172 Pastors Petition Virginia Governor to Allow Weekly Church Services

After six weeks of not being allowed to gather in church buildings for corporate worship, more than 170 pastors in Virginia are respectfully saying “enough.”

Michael Law Jr., senior pastor of Arlington Baptist Church, emailed a letter Monday to Gov. Ralph Northam asking him to modify two executive orders to allow religious gatherings at least once a week.

Another 171 pastors also signed the letter, which reads in part:

The Church of the Lord Jesus Christ is a hospital for the spiritually sick. Yet corporate worship services of more than 10 people have been banned in Virginia since March 23. … Prohibiting corporate worship services has exacerbated the sense of sorrow, isolation, and fear felt by so many citizens across the Commonwealth.


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 >>

On March 23, Northam issued Executive Order 53, which prohibits “all public and private in person gatherings of 10 or more individuals.”

The Democratic governor followed with Executive Order 55, which specifically prohibits “religious, or other social events, whether they occur indoor or outdoor.”

The second order says it is slated to “remain in full force and in effect until June 10, 2020, unless amended or rescinded by further executive order.”

The aim of the pastors’ letter is for churches to “have the freedom to be able to wisely gather again,” David Schrock, pastor for preaching and theology at Occoquan Bible Church in Woodbridge, Virginia, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview Wednesday.

Law, Schrock, and about 30 of the other pastors are with churches in Northern Virginia, which in general is the most liberal area of the state. Its population growth spurred Virginia’s switch in recent years from a reliably Republican state in presidential elections to a Democratic one.

The pastors who signed hope that their colleagues throughout Virginia will add their names to the petition urging Northam to amend his orders.

Law begins the appeal by thanking Northam for his work during the COVID-19 pandemic to protect Virginians and tells the governor that pastors in the Commonwealth “have been praying for you.”

Law then outlines a formal biblical and practical argument for why the pastors believe that churches should be permitted to assemble again:

Because corporate worship is central to Christian life, it is extraordinary for churches to forego meeting for even a single Sunday. Thus, with each passing week that corporate worship is banned, the government pushes Christians closer to the point where they must choose to sin against God and conscience or violate the law.

Northam is a member of First Baptist Church in Capeville, a predominantly black church on Virginia’s Eastern Shore.

The Daily Signal sought comment Thursday from the governor’s press office but had received no response by publication time.

Schrock, who said he wasn’t aware of a response from Northam, stressed why he chose to add his name to the pastors’ formal request to the governor.

“The church is a witness for the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” he said. “That is why we gather on Sunday, because that was the day that he was raised from the dead. And it gives a public testimony to the fact that he is alive and present to help all who trust in him.”

In addition to the biblical call to gather as believers, Schrock said, there “is both a psychological and a spiritual well-being that the church provides to those who are followers of Jesus Christ.”

“It seems like that would be a statewide concern, for the physical, the psychological, the spiritual well-being of all citizens of Virginia,” he said.

Although most churches have continued to conduct services, prayer meetings, and other activities online, Schrock said, “there are many things that the Bible instructs believers to do that cannot be done online.”

Many denominations believe Christians should partake in communion only when the church is publicly assembled, Schrock said. The command in Hebrews 10: 24-25 to “assemble for worship” is central to the Christian faith, he said, as noted in the letter to Northam.

“It comes down to the free exercise of our conscience, to be able to exercise our beliefs as the Bible teaches,” Schrock said. “And the letter underscores why there are certain things that cannot be done online and cannot be done just as individuals.”

On Monday, the same day the pastors emailed their petition to Northam, the governor said during a press conference that Virginia might begin to reopen businesses as early as next week as a part of a three-phase plan.

“You will still be safer at home,” Northam said as he began his outline of phase one. “Large gatherings are still a bad idea. It means continued social distancing, teleworking, and face coverings.”

“But it also means that we are moving forward,” the governor said. “Phase one includes guidelines for all businesses to enhance physical distancing, do more cleaning and disinfecting, and promote workplace safety.”

It’s not clear what Northam’s announcement regarding the phased reopening means for church gatherings. The plan does propose to ease “limits on businesses and faith communities,” but gatherings remain limited to 10 or fewer in phase one and 50 or fewer in phase two.

With churches across Virginia nearing the two-month mark since their last in-person services, Law’s letter implores the governor “to modify Executive Orders 53 and 55 to permit—at minimum—once-weekly gatherings by religious organizations, provided reasonable public-health precautions are taken.”

This report has been corrected since publication to state that the pastors who wrote to Northam are from churches throughout the state.

COLUMN BY

Virginia Allen

Virginia Allen is a news producer for The Daily Signal. She is the co-host of The Daily Signal Podcast and Problematic Women. Send an email to Virginia. Twitter: @Virginia_Allen5.

RELATED ARTICLE: 3,000 California Churches Plan Massive Defiance of Governor’s Order


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.

VIDEO: Doctor And Women For Trump Leader Explains How Fall Election Can Be Held Safely

The Trump administration says Americans can expect the coronavirus to slow down in the summer months, but how much of our lifestyles will Americans be able to recover?

Dr. Shyla Valentine, a cardiovascular specialist and advisory board member of Women for Trump, sat down with Daily Caller White House Correspondent Anders Hagstrom to discuss this summer and the likelihood of a second wave of COVID-19 this fall. Dr. Valentine says Americans need to keep taking social distancing guidelines seriously, and warned that the second wave could possibly be more severe than the first.

Nevertheless, she says President Donald Trump’s plan for a phased reopening is a good one, that Americans should trust the members of the White House Coronavirus task force, and that the election should absolutely be held in the fall.

Check out TheDC’s fantastic videos and subscribe to our YouTube channel so you never miss out.

COLUMN BY

ANDERS HAGSTROM

White House correspondent.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Can Sunlight Really Kill Coronavirus? Separating The Truth From The Fake News

GOP National Spokeswoman Liz Harrington Says Democrats Are Using Coronavirus For Their Own Agenda

Here’s What Trump Is Doing To Help Black Americans Through The Coronavirus Crisis

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

Over Half of US Counties Have Had No COVID-19 Deaths

With many state and local governments starting to relax stay-at-home orders, it’s instructive to examine just how concentrated the spread of COVID-19 has been in the U.S.

Although all U.S. states have reported cases of COVID-19, the distribution of the cases and deaths has remained heavily concentrated in a small number of states, and among a small number of counties within all states.

For instance, as of May 4, just 10 states account for 70% of all U.S. cases and 77% of all deaths. Together, New York and New Jersey alone account for 38% of all cases and 48% of total COVID-19 deaths.


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 >>


Just five states—New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, and California—account for 54% of all of the confirmed cases in the U.S. and 61% of all coronavirus deaths.

These state-level figures do not, however, adequately describe the concentrated nature of the spread of COVID-19.

As the first chart shows, the 30 counties with the most COVID-19 cases account for 50% of all the cases in the U.S. (and 57% of all deaths). That is, just 1% of the counties in the U.S. are responsible for half of the country’s coronavirus cases and more than half of the deaths.

Of those 30 counties, 24 are in the Northeast corridor between Philadelphia and Boston, the passageway served by a commuter railway system that runs through Manhattan. Overall, just 11% of the counties in the U.S. contain nearly 95% of all the COVID-19 deaths.

Just as important, as the second chart shows, 52% of all U.S. counties have had zero COVID-19 deaths as of May 4.

