Reopen America Now!

Sunday, Memorial Day weekend, was a beautiful sunny day. Mary and I left our West Virginia home to make the 40-mile trek to Walmart and Home Depot in Virginia. We drove past a Virginia megachurch which usually has state cops directing traffic for the congregation. The parking lot was empty with a large “closed” sign. Meanwhile, Walmart and Home Depot parking lots were packed.

Around 50% of shoppers wore masks. Absurdly, I saw toddlers wearing masks which were particularly annoying. Professor Dolores J. Cahill, PhD is a highly credentialed and respected Immunologist and Molecular Biologist. Prof. Cahill, world-renowned Dr. Russel Blaylock, Dr. Judy Mikovits, and countless other scientists around the world say wearing masks is dangerous.

Prof. Cahill explains that coronavirus is not transmitted through the air. It is transmitted through droplets on surfaces. Therefore, there is absolutely no need to wear a mask and no need for social distancing. Prof. Cahill says when you are covered with a mask, you have less oxygen which puts your immune system under stress. Because you are under immune stress, latent viruses in your body will reappear. You will have more coronavirus and other latent viruses will reemerge. Bottom line, fake news media insidiously hyping fear is harming children. Which is not new. Everything leftists cram down the throats of the public always harms people.

At Home Depot, not only did the young woman who mixed my paint wear a mask, she spoke to me from behind a Plexiglas window. Stopping for gas at a tiny West Virginia convenience store, a masked staffer stood guard at the door restricting the number of customers allowed inside. The two checkout clerks worked from behind newly installed glass walls; both wore masks. Dollar General had strips of Duct tape 6 feet apart on the sidewalk to ensure that patrons social distanced outside.

Health experts’ predictions of catastrophic deaths were wrong. Over 98% of people who get coronavirus recover. And yet, in just a few months, fear and political exploitation have taken us from a booming economy to living in a nightmare apocalyptic sci-fi movie. Americans are suffering Great Depression levels of unemployment, over-stressed food banks, skyrocketing suicides, and Democrats urinating on the Constitution, declaring themselves our supreme dictators. Observing all the extreme restrictions and precautions, I thought, “Dear Lord, we are experiencing nationwide hysteria.”

My skin crawls whenever I hear fake news media and Democrats on TV scolding and branding Americans selfish for desiring to reopen their businesses to serve the public and feed their families.

Always believing themselves smarter than God, wicked Democrats are actually advocating that we social distance from now on. God built us to withstand viruses. And yet, these arrogant knuckleheads say humans must never again interact the way they have since the beginning of time. Every day, I ask myself, “What on earth is wrong with these people?”

Back in April when Trump announced plans to reopen America, I noticed that Democrat and a few RINO governors immediately tripled down on their crazy edicts such as all shoppers must wear masks. Their wicked game plan is to stop America from reopening and convince voters that Trump is deadly.

Despite Trump proven innocent, Democrats continue promoting the lie that Trump stole the presidency via collusion with Russia. They impeached him, falsely accusing him of making illegal demands on a phone call with the president of Ukraine. These illegal schemes along with others have failed to end Trump’s presidency. Using the coronavirus lock-down to destroy the American economy is Democrats’ and fake news medias’ last hope of removing this pro-Christian, America-first Neanderthal from the Oval Office.

Therefore, these months leading to the November election are going to be a battle like you have never seen before. If you think Democrats and fake news media have behaved badly thus far, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

In June, Mary and I will leave our almost-Heaven West Virginia home, flying to the West Coast to tour with the Conservative Campaign Committee on their “Operation Restore America” initiative.

A guy sent me an email saying both political parties are corrupt. While that may be true, we cannot stop fighting to turn our country around. God miraculously gave us President Trump. Realizing that the Israelites prevailed in battle when Moses’ hands were in the air, Aaron and Hur held up Moses’ arms. We must hold up Trump’s arms to make America great again, again.

America recently celebrated Memorial Day. It would be a devastating slap in the face to the brave men and women who died for our freedom to allow Democrats and fake news media to transform us into a socialist/communist nation.

Unfortunately, fake news media has so successfully filled some conservatives with fear of coronavirus that they accept Democrats repealing our constitutional liberties. Incredibly, they want this unnecessary lock-down which is literally destroying our country to continue.

Folks, those of us who love freedom and America must be the adults in the room, firmly demanding that this insane lock-down end immediately. God is on our side.

©All rights reserved.

Born for each other: How family planning and porn keep company

Partners in the sex business.


You can tell something about a person by the company she keeps, and the same applies to organisations. Marie Stopes International, a high profile British birth control non-profit, was outed in The Mail on Sunday recently for receiving cash and goods worth 7.5 million pounds from American porn tycoon Phil Harvey over the past 15 years.

Harvey himself has been a direct player in the international “reproductive health” game since the 1970s, funding his own and other charities through Adam & Eve, a business that sold 60 million pounds worth of sex toys and pornographic film in 2019.

What does this say about Marie Stopes?

At best that it suffers from poor taste. It also has a strange attitude to women. MSI touts its contraceptive and abortion services as empowering “women and girls all over the world to choose when or whether to have children.” Yet it works hand in glove with an industry that disempowers women by making them sexual playthings, if not facilitating sexual assault and human trafficking.

Harvey’s sex business offers an array of pornographic material including female sex robots which promote the fact “her inflatable body is also practical if you need to store her or take her on journeys.” An huge list of pornographic films is also flaunted on his sex website.

But by peddling contraception and abortion to vulnerable women in developing countries, MSI, like Planned Parenthood and the rest of them, is handmaiden to every man who would sexually exploit a woman. Yet it is blasé about the connection.

Its response to the Mail on Sunday was: “Phil Harvey has spent his life defending sexual and reproductive health rights, and played a significant role in expanding access for women across the world. We are proud that he continues to contribute to the organisation.”

Harvey, 82, is not the only unsavoury mogul to cosy up to the birth control industry. Hugh Hefner, the founder of Playboy, used his magazine to campaign for legalised abortion. Harvey Weinstein apparently posed as a cheerleader of Planned Parenthood. It makes sense: the women they used or encouraged other men to use might need the odd abortion, and it goes down well with the liberal crowd.

However, Phil Harvey’s US$9 million equivalent over a decade or two looks paltry compared to what Marie Stopes gets from other sources every year. The UK government alone gave them £48million last year which helped them deliver around five million abortions and pay its CEO £434,000 – among other things. Harvey’s position as a board member of MSI signals that he is much more important to the organisation than his cash grants.

profile of him in Mother Jones magazine back in 2002 reveals that the relationship between Harvey and Marie Stopes goes back more than 50 years, to when he was a graduate student at the University of North Carolina’s School of Public Health, on a Ford Foundation fellowship (Ford being one of the main powerhouses of the population control movement). There he worked with a young British doctor, Tim Black, who went on to rescue the bankrupt Marie Stopes Foundation in 1975 and turn it into a “social business” with its current name.

Both Harvey and Black had spent time in developing countries and were convinced that what the poor of the world needed more than food was fewer babies. As part of their thesis work they came up with a plan to test social marketing of contraceptives in the American marketplace. With a university grant they began a mail order business, running clever ads in college newspapers and selling condoms to students. Next they added other merchandise and eventually struck gold when they threw in sex magazines. This was the genesis of Adam & Eve, which under Harvey surfed the wave of the home video boom in the 1980s and survived efforts to shut it down under the Reagan administration.

But Harvey and Black hadn’t forgotten the poor: perhaps social marketing of condoms would work in the developing world as well. To this end they set up a dual venture: a profit-making arm called Population Planning Associates, and a separate nonprofit, Population Services International (PSI), which by 1975 was running condom-marketing programmes in Kenya and Bangladesh. PSI remains one of the big guns of population control alongside International Planned Parenthood.

Harvey left PSI in the late 1970s and focussed on his porn business, but a few years later he founded another non-profit, DKT International, to take up marketing and supplying cheap condoms to the poor again.

In 2017 DKT launched a “WomanCare” platform “to dramatically increase the use of high-quality contraceptive, safe abortion, and reproductive health products.” In 2019, DKT WomanCare sold 222,123 manual vacuum aspiration abortion kits, 1.8 million cannulae and 1.4 million implants (linked with high rates of HIV in some African countries) in 90 countries. The organisation’s homepage currently features an example of its social marketing in the form of an article headed, “5 People Share Why Their Abortion Was Beautiful”.

This seems to be the real value of Phil Harvey to MSI and the whole international birth control industrial complex. As an entrepreneur he will use some of his own profits from porn to boost the supply of something like manual vacuum aspiration kits where, say, the British foreign aid agency or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or the UN Population Fund might hold back until the product is more acceptable to recipient governments.

Perhaps in somewhere like Kenya, where, although Marie Stopes says it only does abortions where they are legal, it more or less openly flouts the country’s highly restrictive law, and cloaks its activity with the saintly garb of “after abortion care” – that is, cleaning up after illegal abortions, which MSI dramatises (and inflates?) in order to push its abortion rights barrow.

On its home turf in Britain, MSI has had to clean up its own operations after unannounced official inspections. A highly critical Care Quality Commission report found major safety flaws at MSI clinics, with more than 2,600 serious incidents reported in 2015. A follow-up report in 2017 found there were 373 botched abortions in just the first two months of that year. MSI had issues with infection control and staff at one clinic complained of a “cattle market” approach with incentives for putting through as many abortions as possible.

No doubt there was some kind of idealism driving the founders of MSI and PSI/DKT, as there may be among those working for the organisations today – an actual belief that preventing births is a real favour to women and to the world in general. After all, the rich and respected of the world, the Fords, the Hewletts, the Gates and others have thought and continue to think so.

But the pornography connection that has helped so many of their projects along shows the true character of the birth control enterprise. Harvey told Mother Jones in 2002 that in the early days he was “terrified that, because of Adam & Eve, we were going to lose support for some of our programs.” Then he added: “But it never happened. I think part of the reason was that the key people in charge of family planning overseas, even in conservative governments, are not the types who are likely to be upset by sex products. After all, they’re in the sex business themselves.”

