virus originated.

“The Families First Coronavirus Response Act is focused directly on providing support for America’s families, who must be our first priority in this emergency,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a public statement.

The spread of the coronavirus has prompted calls for more government action. The Democrats’ bill includes free coronavirus testing, paid emergency leave for up to 14 days, and more protections for health care workers who might come in contact with infected people.

“We cannot fight coronavirus effectively unless everyone in our country who needs to be tested knows they can get their test free of charge,” Pelosi said. “We cannot slow the coronavirus outbreak when workers are stuck with the terrible choice between staying home to avoid spreading illness and the paycheck their family can’t afford to lose.”

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., contended that the Democrats are playing politics, but said Congress should remain in session until it gets the bill right.

During the Oval Office session, Trump elaborated on why he excluded the United Kingdom from the ban on travel from Europe.

“One of the reasons [is] the U.K. basically has got the border … it has got very strong borders, and they are doing a very good job,” Trump said. “They don’t have very much infection at this point, and hopefully they keep it that way.”

Trump said life and death issues guide his decisions in dealing with coronavirus:

The question is how many people will die? I don’t want people dying. That’s what I’m all about. I made a very tough decision last night [with the European travel ban] and a very tough decision a long time ago with respect to China. I don’t want people dying, and that’s why I made these decisions.

The president said the stock market is stronger now than when he came into office and predicted it will bounce back.

“Whether it affects the stock market or not [is] very important, but it’s not important compared to life and death,” Trump said. “Frankly, the people that are professionals praised the decision. It’s something I had to do. I think you’ll see the end result is very good because of it, but it will take a period of time.”

Trump said he is “not concerned” about reports that a member of a Brazilian delegation who tested positive for COVID-19 had contact with him last weekend at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida.

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham issued a statement later, however.

“Exposures from the case are being assessed, which will dictate next steps,” Grisham said, adding:

Both the president and vice president had almost no interactions with the individual who tested positive and do not require being tested at this time.

As stated before, the White House Medical Unit and the United States Secret Service [have] been working closely with various agencies to ensure every precaution is taken to keep the first and second families and all White House staff healthy.

Kelvin Droegemeier, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, announced Thursday that he held a conference call with government science officials from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and Britain on how to tackle the pandemic.

He said the officials talked about sharing more data, how artificial intelligence can be used, and data-sharing repositories.

In the Oval Office session with reporters, Trump was asked if larger quarantine zones in the United States are an option.

“It’s a possibility if somebody gets a little bit out of control, if an area gets too hot,” Trump said. “You see what they are doing in New Rochelle, which is good frankly, but it’s not enforced. It’s not very strong. But people know they are being watched. It’s a hot spot.”

A reporter asked the Irish and American leaders if they shook hands.

They replied that they hadn’t, and instead placed their own palms together in greeting, which was “sort of a weird feeling,” Trump said.

The president said that in India and Japan, where he has visited, shaking hands is less customary.

“They were ahead of the curve,” he said.

Trump acknowledged his reputation as a bit of a germaphobe before entering politics.

“I was never a big hand-shaker as you probably have heard, but once you become a politician, shaking hands is very normal,” he said.

The Irish prime minister followed by saying, “It almost feels like you’re being rude, but we just can’t afford to think like that for the next few weeks.”

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Government Collaboration ‘Unparalleled,’ New Senator Says of Coronavirus Fight

With Coronavirus, the Chinese Repeat the Soviets’ Chernobyl Failure

A Note for our Readers:

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!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>

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

Would a Victorious Joe Biden be Removed for Mental Incapacity?

/in , , , , , /by

The Democratic Party is now confronted with a dilemma. Its two possible presidential nominees are perhaps equally unpalatable, though for different reasons. Socialist Bernie Sanders is, the establishment believes from a practical standpoint, ideologically unfit; Joe Biden is a garrulous gaffe machine who is mentally unfit. Yet what if, contrary to popular belief, neither man ends up being the nominee? There are other possibilities.

Prior to the South Carolina primary and Super Tuesday, many were dismayed that the Democrats seemed poised to nominate an unattractive, wizened, charmless avowed socialist. Thus did the Democrat establishment throw its weight behind Biden.

Yet the ex-vice president is clearly in mental decline. I say this in no spirit of cruelty or mockery; most of us have seen an elderly person deteriorate and know it’s the saddest of events. But the reality is that what we’re witnessing this campaign season isn’t just the old gaffe-prone, tall-tale-telling, Walter Mitty-like Biden.

Aside from calling Super Tuesday “Super Thursday,” saying he was running for the “Senate,” thinking he was in Vermont when in New Hampshire and slurring and fumbling words, he also on multiple occasions couldn’t recall Barack Obama’s name. Since this is the president Biden served under for eight years, this is a bit like his forgetting the name of his wife — who, mind you, he recently confused with his sister.

Note here that Biden has had two cranial aneurysms that required surgery. Not only can these conditions cause brain damage, but Biden was told before the second procedure that he had only a 35 to 50 percent chance of emerging from it “completely normal.” Add to this that he’s now 77 years old and, well, do the math.

Of course, the Democrat establishment has to be intensely aware of Biden’s unfitness for office. Yet they’re choosing him to be President Trump’s opponent. Or are they? For there are ways to solve the Biden-Bernie (B&B) dilemma.

First, while the chances of it are now low, there could still be a brokered Democratic convention. If this happens, the delegates — under the sway of the Democrat establishment — could conceivably nominate someone other than Biden or Sanders, such as Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama.

A signal that the establishment desires this outcome could be if, after “evening things up” on Super Tuesday, it appears to ease off supporting Biden. I consider this unlikely, though. Brokered conventions are messy, and it would be difficult shaping the primary voting well enough to reliably effect such an outcome, anyway.

Now let’s discuss what’s perhaps more likely. It’s hard to imagine that Biden hasn’t undergone a neurological exam, especially with his access to the very best health care (though an elderly person can be in denial and refuse such tests). It’s also hard to imagine that such examination would find normal functioning. This can make one wonder what perhaps is being hidden — and what might be revealed when the right time comes.

When might this be? It has been said that the ex-vice president is deteriorating rapidly. If he is in even worse shape come July and party elders and those close to him (e.g., his wife) can persuade him to step aside, he could be replaced. The rules on who’d choose his replacement are clear, too: the Democratic National Committee would, via a meeting of its hundreds of members.

The DNC could then choose Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama or someone else. There are complicating factors, such as state laws governing replacing candidates on the ballot, but these could likely be “worked out.”

This solves the B&B dilemma: a DNC-aided Biden takes out Bernie, and then DNC cajoling takes out Biden. A stumbling block is that Biden would have to agree to withdraw, and he may not be amenable to this if in denial. Then again, mentally compromised people are easy to manipulate (“Sign this, Joe; it’s just a routine form!”).

If Biden does remain in the race and somehow wins the presidency — and with media bias, vote fraud and Big Tech meddling this isn’t entirely unimaginable — it’s unfathomable that he could function as commander in chief. If he didn’t voluntarily step down, he could become the first president removed under the 25th Amendment for mental incapacity.

Under this scenario, his vice presidential pick takes on unprecedented significance. (Biden himself acknowledged this in January, undermining his viability by saying that his running mate would have to be able to “immediately” replace him because he’s “an old guy.”)

In fact, we’d have to wonder: Could his VP choice be Hillary Clinton? While her ego would normally preclude her from playing second fiddle to Biden, the opportunity could be irresistible if she’s in on the scheme and knows he’ll be removed and she’ll end up top dog.

For that matter, though, Biden’s pick could be Elizabeth Warren, to try to appease the radical left wing and bolster the women’s vote; or a non-white candidate, such as Stacey Abrams or Andrew Yang (who appeals to the young).

What’s for sure is that the B&B dilemma is real, Joe Biden is unfit to be commander in chief, and the DNC knows it. If he ever did ascend to the presidency, it’s inconceivable that he’d be long for the office.

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

RELATED VIDEO: Joe Biden’s ‘confused crazy rants’ should have discounted him years ago.