Also as of May 4, 13 states have deaths that remain unallocated to respective counties. At most, those allocations could reduce the number of zero-death counties by 2 percentage points.

The chart also illustrates that 66% of all U.S. counties have no more than one coronavirus death, 80% have five or fewer, 86% have 10 or fewer, and 89% have fewer than 15.

Put another way, only about 10% of the counties in the U.S. have 15 or more COVID-19 deaths, and throughout the epidemic, the spread of COVID has remained highly concentrated in a handful of geographic locations in the U.S.

COLUMN BY

Norbert Michel

Norbert Michel studies and writes about housing finance, including the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as The Heritage Foundation’s research fellow in financial regulations. Read his research. Twitter: @norbertjmichel.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Lockdown Sceptics, a Website Worth Adding to Your Daily Reading List

Trump Urges Nation to Pray for Recovery, Renewal After Coronavirus

Americans, and Congress, Are Ready to Get Back to Work, Indiana Lawmaker Says

3 Things to Know About Dallas Salon Owner Jailed, Then Released


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.

PODCAST: Fear Factor — What Our Virus Concerns Say about the Two Parties

Nobody is thrilled to be stuck inside, but a lot of pollsters have been surprised by just how popular The Great Lockdown has been. Despite the state protests and rallies, there’s been a lot of support for the stay-at-home orders that have canceled schools and disrupted life as we know it. “Worth it” said 80 percent in a Kaiser survey last week. “Appropriate” another 66 percent told the Washington Post. But is that mindset starting to change? Some surveys say yes.

For the first time since he’s been asking, Scott Rasmussen thinks the focus of concern is changing. A slight plurality of people — 49 percent — said they now fear the economic threat more than the health threat (45 percent). In statistics, that’s essentially a split down the middle, he told me on “Washington Watch.” “But it’s a big change from a month ago, when 55 percent were more worried about the health components of the coronavirus.” But the longer this goes on, Scott explained, the more Americans are starting to count the other costs. “It’s not just, you know, stay home and stay safe, or go out and work and put your health at risk.”

One of the more interesting findings of his survey is just how differently the two parties respond. There’s a significant divide over which concern should take precedence. By a 73-21 percent margin, Republicans say the economic threat is more serious — while Democrats, 64 to 31 percent, worry more about health. Of course, that’s consistent, in a lot of ways with the two political philosophies. “The Republican base, by and large, is going to be far more suspicious of the media culture, and of the government, and of government’s efforts to take liberty away from them,” the Hill’s John Feehery speculates. And as the president pushes to reopen the economy, Republicans — who’ve been concerned about this issue from the start — are naturally going to rally behind him.

But there are also two competing political philosophies at work here. Republicans have always been more attached to the free market than government. And Democrats, on the opposite side, tend to find comfort in more government and this idea that it can provide and protect. “It’s almost,” Scott agreed, “a broader definition of civil society. Conservatives tend to think there is a very active role for churches and trade associations and small businesses making things work, as opposed to a top-down mindset of the government should set the rules and we all play by them. So that absolutely factors into these numbers.”

We talk about these things as absolutes, Scott pointed out, but there are a lot of moving parts. The timing aspect is important. The infection rate is important. Freedom is important. The fact is, life, however it resumes, will look differently. But the president and his team are doing the best they can to make sure nothing has to suffer more than it already has — not our health and not the economy.


Tony Perkins’s Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

Coronavirus Deception: Made in China

Choosing Faith over Fear

Walker in Step with Trump’s Judges

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action podcast is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Our New Press Secretary is a Savage

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany destroys the Fake News!

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

VIDEO: NRA Endorses ‘Big Dan’ Rodimer for US Congress

LAS VEGAS/PRNewswire/ — Nevada Congressional candidate “Big Dan” Rodimer is proud to announce that he has received the official endorsement of the National Rifle Association in his run for the 3rd District. The NRA officially gave Rodimer an AQ rating, the highest rating possible for a candidate who has not previously held office.

In response to the endorsement, Rodimer stated, “I am very honored and proud to have the endorsement of the National Rifle Association in my run for Congress. The NRA is America’s longest-serving civil rights organization, with tens of thousands of members right here in Nevada and in the 3rd Congressional District. The NRA knows that I will fight to defend our 2nd Amendment Rights against gun-grabbers like Dan Schwartz and Susie Lee. Thank you to the NRA and all of their members here in Nevada.”

The NRA endorsement comes as a major boost to the Rodimer campaign since his primary opponent, former Nevada Treasurer Dan Schwartz, has openly spoken out in favor of Bloomberg-style, anti-2nd Amendment proposals, including a ban on alleged “assault rifles” in Nevada.

Big Dan Rodimer has made it clear time and again that he is the pro-2nd Amendment candidate in the race for Nevada’s 3rd Congressional District. Rodimer has often described gun rights as “human rights” and proudly possesses a CCW permit.

Since announcing his campaign for Congress last year, Rodimer has received endorsements from House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, the Nevada Right to Life and National Right to Life organizations, former Nevada Attorney General and current Nevada Trump Campaign Co-Chairman Adam Laxalt and highly successful Las Vegas businessman and reality TV star from the hit show “Pawn Stars”, Rick Harrison, among many others.

In February, Rodimer was placed on National Republican Congressional Committee’s (NRCC) Young Guns “Contender” status, the highest-ranking status of any congressional candidate in Nevada, signifying continued strength and momentum of his campaign, and opening the door for continued support from across the country. Every other Republican candidate in Nevada’s 3rd Congressional District has either refused to fill out the NRA survey or received an “F” rating.

You can learn more about Big Dan Rodimer click here. For regular updates on the campaign of Big Dan Rodimer for Congress, you can follow him on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

The Washington Post Wants You to Fast for Ramadan

My latest in PJ Media:

The far-Left anti-Trump propaganda organ masquerading as a news source and operating under the name the Washington Post on Thursday published an inspiring op-ed entitled “As American Muslims fast this Ramadan, maybe the rest of America should consider joining in.” The Post’s articles exhorting people to keep the Lenten fast or the Yom Kippur fast have not yet been published, but I’m sure that they will be when the appropriate times for them roll around again. Won’t they?

In the meantime, I’ll consider fasting for Ramadan, but I have a fairly good idea of what my conclusion will be. The article’s author, the imam Omar Suleiman, “founder and president of the Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research and an Islamic studies professor at Southern Methodist University,” writes: “The end result of Ramadan for Muslims, according to the Koran, is for ‘you to complete the period and glorify God for that which He has guided you, and that you may be amongst the grateful.’”

That sounds terrific, but what exactly does the Qur’an mean by glorifying God? According to the Islamic holy book, one way that Muslims can glorify God is by fighting and killing infidels (cf. 2:191. 4:89, 9:5, 9:29, 47:4, etc.). In fact, according to the prophet of Islam, there is no better way to glorify the supreme being. A hadith has a Muslim asking Muhammad: “Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward).” Muhammad replied, “I do not find such a deed.” (Bukhari 4.52.44) A jihad group explained: “The month of Ramadan is a month of holy war and death for Allah. It is a month for fighting the enemies of Allah and God’s messenger, the Jews and their American facilitators.”

Somehow that doesn’t sound as appealing as Omar Suleiman made it out to be. But the good imam can’t be faulted for walking through a door that the Washington Post opened. His article was published in response to a Post call: “The Opinions section is looking for stories of how the coronavirus has affected people of all walks of life. Write to us.” Suleiman saw an opportunity for dawah, Islamic proselytizing, and seized it.