Yes, sex boils down to business for the so-called family planning establishment. A business requiring certain products to make it “safe” if not enjoyable for all concerned. And porn is one of those products, nearly as important as the condom itself, and often more effective since it removes the need for any human contact whatsoever. In that way, however, the pornographers could drive MSI and company out of business, ending a beautiful friendship – one as beautiful as abortion.

COLUMN BY

Carolyn Moynihan

Carolyn Moynihan is deputy editor of MercatorNet More by Carolyn Moynihan.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The UN Is Using COVID-19 to Push Abortion. The US Is Rightly Pushing Back.

Nobody’s pawn: the real story of Norma McCorvey

Stepping up the pace of Uyghur forced labour in China

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

10 Key Education Recommendations for Reopening the K-12 Classroom

Homeroom has taken on a literal meaning over the past two months. Parents, while always their children’s first and foremost educators, have had to fully embrace homeschooling as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. And although that has been working great for many families – some 40% now say they’re more likely to continue homeschooling even when schools reopen – for others, it is either not the right fit for their child or doesn’t work with their job requirements.

Many families rely on that custodial function of the physical K-12 school to enable them to go to work. And although teleworking is likely to become a more prominent feature of American life moving forward, many families are eager to reunite their children with their teachers and classmates in person, in their public, charter, or private schools. Governors, school districts, and principals should plan to reopen schools safely as soon as possible.

The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission recently released a comprehensive set of 264 recommendations to guide America through this pandemic, while protecting both lives and livelihoods. The work of local school leaders in the public and private sectors will play a critical role in helping America get back to work, and the economy back on track.

What follows is a list of 10 recommendations put forward by the commission geared specifically toward K-12 schools across the country.


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 >>


1. K-12 schools should act proactively in concert with state and local health officials to assist school administrators in making reopening decisions. School leaders should review all aspects of the school’s facilities and operations, looking for ways to best prevent transmission. That includes student transportation to and from school; class schedules, density, and layout; rotation of teachers instead of students; pedestrian traffic patterns; and the use of personal protective equipment and hand sanitization. They should implement thorough cleaning and sanitization guidelines for all surfaces, especially eating areas, locker rooms, and bathrooms.

2. State and local governments should allow K–12 schools to open this fall and selectively quarantine any students, faculty, or staff who show COVID-like symptoms by sending them home. Districts that have low incident rates should begin plans to reopen, and all school districts should have emergency response plans (including quick transitions to online learning) if they are forced to close again. If a student is sent home due to illness, or if a school has to close, the school should continue to provide online instruction for students who are sent home. For parents who choose to keep their children at home, schools should continue to offer online instruction while enabling students to demonstrate proficiency in mandatory subjects.

3. State and local governments should make decisions based on data for the local district, and even the specific school, not the entire state. If the cases in a single school that is not geographically connected to another school or schools rise beyond the number deemed appropriate by health professionals, in-person operations in an entire state or district do not need to be suspended.

4. State and local governments should consider suspending in-person operations schoolwide only if a school’s COVID-19 cases increase beyond an acceptable number as determined by health professionals. In the event of a local outbreak, school personnel should consult with health officials as to whether social distancing rules should be applied to certain events, such as athletic events, but such disruptions should be implemented only on an as-needed basis.

5. States should help families return to work and students maintain education continuity by making education funding student-centered and portable. Families across the country are currently unable to access the public schools they pay for through their tax dollars and are looking for continuity in their children’s education. In order to help families maintain education continuity, states should restructure per-pupil K–12 education dollars to provide emergency education savings accounts (ESAs) to students, enabling them to access their child’s share of state per-pupil funding to pay for online courses, online tutors, curriculum, and textbooks so that they can continue learning.

6. States with online schools lift any barriers to access, including caps, enrollment restrictions, or grade prohibitions for students in grades K–12. Every student should have equal access to online education regardless of zip code or district boundary, and all students—regardless of academic need or socioeconomic circumstance—should have access to online education options.

7. Congress should provide spending flexibility with existing education dollars. The CARES Act passed in April allowed schools flexibility to carry forward unused Title I spending and repurpose existing professional development spending for online instruction. Congress should build on this flexibility and allow states to use all of their existing federal education dollars for any lawful purpose under state law.

8. Congress should make federal funding portable for children from low-income families and children with special needs. Congress should immediately make funding authorized under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) student-centered and portable, allowing children with special needs to access learning services to which they are entitled under federal law. Similarly, Congress should allow federal Title I dollars for low-income districts to follow students to private online education options of choice.

9. Congress should also support the education of military-connected children. The children of active-duty military families currently do not have access to the public schools nearest to the base to which their parents are assigned. Congress should provide the children of active-duty military families with education savings accounts, enabling them to access online tutors, online courses, textbooks, and curricula to provide educational continuity during this time.

10. Congress should expand access to 529 savings accounts. Congress should allow Americans to access their 529 savings plans for homeschooling expenses. Currently, 529 saving plans can pay for a broad range of education-related costs, such as college expenses and, more recently, private elementary or secondary school tuition. Yet homeschooling expenses are excluded from the eligible uses of 529 savings accounts. Immediately expanding qualified expenses to include homeschooling—reflecting the fact that nearly every American family currently has to homeschool as a result of COVID-19—would be a timely and targeted policy.

Students can’t afford to have their education put on hold, and parents, as taxpayers, should have access to the money that is spent on behalf of their children in schools across the country. These 10 recommendations will help quickly get American education back on track, safely and more effectively than ever.

For the complete list of recommendations, visit the National Coronavirus Recovery Commission’s website at CoronavirusCommission.com.

COMMENTARY BY

Lindsey M. Burke researches and writes on federal and state education issues as the Will Skillman fellow in education policy at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research.Twitter: .


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.

The Betrayal and the Programming behind Covid 19 – A UK Perspective [Part 2]

To read Part 1 of The Betrayal and the Programming behind Covid 19 – A UK Perspective click here.


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

“Eli: You know what’s the good thing about no soap, you can smell a hijacker from a mile away.” – Movie: The Book of Eli, 2010

The Gospel Of SalvationThose Not SavedBeing Saved

Being LostSweet Odours

Some years ago, a friend sent me a clip from an SNL (Saturday Night Live) skit labelled Red Flag perfume by Chanel.  It was an insightful and funny send up of the advertising industry for perfume, but in particular it depicted how people can make fools of themselves and others by attempting to use charm and trickery.

The Red Flag symbolism which is also meant to signal a warning, also reminded me of an article I once wrote called The London Red in which I exposed London red buses being used to advertise and promote LGBT rights and the counter attack by a reparative therapy organization being condemned by the then London mayor, Boris Johnson, who is now our Prime Minister.

Over the years, in my own small way, along with so many others, I have continued to raise my own Red Flags, but it also doesn’t mean to say that sometimes I haven’t fallen victim to some of the charm or the tricks that change agents and seducers can use in order to steal energy or make you subservient to their own particular motives or agenda at times.

During the Covid-19 exercise many flags have been raised which have been well researched and documented.  Sometimes they are called false flags.    However, all flags, both good and bad, can alert us to the very cruel way that innocent or uninformed people can be seduced, divided and conquered, and how clever advertising which also includes fear mongering and very confusing statistics, all mixed together like a very poison perfume can over-ride our sensibilities and our rational view at times.   Somewhere out there is the genuine aroma, a combination of notes and a synergy labelled Truth.

Red Flag

One of the very first flags to be raised in relation to Covid-19, should have been why the UK Government was demonstrating reliance on the predictions of the possible mortality rate forecasted by Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College?    Professor Ferguson, who before his resignation had sat on the governments Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, already had a long history of exaggerated predictions in relation to the possible outcomes of an infectious disease.

In 2002, he predicted up to 50,000 people would die from Mad Cow Disease from beef.  (177 died)

In 2005, he predicted up to 200 million people could die from Bird flu (282 people died worldwide)

In 2009, he predicted up to 65,000 UK deaths from Swine flu (457 died).

However, it was in 2001, that the Imperial College team were responsible, due to their forecasts, for the culling of 6 million cattle, pigs and sheep which cost the UK an estimated £10 billion.  It is an issue which was very controversial at the time with farmers asking if the slaughter of all livestock was necessary.   A full report on the Foot and Mouth disease of 2001 can be viewed in the footnotes.

Whilst some people believe that Professor Ferguson has possibly saved lives through his recommendations on the Foot and Mouth disease and our present day Covid-19, there is no scientific data that can prove lives have been saved.    The question remains on why our government will still repeat that it is relying on ‘scientific data’ for its actions?

Red Flag

I suppose another red flag was the Prime Minister initially announcing to the public that they were to wash their hands for 20 seconds to the tune of ‘Happy Birthday’.   I did find the instructions quite endearing to start with but only because of his unique personality. I think I might have been fooled.  Had our previous prime minister suggested this, it would almost have certainly been a patronizing order from a parent to a child.   However, the almost innocent way he encouraged this changed quite rapidly.   Why?

From a rational request to wash hands with soap and water more often and more thoroughly, an incessant demand became more apparent as the days passed by.

We now have a country which is becoming paranoid about disinfecting ourselves and every single surface that we touch.   Obsessive Compulsive Disorder may be on the rise.  I believe we may now need a study of the effects that this has had on some of the population which will be funded by the taxpayer.

Red Flag

Another red flag to be raised has almost certainly been the social distancing which everyone has been expected to carry out in order to ‘save lives’.  A more appropriate term would have been physical distancing.    However, more importantly is how the actions from the term ‘Lockdown’ which was invented in a Californian prison system in 1973, has been so readily accepted!

In regards to the actions of a lockdown in a prison situation or a terrorist/shooter attack, lockdowns may be acceptable, but to enforce lockdowns under the possibility of a virus which may or may not harm someone based on low numbers of people who die from Covid-19 has more serious consequences and should have been questioned beforehand based on any scientific data that could have been provided which proves its effectiveness on locking down healthy people in relation to quarantining ill and vulnerable people instead.  No such science was presented.   No statistics were provided beforehand on the economic damage to a country.