© All rights reserved.

National Security Adviser Blames China for Swift Spread of Wuhan Coronavirus

/in , , , , , , , , /by

China’s government initially “covered up” the new coronavirus and delayed global response to the disease by at least two months, White House national security adviser Robert O’Brien said Wednesday.

O’Brien’s remarks come as the communist Chinese government has tried to deny the disease’s origins in the city of Wuhan and pushed internet rumors that the United States created it.

“This virus did not originate in the United States. It originated in the Wuhan, in the Hubei province in China,” O’Brien said in an appearance at The Heritage Foundation.

“It originated some time ago. Unfortunately, rather than using best practices, this outbreak in Wuhan was covered up.”

As of early Wednesday, officials had confirmed 938 cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus, across 38 states. There were a total of 29 deaths, all but a few in Washington state.

“There is a lot of open-source reporting from China, from Chinese nationals, from doctors involved [who] were either silenced or put into isolation or that sort of thing, so the report of this virus did not get out,” O’Brien said.

O’Brien, who is President Donald Trump’s top adviser on foreign affairs and national security matters, said the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention could have assisted China in early containment and treatment before the outbreak. He said:

It probably cost the world community two months to respond. And in those two months, if we had those and had the cooperation of the Chinese, and a WHO team been on the ground and a CDC team—which we had offered them on the ground—I think we could have dramatically curtailed what happened in China and what is now happening across the world.

In a recent example, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian, said March 4: “Some in the media say this coronavirus is a China virus. This is extremely irresponsible and we firmly oppose that. We are still tracing the origin of the virus and there is no conclusion yet.”

Other Chinese diplomats denied the disease’s origins in China and took offense to references of “Wuhan” in describing the virus.

More than just dodging responsibility, the Chinese government reportedly has pushed propaganda that the United States created  the virus.

O’Brien spoke well of the Trump administration’s response in assembling a task force and closing off travel to the U.S. from China.

“Pandemics and epidemics are some of the greatest challenges we face as a country. I think we’ve done a good job responding to it,” O’Brien said. “But look, the way this started out in China from the outset was not right. It should have been handled differently. But we are where we are right now. We are doing our best to work with the Chinese.”

O’Brien, who replaced John Bolton in the key White House post, also spoke about reforms to the National Security Council.

He announced plans in October to streamline the 174-member staff to fewer than 120. This has prompted controversy as Trump has demonstrated distrust of some in the government bureaucracy after the impeachment battle.

“We brought the size down, but we’ve done it for the most part through attrition and holding off on hiring,” O’Brien said.

O’Brien said he was following the model of President George H.W. Bush’s national security adviser Brent Scowcroft by having a leaner staff. He also noted that he has met with his predecessors, both Republican and Democrat.

A high profile removal was Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who had testified during the House impeachment inquiry that aspects of Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s president were inappropriate.

Vindman, who was in charge of European affairs, was sent back to work in the Pentagon last month, causing an uproar among Democrats.

“I think that some people decided the NSC was going to be a career for them and they were going to stay there as long they could. And I think there were people who felt they knew better how to conduct the foreign policy of the United States than the elected president of the United States,” O’Brien said, without mentioning any names or specifying the impeachment inquiry.

He added:

If you’re on the president’s staff and you don’t agree with the president, and you can’t put your disagreement aside, and you can’t get on board with the president’s policy, then you’re probably better served and the country’s probably better served if you’re back at an agency doing something where you’re not trying to make policy or create policy or thwart policy or resist policy. Or you’re better off going to run for Congress or state Senate or Senate, where you can be a policymaker. …

We are there to staff the president and make sure he gets the best advice on policy possible and to make sure his policies are implemented. If you’ve got a different view of what you should be doing, the NSC is probably not the best place for you to be serving.

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLES:

CNN’s Jim Acosta Accuses Trump of ‘Xenophobia’ for Pointing Out the Wuhan Virus Started in China

3 Food Aid Steps Policymakers Can Take for Needy Hurt by Coronavirus

Trump Suspends Travel From Europe, Offers Financial Aid for Coronavirus

A Doctor Explains What You Need to Know About Coronavirus

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

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

Watch: President Trump’s Address to the Nation on the Global Wuhan Virus Outbreak

/in , , , , , , , /by

On March 11th, 2020 at 9 p.m. ET, President Donald J. Trump addressed Americans from the Oval Office about our country’s fight against the global Coronavirus outbreak.

WATCH LIVE at 9 p.m. ET: President Trump addresses the nation

On March 11th the President met with financial leaders at the White House, discussing how best to meet the needs of customers affected by the Coronavirus. Ensuring financial relief for both consumers and small businesses is a core piece of the President’s agenda.

The President also signed a memorandum today directing his Cabinet to make general-use face masks available to healthcare workers. Under President Trump’s leadership, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has also already taken bold steps to incentivize the development of vaccines, therapeutics, and other products that are needed to fight the Coronavirus outbreak and address supply concerns.

TRANSCRIPT:

As prepared for delivery by the White House, March 11, 2020

My fellow Americans: Tonight, I want to speak with you about our nation’s unprecedented response to the coronavirus outbreak that started in China and is now spreading throughout the world.

Today, the World Health Organization officially announced that this is a global pandemic.

We have been in frequent contact with our allies, and we are marshaling the full power of the federal government and the private sector to protect the American people.

This is the most aggressive and comprehensive effort to confront a foreign virus in modern history.  I am confident that by counting and continuing to take these tough measures, we will significantly reduce the threat to our citizens, and we will ultimately and expeditiously defeat this virus.

From the beginning of time, nations and people have faced unforeseen challenges, including large-scale and very dangerous health threats.  This is the way it always was and always will be.  It only matters how you respond, and we are responding with great speed and professionalism.

Our team is the best anywhere in the world.  At the very start of the outbreak, we instituted sweeping travel restrictions on China and put in place the first federally mandated quarantine in over 50 years.  We declared a public health emergency and issued the highest level of travel warning on other countries as the virus spread its horrible infection.

And taking early intense action, we have seen dramatically fewer cases of the virus in the United States than are now present in Europe.

The European Union failed to take the same precautions and restrict travel from China and other hotspots.  As a result, a large number of new clusters in the United States were seeded by travelers from Europe.

After consulting with our top government health professionals, I have decided to take several strong but necessary actions to protect the health and well-being of all Americans.

To keep new cases from entering our shores, we will be suspending all travel from Europe to the United States for the next 30 days.  The new rules will go into effect Friday at midnight.  These restrictions will be adjusted subject to conditions on the ground.

There will be exemptions for Americans who have undergone appropriate screenings, and these prohibitions will not only apply to the tremendous amount of trade and cargo, but various other things as we get approval.  Anything coming from Europe to the United States is what we are discussing.  These restrictions will also not apply to the United Kingdom.

At the same time, we are monitoring the situation in China and in South Korea.  And, as their situation improves, we will reevaluate the restrictions and warnings that are currently in place for a possible early opening.

Earlier this week, I met with the leaders of health insurance industry who have agreed to waive all copayments for coronavirus treatments, extend insurance coverage to these treatments, and to prevent surprise medical billing.

We are cutting massive amounts of red tape to make antiviral therapies available in record time.  These treatments will significantly reduce the impact and reach of the virus.

Additionally, last week, I signed into law an $8.3 billion funding bill to help CDC and other government agencies fight the virus and support vaccines, treatments, and distribution of medical supplies.  Testing and testing capabilities are expanding rapidly, day by day.  We are moving very quickly.

The vast majority of Americans: The risk is very, very low.  Young and healthy people can expect to recover fully and quickly if they should get the virus.  The highest risk is for elderly population with underlying health conditions.  The elderly population must be very, very careful.

In particular, we are strongly advising that nursing homes for the elderly suspend all medically unnecessary visits.  In general, older Americans should also avoid nonessential travel in crowded areas.

My administration is coordinating directly with communities with the largest outbreaks, and we have issued guidance on school closures, social distancing, and reducing large gatherings.