Still, if someone had sent in those stories about how Americans should join in the Lenten fast, or the Yom Kippur fast, would the Post have published them? Almost certainly not. Suleiman’s article, however, is just one example of a general tendency: it is imperative in today’s society to be solicitous to Muslims and warmly positive toward even the aspects of Islam that are oppressive.

There is much more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Belgium’s anti-terror chief warns that ISIS is preaching jihad and Sharia in refugee camps

Turkey: Religious union top dog calls for prayer at the Hagia Sophia to show “that Turkey is not the old Turkey”

UK: City strikes against vehicular jihad, to celebrate diversity by installing permanent anti-Islamophobia bollards

Ramadan in Afghanistan: Taliban murders 17 civilians and wounds 49 during first week of holy month

Germany: Muslim migrant confesses to placing concrete slabs on train tracks

Lebanon seeks $10,000,000,000 bailout from the IMF as Hizballah’s power increases

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

Media Barely Try to Hide Bias in Covering Sexual Assault Accusations

Perhaps our country’s most powerful media organizations now simply don’t care how utterly one-sided their political coverage is.

This appears to be the case with how the media has treated the accusations of Tara Reade, who has accused Joe Biden, a former senator and vice president, of sexual harassment and sexual assault.

This treatment is of a piece with how (little) the media scrutinized sexual assault allegations last year against Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax.

Reade accuses Biden of sexually assaulting her in 1993, when she worked in his Senate office. Several people have said that Reade told them of the Delaware Democrat’s alleged behavior at the time.


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 >>


Since early last year, Reade had been vocal about her allegations that Biden treated and touched her inappropriately. Then, on a March 25 podcast, she accused him of sexual assault

Yet little of this story broke into legacy media coverage for nearly a month.

Analysis of the coverage by FiveThirtyEight shows that the story got almost no interest from prominent networks and really received considerable attention only on conservative-leaning websites.

The most that The New York Times editorial board could come up with, while being inconclusive about the Reade allegations, was that further investigation was needed—an investigation put together by the Democratic National Committee.

Fox News Channel political analyst Brit Hume’s response to this on Twitter was perfect.

After months in which this story has festered, Biden finally commented directly about the allegations in a May 1 interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” with co-host Mika Brzezinski, who actually asked some serious and tough questions.

Biden said that Reade’s account “is not true.”

Predictably, many on the left were unhappy even with this level of questioning.

Maria Cardona, a Democratic strategist, wrote that Reade’s accusations simply have been used by Republicans to “weaponize the issue” in an effort to delegitimize the #MeToo movement.

The lack of media scrutiny seems all the more inconsistent with evidentiary standards pushed by the left back in 2011 in the context of sexual assault on campus.

At that time, the Obama administration, in an effort spearheaded by Biden as vice president, issued a “Dear Colleague” letter to college administrators. In it, the Obama administration directed them to adjudicate sexual assault cases under Title IX, a provision in federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sex by institutions receiving financial assistance. The standard there is “preponderance of evidence” rather than “clear and convincing evidence.”

As commentator David Harsanyi pointed out on National Review Online, a college student accused of sexual assault under this standard often was “denied the ability to question his accuser, denied the right to review the allegations and evidence in an ensuing investigation, denied the right to present exculpatory evidence, and denied the right to call witnesses”—and often while facing adjudication by a single investigator with minimal training.

So a college student can have his life destroyed quickly based on fairly thin evidence and nothing like the standards of a trial in court, but a lieutenant governor and a former senator and vice president can just skate on by?

The message, it seems, is that sexual assault allegations are supposed to be “weaponized” only against conservatives.

But in the era of “believe all women,” one would think that at least our putatively nonpartisan press would be quite active in pursuing what could be a big story.

Isn’t the media about bringing truth to power or something like that?

It doesn’t take much to see how differently Biden and Fairfax have been treated by the traditional news media compared to, say, Brett Kavanaugh.

The standard that the left and so many in the #MeToo movement set up is that we must simply believe all women, that presumption of innocence—a cornerstone of American law and concept of justice—is a tool of oppression.

This is certainly what was applied to Kavanaugh, a D.C. Circuit judge whose reputation and nomination to the Supreme Court by President Donald Trump were nearly destroyed by an accusation of sexual misconduct at a high school party some 30 years ago. To date, that accusation has gone uncorroborated by a single witness, or even someone who can confirm that the party took place.

Although I am not addressing the full merits of any of these allegations, I note here that the media nevertheless subjected the nation to a steady barrage of increasingly lurid allegations made against Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings, passing them along uncritically on such thin evidence that many of them had to be corrected.

With Fairfax and Biden, mainstream media outlets such as The Washington Post, CNN, and NBC News tread slowly and tepidly to investigate. The common thread is that the mainstream media shirked its duty to seriously investigate the truth about a public figure.

The bottom line is, sexual assault allegations should be treated seriously, especially for men and women in power. However, it undermines the media’s credibility when they treat such allegations so differently based on what side of the political spectrum the subject of the allegations is on.

Again, it seems many of these outlets don’t even really try to hide the bias at this point. The only credibility they are concerned with is appealing to predominantly left-wing viewers, colleagues, and institutions while maintaining a thin glaze of “objectivity.”

That’s not inherently wrong. But at the very least, Americans should know what these media institutions are really about and not be deceived into thinking they are the only authoritative word on what the truth is.

COMMENTARY BY

Jarrett Stepman is a contributor to The Daily Signal and co-host of The Right Side of History podcast. Send an email to Jarrett. He is also the author of the new book, “The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America’s Past.”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.

Judicial Watch Sues on Behalf of Daily Caller News Foundation for Dr. Fauci and WHO Communications!

Washington, DC – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on behalf of the Daily Caller News Foundation against the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) for communications and other records of National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci and Deputy Director H. Clifford Lane with and about the World Health Organization (WHO) concerning the novel coronavirus (Daily Caller News Foundation v. U.S. Department Justice (No. 1:20-cv-01149)).

The suit was filed after HHS failed to respond to an April 1, 2020, FOIA request seeking:

  • Communications between Dr. Fauci and Deputy Director Lane and World Health Organization officials concerning the novel coronavirus.
  • Communications of Dr. Fauci and Deputy Director Lane concerning WHO, WHO official Bruce Aylward, WHO Director General Tedros Anhanom, and China.

The time period for the request is January 1, 2020 to April 1, 2020.

Additionally, the DCNF requested and was granted expedited processing of its request.

In March 2020, Fauci praised the work of the WHO and their chairman, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, saying: “Tedros is really an outstanding person … I mean, obviously, over the years anyone who says that the WHO has not had problems has not been watching the WHO. But I think under his leadership they’ve done very well.”

In April, President Trump announced a halt to funding the World Health Organization. According to the president, the WHO put “political correctness over lifesaving measures.” Additionally, President Trump said: “The WHO failed in this duty, and must be held accountable,” adding that the WHO ignored “credible information” in December 2019 that the virus could be transmitted from human to human.

Daily Caller News Foundation Co-Founder and President Neil Patel said: “This virus has killed hundreds of thousands of people and turned the whole world upside down. We know that China and WHO could have done a lot more to prevent or reduce this catastrophe. We therefore have a legitimate and urgent news purpose for seeking these documents regarding U.S. officials’ communications with WHO and demand that the agencies in question stop stalling and start following the law that entitles us to this vital information.”