According to some mental health research, which has pointed out the obvious, almost a quarter of adults have felt severe loneliness during the time of enforced lockdown and according to a leading psychiatrist and president of the Royal Society of Medicine Sir Simon Wessely:

“Some people will develop psychiatric conditions, mental health conditions. There will be a rise in depression. For some people, there will be specific stressors — the anxiety of either believing that you might be infecting the people you’ve been quarantined with — or been infected yourself”.

Whilst TV programming promotes happy family gatherings through the use of the latest technology, it is reported that the World Health Organization has reported they are ‘deeply troubled’ by the spike in domestic violence towards women and children during lockdown.   I do not know if they are at all concerned about the abuse towards men, but the question should be why are ‘experts’ concerned after an event which should have been thought through more carefully before implementing a lockdown?

Red Flag

The rapid removal of many you tube interviews and face-book accounts, together with any relevant information which researchers may want to listen to or read about in order to further their knowledge on infectious diseases has raised yet another red flag.

Interviews which have included the research carried out by many eminent doctors and scientists in relation to Covid-19 have not been exempt from this attack.

Not only is there an army of companies collecting consumer behaviour and predictive analytics ever day but there are also forces deciding what you can watch or listen to on very basic information which is not obscene in any way, but only contrary to another organization’s view.  This is an attack on free speech.

It has also been reported at the UK Government briefing by Defence Staff General Sir Nick Carter that the 77th Brigade has been countering misinformation online relating to Corona virus.

The 77th Brigade are a combined regular and reserve unit of the British Army.   Their website states:

“77th Brigade is an agent of change; through targeted Information Activity and Outreach we contribute to the success of military objectives in support of Commanders, whilst reducing the cost in casualties and resources”.

Their website also states that they specialise in non-lethal forms of psychological warfare, using social media including face book and twitter to fight with information in response to external factors, like Russian misinformation.

Unfortunately, the mis-information that our own government has received and given out has not created any confidence that they possess the correct information.

Too many Red Flags

The conclusions that result from so many red flags too numerous to mention can sadly only result in one conclusion and outcome.

My views are that a quick return to normal and not a ‘new normal’ would be needed. However, sadly, even then there would never be the same trust.   Civilizations are usually completely broken down so that they can be built up in a different way and too much damage has been done.    The whole exercise has hit at the heart of every person who has smelled the dodgy synthetic perfume of deceivers.    Who is who and what is what has been a game in which only God knows the outcome.  We should listen to Him more.

The incentive to start afresh, to be creative individuals and independent and to provide for ourselves and our families need not be lost.   Rise up, watch, wait and listen.

“For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing.” – 2 Corinthians 2:15

©All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Unmasking The Science You Aren’t Hearing On TV | COVID-19 Facts from the Frontline | Tony Robbins

Freedom Versus Tyranny on Display

Dr. Richard Land once called our country, “the divided states of America.” How apt—especially when we survey the various responses to the coronavirus. They are lessons in liberty and lessons in tyranny.

To paraphrase what a friend of mine wrote me recently, “We have 50 real-world government examples of liberty or tyranny—50 real-time experiments in whether state governments moved towards liberty (as in Texas and South Dakota) or absolute control (as in California, Michigan, and New York).” As a resident, I would add: Florida’s leadership is doing a great job.

Nowhere can this contrast be better seen than in how the state authorities deal with churches versus how they deal with abortion, ordering churches closed while deeming Planned Parenthood and other abortionists “essential services.”

How fitting. In her classic book, Godless, Ann Coulter postulates that abortion is the left’s “sacrament.” The sacraments of the church are out. The left’s new sacrament is in. The most pro-abortion leaders are the ones who are most cracking down on real constitutional freedoms in their states. If a politician gets abortion wrong, they tend to get everything else wrong too.

This anti-religious spirit at work is exceedingly ironic because America was born as a religious nation. In the Mayflower Compact, the Pilgrims explained their reason for coming: “for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith.”

Our First Amendment declares our first freedom—freedom of religion. The founders stipulated there would be no national denomination and there would be no prohibition on the “free exercise” of religion. They didn’t add, “except in times of pestilence.”

Indeed, Attorney General William Barr sides with the churches (following social distancing guidelines, etc.) in this conflict. He said, “There is no pandemic exception to the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.”

But many of the left today have used the pandemic crisis to try and shut down a lot of religious services:

  • The mayor of Kansas City, Missouri was demanding that churches hand over a list of anyone who attended any of their services. When Mat Staver and Liberty Counsel threatened to sue, the city backed down.
  • The governor of Illinois postulated that church services may need to be banned for a year. This is the same governor who prohibited residents in his state from traveling—while apparently his wife vacationed in Florida.
  • Overzealous administrators have sought to ban churches even from holding “drive-in” church services, which follow the mandates to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

If your church parking lot permits, holding a drive-in service is a clever way to worship the Lord together. Usually, the pastor would preach to the congregation in their cars though a low frequency on the FM dial in such services.

But even in the Bible belt, such as in Kentucky and Mississippi, some overzealous administrators have tried to shut such services down. First Liberty Institute has threatened lawsuits, and the cities have relented.

The Wall Street Journal (5/12/20) had an editorial entitled, “Caesar, God and the Lockdowns,” in which they note, “A federal court ruling on religious liberty is a lesson to governors.”

The editorial talks about Maryville Baptist Church in Louisville, which held a modest Easter service—with some worshipers inside and others in the parking lot, hearing the service through a loudspeaker.

To harass the worshipers, notes the WSJ, “The police took down license-plate numbers. The church sued.”

A panel on the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the church: “It’s not always easy to decide what is Caesar’s and what is God’s—and that’s assuredly true in the context of a pandemic….Why is it safe to wait in a car for a liquor store to open but dangerous to wait in a car to hear morning prayers?”

A new report out of Chicago over the weekend shows the lengths to which the anti-God forces will go. Wirepoints (5/18/20) observes that the mayor sought to punish a church, Philadelphia Romanian Church, to prevent it from holding services. They stated, “On Sunday morning the tow trucks descended—not just on churchgoers, but on residents and everybody else, and on a private lot used by parishioners.”

The pastor of the church said, “The mayor is inciting hate against the church which is very sad. A lot of our members risked their lives to escape Communism, only to find it germinating in 2020 under Mayor Lightfoot in Chicago.” Lightfoot is so committed to abortion rights, she helped drive out of office one of the last Democrat, pro-life U. S. Congressmen.

Wirepoints adds, “It should also be a clarion call to the churches across the city as to how far the left will go to crush the faithful of all denominations.”

Freedom-loving Americans can look at a map of the country and see how those on the left versus those on the right are delicately handling the crisis. The abortion-loving, church-hating politicians stand in great contrast with their freedom-loving counterparts in the red states.

©All rights reserved.

Sweden’s Top Infectious Disease Expert Says COVID-19 Lockdowns Are Not Based on Science. History Shows He Could Be Right

The debate over COVID-19 lockdowns has thrust Sweden into the global spotlight. Anders Tegnell, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, said he’s confident Sweden’s approach is the right one.


As nations around the world begin to ease lockdown restrictions passed amid the scariest pandemic since the 1918 Spanish Flu, a new battle is brewing among disease experts and the punditry class.

On one side, are lockdown proponents who compare lockdown skeptics to anti-vaxxers who endanger lives because they are drunk on “freedom” and want to prematurely ease restrictions, which they say could result in a new spike in COVID-19 cases and deaths.

Lockdown skeptics, on the other hand, draw the battlelines differently.

“On one side are ideologues heavily invested in the idea of lockdown, regardless of the cost,” The Wall Street Journal recently described one skeptic’s take. “On the other are scientists with data that the lockdowns are overkill.”

While there is room for middle ground here—I know several medical professionals who say lockdowns made sense initially to “flatten the curve,” but that stage is now over—it’s fair to say the political debate around lockdowns has become largely a two-front war.

As I wrote last week, the costs of lockdowns become clearer every day: nations around the world staggering into recessions and Great Depression-level unemployment. The benefits of the lockdowns, at least for lockdown skeptics, are less easy to quantify.

“There is no correlation between fatalities and lockdown stringency,” columnist Simon Jenkins recently observed in The Guardian. “The most stringent lockdowns—as in China, Italy, Spain, New Zealand and Britain—have yielded both high and low deaths per million.”

The debate over lockdowns has naturally thrust Sweden, which has foregone a hardline approach to the COVID-19 pandemic in favor of a softer one encouraging voluntary action, into the global spotlight. The results of Sweden’s policy have so far been mixed.

While Sweden’s outbreak has to date been deadlier than its Scandanavian neighbors, The New York Times recently conceded that “it’s still better off than many countries that enforced strict lockdowns.”

While Sweden has endured a great deal of criticism for its “laissez-faire” approach, Anders Tegnell, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, recently defended his policies, stating that while a degree of social distancing is the right approach, lockdowns are not grounded in actual science.

“Nothing to do with [them] has a scientific basis,” Tegnell said, according to The Guardian.

It’s an astonishing claim. If the lockdowns are not based on science, what are they based on? As it happens, The New York Times recently traced the history of social US social distancing policy.

The origins apparently stem from a trip President George W. Bush made to the library in the summer of 2005 over concerns about bioterrorism, which prompted him to read The Great Influenza, a book on the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 written by John M. Barry.

Shortly thereafter, the Bush administration enlisted two federal government doctors, Carter Mecher and Richard Hatchett, to develop ideas to implement during the next pandemic. Mecher⁠— who “had almost no pandemic policy expertise,” according to the Times⁠—then met with Dr. Robert J. Glass, a New Mexico scientist at Sandia who specialized in developing models to explain how complex systems function.

And that’s where the story gets interesting. Via The Times:

Dr. Glass’s daughter Laura, then 14, had done a class project in which she built a model of social networks at her Albuquerque high school, and when Dr. Glass looked at it, he was intrigued.

Students are so closely tied together — in social networks and on school buses and in classrooms — that they were a near-perfect vehicle for a contagious disease to spread.

Dr. Glass piggybacked on his daughter’s work to explore with her what effect breaking up these networks would have on knocking down the disease.