Smart action today will prevent the spread of the virus tomorrow.

Every community faces different risks and it is critical for you to follow the guidelines of your local officials who are working closely with our federal health experts — and they are the best.

For all Americans, it is essential that everyone take extra precautions and practice good hygiene.  Each of us has a role to play in defeating this virus.  Wash your hands, clean often-used surfaces, cover your face and mouth if you sneeze or cough, and most of all, if you are sick or not feeling well, stay home.

To ensure that working Americans impacted by the virus can stay home without fear of financial hardship, I will soon be taking emergency action, which is unprecedented, to provide financial relief.  This will be targeted for workers who are ill, quarantined, or caring for others due to coronavirus.

I will be asking Congress to take legislative action to extend this relief.

Because of the economic policies that we have put into place over the last three years, we have the greatest economy anywhere in the world, by far.

Our banks and financial institutions are fully capitalized and incredibly strong.  Our unemployment is at a historic low.  This vast economic prosperity gives us flexibility, reserves, and resources to handle any threat that comes our way.

This is not a financial crisis, this is just a temporary moment of time that we will overcome together as a nation and as a world.

However, to provide extra support for American workers, families, and businesses, tonight I am announcing the following additional actions:  I am instructing the Small Business Administration to exercise available authority to provide capital and liquidity to firms affected by the coronavirus.

Effective immediately, the SBA will begin providing economic loans in affected states and territories.  These low-interest loans will help small businesses overcome temporary economic disruptions caused by the virus.  To this end, I am asking Congress to increase funding for this program by an additional $50 billion.

Using emergency authority, I will be instructing the Treasury Department to defer tax payments, without interest or penalties, for certain individuals and businesses negatively impacted.  This action will provide more than $200 billion of additional liquidity to the economy.

Finally, I am calling on Congress to provide Americans with immediate payroll tax relief.  Hopefully they will consider this very strongly.

We are at a critical time in the fight against the virus.  We made a life-saving move with early action on China.  Now we must take the same action with Europe.  We will not delay.  I will never hesitate to take any necessary steps to protect the lives, health, and safety of the American people.  I will always put the wellbeing of America first.

If we are vigilant — and we can reduce the chance of infection, which we will — we will significantly impede the transmission of the virus.  The virus will not have a chance against us.

No nation is more prepared or more resilient than the United States.  We have the best economy, the most advanced healthcare, and the most talented doctors, scientists, and researchers anywhere in the world.

We are all in this together.  We must put politics aside, stop the partisanship, and unify together as one nation and one family.

As history has proven time and time again, Americans always rise to the challenge and overcome adversity.

Our future remains brighter than anyone can imagine.  Acting with compassion and love, we will heal the sick, care for those in need, help our fellow citizens, and emerge from this challenge stronger and more unified than ever before.

God bless you, and God bless America.  Thank you.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Watch CNN’s Don Lemon Throw A Tantrum Over John Kasich’s Refusal to Slam Trump’s Wuhan Virus Speech

Stay prepared: Follow CDC for resources and updates on the Coronavirus 

“Trump Administration Addresses ‘Community Spread’ of Coronavirus”.

A Doctor Explains What You Need to Know About Coronavirus

Trump Suspends Travel From Europe, Offers Financial Aid for Coronavirus

3 Food Aid Steps Policymakers Can Take for Needy Hurt by Coronavirus

National Security Adviser Blames China for Swift Spread of Coronavirus

With Coronavirus, the Chinese Repeat the Soviets’ Chernobyl Failure

VIDEO: The Vortex — Never Let a Good Crisis Go to Waste

/in , , , , , , /by

TRANSCRIPT

In 2008, Obama’s White House Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor Rahm Emmanuel said of the then-tanking economy, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”

He meant, when something bad happens, find a way to score political points and advance your agenda even further and faster.

Well, aside from the weaponizing of the coronavirus by the Left, the same is now going on in the Church, and that’s because a vast number of the hierarchy are actually sympathetic to the Left, and in some cases, card-carrying members.

First, there’s the political idiocy. The Left is saying —we know this is shocking — that it’s all Trump’s fault. Either he didn’t do enough in the beginning, or he’s not doing enough now.

And now, since he or his supporters have dubbed it the “Wuhan Virus,” on top of all of it, they are racists. Trump got attacked for putting a Chinese travel ban in place to contain the virus. According to the Left, that makes him xenophobic. Calling it the Wuhan Virus makes him a racist.

The media-driven hysteria, which they are pushing because they think it might be a backdoor way to get to Trump, is just ridiculously over the top. The markets plunging feeds right into the Dems’ political strategy and, of course, it’s all Trump’s fault, as Joe Biden was stammering on about a couple of days ago.

What no one in the Marxist media is saying is that this is nowhere near as deadly as the H1N1 virus outbreak which killed about half a million Americans. The regular old flu kills anywhere from 40,000–100,000 Americans every year.

By the way, if there was ever a time to buy stocks it would be right now. Buy low, sell high.

However, the political Left can’t really hold a candle to what is being accomplished by what we could call the theological Left. And we are talking about the Mass hysteria —  literal Mass, as in the sacrifice of the Mass. News that all Masses in Rome were canceled throughout the remainder of Lent, which essentially just began, sent shockwaves throughout the Catholic world.

The Italian bishops conference is either canceling Masses, limiting Holy Communion or a host of other actions that have the ultimate effect of dampening the Faith. They’ve actually posted notices at local parishes that say in effect, no Masses, no adoration, no confessions, no weddings, etc.

Talk about never letting a crisis go to waste.

But when you jump the pond and land on American shores, the U.S. bishops are also making hay out of the hysteria.

And for the record, we aren’t saying ignore the virus, of course not. You should always take whatever usual and reasonable precautions you can to prevent you and your loved ones from getting sick. But too many U.S. bishops are being completely unreasonable and that’s a charitable assessment.

One could easily conclude that many are using the situation to go after Communion on the tongue. They’ve long hated it because it smacks of traditional Catholicism but they’ve been a little hamstrung in forbidding it. They’re hamstrung actually because they don’t have jurisdiction to forbid it. Only the pope can stop the practice of reception of Holy Communion on the tongue.

Hear that very clearly: No bishop can order you to not receive on the tongue, period. The Universal law of the Church says every Catholic has the right, the right — pay attention — the right — to receive on the tongue. Therefore every bishop who orders, or makes it sound like you can’t receive Our Lord on the tongue is lying and disobedient, or at the very least, totally ignorant and incompetent.

Back in 2008 and 2009, the H1N1 flu, which was also called the swine flu, broke out and killed huge numbers of people. Of course, the U.S. bishops, ever watchful for an opportunity to kill Communion on the tongue, petitioned Rome to see if Pope Benedict would end the practice. The answer they got back was a resounding no.

Now pay attention because we have attached a link to Rome’s response for you to print out and keep with you when you go to Mass. It says flat out that you always have the right to receive on the tongue, period — no exceptions. Always, always, always means always — always — even in the age of confusion which reigns supreme in Rome these days.

Again, click on the link, print out this document and keep it with you. It’s your proof that you cannot be told to receive in your hand. It’s only four sentences long. Ah, we miss the days of clarity.

And not only does it say you always have the right to receive on the tongue, it also says that it is illicit to deny Holy Communion to those who are able to receive.

And by the way, keep it with you even after the Wuhan virus scare is over, because you know that many bishops will never reinstate the practice with a public announcement that says “okay, all clear to start receiving on the tongue again.” Fat chance — it’s not going to happen.

There’s much to get into here about the topic of the manner of reception. There’s a long history to talk about — how homosexual Cdl. Joseph Bernardin of Chicago jammed through reception in the hand illicitly, over the objections of multiple bishops. We could talk about how reception from the cup was introduced to copy the Protestant revolutionaries who wanted to destroy belief in the Real Presence in the first Protestants, who were actually Catholics. The introduction of so-called eucharistic ministers was a further attempt to destroy belief in the Real Presence.