“It is urgent that the NIH follow transparency law during the coronavirus crisis,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is of significant public interest to learn what WHO was telling our top medical officials about the coronavirus that originated in China.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Protests Turn Nasty: Demonstrators Call For Fauci, Bill Gates To Be Jailed, Compare Them To Nazis

What Did The WHO Tell Fauci While It Took China’s Coronavirus Lies at Face Value?

Watchdog group sues for Fauci, World Health Organization communications Source: The Washington Times

FOIA lawsuit seeks access to documents regarding China and WHO Source: Washington Examiner

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

Globalists Promote the Collapse of America’s Economy and Destruction of Her Leadership

According to an article in Wealth Daily on April 2nd, “Humanity’s Deadliest Virus: The Communist Party of China,” by Alex Koyfman, the onset of the Coronavirus crisis may well have been in the development stages a full four months prior to being reported by Chinese health officials.

Koyfman’s article states:

That earlier this week, four full months after coronavirus made the interspecies jump to infect patient zero, the truth about its effects on the Chinese Population has started to make headlines.

Officially, the numbers of infected and dead in China still stands firmly at 81,000 and 3,300, with single digits being added to both counts on a daily basis.

But news this big can’t stay suppressed – not forever, anyway…

As one resident of Wuhan, the city where the disease originated, stated, “The incinerators have been working around the clock, so how can so few people have died?”

Despite Wuhan’s population of over 11 million, city officials reported zero new cases between March 18 and March 22, a near impossibility when looking at what the sickness has done to population centers in other parts of the world within that same time frame.

For those who choose to side with China’s propaganda machine, which is now claiming (quite adamantly) that these revelations are nothing more than the Trump Administration’s attempts at deflecting attention away from the skyrocketing numbers within the U.S., it pays to look at the string of lies the Chinese government has rolled out since the crises started back in December.

The Classic Communist Tactic

The Chinese media is using a classic tactic in the communist’s arsenal to deal with being exposed by the opposition; they accuse the opposition of being guilty of the very thing they were doing, ever heard of Saul Alinsky? And, what was the Trump administration doing that the Chinese authorities objected to?

For one thing, there were elements of the media, not the fake media, but various elements of freelance media, as well as some that were possibly connected to the Trump Administration, who were exposing the lies that the Chinese government was resorting to in order to cover-up China’s progression of the virus.

This is a classic example of how the communists, and all those connected with them, apply and deploy the Leninist principle. The hypothesis is that the desired outcome is to change the public’s perception of favorable to unfavorable, of an organization that is exposing the communists and their connections.

Here’s how they do it…an article would be published in a so-called favorable, conservative, or possibly one with an anti-communist reputation which claims that this organization is a very sinister and dangerous entity in our republic. Events would be reported regarding those in leadership who were racist and anti-Semitic, even if it was completely false. One tactic that Lenin promoted was, in his words, “When the opposition becomes too obstructive, connect them with those who already have a bad smell.”  (Like the neo-Nazis, or the Ku Klux Klan.)

The follow-up to the hypothetical issue is that the very next day the story would be picked-up and run by practically every mainstream newspaper in the country.

An example is the Boxer Rebellion that resulted in the loss of thousands of lives which was caused by a tactic similar to this. Four news reporters conspired to concoct a story that the Great Wall of China was to be destroyed. The report went into detail and was picked up by the media of that time and reported world-wide.

More than likely, the reason China covered up the progress of the virus was because of the Chinese obsession with saving face. They didn’t want it revealed to the world how devastating the progression of this virus was in China. (I believe China strategically planned the covered-up until America was well into the epidemic stage of the virus.)

For Asians, saving face is very important, but there’s much more to this than that. The existence of the virus wasn’t something that just inadvertently happened, it just didn’t pop up.  The timing of it coincided with too many actions world-wide that collectively pursued the future of world government.

The Foretold Pandemic

Dr. Fauci stated in 2014 that at some point President Trump would contend with a deadly virus which would result in a crisis that would affect America medically and economically.

What we’re dealing with is a world-wide agenda, or conspiracy for world government, and understand that China is an integral component of that agenda. It was a part of it from the time Mao Tse Tung, with help from the United States, began his guerilla actions to take-over the Chinese mainland from the Chinese Nationalists forces of Chiang Kai-shek.

Since China is a member of the agenda for world government, then it follows that whatever it does to that end is going to mesh and coincide with what is being planned globally.

World Government and UN Agenda 2030

According to Patrick Wood, publisher of Technocracy News, The Imperial College in the U.K. is the origin of the global virus and the global warming panic.

In his article, he delves into the history and personal biases of the faculty of this institution. It is clear that both of these panic narratives were deliberately fabricated to create public acceptance for restructuring society to accept technocratic collectivism, a system in which all humans are ruled by tyrants, posing as scientists, supposedly for the greater good for the greater number. (a statement by G. Edward Griffin.)  It is wise to study this full report to acquire a deeper understanding of the issue.

Yes, China’s actions coincide with Patrick Wood’s article with respect to a possible global agenda or conspiracy resulting in a world government.

The virus allegedly escaped or leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China. Whatever the case might have been, China covered it up for about four months which resulted in the entire world, including America, becoming infected with Covid-19 before we began to take action to defend against it.

Obviously, this could have been the purpose for the cover-up of the virus’s progression for the simple reason that as a result America’s economy has suffered mightily. But the only reason we have economically suffered is because of Fauci and Birx incorrect models of how many people would die.  When one looks at Fauci and Birx’ connections to the global establishment, one can see the entire plan of America’s destruction.

China is a huge part of the global agenda, and has planned their global takeover to become the world’s top economy since 1949 and their objective is to secure it by 2049, along with the agenda for world government and communist control.

Regarding the role of Imperial College in the UK, as the originator of coronavirus panic and also the global warming panic, it appears that through the members of its faculty it serves as a sort of launching medium for whatever the agenda for world government is promoting.

Dr. Neil Ferguson PhD, world class technocrat, and professor at Imperial College in London which bills itself as a “global university,” began forming a computer model of how fast the virus would spread shortly after the “escape of Covid-19. He projected the possibility of a half million deaths in the UK and 1.1 million in the United States. Since this was picked-up and parroted worldwide – it produced the panic which soon followed, which was most likely the intent and purpose.  Add to that the models by Fauci and Birx claiming that 2.2 million Americans would die, and fear and panic took hold.

Sustainable Development and the Virus

According to Patrick Wood, in the introduction of this article, “People want to know just how bad the COVID-19 virus is and is fighting it worth the destruction of America and the world’s economic and financial system while disrupting the lives of hundreds of millions of people? The story behind the story will make it clear that things are seldom as they seem.”

In short and when seen through the lens of sustainable development, aka technocracy, the whole world has just been duped and panicked into destroying itself over COVID-19.  The culprit? Dr. Neil Ferguson, the professor at Imperial College in London. Imperial is thoroughly steeped in sustainable development and more dedicated to social causes than academic achievement. In fact, Imperial is very well-known for its alarming research reports on climate change, carbon reduction, environmental degradation, loss of biodiversity, etc.”

Since it is so steeped in sustainable development, let’s take a look at what it’s all about.