The outcome of their research was startling. By closing the schools in a hypothetical town of 10,000 people, only 500 people got sick. If they remained open, half of the population would be infected.

“My God, we could use the same results she has and work from there,” Dr. Glass recalled thinking. He took their preliminary data and built on it by running it through the supercomputers at Sandia, more typically used to engineer nuclear weapons. (His daughter’s project was entered in the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in 2006.)

Dr. Mecher received the results at his office in Washington and was amazed.

If cities closed their public schools, the data suggested, the spread of a disease would be significantly slowed, making this move perhaps the most important of all of the social distancing options they were considering.

If the Times is correct, it would appear that federal social distancing policy is to some extent the brainchild of a trip George W. Bush made to the library in the summer of 2005 and a 14-year-old girl’s science project. (You can read more about Laura’s Glass’s science project, which reportedly took third place at the 2006 Intel fair in Indianapolis, in this Albuquerque Journal article.)

To be clear, there’s no direct evidence to my knowledge that this is what Tegnell, who earned a PhD in Medicine from Linköping University in 2003 and a MSc in Epidemiology from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in 2004, was referring to when he said the lockdowns are not based on science.

Moreover, there’s nothing to say the lockdowns don’t work simply because the policy stems from George W. Bush and a child’s school project. (The lockdowns will ultimately be judged on their results, not their intellectual genesis.)

Nevertheless, Tegnell’s assertion that there is no “scientific basis” for the lockdowns deserves attention. There’s a tendency to assume central planning is inherently rational and scientific, but this is hardly true. Karl Marx, perhaps the most famous central planner in history, was horribly unscientific in his methods, explained the historian Paul Johnson.

“[Marx] failed precisely because he was unscientific: he would not investigate the facts himself, or use objectively the facts investigated by others,” Johnson observed in the book Intellectuals. “From start to finish, not just Capital but all his work reflects a disregard for truth which at times amounts to contempt. That is the primary reason why Marxism, as a system, cannot produce the results claimed for it; and to call it ‘scientific’ is preposterous.”

For his part, Tegnell says the science of COVID-19 is becoming clear on at least one point, whatever the models of Laura Glass’s hypothetical town said in 2006.

“We feel more and more confident about [not] closing schools,” Tegnell told TV host Trevor Noah in a May interview. “It’s not something that really is going to be effective for this kind of disease. Schools don’t seem to be very much of a motor of this epidemic.”

COLUMN BY

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune.

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

New York’s Mayor Goes After Jewish Residents Again

For the second time since the COVID-19 pandemic became a daily battle between disease control and civil liberties, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has taken to Twitter to criticize the peaceful assembly of Jews in a city that boasts over a million Jewish residents.

This time, de Blasio specifically targeted children meeting at a yeshiva, an Orthodox Jewish elementary or secondary school.

Just a few weeks ago, the mayor slammed his city’s Jewish community for gathering to grieve at a large funeral for a beloved rabbi.


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


Writing for The Daily Signal, I said de Blasio’s behavior was un-American and unconstitutional. His tweet Monday is not much different, and unfortunate on several fronts.

For starters, New York City was undoubtedly the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic and two boroughs with a significant Jewish population, Brooklyn and Queens, were the hardest hit by the disease.


When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here.


Many of these devout religious people have suffered along with their loved ones, either from the coronavirus itself or months of strict quarantine, a difficulty in and of itself in a crowded city such as New York.

This is not to say that Jews or anyone else should defy shelter-in-place orders, only that religious believers have paid their proverbial pandemic dues while trying to balance their commitment to their faith, and that is admirable.

Even though city officials have extended stay-at-home orders until at least June 13, exasperated citizens have slowly pressed the boundaries of these executive orders.

On a nice sunny day, many groups, faith-based or not, enjoy themselves outside or at restaurants, or, as these young people were, studying Jewish texts at yeshiva.

As careful as people want to be and were, especially at the beginning, urban life is hardly conducive to an eternal quarantine and New York City is hardly a model of restraint: Residents simply were not going to be physically, mentally, or spiritually able or willing to be locked down forever.

Yet de Blasio fails to direct his ire at the crowds of young people gathering at a park or outside restaurants or in the city streets. Instead, the mayor consistently targets the Jewish people. It’s morally abhorrent, fiscally stupid, and still un-American.

How is a crowd of 60-plus young people studying Jewish texts at a school any more of a public nuisance than crowds at Prospect Park? The answer, of course, is that they are not.

But these are a people of devout faith and the subject of concentrated, increasing anti-Semitism and even violent anti-Semitic attacks, as this piece in The New York Times recounts in horrifying detail.

If de Blasio and other officials want to keep the city on lockdown for nearly another month, they are going to have to come to terms with the fact that there is little precedent for such a broad ban of civil liberties spanning several months.

De Blasio might want his New York to be a bastion of freedom, commerce, creativity, and success—as its reputation surely reflects—but he again has targeted some of his own residents for their faith.

These two things do not go hand in hand, especially for people who draw from their faith the strength, courage, and inspiration to make America creative and successful.

In the late 1800s, Americans of all faiths flocked to New York City to pursue their dreams. How unfortunate that this very city would come to reflect a particular religious bigotry and that people of faith there would need to shield themselves from verbal attacks on their faith by the city’s elected leaders.

Americans’ right to free exercise of their religion is basic to a foundation of other equal and powerful rights, including the right of assembly.

What’s worse is that de Blasio knows this and he casts it aside just as Brooklyn residents are shrugging off the newest quarantine extension.

COMMENTARY BY

Nicole Russell is a contributor to The Daily Signal. Her work has appeared in The Atlantic, The New York Times, National Review, Politico, The Washington Times, The American Spectator, and Parents Magazine. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

WHO Is a Mess, but America Can’t Reform It Alone

What’s the Real Data? A Look at the Relevant Statistics of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Legislators, Pro-life Advocates Denounce Planned Parenthood Receiving $80 Million in Coronavirus Funding

Scientists Are Studying Hydroxychloroquine as a Preventative Drug for COVID-19


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.

The Media’s Double Standard on States’ Different Approaches to COVID-19

America’s economy is in the early stages of “reopening” after dealing with the coronavirus pandemic for months. It’s a process that won’t be easy, simple, or without hiccups.

Meanwhile, many in the mainstream media are being true to form in making it a game of ensuring conservatives and Republicans look like reckless, heartless monsters for wanting to reopen the economy sooner rather than later.

That might sound like an exaggeration, but it’s hard to come to any other conclusion when viewing the media’s coverage of the various states and their divergent approaches to controlling the coronavirus and plans for reopening their economies.


When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here>>>.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


Consider, for example, how the media have treated Georgia, with its Republican governor, Brian Kemp, and Colorado, with its Democrat governor, Jared Polis. Both states have moved forward with aggressive reopening plans, but only one has received a torrent of criticism from legacy media outlets.

Can you guess which one?

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank wrote a piece in April that carried the headline, “Georgia leads the race to become America’s No. 1 Death Destination.”

“Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp is proposing to offer a new nonstop service to the Great Beyond,” he wrote. “He has a bold plan to turn his state into the [emphasis in original] place to die.”

And Milbank wasn’t alone. Countless other articles, both straight news stories and commentaries, were published suggesting pretty much the same thing. One writer in the Atlantic called Georgia’s approach an “experiment in human sacrifice.”

But there was hardly any criticism directed at Polis and Colorado for embracing a similar reopening plan.

But perhaps the most egregious example of the phenomenon is the disparity in the treatment of Florida versus New York.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has been regularly attacked by many in the media for his state’s initial approach to the coronavirus pandemic and for its early reopening, while New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, has been widely praised.

“The Sunshine State has a bigger population than New York and arguably is just as international. It has a disproportionately vulnerable and older population. Yet Florida’s COVID-19 deaths per capita are less than one-tenth of New York’s,” noted an editorial in the Washington Examiner. “DeSantis’s state has not only avoided the fate of Italy, but it has done better than Germany, Denmark, and other European countries that have received lavish praise for limiting the human cost of the coronavirus.”

My colleague, Fred Lucas, reported Monday on the starkly different outcomes in New York and Florida.

“New York has had about 348,000 COVID-19 cases and more than 28,000 deaths as of May 17, according to the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)],” Lucas wrote. “Florida, meanwhile, had about 46,000 cases and 2,000 deaths. The population of New York state is 19.5 million, while Florida is home to 21.5 million.”

In some respects, the circumstances that led to the outcomes in those states might be comparing apples and oranges, but in terms of population, as Lucas noted, Florida and New York are comparable in size.

While Cuomo has often struck the right tone and certainly dealt with a massive challenge as New York was rocked by COVID-19, his leadership and decisions have been far from perfect.

There was a delay in shutting down the New York City subway system for a deep cleaning and nightly sterilizations, which could have occurred much sooner. Perhaps even more consequentially for the state’s COVID-19 fatality rates, Cuomo’s administration forced nursing homes to take in sick coronavirus patients, which led to many deaths and furthered the spread of the pandemic.

Cuomo has partially admitted to this mistake, but one does wonder whether, if he were the governor of another state and a member of another party, we would be seeing articles calling him unfit to lead the state.

It should be noted, too, that while DeSantis took heavy criticism for Florida’s open beaches, he also actually took early steps to ensure that sick coronavirus patients did not return to nursing homes, where there were far more vulnerable populations.

DeSantis laid out his approach to the coronavirus pandemic in a superb interview with National Review’s Rich Lowry, in which he explained how he gave counties latitude to pursue the policies that work best for their specific conditions.

“I said from the beginning,” DeSantis said in the interview, “we’re a big, diverse state. The epidemic is not going to affect this state uniformly, and what’s appropriate in Miami and Broward may not be appropriate for Jacksonville or the Panhandle. And that’s pretty much the way we did it.”

On Wednesday, DeSantis torched the mainstream media over their coverage of his approach to the coronavirus pandemic and the positive data coming out of his state.

“You’ve got a lot of people in your profession who waxed poetically for weeks and weeks about how Florida was going to be just like New York,” he told reporters.