All of their plans, you have to say, have worked exceedingly well. Belief in the Real Presence is virtually nil among Catholics. Good job, bishops!

Likewise, you can tell easily that many of the bishops are using this as a way to get at traditional Catholics, because frankly, traditional Catholics are just about the only ones who do receive on the tongue and kneeling at that. The vast majority of the few Church of Nice Catholics who still go to Mass wouldn’t dream of receiving on the tongue, or kneeling. They show up late, grab their piece of bread and scoot out the door early, and then, not even every week.

So just who are the bishops talking to when they issue all these alarmist “the sky is falling” warnings? Certainly not the huge majority of the tiny percentage of Catholics who go to Mass.

And even if the Wuhan Virus was as great a lethal threat as the Marxist media is making it out to be — and the bishops are at least faking like they believe that, given how much they are canceling Holy Communion reception on the tongue — here’s a question.

Are the bishops going to cancel their semiannual meeting that will take place here in Detroit in June? (See you there, guys.) After all, those most impacted by the virus, if they catch it, are older men in somewhat poor health. You couldn’t find a more apt physical description of the U.S. hierarchy as a whole than that — old, out-of-shape, with other health problems — men. Then you’re going to cram about 400 of them into the same room for days on end. Come on, bishops.

Then you’re going to travel back to your dioceses and transmit the killer disease to your staff who will then kill off the laity in your diocese by shaking their hands. Bishops, come on, you aren’t going to limit your efforts to just the laity at Communion time right?

Laity — know your rights.

Click on that Vatican document we’ve attached, and have it with you — print it out and have it with you — every time you go to Mass. Just keep it in your back pocket. It’s almost a guarantee in the Church of Nice: One day, you’re going to need it. After all, why let a good crisis go to waste?

Correction: The CDW letter was a reply to a lay Catholic in Britain concerned about the parish’s restricting of reception of Communion on the tongue because of the swine flu scare, not the USCCB.

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

Embedding LGBT ideology in the curriculum carries serious risks for young people. We need to tell them the facts and consequences.

/in , , , , , , , /by

The UK government funded the LGBT Lobby Stonewall to produce a programme; ‘Creating an LGBT inclusive Primary Curriculum’ which has been designed to erode ‘heteronormative’ assumptions in primary schools. The programme embeds same sex relationships throughout the curriculum, using psychological techniques such as ‘usualising’, ‘actualising’ and desensitization to make these relationships appear normal to our youngest children. Teachers are told to eliminate ‘he’ and ‘she’ from the curriculum, turning the world into a place inhabited by sexless ‘theys’. Stonewall tell us that schools will be monitored to see how successfully these ideas are adopted.

Stonewall resources are already widely used in UK schools although there are no legal requirements to teach about LGBT relationships. Nor can it be supported by the Equalities Act, which simply protects against discrimination. In fact the Department for Education could probably be legally challenged as much of the programme undermines parent’s religious beliefs.

We do not allow political or religious groups such influence over the curriculum. How come a single issue group like Stonewall has such influence on the basis of their ideological belief?

Part of the reason is the assumption that ‘being gay’ is, like sex or disability, an innate characteristic, and that those who are affected need our protection and support. This belief is an outcome of a long-term campaign carried out by the LGBT lobby whose aim was most clearly articulated in After the Ball by Kirk and Madsen:

“The mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference. The message must read: ‘As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic. They never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy… Straight viewers must be able to identify with gays as victims.” (See here)

This assumption influences how we teach about same sex attraction (SSA) in schools today. For example, LGBT activists Barnes and Carlile instruct teachers to draw an equivalence between disability, colour and being gay: “When we study the Paralympics are we promoting disabilities?… When we study the civil rights movement are we promoting being black?” The answer is evidently, “No!”’

The result is wide acceptance of the view that some people are ‘born gay,’ but there is little evidence to support this.

Same-sex attracted people are not ‘born gay’

Research suggests that in some cases there may exist predisposing hormonal factors. Some biological correlates have been identified, but ‘being gay’ is not genetically predetermined. This has been comprehensively confirmed.

Our sexuality, or sexual expression, is indicated but not determined by biology. Many lesbians and gay men have had sex with an opposite sex partners and enjoyed it. For some, desires change over their lifetime.  Others are clear that their sexuality is a product of nurture rather than nature. Some have been so convinced of this that they have successfully sought therapy to change their sexual orientation.

Who we desire is profoundly complex and shrouded in mystery. Biology is a clumsy tool for understanding the ins and outs of sex.

The importance of these less tangible factors is appreciated by gay rights advocate Peter Tatchell: ‘Many studies suggest social factors are also important influences in the formation of sexual orientation. These include the relationship between a child and its parent, formative childhood experiences, family expectations, cultural mores and peer pressure.’

The evidence backs him up.

Some research has identified a range of social factors which correlate with homosexual marriage including divorced parents, older mothers and absent fathers.

Another factor which emerges consistently is child abuse. For example a study found that 46% of homosexual subjects reported abuse, as opposed to 7% of heterosexuals. Another study found that 19% of lesbians had been involved in incestuous relationships while growing up.

Some psychologists have argued that  SSA is linked with a weakened sense of masculinity which can have a number of causes.. Some gay men have argued that their relationship with their father has been key. (see here and here)

For others it is simply a choice.

All this suggests that ‘born that way’ this isn’t actually true. Rather  ‘Moral values, social ideologies and cultural expectations – together with family patterns and parent-child interaction’  are some of the factors impacting on the development of our sexual identities, as Peter Tatchell has explained.

Normalisation is boosting same-sex and trans trends

However, if we accept that cultural mores, peer pressure, moral values and social ideologies all impact on the development of homosexuality and lesbianism, what are the implications for the normalisation that is going on in schools?

Is it possible that young people who might otherwise have grown up to be purely heterosexual will be tempted into gay relationships? And if so, should this be a cause of concern?

One study estimated that as many as 80 percent of male adolescents who report same-sex attractions no longer do so as adults. Had those young people lived in today’s gay affirming society it seems likely that the numbers who then moved into full homosexuality would have been higher.

We have seen how, since teaching children about transgender identity began in schools, the number of children who are now suffering from gender dysphoria has soared – by over 4400 percent. If children and young people can become confused about their sex, which is so obvious, surely confusion about sexuality could also occur?

There does appear to be evidence that homosexual orientation is slowly beginning an upward climb. Data from the Office for National Statistics shows that there is an increase in the proportion of people who identify as gay lesbian or bisexual and this increase appears to be more concentrated in the younger age groups.

For LGBT activists the possibility that gay affirming schools will encourage homosexuality is positively welcomed: “Were future generations to grow up in a gay-positive, homo-friendly culture, it’ likely that many more people would have same-sex relationships, if not for all for their lives at least for significant periods,” says :Peter Tatchell. His hope is that “With this boom in queer sex, the social basis of homophobia would be radically undermined”.

However, Tatchell and others are not supported by the evidence. The evidence seems to suggest that the massive push to affirm LGBT people in schools and society may be reducing tolerance and pushing the numbers of hate crimes up. (US evidence  and UK Evidence)

There are other reasons why encouraging homosexuality to ‘become commonplace’ among our younger generation may not be a good idea.

Young people should be told the health implications

For the facts are that although promiscuity has declined enormously since the early days of AIDS, gay men do, on average, tend to have higher levels of promiscuity. As parents, this is something we would be keen for our children to avoid. It also appears that in the process of achieving intimacy some gay men and women engage in risky and dangerous practices which most of us would be desperate to protect future generations from.

There is evidence that gay people are more likely to show multiple indicators of mental disorder, including higher rates of depression, anxiety, suicidal thinking and attempts, substance abuse, eating disorders and, at least for lesbians, intimate partner violence. And this not necessarily because of discrimination as is commonly assumed.

What perhaps is most alarming are the increased risks of sexually transmitted and other diseases, overall poor health and shortened lifespans due to HIV. (see here, here and here)

If ‘eliminating homophobia’ depends on sacrificing the health, happiness and the future wellbeing of our children, I, for one, am not prepared to pay the price.