In the twenty-first century, the United Nations plans to accomplish its goals through implementation of sustainable development, aka UN Agenda 21, now changed to Agenda 2030.

Agenda 21, The earth summit strategy to save our planet (Earth Press, 1993), states “Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions that are intended to be implemented by every person on earth. It calls for specific changes in the activities of all people. Effective execution of agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.”

So, at this point we can now begin to see how the activities at Imperial College mesh, or play into what China is doing with COVID-19.  We can also see how the narrative connected to all this could have resulted in the panic that caused many government officials to conclude that this was going to be much worse than the seasonal flu, which it is not, and called for drastic measures to be taken to avoid the circumstances. We are now seeing this was all lies by globalists to destroy America’s economy and our president.

A recent article, Martial Law: The Trial Balloon Abolishing Civil Liberties, by Kelleigh Nelson is very revealing with what has happened and continues to happen in regard to the truth concerning what we are deal with. This article, in addition to another she follows up with, presents a good case for this coronavirus event to have been completely contrived, or at minimum, partially so.

Even if the escape of the virus was accidental, in view of what transpired later, it is very clear that a crisis was manufactured which was not allowed to be wasted.

Conclusion

It is apparent that since the goal of the agenda is to remove President Trump from office, that this virus could have been planned as the destruction not only of America’s economy, but of Trump’s reelection. It could be that since the conspiracy has him so surrounded with their people, who he doesn’t seem to have a clue of, they could have determined that it will not be necessary for an assassination to eliminate him. Even if he is reelected for four more years, and even though some of what he is putting into force, on the surface, is detrimental to the conspiracy’s agenda, they are secure in the knowledge that their agenda is safe and will continue to fruition.

Our goal is and must be to stop them!

COLUMN BY

J.W. Bryan

©All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Why Are Millennials Leaving the Left? This Author Has Answers

Why did some millennials vote for Barack Obama in 2012 and Donald Trump in 2016? Jonathan Jakubowski, author of “Bellwether Blues: A Conservative Awakening of the Millennial Soul,” joins The Daily Signal Podcast to discuss.

“There’s a lot of reasons that motivated these millennials to change their votes over the course of time,” says Jakubowski. “It didn’t happen in one single event. It didn’t happen because of one podcast or one show or one friend. It was conversations. It was things that they read. It was life events that ultimately culminated in a deep change.”

Read the lightly edited transcript, posted below, or listen to the podcast:

We also cover these stories:

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 >>

  • A new study has revealed that the drug remdesivir might be very effective against COVID-19.
  • Secretary of State Mike Pompeo continues calls for the United States to be able to access labs in Wuhan, China, as the country continues to investigate the origins of the coronavirus.
  • Sen. Ted Cruz introduces legislation aimed at “cutting off Hollywood studios from assistance they receive from the Department of Defense if those studios censor their films for screening in China.”

The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, Apple PodcastsPippaGoogle Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!

Rachel del Guidice: We’re joined today on The Daily Signal Podcast by Jonathan Jakubowski. He’s the author of the soon to be released book on May 5th called “Bellwether Blues: A Conservative Awakening of the Millennial Soul.”

Jonathan, it’s such an honor to have you on The Daily Signal Podcast. Thanks for joining us.

Jonathan Jakubowski: Thank you, Rachel. The honor is mine.

Del Guidice: Well, it’s a pleasure to have you with us. So your book coming out on May 5th, “Bellwether Blues,” talks about how millennials have switched over from a more liberal outlook in voting to conservative.

Before we get into the book itself, can you break down for us the millennial generation today and what you saw? And where they were leaning toward when it comes to politics and policy?

Jakubowski: Sure, yeah. The millennial generation is incredibly important to our electoral demographic because it’s the largest electoral demographic.

Now, traditionally, the hit against millennials has been that they don’t come out and vote. They might register to vote, but they don’t vote.

Well, that changed in the midterms of 2018. They came out in droves and affected the turnout in the votes in a number of states.

So that’s a very important demographic to pay attention to. And it’s only going to be growing in importance in the future.

Del Guidice: Can you tell us a little bit about the book, “Bellwether Blues,” and also the inspiration for the title? It’s such an interesting title and I want to hear about the title itself—why you decided on that title—and then just a little bit about the book, unpacking what all is in it.

Jakubowski: Yeah, absolutely. I think one of the fun parts of the book was diving deep into this generation. I think there’s a lot of ideas out there as to who a millennial is. And a lot of stereotypes that certainly a lot of millennials fit. But the thing that I’ve found is there’s also a lot of millennials that don’t fit those stereotypes.

As I do research with a variety of sources, what I found is there’s really a split in the millennial generation. And, ironically, the generation that most dislikes the millennials who fit the stereotypes are the millennials who don’t fit the stereotypes.

So what I’ve found over the course of time—and it’s a Winston Churchill quote that people might be familiar with—is that if you’re not liberal at the age of 25, you have no heart. If you’re not conservative at the age of 35, you have no brain. That quote, which I think brings a lot of humor to the table. … The question is, is that true? Is that true of American millennials?

And what I saw and what inspired the title is there’s a lot of millennials that are indeed leaving the left. There’s movements out there like #walkaway. We use the hashtag #lefttheleft, which we’ve seen before.

There’s a lot of millennials that have become deeply disillusioned with the nature of political affairs. And as the left has gone further to the left, it’s alienated a base of voters who would otherwise be predisposed to their ideology—millennials who passionately care about things like classical liberalism or First Amendment freedoms.

The more they’ve abandoned that base, the more that base has gotten the blues. Which led to the title “Bellwether Blues.”

There was a statistic that I have early on in the book that talks about how 71% of millennials would prefer for there to be a third party. So they’re tired of Democrats in that platform and how far to the left they’ve gone, but they can’t necessarily yet stomach the idea of voting for Republicans.

So they’re kind of stuck in the middle and they have this symptomatic case of the blues and they’re down and out.

That really is what builds my case at the end of the book for arguing to conservatives [that] we have to use a different level of persuasion to win the soul. And if we can win their souls, I think we can also win their votes.

Del Guidice: The book, as you mentioned, is a compilation of seven stories of millennials in “swing country America” that swung from [President Barack] Obama to [President Donald] Trump. …

I obviously don’t have time to go into super big detail, but can you talk about and introduce each of these seven people and give us a little bit of a teaser as to what their story was?

Jakubowski: Yeah, absolutely. Thanks for that question.

I wanted to use empirical evidence to demonstrate that there is a move away from the left. But then I wanted to use anecdotal evidence to demonstrate what’s happening in swing country America.

I happen to live in one such swing county of 3,142 counties in America. There are 59 that are classified as swing, as having voted for Bush, Bush, Obama, Obama, Trump. And then in the state of Ohio, my state, there’s only four that fit that designation.

My county is the youngest of those counties. So going deep into that county and then looking at the stories of millennials in those counties, I thought would have important lessons to offer us as we consider this generation.

Through the anecdotal evidence with the stories that I have—and [they are] very, very powerful and persuasive stories—there’s a lot of reasons that motivated these millennials to change their votes over the course of time.

It didn’t happen in one single event. It didn’t happen because of one podcast or one show or one friend. It was conversations. It was things that they read. It was life events that ultimately culminated in a deep change in persuasion.

By the way, Rachel, it wasn’t just about the persuasion of an individual candidate. President Trump is not necessarily the favorite candidate of all of these millennials.