Well said.

Though American government has centralized dramatically over the past century, our system continues to retain a fair amount of federalism. States around the country have pursued their own policies, and that’s a good aspect of our system.

After all, the geography, population, and circumstances of, say, Wyoming, are far different from those of New York or California. It would make sense that states would have different strategies with respect to how they seek to contain the pandemic and how they approach their reopening.

Unfortunately, all too many in the media want to make this complicated process a mindless game of blaming conservatives and Republicans for bad things that happen and praising Democrats and progressives for things that go well (or simply remain silent when they don’t).

It would be nice if our national media committed to an evenhanded treatment of the pandemic and the states’ divergent plans for reopening, but that appears to be too much to ask for.

COMMENTARY BY


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.

Vaccination and Domination [+Videos]

Billionaire Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft Corp., is called entrepreneur, normal guy, and Potential Savior of the World.  Gates’s raison d’etre, however, is his father’s globalism, to have one world under one master because most humans are superfluous “reckless breeders,” the concept behind Planned Parenthood, supported by Melinda Gates.  He believes in Lebensunwertes Lebens, life unworthy of life, the term I chose judiciously because of the Gateses’ eugenicist ideology of population control.  The family legacy is domination and control of the world’s systems, including technology, medicine, and agriculture.  The foundation has provided unbidden contraception to 120 million women across the globe, which is social engineering and authoritarian eugenicist thinking.  The basic premise is that it is easier to eliminate the poor and suffering than it is to eliminate the sources of poverty and suffering.  Click here for more on the notorious Gates family.

Much has been written about Common Core, the nationalization of American schools forced by the Obama administration, the United Nations, Bill Gates, and others for globalized education, which caused our academic disintegration.  The children’s reading skills were intentionally reduced, their math proficiency scores worst internationally, their creativity discouraged, and overall achievement degenerated.   They’ve been robbed of their pride in country, their individuality supplanted by a tribal mentality, the very young exposed to myriad sexual activities.  The essence of their femininity and masculinity is under constant attack, adding to depression and seriously increased incidence of suicide – an end to family life – population reduction.   And where G-d and religion have been disparaged and removed from daily life, Gates seized the reins.  The schools are collecting unprecedented data from the students for the total regimentation of human society, all linked to the globalist UN Agenda 21.

Bill Gates has admitted to his failed educational experiment, but his underlying goals remain unaltered.  He is undeterred from pursuing another treacherous scheme with impunity.  Not only has he new ideas for the next student generation, which academics already rated inferior, he has assumed a leading role in the coronavirus pandemic, with the ultimate goal of enforced vaccinations with properties that result in sterilization.

The Gates Foundation funds international consortia that influence vaccination policies and disseminate propaganda, despite Gates’s lack of medical background and expertise.  The effort to replace President Trump and capitalism with a new global economy and humanism is supported by the Vatican, George Soros, and Jeffrey Sachs, American economist and special advisor to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on the Sustainable Development Goals.  Their vision is to ensure population control through universal sexual and reproductive healthcare,” through family planning, abortions, gay marriage and sterilization.  The globalists are conducting a clandestine war, using misinformation and subterfuge to attain their goals.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chairman, Children’s Health Defense, nailed it in his article, “Gates’ Globalist Vaccine Agenda: A Win-Win for Pharma and Mandatory Vaccination,” dated April 9, 2020.  “Gates has many vaccine-related enterprises that give him dictatorial control over global health, all geared to increase pharmaceutical companies’ profits” (and reduce human life).  Funding $450 million alleged to eradicate polio in India enabled experimentation on 490,000 children who, as a result, became disabled by a Non-Polio Acute Flaccid Paralysis; he and his vaccine program were expelled. India’s Supreme Court is suing the foundation for ethical violations for their 2009 experimentation with HIV vaccines on 23,000 young girls, 1,200 of whom suffered severe side effects and seven died – poor health decreases population.  He has never acknowledged or apologized for his wrongdoing, and he continues to sow pain and death with his pseudo-scientific pursuits, encouraged by pharmaceutical corporations.

Italian Parliamentarian, Sara Cunial, accused Bill Gates of sterilizing millions of women in Africa, paralyzing hundreds of thousands of children in India, causing the coronavirus lockdown and isolation, and violating people’s free will and sovereignty.   She demanded his arrest for crimes against humanity.

In 2002, The Gates MenAfriVac campaign forcibly vaccinated thousands of African children, presumably against meningitis.  At least 40 of the 500 children were left paralyzed and suffering hallucinations and convulsions.  In 2010, the foundation funded a malaria vaccine trial on 5,949 children, ages 5-17 months; 151 African infants died and 1,048 had serious side effects.  A 2017 study showed that 500 African children were vaccinated with DTP vaccine, of which 50 developed paralysis.  Many such experiments are reported as failures from a medical view, but perhaps considered successes from the globalist-eugenicist’s perspective.

With his self-proclaimed vision of saving the world, Gates is collaborating with the government of Bangladesh to establish a means whereby all who are vaccinated are free to return to an active world, their private information held by the globalists; but those who are not immune to disease are penalized, ostracized from society. Bangladesh is hardly technologically equal to an enormously wealthy globalist with authoritarian tendencies. The end game of Gates’s vaccination plan is total power over population size.  More than immunity, “the infamous ID2020” is an electronic identification program using vaccination as a platform for digital identity.  With his history, and fully supported by the UN and civil society, it could carry elements that are destructive to health and the reproductive system.

Closer to home, Gates is partnering with the City of Austin (Texas), working with their vulnerable homeless and 3,000 refugees from the International Rescue Committee in Thailand who are receiving treatment for chronic conditions.  They fall outside the purview of America’s regulations over ethical and safe procedures, and are prey to the ID2020 experimentation.

The Global Vaccine Action Plan (announced in 2010) was the discovery, development and delivery of lifesaving vaccines to the most vulnerable populations in the poorest countries, as agreed by the World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (Dr. Anthony Fauci, director), George Soros, David Rockefeller, Dr. Deborah Birx, Bill Gates’s father, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – globalists all – who would conspire to peddle vaccines worldwide.  How does one define “lifesaving” when the purpose is population reduction and siphoning riches into the globalists’ coffers?

Consider Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which has been used in high dosage on millions of patients worldwide since its FDA approval in 1934 and 1955, with an excellent success rate.  Dr. Vladimir Zelenko used HCQ with Azithromycin, a $20 treatment, on 669 patients, with a 100 percent success rate, their breathing restored within 3 to 4 hours.  When eighty patients and staff members came down with the Coronavirus at a Texas nursing home, HCQ was used for treatment and all but one patient survived (patients were debilitated from other conditions).  Why are Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx reluctant to admit that an inexpensive drug is successful, and advocating instead for something with the potential of generating enormous wealth for the patent holders?

Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet, woman’s health specialist,  revealed that healthcare workers in several countries are using HCQ prophylactically when dealing with infected patients – which negates the need for expensive preventive vaccinations.  Where HCQ is used worldwide, there is a high patient success rate.  Before this pandemic, “the WHO ranked HCQ as among the safest and most effective medicines in our arsenal!”  The media’s unprecedented fear mongering is against common sense, except that globalists may be testing and preparing for more fears and greater acquiescence, and that HCQ’s replacement will produce greater profits.

Despite obvious HCQ successes reported, Dr. Fauci repeatedly urged extreme caution, until he had to walk back his skepticism.  He would rather wait months or years to develop another vaccine or recommend Remdesivir, at a cost of $4,460 per ten-day course of medication, with a mere 52% success rate, but of greater financial gain to hospitals.  Project Veritas investigated News York’s higher illness and death statistics and reported that physicians were told to write COVID as cause of death even if it was the secondary condition. Such protocols yield Big Pharma more federal dollars, and Bill Gates had already begun discussing his mandatory digital-tracking implants.  The power and freedom of the individual is relentlessly being leeched into the globalists’ camp.

Dr. Deborah L. Birx, American physician and diplomat, serving as the Coronavirus response coordinator for the White House, explained that whenever someone dies of any cause but also has COVID19, cause of death must be listed as COVID19.  Many doctors’ objections were overruled.  This deceptive tactic, combined with quarantine, will have fearful people begging for Gates’s vaccinations.

Dr. Judy Mikovits, PhD, virologist, has clarified that people do not die WITH, but FROM, an infection.  The deceptive death certificates are financially beneficial to hospitals.  She exposed Dr. Fauci and President Obama as the chief financiers and benefactors of Wuhan’s labs (confirmed by Mayor Giuliani); the virus was lab-manipulated.  Fauci had unethically appropriated Mikovits’s work, delayed testing her findings, thereby killing millions of HIV victims since 1984.  Dr. Fauci has become the trusted voice of medical wisdom; he merits close examination.

In 2006, Mikovits cofounded and developed the first neuroimmune disease, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, originally dismissed as feminine hypochondria. She later discovered that vaccines were being tested on mouse brains, and were uncontrollably contagious, causing an alarming national health crisis, including cancers and women having children with Autism Spectrum Disorders.  Fauci silenced her and confiscated her computers and notebooks.  He abused his power, misused his office, and removed her funding, which resulted in hundreds of millions of Americans’ being inoculated with the injurious vaccines.

Dr. Mikovits says Hydroxychloroquine, used with azithromycin, has proven to cure coronavirus victims at ~50 cents per treatment, but came under attack by the manufacturer of a competing, higher priced drug, Remdesevir.  President Trump recommends HCQ to help victims immediately, which Dr. Fauci strongly opposes and recommends Remdesevir, patented by Gilead Sciences.  Gilead, George Soros and Unitaid are working to penetrate China’s closed pharmaceutical market for enormous royalties.

Leo Hohmann reminds us that the compliance of governors, mayors, church leaders, the richest foundations, and leftist mainstream media, have censored those who would speak against the damage being done to our air traffic system, automobile traffic, food chain, healthcare system, school system, our once-bustling cities – the foundation of our entire society.  Bill Gates and his corrupt associates at the United Nations – World Health Organization medical-industrial complex are responsible for engineering the Great Panic of 2020.