Children are being taught that sexual relationships with your own sex or the opposite sex are both equally desirable. But this simply isn’t true.

Children need to understand that all human beings are equal. However, when it comes to lifestyles, our different choices have costs and benefits attached. For example, being gay can leave a person more vulnerable to relationship instability, mental health problems, dangerous sexual practices and exposure to disease. When it comes to family formation, one of the most significant events in determining our whole life course, being gay is a disability, not to put too fine a point on it.

For some young people choice does not appear to come into it, and of course we accept them, and hopefully journey with them, and make sure they know they have all our support.

But this does not mean that we should teach all young people that it will make no difference to their long-term health, happiness and life plans whether they settle for being straight or decide to explore the possibilities of being lesbian or gay.

So let’s encourage an accurately informed decision making process which takes into consideration the costs and benefits of different types of relationship for those young people who do feel they have a choice.

This is the direction in which we should be guiding our young people.

But that won’t happen while the LGBT lobby are in charge.

COLUMN BY

BELINDA BROWN

Belinda Brown is author of The Private Revolution: Women in the Polish Underground Movement and a number of well-cited academic papers. British, she also writes for The Daily Mail and The Conservative Woman. She has a particular interest in men’s issues and the damage caused by feminism. 

RELATED VIDEO: Activists Say Protecting Girls from Mutilation is Anti-Transgender

RELATED COLUMNS:

Smashing heteronormativity 101: disrupting children’s sexual intuitions

We like heteronormativity and we don’t want you to smash it

What is killing marriage and the family?

It was men who won votes for women, not the Suffragettes

Feminism forgets the primacy of private life

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

4 Things to Know About Chinese Origins of Coronavirus

/in , , , , , , , /by

Before MSNBC personalities were calling it “racist” and “astoundingly gross” to note the origin of the new coronavirus, NBC News reported in January on what it called the “Wuhan coronavirus.”

In recent days, the Chinese government has sought to cast doubt on whether the virus in fact originated in the city of Wuhan after initially acknowledging that the disease emerged from Wuhan, known as “South China Seafood City.”

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., prompted outrage from China’s communist government and the mainstream media in the U.S. for using the phrase “Wuhan virus.”

President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, and top administration officials on the White House’s coronavirus task force met Tuesday with executives from the insurance industry, who Trump said were taking strong actions to address the challenge.

“The biggest companies in our country, probably the biggest companies in the world, I can’t imagine being much bigger,” Trump said of the businesses represented by his guests during the Roosevelt Room meeting at the White House.

“But these are … the great health insurance companies, and I think tremendous progress is being made. They’re willing to do things for the people and their customers and probably, in a true sense, beyond their customers that normally, I don’t think, they’d be doing.”

Trump didn’t address the issue of the disease’s Chinese origin, but here are what some other officials are saying about it.

1. What Chinese Officials Have Said in Denial

“Some in the media say this coronavirus is a China virus. This is extremely irresponsible and we firmly oppose that,” Zhao Lijian, spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said March 4. “We are still tracing the origin of the virus and there is no conclusion yet.”

Zhao said the disease, which health officials call COVID-19, short for coronavirus disease 19, is a “global phenomenon with uncertain origins.”

“The COVID-19 first appeared in China. That doesn’t mean its origin is in China,” Zhao said.

Lin Songtian, China’s ambassador to South Africa, expressed a similar view in a tweet over the weekend.

“Although the epidemic first broke out in China, it did not necessarily mean that the virus is originated from China, let alone ‘made in China,’” Lin tweeted.

2. How the Chinese Blame America

More than just dodging responsibility, the Chinese government reportedly has pushed propaganda that the United States started the virus.

The Washington Post reported last week that China’s communist government was promoting conspiracy theories online about U.S. involvement.

“In recent days, run-of-the-mill mockery of the White House has taken a darker turn as the Chinese internet became inundated by the theory, subtly stoked by the Chinese government, that the coronavirus originated in the United States,” the newspaper said. “The U.S. government, one version of the theory goes, has been covering up mounting cases, and perhaps thousands of deaths, by classifying them as regular flu.”

There have been false internet rumors in the United States about China as well, but there is a clear difference, said Dean Cheng, senior research fellow for Asian studies at The Heritage Foundation.

“The problem here is that this seems to be echoes of Soviet information warfare,” Cheng told The Daily Signal. “America has a free press, from CNN to Alex Jones, The New York Times, and the National Enquirer. China’s press is state run. So these rumors are not random charges.”

The goal of the Chinese government is to define the virus as being as distant from government leaders and the Communist Party as possible, Cheng said.

Xiao Qiang, an adjunct professor at the University of California at Berkeley’s School of Information, studies China’s internet.

“Go on WeChat, go on Weibo, look on Baidu search, and it’s full of ‘look at all the other countries getting sick,’ or ‘the virus came from the United States,’ or all different levels of conspiracy theories,” Qiang told the Post.

NBC News reported March 6: “In recent weeks … Chinese officials have appeared eager to float the idea that the virus did not necessarily start in their country at all.”

 3. What Chinese Officials Used to Say

During a press briefing Friday, Pompeo sought to prevent China from escaping responsibility.

“The Wuhan virus that began at the end of last year is something that this administration is taking incredibly seriously,” Pompeo told reporters. “The State Department has been very involved from the beginning when we worked diligently to get hundreds of Americans out of Hubei province, out of Wuhan, and get them back to the United States safely.”

Wuhan is the capital of Hubei province, in central China.

A reporter later said to Pompeo: “You called it the Wuhan virus, and I haven’t—that’s an accurate way to depict where it’s coming from.”

The secretary of state responded: “The Chinese Communist Party has said that this is where the virus started. So don’t take my word for it; take theirs.”

Chinese President Xi Jinping, in a Feb. 3 speech to the Politburo, talked about Wuhan.

“After the outbreak of the new coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, on Jan. 7, when I presided over a meeting of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, I made a request for the prevention and control of the new coronavirus pneumonia,” Xi said.

The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission said Dec. 31:

Recently, some medical institutions found that many of the pneumonia cases received were related to South China Seafood City. After receiving the report, the … commission immediately launched a case search and retrospective investigation related to South China Seafood City in the city’s medical health institutions.

Twenty-seven cases have been found, of which 7 are in serious condition, and the remaining cases are stable and controllable. Two patients are expected to be discharged in the near future.

The clinical manifestations of the cases were mainly fever, a few patients had difficulty breathing, and chest radiographs showed bilateral lung infiltrative lesions. At present, all cases have been isolated for treatment, follow-up investigations and medical observations of close contacts are ongoing, and hygiene investigations and environmental sanitation disposals for South China Seafood City are ongoing.

4. What the Media Has Said

Cheng noted the Chinese government doesn’t have 100% control of the internet in China, and citizen journalists have been able to report what is happening in the country with the virus, though the government typically cracks down within a number of days.

“The Chinese are savvy in their observation of U.S. media and how parts of the punditry react,” Cheng said.

MSNBC anchor David Gura tweeted March 8: “FYI: Calling #COVID19 the ‘Wuhan Virus’ is racist.”

In response to Gosar’s referring to the “Wuhan Virus” in a tweet about how he self-quarantined, MSNBC prime-time host Chris Hayes tweeted: “Just astoundingly gross to call it the Wuhan Virus.”

Several times in January, however, NBC News stories referred to the “Wuhan coronavirus.”

NBC wasn’t alone.

On Feb. 9, CNN posted a headline reading: “Wuhan coronavirus kills 97 more people in one day as death toll tops SARS.”

On Feb. 4, CNN posted a story headlined: “Confirmed Wuhan coronavirus cases top 20,000 as China marks deadliest day.”

The New York Times ran a Feb. 4 headline saying: “Even Without Symptoms, Wuhan Coronavirus May Spread, Experts Fear.” The Times also ran a Feb. 2 piece headlined, “Wuhan Coronavirus Looks Increasingly Like a Pandemic, Experts Say.”