Some of them really love him, but some of them just went for him because they really believed in issues that he stood for—like pro-life, like the Second Amendment.

I saw a factor of Blexit, where there’s African Americans who are leaving the left because they saw lack of progress in the cities with their friends and family. Certainly the blue-collar vote. So … all seven stories have a lot to offer us, I believe.

Del Guidice: … I know this is probably going to be hard to say because all of them are compelling in different ways, but was there one story in particular that really stood out to you or was really especially powerful for a particular reason?

Jakubowski: Yeah, I think there’s one that stands out in Wood County especially. We have a blue perimeter—I don’t know if you’re familiar with the blue wall concept, where we had Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, the northern parts of Ohio that had never gone for a Republican candidate. And then Trump scaled the blue wall.

Well, in Wood County, what makes it so perfect and bellwether is we have multiple demographics mixing together. But around the perimeter of our county, there’s this really strong blue-collar vote. That’s represented, at least in 2016, maybe an eighth of the entire voting population.

There’s one story of a millennial who is blue collar, grew up in a union family, voted for the Democratic Party their entire life.

And then in this election, through the course of events—really seeing things like Benghazi, seeing the alienation of patriotism, seeing a hatred toward “court’s country” and deep values, the Second Amendment—that really led him to embrace not only President Trump, but also the values that the Republican Party stands for.

Del Guidice: I know when we were talking about the book a couple months ago, you had mentioned to me that there was a particular person, I’m not sure who it was, but one of the seven people was a little bit nervous about speaking out, but then eventually ended up saying, “The story is really important and I’m definitely going to share.”

Are you able to talk about that at all and maybe, just more even generally, if people were a little bit hesitant to speak up? And what made them change their minds and want to go on the record about this?

Jakubowski: Yeah, that’s a great question. And we have to consider the fact that … I’m a millennial as well. So there’s a lot of peer pressure in the other direction. And depending upon where you grow up, especially if you’re in the coast.

I think there’s a ton of pressure that if you’re going to express a different opinion than the status quo, you’re going to face a lot of peer pressure. Well, that peer pressure might be lessened in “swing America.” But it’s still there.

So the considerations of having a political book, sharing their stories, took a lot of courage. And I really admire the seven individuals that came forward and said “yes.”

Because, Rachel, I found a lot of other stories that fit the same kind of story, demographic, title, switch and change. But they weren’t willing to come on the record.

In fact, the blue-collar story I just referenced with Jeremy Harpal, I talked to over a dozen people who had the same exact story but didn’t want to go public because they were concerned about whether or not people in their job might look at them a different way.

In some cases, they were angry at pollsters and wanted to continue having pollsters thinking that they’re going to be voting for a Democratic candidate. When in reality they’re going for President Trump.

So there’s a variety of reasons that I saw that led people to say “no.” But, thankfully, we had these individuals who said “yes.”

Del Guidice: Is it your hope? And do you think that because these seven people were able to speak out and share their stories that this will help [give] other millennials who maybe are nervous about how their paradigm is shifting the courage to speak out and talk about these things as well?

Jakubowski: I hope so. And I do believe so. I think as we phase and get older in life, we start thinking more about other people, namely children.

As we have a family and growing relationships, when our thoughts start moving to other people in our families, we’re less concerned about what people think about us and more concerned about the livelihoods, the future of our children.

I think that the conservative platform—faith, family, and freedom—which I talk a lot about in the book, those ideals that resonate lead people to become more emboldened, to stand up for what they believe to be the best possible future hope for their children, and for their children’s children.

Del Guidice: Mentioning faith, family, and freedom, obviously, very important issues to so many people across the country, but looking at specific issues that [brought] these seven people … over from a more liberal background and conviction to conservative point of view, was there any one or two issues that you saw as common threads that kept resurfacing as to why people are leaving the left?

Jakubowski: Yeah, I think I can sum it up in the word “freedom.”

A freedom is something that we as Americans have in our DNA. It’s a part of who we are. It’s in our anthems, it’s in our pledges. It’s basically in anything and everything we talk about is freedom.

We value freedom to the core. But we don’t really understand the depths of freedom until we lose it.

… We’ve seen the Democratic Party move all the way over to the left, abandoning the tenants of classical liberalism.

I mean, we had a president as recently as 1996 sign bills like things similar to [what] would be on a Republican Party platform, but also Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that would speak toward the expression of freedom.

I think the millennial generation and younger generations really value that freedom. And while they’re being sold a false bill of goods on things like socialism and the benefits of it, they still also, at the same time, value freedom. And the more they come to understand socialism and its negative effects on society.

The more they embrace freedom and the better we can communicate it, the more they’ll go in our direction.

Del Guidice: In writing “Bellwether Blues,” what would you say was the biggest challenge or the hardest part about writing the book?

Jakubowski: Honestly, it was the acknowledgement. I sat there at the very end of the book and, Rachel, I learned a lot about writing a book.

I’m a first-time author. But it was so fun writing the book. Everything seemed to come together so naturally.

[At] the very end, I realized they say that a dream is a goal with a plan. What I learned is it’s not just a goal with a plan, it’s also a goal with a plan with patrons—people who are willing to support you, who are willing to invest into your life.

I had so many people, encouraging voices, people that were willing to be involved in the book. People that were willing to give me advice, people like yourself [who] are willing to bring me on a podcast, as a first-time author. That’s incredible. I look at that and just have an incredible depth of gratitude.

And I was thinking about, who am I going to not include on this list? It feels very long and I feel like it should be longer. Honestly, that was the hardest part of the book for me to write.

Del Guidice: What was the thing that surprised you the most, either in your research or the interviews of the people you did? Or just maybe left the biggest impact on you in this whole process?

Jakubowski: I think that I understood the power of story. But when I’m sitting there writing these stories and then getting deeper into people’s lives, what surprised me is that, over the course of time, somebody doesn’t change their mind, usually, instantly. It happens over the course of time.

And there were a lot of people who spoke truth … without any expectation that there would be some shift or ramification to something they did or something they said.

Then the fidelity of relationship that endured over time as they walk those long miles of relationship. That led these individuals to change their votes.

I guess I never thought about it that deeply. I thought about it more being like the talk-show hosts, the media, the press, what you read. But there was a lot of power in relational equity. And relational equity with truth equals transformation.

Del Guidice: Speaking of that, I know earlier on in our discussion you talked about winning hearts and minds and the power of these interpersonal relationships.

Speaking to maybe other millennials or even Gen Zers out there, who maybe do come from a conservative background, or maybe they have left the left themselves and they’re trying to have these discussions with friends or family members, how would you encourage them to talk to peers in this kind of mindset of maybe they come from that background or maybe they’ve always been conservative? How do you encourage them to connect on that heart level?

Jakubowski: That’s a really good question. I would say, first, you want to think smaller and deeper.

We have the tendency to believe that a post that we send on social media might be the best way to influence a thousand people because it’s kind of quick access. And our society has led us to have all of these incredible benefits. So immediately, we can have instant gratification in terms of responsiveness.

But what we’ve forgotten is there is a deeper art that reaches deeper into the soul and that is individual relationship. So if you can spend time with somebody, even if they reject your worldview, but you cultivate relationship with them, over time, [you influence] them.

Even if they reject your ideas, they’re going to see your lifestyle, they’re going to see your character, they’re going to see what you stand for and believe in. And that’s going to deeply persuade those individuals that you’re in relationship with.