If all the previous information doesn’t alarm, consider this: once we accept the enforced vaccination, the slide into population enslavement will be precipitous and impossible to reverse.  It is becoming more evident that vaccinations are being linked to identification in order to constrain and control human activity.  People who comply with the digital implants will be able to get financing, secure jobs, purchase products, participate in democracy, etc.; those who do not will be pariahs of the state and have their freedoms rescinded. Thus, world population will be subjugated to the globalist elite, and too many in authority are already wilting before the globalists who are making the most of this crisis to further their agenda.

The damage to the health of countless thousands has been a crime against humanity but the proposed ownership of millions by a few wealthy, influential people will be a crime against heaven.  It must not be permitted, ever.

©All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEOS:

Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet “The War on Today’s Pandemic” via America Newscape.

Top Doc Says “Dr Fauci has Failed”, 3043.

Tale of 2 States: New York’s COVID-19 Death Toll Far Greater Than Florida’s

Florida and New York are states with similar population sizes, but dramatically different approaches to the COVID-19 pandemic.

New York has almost 30 times as many coronavirus-related deaths as Florida, with a heavy concentration among senior citizens, according to numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, gained praise in the media for his performance in press conferences if nothing else, while Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has been heavily criticized in media reports.


When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here>>>.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


New York has had about 348,000 COVID-19 cases and more than 28,000 deaths as of May 17, according to the CDC. Florida, meanwhile, had about 46,000 cases and 2,000 deaths.

The population of New York state is 19.5 million, while Florida is home to 21.5 million.

“Gov. DeSantis understands Florida and knows how to interpret data and use science to guide the state during this health care pandemic,” the governor’s communications director, Helen Aguirre Ferre, told The Daily Signal in an email. “He worked quickly to protect the vulnerable, increase testing, promote social distancing, support hospitals and protect health care workers, and prevent introduction [of the virus] from outside of the state.”

Ferre added:

When the media was howling because there were folks on the beach, Gov. DeSantis prohibited visitations to assisted living facilities and nursing homes. In addition, Gov. DeSantis prohibited nursing homes and long-term care facilities to [allow] COVID-19 patients who were discharged from hospitals to be returned to their facilities.

He established COVID-19 dedicated nursing homes. In addition, he required comprehensive screening of staff and vendors entering these long-term care facilities. Testing and contact tracing was a priority for all Florida residents in addition to providing precious PPE [personal protective equipment]. Impeding those who were fleeing from other states where there was community spread of this virus was also important.

In New York, senior Cuomo administration officials contend that the federal government was too slow to ban European flights that primarily stop at major airports in New York or New Jersey.

From January through March, about 13,000 flights came through these airports from European locations carrying about 2 million passengers, the officials told The Daily Signal on background.

New York also does more testing for the coronavirus than other states, which is one reason the recorded rates are higher, they said. Add to that, New York City has the most dense population in the United States.

New York and Florida have a similar percentage of total COVID-19 deaths among those 65 and older. Seniors made up 83% of deaths in Florida, 77% in New York.

“In general, on a statewide basis, Florida is doing much better than New York,” Norbert Michel, director of the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “Florida has much fewer deaths and deaths per capita and per 100,000 than New York; this fact holds even if you remove New York City from the state data, though the differences are much smaller.”

The high fatality rate in New York City from the coronavirus skews the statewide numbers, he said.

Florida also is doing better during the pandemic across every category of those 45 and older, as the New York death toll is 15 to 20 times higher than Florida across every category, Michel said.

“Regardless, the death rates by age are worse in New York. If New York City is the primary driver of high death totals and high death rates, then the same comparison still applies; the only thing that would change is that we would have to say New York City is doing much worse than Florida,” Michel said.

Cuomo also has faced criticism for a March decision, later reversed, to send patients back to nursing homes after they tested positive for COVID-19.

“Florida and New York had very different protections for nursing home patients,” Michel said. “The nursing home policy [in New York] was insane. The state was basically sending someone to an early grave. … If it is the case that the infection was already widespread before anyone knew about it, the state was still literally sending people back into it.”

To help free up beds in hospitals in late March, the New York state Health Department issued an order to nursing homes: “No resident shall be denied re-admission or admission to the [nursing home] solely based on a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19.”

The Long Term Care Community Coalition in New York opposed the Cuomo policy of sending COVID-19 patients back to nursing homes.

Similarly, the American Medical Directors Association, in a March 26 statement, said: “Unsafe transfers will increase the risk of transmission in post-acute and long-term care facilities, which will ultimately only serve to increase the return flow back to hospitals, overwhelming capacity, endangering more healthcare personnel, and escalating the death rate.”

Cuomo administration officials said residents returning to nursing homes after testing positive for the virus were quarantined from other residents, following federal guidelines for them to be kept in separate facilities with different caretakers from the rest of the population. A total of 12% of the state’s fatalities were from nursing homes, a Cuomo administration official said. 

“It was one of the giant red herrings of all time,” the official told The Daily Signal. “I would take our state law over any state law that says you can discriminate [against] potentially the most feeble, at-risk, vulnerable people in our society.”

In early May, The New York Times reported that 1,600 previously undisclosed deaths occurred in New York nursing homes, bringing the total number of deaths at nursing homes to almost 5,000.

One more factor: Cuomo didn’t order the New York City subway to be sterilized on a nightly basis until early May, even though the first COVID-19 cases were reported March 1.

Another Cuomo administration official contended that new cleaning policies were in place March 3, two days after the state’s first confirmed coronavirus case.

New York is unique among U.S. cities in having a subway that operates around the clock; closing it was not an option. As more people stayed home more often, however, it was feasible to close down for nightly sterilization beginning May 5, the official said.

COVID-19 deaths in New York City total 1,403.72 per 100,000 for those ages 75 and older, according to the city’s data. The death rate drops to 560.85 per 100,000 for those 65 to 74; 171.49 for ages 45 to 64; and 18.4 for ages 18 to 44. The rate is 0 for those under 18.

Although New York City has more people living in close proximity than any other American city, specific policies played a role in the death toll for both the city and state, said Arpit Gupta, an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute who co-authored a report with recommendations for reopening New York City.

“I would point to large, dense cities in Asia such as Seoul, Taipei, Tokyo, and in Hong Kong,” Gupta told The Daily Signal. “Density is not destiny. Those cities made policy decisions that New York didn’t that have contributed to the death toll we’ve seen.”

As of May 13 in Florida, COVID-19 had claimed the lives of 53 people ages 45 to 54, or 0.24 per 100,000; 138 ages 55 to 64, or 0.64 per 100,000;  296 ages 65 to 74, or 1.4; 391 ages 75 to 84, or 1.82; and 378 ages 85 and older, or 1.8.

In New York state as of May 13,  COVID-19 had killed 1,267 people ages 45 to 54, or 6.5 per 100,000; 3,039 ages 55 to 64, or 15.6 per 100,000; 4,818 ages  65 to 74, or 24.7; 5,603 ages 75 to 84, or 29; and 5,881 ages 85 and older, or 30.2.

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:

How Franciscan University of Steubenville Is Helping Students in Wake of COVID-19 Pandemic

A Proposed ‘Health Defense Operations’ Slush Fund Won’t Protect US From Future Pandemics

Grassroots Petition Urging Governors to ‘Reopen Their States’ Tops 100,000 Signatures

Pill Pushers Exploiting COVID-19 to Promote Risky Telemedicine Abortions


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.

YouTube bans content that contradicts WHO on Covid-19, despite its track record of misinformation

The policy represents a betrayal of the pioneering platform’s founding principles.


YouTubers are being silenced if they don’t agree with the United Nations on public health. As The Verdict reports:

YouTube will ban any content containing medical advice that contradicts World Health Organisation (WHO) coronavirus recommendations, according to CEO Susan Wojcicki.

Wojcicki announced the policy on CNN on Sunday. WHO is an agency of the UN, charged with overseeing global public health. The Verdict report continues:

Wojcicki said that the Google-owned video streaming platform would be “removing information that is problematic”. She told host Brian Stelter that this would include “anything that is medically unsubstantiated”.

“So people saying ‘take vitamin C; take turmeric, we’ll cure you’, those are the examples of things that would be a violation of our policy,” she said. “Anything that would go against World Health Organisation recommendations would be a violation of our policy.”

While the decision has been welcomed by many, some have accused the streaming giant of censorship.

To be clear, for American YouTubers, this kind of censorship is not a violation of their constitutional right of free speech. The First Amendment protects citizens against government censorship, and YouTube is a private platform. Were the US government to force the private owners of YouTube to continue broadcasting certain videos against their will, that would be much more a violation of the First Amendment.

While YouTube’s decision is not unconstitutional, it is unwise, exhibiting far too much deference to central authority in general and to WHO especially.

The World Health Organization is far from infallible. Its handling of information throughout the coronavirus emergency has been a long string of failures. As policy analyst Ross Marchand has recounted here on FEE last week, WHO failed to raise the alarm as the coronavirus rapidly spread through China during the crucial early period of the global crisis in January of this year. Then, as Marchand wrote:

The global bureaucracy uncritically reported that Chinese authorities had seen “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus” on January 14, just one day after acknowledging the first case outside of China (in Thailand). WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus praised Chinese President Xi Jinping for his “political commitment” and “political leadership” despite these repeated, reprehensible attempts to keep the world in the dark about the coronavirus.

President Donald Trump recently announced that the US would cease its funding of WHO over its many coronavirus-related failures.

And it is not just American conservatives who have been critical. As FEE’s Jon Miltimore wrote:

Our World in Data, an online publication based at the University of Oxford, announced on Tuesday that it had stopped relying on World Health Organization (WHO) data for its models, citing errors and other factors.

This raises an interesting question: would YouTube censor Oxford if it posted a video on the coronavirus issue with recommendations based on data that contradicts WHO’s?

As Miltimore wrote, “Recent reports suggest US intelligence agencies relied heavily on WHO in its national assessment of the COVID-19 threat.”