The Washington Post ran an opinion piece Feb. 2 with the headline: “What the Iowa disaster and the Wuhan virus have in common.”

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Trump Administration Addressing ‘Community Spread’ of Coronavirus

US Government and Politicians Must Unite to Fight the Coronavirus

How Coronavirus Will Affect China’s Future

Why has coronavirus largely spared Africa?

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

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

A Day in the Senate with the Born-Alive Act

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Hadley Arkes: For Democrats, abortion is a “right” that extends beyond pregnancy and entails nothing less than the right to kill a child born alive. 

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act finally came before the Senate in the last days of February. This was the sequel to the Act passed in 2002, the Act that sought to cast the protections of the law on babies who survived abortions.

As the readers of this column know by now, that bill sprang from a proposal I had written for the debating kit of George H.W Bush in 1988.  By the time it was put in legislative form, the penalties were dropped, in part to avoid a veto from President Clinton (in 2000), but in part also to make the bill a pure “teaching” bill.”

The bill would break out to the public news that most people would find jolting.  Most people did not know that under Roe v. Wade and its companion case of Doe v. Bolton, the right to abortion would extend through the entire length of the pregnancy – and even when a child survived the abortion.

It turned out that there were far more of these babies surviving than we had known at the time.   But it was the mass of killings taking place in the abattoir of Dr. Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia that brought a new attention to the problem – and offered the moment to act.

With the support of Trent Franks of the Judiciary Committee in the House, I joined with some accomplished friends to draft a new bill, to restore the penalties that had been dropped from the original bill.  That move has made the difference for the Democrats – and further illuminated the landscape.

People curiously forget that when the original bill was enacted in 2002, the Democrats were in control of the Senate.  They did not like the bill, but they were willing to vote for such a modest measure carrying no penalties, especially if they could do it with a voice vote, with no one going on the record.

That is what makes it disingenuous for Democrats now to say that the bill isn’t needed because we already have a law that forbids the killing of  a child who survives an abortion. What comes into play now is an old aphorism of Lord Bracknell, roughly translated in this way: that “it would be superfluous to make laws, unless those laws, when made, were to be enforced.”

To add serious penalties, civil and criminal, for the killing of the child is finally to take this legislation seriously as legislation.

And when that was done, the dramatic change in the Democrats could  then be read in a vote so startling that even the Republicans seem struck dumb in how to deal with it.  With Republicans in control of the House, the new Born-Alive Act was brought to the floor in September 2015, when it passed  248-177.  It was brought again in January 2018, when it passed 241-183.  Every voting Republican voted for these bills, and every Democrat but five or six, voted in opposition.

And now, with the bill in the Senate, every Republican voted for it, along with three Democrats, while every vote in opposition came from Democrats, holding the line.   The bill garnered 56 votes, but short of the 60 needed to overcome the Democratic filibuster.

The Democrats had arrived at the most radical position yet on the matter of abortion – so radical that the Republican managers of the bill, along with President Trump, still haven’t quite figured out how to express it.

The matter was blurted out, almost in passing, by Sen. Patty Murray from Washington. She remarked that “Republicans are peddling a ban that is blatantly unconstitutional.”  That is, this move to protect children born alive is incompatible with that “right” proclaimed in Roe v. Wade. For virtually all Democrats now in Congress and national politics, that right to abortion is a right that extends beyond pregnancy itself and entails nothing less than the right to kill a child born alive.

That is the ground now on which the question should be called and fought out in the presidential election.  But President Trump hasn’t apparently grasped this gift that has been given to him.

And yet, neither has the sponsor of the bill, Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, who persistently failed to draw out the meaning of what his colleagues on the other side were revealing. Twenty years ago Sen. Rick Santorum asked Sen. Barbara Boxer  to offer the earliest moment when a newborn child could be protected by the law, and she said “when you bring your baby home.”

That answer became a source of embarrassment, as Boxer could never explain her way out of the problem. At every turn Sen. Sasse has passed up the chance to draw his colleagues into colloquies of this kind.  That would not affect the vote, but the confrontation could draw the attention of a wider public.

Twenty years ago, the beloved Henry Hyde was astonished that the National Organization of Women would come out so strongly against this modest bill.  But the other side knew that we were asking what was different about that same child five minutes earlier, before it was born – but then five days, five months earlier.

Hyde’s happy bewilderment revealed a state of affairs that still holds:  the other side understands this bill better than some of our own allies, because it understands the principle that lies at the heart of the thing.

COLUMN BY

Hadley Arkes

Hadley Arkes is the Ney Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus at Amherst College and the Founder/Director of the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights & the American Founding. His most recent book is Constitutional Illusions & Anchoring Truths: The Touchstone of the Natural Law. Volume II of his audio lectures from The Modern Scholar, First Principles and Natural Law is now available for download.

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2020 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Trump Administration Aims to Calm Coronavirus Fears on Economic, Health Fronts

/in , , , , , , /by

President Donald Trump announced Monday evening that he will push Congress for a payroll tax cut to stem concerns about the coronavirus that sent the stock market into a spiral earlier in the day.

Trump also pledged he would push for hourly wage earners to be able to take off work without fear of losing their jobs, as the number of related U.S. deaths rose to 26, all but four in Washington state.

The president said he would give more details Tuesday after meeting with members of Congress.

“We are going to be seeing the Senate and meeting with House Republicans and discussing possible payroll tax relief,” Trump said at the White House, flanked by members of the administration’s coronavirus task force headed by Vice President Mike Pence.

“We are also going to be talking about hourly wage earners getting help so that they can be in a position where they are not going to miss a paycheck,” Trump said. “We are going to be working with small companies, large companies, so that they don’t get penalized for something that’s not their fault.”

The number of confirmed cases in the U.S. jumped to 600, spanning 30 states and the District of Columbia. California and Florida each confirmed two deaths, USA Today reported.

Around the world, the coronavirus has infected more than 108,000, killing more than 3,800, CNN reported.

Trump said his administration is handling the health crisis “very well,” noting travel restrictions he said never were imposed before.

“We’ve never done that in our country before. We could have had a situation a lot more dire,” the president said.

Trump said the administration would work with the airline, cruise ship, and hotel industries, which are being hit hard by the spread of the disease.

“Also, we are going to see the Small Business Administration creating loans for small businesses,” Trump said.

Pence said the task force held a conference call earlier Monday with 47 governors. He said 1 million test kits would be sent out this week, and that another 4 million test kits will go out next week.

Pence, speaking after Trump had left the briefing, said that nether he nor the president had been tested for the virus.

Administration officials sought to confront the coronavirus on both the economic and public health fronts.

“President Trump has delivered a historically strong economy,” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told reporters earlier Monday at the White House. “The fundamentals of this economy are unbelievable, whether it’s employment, or wage growth, or productivity, or international trade deals. The fundamentals remain what they are.”

The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed Monday with a decline of 2,000 points, a fall that also came during a shake-up in the oil industry that added to market woes.

The World Health Organization said the spread of the virus is close to a pandemic, citing escalating cases in China and Italy.

In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is spearheading research for a vaccine as well as public information efforts.

Trump administration officials were readying to present options for policy changes to respond to the economic disruption and public health fears caused by the new coronavirus disease, which health officials call COVID-19.

After Azar’s remarks outside the White House, HHS announced a diagnostic test for coronavirus designed for use in a system that can process up to 1,000 tests in 24 hours. The test will get financial support from HHS.

The molecular diagnostic test from Hologic Inc. will be the first product to combat COVID-19 selected for development through the department’s Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. The HHS division is contributing $699,000 in federal tax dollars to accelerate Hologic’s development.

“President Trump is leading a whole-of-government response, with the vice president helping him on the public health issues we are facing on the novel coronavirus,” Azar said. “That is his No. 1 concern.”

Congress last week approved a $8.3 billion emergency spending package for coronavirus. However, House Democrats are pushing for another bill to mandate paid leave as a response to the disease, something party leaders advocated before the virus surfaced.