Del Guidice: Thanks for sharing that. Lastly, where can people get “Bellwether Blues”? We’re in the midst of COVID right now, so bookstores and the like aren’t on their usual mode of operations. So if people want to get it, how do they get it?

Jakubowski: Yeah, thank you. Our website is currently selling pre-orders on bellwetherbluesbook.com. But the official launch date, as noted earlier, is May the 5th. So it should be available on Amazon. I think Barnes & Noble and Books-A-Million will also have links, so they’ll be able to ship books out.

I don’t know exactly when they’re going to reopen so that we can get books out on shelves, but, certainly, online through those channels you can get a book.

Del Guidice: Awesome. Jonathan, thank you so much for joining us on The Daily Signal Podcast. It’s been great to have you.

Jakubowski: Rachel, I’m a big fan, so it’s really, really an honor to be here. Thanks so much for having me.

Del Guidice: Well, thank you.

PODCAST BY

Rachel del Guidice

Rachel del Guidice is a congressional reporter for The Daily Signal. She is a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville, Forge Leadership Network, and The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program. Send an email to Rachel. Twitter: @LRacheldG.


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

Virginia Anti-gun Activist Unveils 2021 Gun Control Agenda

On April 10, disgraced Virginia Governor Ralph Northam signed five pieces of anti-gun legislation into law. Those measures criminalize the private sale of firearms, ration handgun sales to one a month, create a “red flag” gun confiscation scheme, punish property crime victims who fail to hastily report a firearm as stolen, and restrict how Virginia parents may store and introduce their children to firearms. Northam sent two pieces of anti-gun legislation back, including legislation that erodes the Right-to-Carry and the state firearms preemption statute, to the general assembly with governor’s amendments. The General Assembly enacted both items of legislation on April 22.

As bad as this session was for Virginia gun owners, it could have been much worse. The General Assembly did not pass the proposed legislation that would have banned, and in some cases confiscated, commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms and their magazines and accessories that Northam demanded. Moreover, moderate members of the Senate Democratic caucus helped to limit the background check legislation to sales, leaving gun owners free to loan and gift firearms to their friends and family without government intrusion.

The worst case scenario was avoided thanks to the herculean efforts of NRA members and other gun rights activists across the Commonwealth. Between the sanctuary county movement that now covers the vast majority of the state, NRA members contacting their lawmakers and meeting with them in person, and the massive gun rights rally on January 20 in Richmond, Virginia gun owners have become the model for how a passionate grassroots movement can influence government policy.

That same passion will be needed going forward.

On April 19, podcast Transition Virginia, which describes itself as “an edgy, political news-commentary podcast on the transition of power in Virginia from a red to blue​,” released an episode featuring Secretary of Public Safety Brian Moran and Lori Haas of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV). Virginia gun rights advocates may remember Haas as a vocal cheerleader for Attorney General Mark Herring’s 2015 attempt to remove reciprocity for 25 states Right-to-Carry permits. Haas opposed the compromise legislation with then-Governor Terry McAuliffe that reversed Herring’s maneuver by granting reciprocity to all state Right-to-Carry permits. Longtime gun rights supporters will know that CSGV is the handgun prohibition organization that until 1990 was known as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns.

On the podcast, Haas laid out gun control activists’ plans for the 2021 legislative session. Haas told the interviewer, “We’ll be back… a couple people joked with me [Secretary Moran] one of them, ‘Lori we’ve got seven bills what are we going to do next year?’ Oh I’ve got a big list for you secretary.” Haas made clear that a renewed push to ban commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms and their magazines was at the top of gun control advocates’ agenda, claiming that such items “have no place in civil society.” Haas also noted that her group is already working with legislators to pass a ban next year.

For his part, Moran claimed that commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms are not protected under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The secretary also approvingly pointed to Maryland’s ban on commonly-owned firearms.

Banning commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms or their magazines is unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that governments cannot ban these firearms as they are “in common use” for lawful purposes.

Taken alone, Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in Heller is enough to dispose of Moran’s comments. In the decision, Justice Scalia made clear that the types of firearms protected by the Second Amendment include those “in common use at the time” for “lawful purposes like self-defense.”

The firearms industry has estimated that Americans own more than 17.5 million semi-automatic rifles. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the U.S. and therefore indisputably “in common use” and protected by the Second Amendment.

All doubt as to whether the Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald preclude bans on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms was settled in 2015. That year, Justice Scalia joined Justice Thomas in a dissent from the denial of certiorari in Friedman v. Highland Park, a case concerning a local ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms.

Justice Thomas explained,

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.

A sweeping gun ban isn’t all Haas and her gun prohibitionist allies are seeking to accomplish in 2021. Haas also told the podcast that gun control advocates are working on measures to restrict both concealed and open carry, so-called “safe storage” legislation, and a bill to enact an onerous firearm permit to purchase regime. In a decidedly regressive move, Haas even shared her interest in attacking Virginia’s restoration of rights procedure, whereby former criminals who have paid their debt to society are able to regain their civil rights.

Moran and Haas’s interview makes clear that the enemies of freedom are not satisfied with the gun controls enacted in Virginia this year. Therefore, the commonwealth’s gun rights activists must remain vigilant in order to combat this perpetual threat to freedom. Virginians should start by informing their friends, loved ones, and other like-minded individuals of the continuing threat gun owners face in the commonwealth. This year gun owners proved that a determined grassroots effort can preserve freedom. Virginian gun rights supporters must continue to exhibit the same tenacity and determination in the years to come.

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. Olympian: 1, Gun Controllers: 0 – Judge Blocks Unconstitutional California Ammunition Laws

Bloomberg Spends Over $1 Billion to Buy American Samoa

District of Columbia: Don’t Blame the Pandemic for Our Gun Laws – They’ve Always Been Awful

The End of ‘Believe All Women’


Editor’s note: The media’s double standard when it comes to sexual assault allegations is once again in the spotlight. Until very recently, there had been little media attention paid to an accusation of sexual assault against former Vice President Joe Biden. (Biden denies he assaulted Tara Reade, a former aide to Biden.) Just last year, the media similarly was largely quiet about an allegation of sexual assault against another liberal politician, Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax.

But it’s not just the media. In stark contrast to the “believe all women” mantra heard ad nauseam when Justice Brett Kavanaugh faced allegations of sexual assault, liberal icons are now stepping up in support of Biden, effectively admitting they don’t “believe all women.”

So we’re republishing this article from 2019 that looked at the hypocrisy of the left on this topic of sexual assault.


Feminists haven’t been this silent since the Bill Clinton years.


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 >>


Vanessa Tyson came forward Wednesday to accuse Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax of sexually assaulting her during the Democratic National Convention in Boston in 2004, saying in a statement that “What began as consensual kissing quickly turned into a sexual assault.”

Tyson, now a politics professor at Scripps College in California, says she had accompanied Fairfax to his hotel room.

“His hand was holding down my neck, and he was much stronger than me,” she recalls, and he forced her to perform a sexual act.

“I cannot believe, given my obvious state of distress, that Mr. Fairfax thought this forced sexual act was consensual,” Tyson, 42, writes in the statement released by her law firm, Katz, Marshall & Banks, the same firm that represented Christine Blasey Ford amid her accusations against Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court confirmation process.