This is gravely concerning because bad information leads to bad policies. This is true not only for government policy (like mayors, governors, and heads of state deciding to largely shut down the economy in their jurisdiction), but for the policies of private decision-makers like doctors, business-owners, and individuals making decisions about the health and overall lives of themselves and their families.

Indeed, WHO’s misinformation early in the crisis squandered the most precious part of the world’s prep time, which likely crippled the public’s responses and may have cost many lives.

YouTube risks compounding that tragedy by now insisting that the public’s response to the coronavirus emergency conforms even more strictly with WHO’s dubious pronouncements. Wojcicki wants to protect WHO’s recommendations from contradiction. But WHO’s recommendations are necessarily informed by WHO’s information, which has proven to be extremely suspect. Sheltering untrustworthy pronouncements risks amplifying their dangerous influence.

So, it is ironic that YouTube justifies this policy in the name of protecting the public from dangerous misinformation.

It is true that many videos contradicting official pronouncements are themselves full of medical quackery and other misleading falsehoods. But, censorship is the worst way to combat them.

For one, censorship can actually boost the perceived credibility of an untruth. Believers interpret it as validation: evidence that they are onto a truth that is feared by the powers-that-be. And they use that interpretation as a powerful selling point in their underground evangelism.

Censorship also insulates falsehoods from debunking, allowing them to circulate largely uncriticized in the dark corners of public discourse.

This makes censorship especially counterproductive because it is open-air debunking that is one of the most effective ways to counter misinformation and bad ideas. As Justice Louis Brandeis expressed in a US Supreme Court opinion, the ideal remedy for bad speech, “is more speech, not enforced silence.”

Again, YouTube has a right to set the terms of service of its own website. But the general principle applies here as well: the truth has a much better fighting chance with a proliferation of competing voices than with inquisitorial efforts to circumscribe discourse within a narrow orthodoxy.

Moreover, WHO’s track record of misinformation is not exceptional among government organizations in neither its degree of error nor in its disastrous impact. Governments and the experts they employ not only get things wrong but have frequently proven to be fundamentally wrong-headed on big questions.

To take another example in the realm of public health, it is increasingly widely recognized that the high-carb, low-fat diet recommendations, as depicted by the the USDA’s “Food Pyramid,” and successfully promoted for decades to the population by the US government and the most respected authorities on dietary science and epidemiology, was basically backward. Science journalist Gary Taub tells the whole story of bad science, corrupt influence, and obtuse orthodoxy in his book Good Calories, Bad Calories.

Again, bad information leads to bad advice which leads to bad choices. So how much illness and even death was caused by generations of Americans uncritically swallowing “official” diet advice and by Americans largely only having one choice on the “menu” of diet advice?

The more we centralize decision-making and the management of actionable information, the wider the scope of the damage caused by any single error. But if we let a thousand errors bloom along with a thousand truths, any single error will be circumscribed in its damage and more likely to be corrected through experience and counter-argument.

Champions of policies like YouTube’s like to cast the issue in simplistic terms: as a black-and-white battle between respectable experts and wild-eyed crackpots. But the issue is more complex than that.

It is just as often a matter of overweening technocrats making pronouncements on matters that are way beyond them in complexity, that involve factors that fall way outside their domain of expertise, and that drastically impact the lives of millions or even billions. For example: a few dozen epidemiologists, with limited understanding of economics and a great many other relevant disciplines, holding sway over whole economies.

It is also a matter of dissenting experts being silenced along with the actual crackpots.

And, perhaps most fundamentally, it is a matter of weakening the individual’s ability to discern between truth and falsehood, good advice and bad, by denying them the responsibility and practice of doing so in the first place—of turning self-reliant, free men and women into irresponsible wards to be led by the nose like dumb, deferential livestock by their “expert” caretakers.

That is not where we are, but that is the direction that the rigid enforcement of centralized orthodoxies tends toward.

Let’s choose a different direction. YouTube, do better. Trust your users more. Treat them like human beings with all the capacities for learning, growth, discourse, and cooperation that are the distinctive glories of being human.

After all, that is what made you great in the first place. Your very name is derived from your original faith in the individual. YouTube (a crowd-sourced, individual-driven, pluralistic platform) is what made the boob tube (centralized, institutionalized, and homogenizing broadcast television) largely obsolete. As such, you had a starring role in the internet’s democratization of information and learning.

Don’t betray that legacy. Not now. Not when we need open platforms for the free flow of information and discourse more than ever.

COLUMN BY

Dan Sanchez

Dan Sanchez is the Director of Content at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and the editor-in-chief of FEE.org. He co-hosts the weekly web show FEEcast, serving as the resident “explainer.” … More by Dan Sanchez.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Google Making it Harder to Find News the Left Doesn’t want You to See

Home: How lockdown taught us to value the refuge we took for granted

How should we tackle conspiracy theories about Covid-19?

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

White House Challenges Left’s Pandemic Playbook Narrative

The White House pushed back on the media narrative that the Obama administration left behind a pandemic “playbook” for the Trump administration.

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said Friday that the playbook from the Obama administration was an insufficient packet of paper, and that the Trump administration’s own pandemic response exercise in 2019 exposed its shortcomings.

On Thursday, Dr. Rick Bright, a senior adviser at the National Institutes of Health who filed a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump, told a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health that the administration should have known more about the coronavirus.

As a result, Bright said, “we were not as prepared as we should have been.”


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


“We missed early warning signals and we forgot important pages from our pandemic playbook,” Bright said. “There will be plenty of time to identify gaps for improvement.”

Much of the mainstream media, including CNN, Politico, and PBS, ran with the narrative that the Obama administration left a pathway for the Trump administration to better handle the coronavirus.

That wasn’t the case., McEnany said during the Friday press briefing.

“Some have erroneously suggested that the Trump administration threw out the pandemic response playbook left by the Obama-Biden administration,” McEnany said, holding up documents from the podium. “What the critics fail to note, however, is that this thin packet of paper was replaced by two detailed, robust pandemic response reports commissioned by the Trump administration.”

“In 2018, the Trump administration issued our pandemic crisis action plan,” she said, adding:

Further, from August 13th to the 16th, the Trump administration conducted the Crimson Contagion 2019 Functional Exercise. This was a pandemic simulation to test the nation’s ability to respond to a large-scale outbreak.

In January of 2020, [the Department of Health and Human Services] issued the Crimson Contagion 2019 Functional Exercise after-action report. This exercise exposed the shortcomings in legacy planning documents, which informed President Trump’s coronavirus response.

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:

‘Operation Warp Speed’ Seeks COVID-19 Vaccine by January

This Nonprofit Empowers African American Community During COVID-19

Failures of an Influential COVID-19 Model Used to Justify Lockdowns

Feed the Heroes Delivers a Hot Meal to DC’s Hospital Workers, First Responders

RELATED VIDEO: Hopkins: Britain, Boris and Lethal Socialized Healthcare.


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.

How Elon Musk Beat a California Dictate by Flexing the “Power of Exit”

As I discussed Wednesday, the Alameda County Health Department backed down in its face-off with Elon Musk over the closure of Tesla’s car plant in Fremont, California. Musk reopened the factory, openly defying the government’s order to remain closed. The health officials acquiesced to the fait accompli by granting it after-the-fact provisional approval.

As I argued previously, Musk’s act qualified as economic civil disobedience, especially since he expressly offered himself up for arrest and punishment. His ultimate success was a testament to the power of that peaceful strategy for political change. The government probably wanted to avoid the public controversy that would result from jailing someone like Musk.

But there was another consideration in play that probably influenced the official decision to relent. Shortly before daring the government to arrest him, Musk had also threatened to simply leave California over the COVID-19 lockdown, tweeting:

Frankly, this is the final straw. Tesla will now move its HQ and future programs to Texas/Nevada immediately. If we even retain Fremont manufacturing activity at all, it will be dependen [sic] on how Tesla is treated in the future. Tesla is the last carmaker left in CA.

This is a serious threat. As Tesla’s website states:

As one of the largest manufacturing employers in California, Tesla stimulated $5.5 billion in sales activity and generated $4.1 billion in direct spending in the state in Fiscal Year 2017 alone. The same year, Tesla also created 51,000 jobs in California, including our employees and jobs throughout our supply chain.

That surely amounts to a lot of tax revenue, which government officials are no doubt wary of letting slip away.

And it’s not like Tesla is lacking options. There is no shortage of American states eager to receive all that economic activity and revenue. Musk mentioned Texas and Nevada, but Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt, a Republican, immediately volunteered his state to be Tesla’s new home.

Stitt replied directly to Musk’s “last straw” tweet on the very same day, writing:

Oklahoma is open for business.

We’re doing it safely, responsibly and based on the data in our state.@elonmusk, let’s talk!

P.S. Route 66 would make a great place for a test drive…

Not to be outdone, Colorado Governor Jared Polis, a Democrat, also publicly courted Musk on Twitter, writing:

We want you here @elonmusk in Colorado, we are the best of all worlds. We’re very pro-business, low taxes, also pro-immigration, pro-LGBT, globally-minded. Bright, smart, motivated ppl love to live here. @Tesla HQ, Cybertruck, gigafactory look no further!

Musk graciously, though noncommittally, responded to his suitor, “Hi Jared, Colorado is great! I think your policies make a lot of sense.”

Contrast these welcoming invitations to his treatment in California, where Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez responded to the same tweet by writing, “F–k Elon Musk,” to which one Twitter user answered, “You already did. That’s why he’s leaving.”

Yet, as it turns out, even California cannot screw its tax-paying producers with complete impunity, and its officials know it.

And this is owing to another safeguard of freedom that is as deeply American as civil disobedience: federalism.

Imagine if states were not allowed to determine any policies of their own, if all policies were set at the national level, and if the Lorena Gonzalezes of the world reigned in Washington. There would be no place of refuge for producers like Musk, other than leaving the country (or maybe in Musk’s case, eventually the planet!).

With much fewer options, unruly entrepreneurs like Musk would be in a much weaker position when they push back against onerous government impositions.

But since Americans are able to “vote with their feet,” state governments are at least partially incentivized to compete for their tax dollars: often by vying to be less oppressive than rival states.