Ideas to prevent panic include deferring taxes for certain industries hit by coronavirus, including the hospitality and travel industries, and directing federal funds to specific areas of the country that are most affected, The Washington Post reported.

The Treasury Department and the National Economic Council have worked on the proposals for the past 10 days, the Post reported.

“In terms of the economy, he and his economic team have the tools to keep this economy going strong,” Azar said of the president. “They delivered that historic fundamentals. They’ve got tools to deal with that.”

“But the public health and protecting the American people is the No. 1 priority for all of us,” he said.

Ken McIntyre contributed to this report, which was updated to include the president’s remarks.

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Coronavirus Outbreak Is Bad News for Ukraine’s Economy

Coronavirus Shows Government Paid Leave a Bad Fit for Employees’ Needs

RELATED VIDEOS:

Dr. Oz Argues Coronavirus Numbers from Korea Show Lower Death Rate – May be No Worse than Common Flu

Trump: Coronavirus is Democrats’ ‘new hoax’

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

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

In Massachusetts, Resistance to Marijuana Dispensaries

/in , , , , , , , /by

Although recreational marijuana has been legal in Massachusetts since voters approved it in 2016, the pot industry has experienced some serious pushback against dispensaries at the local level.

More than 90 municipalities in the state have opted out or prohibited commercial cannabis establishments.

The development is the result of a grassroots effort coordinated by local churches partnering with the Massachusetts Family Institute, a group affiliated with Family Policy Alliance and Focus on the Family.

One such church is the Lynn Spanish Seventh-Day Adventist Church, located in Lynn, Massachusetts, a city about 10 miles northeast of Boston.

When the congregation received word that the City Council was voting to give the city’s final marijuana permit to Oregon-based Diem Cannabis for a dispensary directly across the street from their church, they took action.

“We as a church are against this business, because it brings more violence, crime, and addiction to the area, and the pot shop they want to bring in would be 30 feet from our building,” Pastor Ervin Ochoa said. “We don’t want a business selling pot, because we already have a problem with drugs in our community.”

Ochoa said the community was not informed of the Feb. 11 meeting of the City Council. When word got out that the church’s new neighbor would be a pot shop, nearly 200 concerned residents and church members descended on City Hall.

Although council representatives said the permit could not be revoked, Ochoa said he and other community leaders will discuss the issue further with the city’s mayor.

“We are just asking that they relocate, not leave all together,” Ochoa said. “When you make a vote like this, you need to let the neighborhood know.”

That follows a wider pattern of minority communities that oppose marijuana in their neighborhoods. In Lawrence, a city about 30 miles northwest of Boston, the churches that serve the large Hispanic population successfully banded together to oppose allowing retail marijuana into their community.

Michael King, the Massachusetts Family Institute’s director of community alliances, said that this kind of grassroots activism counters the narrative pushed by proponents of recreational marijuana, who contend that minority communities benefit from those kinds of establishments.

“The other side will say that it is a form of social justice to allow minorities to open cannabis shops because they’ll benefit from the income,” King said. “But huge minority communities say they didn’t want this in their neighborhood.”

The opposition stems from a fear of increased crime and addiction as the result of increased pot use.

According to statistics compiled by Americans Against Legalizing Marijuana, an anti-pot activist group, there is a strong correlation between marijuana use and crime. Fifty percent of men and 30% of women arrested for a crime test positive for marijuana use.

Ochoa said his church has suffered from crimes that he believes were fueled by an increase in drug use. He said his church was broken into and lost several televisions and a laptop.

“These towns have bought into the farce that towns will get rich off retail marijuana, but the social costs are too high,” Massachusetts Family Institute’s King said. “But some money is just not worth taking.”

The statewide goal, he said, is eventually to have churches included in a 500-foot protected radius that prevents retail marijuana dispensaries from opening near K-12 schools.

“This shop [in Lynn] would be literally right across the street from the church, and would be the first thing young families see when they walk out the doors,” King said.

“Since churches are similar to schools, in that they are places where young families congregate, the same protections should be afforded to them.”

COLUMN BY

Virginia Aabram

Virginia Aabram is part of the Young Leader’s Program at the Heritage Foundation and interns at The Daily Signal.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

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

VIDEO: Planned Parenthood + Democrat Party = Planned Deathhood!

/in , , , , , , , /by

This edition of the Tom Trento Show discusses Planned Parenthood and the Democrat platform that believes that babies have no rights, that the fathers of those babies have no rights, that it’s strictly and ONLY the woman’s right to abort the living human being inside her.

ONLY the woman’s right to determine to kill/abort the living human being even after it’s birth! Democrats screech about it being the “right” of the woman to kill that life without any hesitation.

Questions:

  • Why doesn’t the father have a right?
  • Why is Planned Parenthood receiving government funding (your tax dollars)?
  • Why isn’t it murder?

The Democrat platform is death and destruction. Death of the Freedoms and Liberties afforded America by our Founders, death of babies pre-birth to even after being born, death of the elderly (end of life), death of the Judeo-Christian values, death of Free Speech, death of the Right to Bear Arms, and death of America First!

How can anyone vote for any Democrat with these current values?

Tom, along with guests in studio – Willy G and “Billy Bones” describe what an abortion does and why it MUST be considered murder. Discuss what Planned Parenthood is doing, how they are funded, and how they play into the Democrat talking points! #StopAbortions #StopPlannedParenthood Tom & team attended a West Palm Beach Pro-Life protest against a Planned Parenthood Donor event and talked with protesters. #Babies #GiftFromGod No doubts here, no argument could ever convince differently.

Watch: Planned Parenthood + Democrat Party = Planned Deathhood!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Those Sexist Democrats

Is Joe Biden Fit to Be President?

A Confused Joe Biden Says ‘We Can Only Re-Elect Donald Trump’

Grab the Popcorn: Gabbard Urges Her Opponents to Stand Up to the DNC

How to find more about us:

Website: https://www.theunitedwest.org/

Radio: https://fmmoneytalkradio.com/2019/11/…

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/theunitedwest/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheUnitedWest

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/theunite…

BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/http…

Contact: tuw@theunitedwest.org

© All rights reserved.

Schumer Threatens Gorsuch, Kavanaugh on Abortion Case: They ‘Will Pay the Price’

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Editor’s update: Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement Wednesday condemning Chuck Schumer’s remarks, saying: “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned two Supreme Court justices Wednesday that they “have released the whirlwind” and that they “will pay the price,” adding that they “won’t know what hit you” if they rule the wrong way.

Schumer spoke Wednesday at a rally in front of the United States Supreme Court where justices heard June Medical Services v. Russo, a case in which an abortion provider challenges a 2014 Louisiana state law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges in a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion facility.

Opponents say the law would hinder and potentially eliminate abortion access in Louisiana. Louisiana lawmakers and pro-life activists maintain that the law protects women from unsanitary or unsafe abortion clinic practices.

Both pro-abortion and pro-life activists gathered Wednesday at the Washington, D.C. rally where the New York senator warned Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Neil Gorsuch against taking away “fundamental rights” related to abortion.

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch,” Schumer said, video from the event shows, “and I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”

“You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” he added.

The senator’s comments referenced the political price Republicans “will pay for putting them on the court” as well as “a warning that the justices will unleash major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision,” Schumer spokesman Justin Goodman told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Let me ask you, my friends, are we going to let Republicans undo a woman’s right to choose?” Schumer asked the crowd. “Are we going to stay quiet as they try to turn back the clock? Are we going to give up or waver when things get tough?”

The pro-abortion activists in the crowd responded to each of these questions with a resounding “No.”

“No, we are going to stand together in one voice and take a stand on behalf of women and families throughout the country,” Schumer said. “We are going to stand against all these attempts to restrict a woman’s right to choose and we will win.”

Republican Sen. Ben Sasse slammed Schumer, saying that Schumer threatened Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

“The Democratic Party is so radicalized on abortion politics that today Chuck Schumer threatened Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh if they didn’t strike down a simple, commonsense, pro-woman law that simply says that abortion doctors need to have admission privileges at a local hospital,” Sasse said in a statement provided to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The Nebraska senator pointed out that if a Republican threatened Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, “it would be the biggest story not just in Washington but all across America.”

“But, Chuck Schumer’s bully tactics aren’t getting much air time right now because there’s so many people in bed with his defense of abortion and his attack on an independent judiciary,” Sasse added. “These bullying tactics need to stop.”

The case marks the first time the Supreme Court has reviewed an abortion case since Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court justice’s confirmation was marked by anxiety from the pro-abortion movement that Kavanaugh would rule favorably for pro-life policies.

He was accused of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford, whose lawyer Debra Katz said Ford’s accusations were motivated by putting “an asterisk next to” Kavanaugh’s name before “he takes a scalpel” to Roe v. Wade.

“In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court,” Katz says in a video exclusively obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation in September 2019.

“He will always have an asterisk next to his name,” Katz continues. “When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important; it is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.”

COLUMN BY

Mary Margaret Olohan

Mary Margaret Olohan is a reporter covering social issues for The Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @MaryMargOlohan.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Schumer Faces Rare Censure for Threatening Supreme Court Justices

Schumer Owes Kavanaugh, Gorsuch a Real Apology

Ban on Killing Babies Born Alive During Failed Abortion Becomes Law in West Virginia

Flashback: Here’s What Sen. Schumer Had to Say When Trump ‘Publicly Attacked’ Judges

What You Need to Know About Louisiana’s Pro-Life Law as Supreme Court Decides Its Fate

RELATED PODCAST: The Daily Signal’s Rob Bluey breaks down the case with Louisiana Attorney General Jeffrey Landry and Louisiana Solicitor General Liz Murrill, who argued it.

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Coronavirus Highlights The Importance Of The Trump Doctrine Succeeding

/in , , , , , , , /by

We are seeing the folly of past administrations of both parties playing out in real time, illuminated by a deadly virus out of the heart of China. And it is making something abundantly clear.

President Trump was more right on trade and border security than even I thought — and those were the two areas I considered him strongest in 2016. In fact, no one else was even talking about trade agreements.

The underlying thesis of Donald Trump’s push to re-do trade agreements with China and our North American neighbors — which might be called the Trump Doctrine — was to restore manufacturing at every level. The idea is that the world’s industrial democracies, led by the U.S.,  should not be beholden to the world’s largest Communist tyrants in order to simply have the basics required for their economies to operate.

This is literally the supply chain that is now threatening to crater the world economy because lousy, weak, vision-less American leadership has left us vulnerable. We should have understood that trade agreements favoring countries with cheap labor and allowing them to cheat endlessly and blackmail U.S. companies was not only wrong, it was dangerous. Trump saw that.

National security and now, obviously, health security are inextricably tied to better trade deals and more border security. I’m not saying Trump foresaw the coronavirus issue. There’s no evidence of that. But he saw American workers being hurt and he saw America and our allies being made vulnerable.

And boy was he ever right.

This clarity of vision, absent among his opponents to this day, is why he ordered the shutdown of most flights from China to America in late January, more than a month ago. At the time, Democrats, including Joe Biden, rattled out on their rickety carts the same old tired, hackneyed dogmas: This is xenophobic! It’s racist! Discrimination! Ugh. It’s exhibit 4,871 why they should not be in charge of anything.

Trump’s quick, bold actions are likely why our reported cases of coronavirus are so relatively small, even though of course they will rise like everyone else’s for a period of time. We are China’s biggest trading partner, with enormous amounts of travel between the nations. But his quick actions shutting that down undoubtedly slowed it. Democrats paralyzed by intersectionality and grievances, would have been much slower to act and we would be seeing many more cases in the U.S.

Notice how some countries are beginning to close their borders to stop the spread of a pandemic, including the Europeans. But we are unable to do that effectively on our southern border until we have some sort of wall that turns floods of people into trickles, and funnels them to legal ports of entry. Everyone is safer then.

The new North American trade agreement with Canada and Mexico is fortunately in place, laying the groundwork for a more vibrant manufacturing base and safer supply chain as Western companies begin seriously re-thinking using China for all their cheapo manufacturing needs. This third world virus in a row emanating from China, and its mishandling, is making clear to the private sector that China is just too risky.

This will not be a quick change, and companies will always be looking for cheap labor, but they will have to factor in much more now. And with the improved trade agreements, the highly productive American labor force will be much more competitive and attractive.

Down the road, we will be less at the mercy of China and other unscrupulous countries, and more in charge of our own destiny, just as we are now with energy independence — thanks to innovative American fracking that Democrats vow to ban.

This better future will be largely due to the clarity of vision of one man: Donald Trump.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Coronavirus Doesn’t Change Good Economic Policy

Weaponization of Coronavirus

Border Security Key to Curbing Coronavirus, Cuccinelli Says

Sanders: Trump’s Plan to Deal With Coronavirus ‘Disgusting’

FLORIDA: Baptist Pastor’s Sermon Puts the Coronavirus into a Scientific and Religious Perspective [Video]

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

Top Former Obama Official Praises Trump. Twice.

/in , , , , /by

The top State Department official under Barack Obama who negotiated the Iran deal has praised President Trump on two foreign policy points — both of which should be easy for Democrats who are not obsessed with removing or damaging the President over supporting what is demonstrably good for America.

But of course they aren’t interested in that. If Democrats ravaged by Trump Derangement Syndrome immediately leap to blaming the Coronavirus on President Trump, then all lunacy is possible.

The first point of praise was the proposed Afghanistan peace deal to end the 18-year war the U.S. has been bogged down in. The peace plan included a negotiated ceasefire.

“This is a good, useful, first step,” said former Ambassador Wendy Sherman, who served as undersecretary of state for political affairs in the State Department. This simple, true sentence is so rare among Democrats today it’s actually newsworthy, which is why the local newspaper led with it under the headline: “In Sarasota, Obama official praises Trump’s Afghanistan deal”

Sherman, who was the lead negotiator for the Obama administration on the terrible Iran nuclear deal that President Trump wisely pulled out of, was speaking last week at the Ringling College Library Association Town Hall lecture series in Sarasota, Florida.

“If we get this agreement to move forward with Afghanistan, this is a very good thing,” Sherman said. There now. Was that so hard? Of course it is a good thing.

Sherman, who naturally laced her speech with withering criticisms of Trump’s foreign policy — she is an Obama Democrat after all — qualified her comments on the Afghanistan peace talks, saying that any final agreement must include protections for women and girls — who are second-rate human beings under the Taliban’s Islamic theocratic rule.

The irony is that the Trump administration is probably more likely to press this point than the Obama administration would have been because of Obama’s sympathies toward Muslim nations. Looking at the contrasting actions of the two administrations, Trump policies have benefitted women, children and minorities more than Obama’s.

On the second point of praise, Sherman said that the “controversial” missile strike ordered by the President to kill Iranian terrorist leader General Qasem Soleimani while in Iraq would probably act as a deterrent to Iranian aggression in the region. She called the move risky in moving the U.S. and Iran to the brink of war, but considering how it has played out, the attack was probably a good action.

It’s highly improbable that the killing actually moved the two countries to the brink of war as Iran’s leaders have everything to lose in a direct war with the U.S. military — and they know it well. No traditional army has been able to stand against the U.S. military for more than a couple of weeks. The Mullahs prefer to work through their network of terrorist proxies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.

While it is clear that Sherman has gigantic differences with the Trump administration on a range of foreign policies, and probably domestic ones also, kudos to her for being willing to say publicly that the actions taken by Trump on two fronts that are unarguably in a good direction for Americans — are indeed a good thing.

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

Copyright © 2024 DrRichSwier.com LLC. A Florida Cooperation. All rights reserved. The DrRichSwier.com is a not-for-profit news forum for intelligent Conservative commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. Republishing of columns on this website requires the permission of both the author and editor. For more information contact: drswier@gmail.com.