That is exactly what you are seeing when you have state governors tweeting that they are “open for business” and promising “low taxes,” competing to woo a private citizen. It is also probably what you’re seeing when California bureaucrats stand down in the face of outright defiance.

This is called “jurisdictional competition,” and it has played an enormous role in the history of liberty and prosperity, not only for America but for civilization as a whole.

America’s federal structure has withered under the constant assault of centralizers in Washington. But we owe much of the liberty and prosperity we retain to the extent to which it has survived.

And it may play an even bigger role in a post-COVID-19 America. While most states of the union have imposed some restrictions on freedom in the wake of the pandemic, there have been huge variations: with some governments grimly committing to draconian, economy-crippling lockdowns for months to come, and others imposing lighter restrictions that they are already beginning to lift.

Maybe the stricter governments are right, and they will become havens of survival while their rival states become death traps. Or maybe they’re wrong, and they will become economic wastelands while their rivals become prosperous refuges for producers.

In either case, federalism will prove beneficial, as taxpayers can vote with their feet to reward the wiser policymakers.

This is one of the biggest reasons that it is vital to avoid centralized, top-down solutions, even for the biggest and scariest problems, like pandemics. Decentralization is better, both for freedom and problem-solving.

Now that shelter-at-home has normalized remote work, tax bases will become even more mobile, as it is less necessary to live anywhere in particular (especially in big cities) for the sake of one’s career and earnings. This may make jurisdictional competition more fierce, which may bode well for freedom.

Another set of ideas that sheds light on these issues is the work of the economist Albert O. Hirschman, author of the widely cited 1970 book Exit, Voice, and Loyalty.

As Mark Lutter wrote for FEE in 2015, Hirschman:

…differentiated between “voice” and “exit.” In any given system or organization, voice is essentially about expression: protesting, voting, speaking out, or otherwise raising your concerns and hoping the organization responds to them. Exit is about leaving the system to join — or maybe even to create — a new one.

It is important to note that voice and exit are complements, not substitutes. The power of exit enhances voice, ensuring decision makers have an incentive to listen to you.

Federalism afforded Elon Musk the power of exit, which in turn amplified his voice such that it could not be ignored, even by California bureaucrats. As state policies radically diverge in the wake of COVID-19, we may see a lot more of that, even among small business owners, and workers too.

Elon Musk is known as a pioneer in many industries, from cars to space rockets. He may have just pioneered new political territory as well. By flexing his “power of exit” to win back a measure of freedom, he may not only prove to be a maverick, but a forerunner.

COLUMN BY

Dan Sanchez

Dan Sanchez is the Director of Content at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and the editor of FEE.org.

RELATED ARTICLES:

If American Healthcare Kills, European Healthcare Kills More

How We Know Single-Payer Won’t Lower Health Care Costs

Compulsory Schooling Laws: What if We Didn’t Have Them?

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

Ask and Ye Shall Receive: Local Businesses Keep Doctors Safe

Our small business success story this week comes from Arizona. A doctor who, after seeing his colleagues contract COVID-19 while providing care to COVID patients, became sick and tired of the risks and decided to act. He designed an intubation box to protect medical professionals during the intubation process and went to local businesses for help in creating it.

They stepped up. Via AZ Central:

Reeser first took his design to Phoenix-based mattress company, Tuft & Needle, which has built and donated dozens of intubation boxes to hospitals across the Valley using his plans. Hundreds more have been sent across the country with the help of additional partners. 

While Tuft & Needle didn’t have the resources on hand to make these boxes for Dr. Reeser, they did know who to call. Soon, they were on their way to building the boxes for Reeser and his colleagues.

However, Reeser wasn’t finished. He approached Urban Plough Furniture, which normally serves hospitality and office space firms, to make the same safety devices. Founder Matthew Moore, who had seen six months worth of business dry up, jumped on the chance to help his community and his company:

“And magically, Dr. Reeser shows up at our doorstep,” Moore said. 

Like Tuft & Needle, Moore’s company has been producing the intubation boxes at cost and donating them to doctors in need — they’re not making up for lost profits. But he says the work has given him purpose. 

This is what it means to “buy,” or in this case “ask,” local. Small businesses are always going to fight – and often lose – to faceless corporations that have lower per-product costs and thus can sell everything at a lower price. However, your local small business sees purpose in helping you and your family – whether it’s during the pandemic or during more normal economic times.

Serving communities takes all kinds of shapes. Buying local means that when times are tough, you have allies and friends to get you, your family, and your neighbors through tough times. Reeser and Moore are just a single example of the amazing community teamwork that is taking place across America.

How can you be a part of supporting local?

This post is part of 2ndVote’s coverage of business charity during the COVID-19 public health, social, and economic crises. We are highlighting companies large and small which are doing their part to help their communities.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Drinks, Masks, and Food: The Coca-Cola Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic

The Company Contrast

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Intolerant, Ingrate Left Wants Christians to Stop Helping COVID-19 Victims

Just as soon as the Christian organization Samaritan’s Purse came to the aid of overwhelmed New York City officials and sick residents struggling to combat the effects of COVID-19, New York City Council Speaker Corey Johnson decided the diverse, “tolerant,” progressive city had enough of its assistance, due to its Christian foundation, and effectively kicked the charity out.

While it’s usually Christians who are scolded for their so-called intolerant beliefs that are rooted in centuries-old religious traditions, here it seems like it’s progressives who aren’t so tolerant of other people embracing views that are different than theirs—even if those very views inform their acts of charity and medical care.

Samaritan’s Purse is, of course, a renowned Christian relief organization that focuses mostly on offering medical aid in times of crises, setting up emergency field hospitals in disease-ridden, war-torn, or terrorist-ravaged hot spots around the world.


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>>

When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here>>>.


It has gone everywhere from the Bahamas to Mozambique to Iraq and has treated everything from injuries caused by ISIS to Ebola. Now, it’s helping COVID-19 patients and public officials in New York and Italy.

When COVID-19 began to overwhelm New York City just a few weeks ago—at the peak of what we now think was the frightening “curve” of the outbreak—Samaritan’s Purse arrived, built a giant tent hospital in Central Park with the full knowledge and cooperation of the nearby highly acclaimed Mount Sinai Health System, and went to work.

Here’s what Samaritan’s Purse accomplished, according to its website:

We operated our respiratory care unit in Central Park from April 1 to May 5. Through our  partnership with the Mount Sinai Health System, we treated more than 300 coronavirus patients in New York, including 190 at the park site.

More than 240 relief specialists served at various times on the Disaster Assistance Response Team there. We ran a similar medical facility outside of Milan, Italy, that opened on March 20 and closed May 7. The 14-tent unit was set up adjacent to the Cremona Hospital in order to treat an overflow of coronavirus patients.

Our DC-8 aircraft made two airlifts to Italy in order to deliver the hospital, 20 tons of supplies, and a large Disaster Assistance Response Team.

Those efforts sound not only peaceful and benign, but also quite remarkable. Not so, according to a number of New York City officials, who started a culture war where there wasn’t even a battle—except for those fighting for their lives due to COVID-19.

According to a May 4 New York Post column, “Four local Democratic members of Congress—Reps. Jerry Nadler, Carolyn Maloney, Adriano Espaillat, and [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez]—sent a letter to Mount Sinai expressing their ‘concern’ about the group’s efforts and demanding to know how it had received permission to operate in Central Park.”

Combine that with Johnson’s tweets and you have yourself a culture war coup d’etat.

Johnson specifically called out the organization’s religious views, tweeting they were too exclusive and hateful:

Their continued presence here is an affront to our values of inclusion, and is painful for all New Yorkers who care deeply about the LGBTQ community. …

The @NYCCouncil is committed to supporting [health care workers] and protecting our city’s public health. But as a city that values diversity and compassion for all, we can’t continue allowing a group with their track record to remain here when we’re past the point they’re needed.

Mount Sinai must sever its relationship with Samaritan’s Purse. Its leader calls the LGBTQ community ‘detestable’ and ‘immoral.’ He says being gay is ‘an affront to God,’ and refers to gay Christians as ‘the enemy.’ …

Johnson concluded his tweetstorm:  “Hate has no place in our beautiful city.”

Samaritan’s Purse did indeed leave a few days later, although it’s unclear whether those tweets motivated it or whether it had already planned to leave New York City on May 5.

Johnson’s interpretation that Samaritan’s Purse is a bigoted, hateful organization because it espouses traditional Christian beliefs—specifically, that marriage is between a man and a woman—is not a new lens through which the left views Christians, though that doesn’t make it accurate.

Even before the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in 2015, that was the premise of virtually every LGBTQ group, the plaintiff in that 2015 court case, the ACLU, and many others.

Since when is it “bigotry” to hold sincere religious beliefs that people have practiced for centuries?

The LGBTQ community claims to advocate tolerance and inclusion, but it is inviting and welcoming only when everyone believes what it does, even when, as we saw here, the issue at stake—medical care in a crisis—has nothing to do with political ideology.

There’s no evidence that Samaritan’s Purse came to New York City to condemn gay marriage or even to spread the Gospel. From the sound of it, Samaritan’s Purse pitched its tent, gave medical care to patients suffering with COVID-19, and after a few weeks, or perhaps when its presence became controversial, it left.

There is still a cultural divide between Christians and LGBTQ groups and their supporters. That’s unfortunate.

I know many Christians who grieve over that and desire harmony with everyone without compromising their beliefs. I’m sure many in the LGBTQ community do as well.

It’s possible that divide may always exist, but I wish that Christians could maintain their beliefs and still extend courtesy and grace, and that people like the New York City Council speaker would be as inclusive and tolerant as they claim to be toward Christians trying to help them.

COMMENTARY BY

Nicole Russell is a contributor to The Daily Signal. Her work has appeared in The Atlantic, The New York Times, National Review, Politico, The Washington Times, The American Spectator, and Parents Magazine. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Reopening South Africa Through Greater Economic Freedom

1% of Counties Home to Half of COVID-19 Cases, Over Half of Deaths

PBS Stations That Received Millions in Federal Funds Partnered With Chinese Foreign Agent on Pro-Beijing Film


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.