Fairfax, 39, denies any sexual assault occurred—and has hired the same law firm Kavanaugh used, Wilkinson Walsh + Eskovitz.

So far, there’s been an eerie silence.

No sexual assault survivors have confronted lawmakers in elevators. No protesters have waited for lawmakers at airports, and, while filming, tried to talk to them about sexual assault. No women have donned the Pilgrim-esque “Handmaid’s Tale” costumes meant to show lack of sexual autonomy and appeared in the Virginia State Capitol. No protests have occurred, and on social media, there’s a notable absence of cries to “believe all women.”

Apparently, if you accuse a Democrat, “believe all women” doesn’t apply.

Of course, Tyson, who calls herself “a proud Democrat,” just released her statement. And one Democrat freshman congresswoman, Rep. Jennifer Wexton of Virginia, has said she believes her.

But even if the “believe all women” crowd does eventually end up supporting Tyson, the pause is telling—because it reveals that the left never really believed in believing all women.

Because if it did, it wouldn’t need time to weigh Tyson’s accusations vs. Fairfax’s denials. (Or more cynically, time to weigh whether believing Tyson is worth the cost of pushing out the pro-abortion, Planned Parenthood-endorsed Fairfax.)

Like many Americans, I was troubled when Ford accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault. I was glad to see the Senate Judiciary Committee took Ford’s allegations seriously, investigated them, and ultimately gave Ford a hearing with questioning on the Republican side done by an experienced sex-crimes prosecutor. I was likewise glad the Senate Judiciary Committee researched two further claims of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh.

It’s absolutely true that when a woman makes a sexual assault allegation, she should be taken seriously, particularly given that she has put her own name and reputation on the line—as well as come forward knowing that she’ll likely face significant political vitriol from supporters of her alleged attacker.

And I would hope that partisans on both sides would do their best to wait for the evidence, and not base their sentiments on whether the alleged attacker is one of their guys or not.

But “take seriously” is a very different standard from “believe all women.”

“Believe all women” reduces every woman to some kind of inane idiot, unable to lie even if she wanted to. It assumes no woman has ever gotten confused or been mistaken about the exact circumstances surrounding a trauma.

And it’s also certainly not a standard the left applied before Christine Blasey Ford, as Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and others can attest.

Unfortunately, by politicizing the issue of sexual assault, the left has distracted us from the real work that needs to be done.

What can the U.S. do to help ensure any woman who experiences sexual assault is best equipped to get justice against her perpetrator? Can police officers be better trained to help a traumatized woman when she comes to make a report? Are these cases being prosecuted in the best way, consistently?

Are there steps we as a culture can take to help ensure women aren’t put in vulnerable positions? Given the role of hotel rooms in some of the #MeToo scenarios and now allegedly in the Fairfax case as well, can we make it completely socially and professionally inappropriate for any man to ask a female colleague to come up to a hotel room, no matter the pretext? (Of course, no woman who does go up to a hotel room is in any way to blame for her assault—the only person to blame in any sexual assault is the attacker.)

Do we try to put women on a more equal footing with men by encouraging women who are interested to carry a firearm?

Kimberly Corban, who says she was sexually assaulted while in college, now advocates guns as a way for women to protect themselves. “After [the attack], I started taking my Second Amendment rights very seriously because I knew that that was going to be the only equalizer and the one thing I could train and do for myself,” Corban told The Daily Signal in 2016.

“Believe all women” never made sense as a standard. But the left’s inconsistent application of it makes clear that it’s not women liberals care about, it’s the right to abortion.

COMMENTARY BY

Katrina Trinko is editor-in-chief of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal PodcastSend an email to Katrina. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden to 14-yo Girl: You’re well-endowed


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.

PODCAST: The Impact of COVID-19 on America’s Economy

The $2.2 trillion CARES Act stimulus package and historic unemployment rate during the coronavirus pandemic is placing a strain on our economy.

Rachel Greszler, research fellow in economics, budget, and entitlements at The Heritage Foundation, joins the podcast to explain the effects of record high unemployment on the economy and how Americans can successfully get back to work after COVID-19.

Greszler also shares the intended purpose of the Paycheck Protection Program and what Congress can do to resolve the program’s shortcomings.

Also on today’s show, we talk with Neal Harmon, co-founder of the family-friendly streaming service VidAngel, about the platform’s original series “The Chosen.”


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 >>


Listen to the podcast below or read the lightly edited transcript.

The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, Apple PodcastsPippaGoogle Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!

Virginia Allen: I am joined by Rachel Greszler, research fellow in economics, budget, and entitlements at The Heritage Foundation. Rachel, thanks so much for being here.

Rachel Greszler: My pleasure. Thanks for having me, Virginia.

Allen: Today we’re talking about our economy and what are some of those variables that we’re seeing right now in the economy and what some of those effects are of COVID-19.

Quite frankly, I really wish that this could be a cheerier conversation, but I’m really glad that you can join us today and share a little bit of your expertise on this subject and just give us a glimpse into America’s economy now and what it might look like in the future.

Let’s begin by talking about unemployment. You wrote in a recent article that unemployment rates are close to 20%. Twenty percent, that’s unbelievable. Just in the past four weeks, we’ve seen about 26 million Americans apply for unemployment benefits.

Now, the government’s response to these high numbers has been to not only provide the normal unemployment benefits to Americans, but also to give all recipients an additional $600 a week. What was the rationale behind, not only offering those unemployment benefits, but tacking on that additional $600?

Greszler: In a normal situation, the unemployment program, it doesn’t cover everybody. It doesn’t cover people like the self-employed or part-time workers or gig economy workers.

It also only provides about 50% of people’s previous earnings. You also have to be fired from a job. You can’t quit or choose to leave your job.

But under these unusual circumstances, when businesses were forced to shut their doors and workers lost their job, through no fault of their own, tens of millions of workers, Congress wanted to do something to bridge the gap in a better way so that we could give people a higher portion of their earnings so that they could maintain their living standard, pay their bills, and then be able to be ready to come back to work as soon as it’s safe to reopen businesses.

The goal there was to try and get people closer to what they had previously gotten from their paychecks, in the form of unemployment insurance check.

The problem there was, they just said, “Well, let’s do $600 for everybody because for somebody who makes about the average, this would help bring them up to 100%. But the reality is, a majority of Americans will be getting more from unemployment insurance than they would from their normal paycheck.

That creates a lot of bad incentives, including ones that go against the grain and are going to defeat the funds and the programs that Congress has set up, that do try to keep people employed.

Allen: Let’s talk more about that, because you wrote that the extra $600 a week could increase unemployment benefit claims by 13.9 million and reduce the nation’s output by up to $1.49 trillion between May and September. Can you just explain this domino effect a little bit more?

Greszler: Yes. My colleague Drew Gonshorowski and I have a report … and we use some modeling in the Center for Data Analysis to look at what the impact would be, considering that more people will file for unemployment insurance benefits because more people are eligible to obtain them and they will also tend to be on them for longer because they’re making a higher portion of their earnings than they otherwise would have.

So, we said, we see this as being really problematic and we want policymakers to know what the implications will be.

We ran it through our labor models and found that the total amount of unemployed could peak at about an extra 14 million people in about May, and that is a result of people not working and staying at home instead of coming back when they’re able to, otherwise, the output will decline by somewhere between $955 billion and $1.5 trillion between May and September.

We used a lot of economic research, elasticities, to model this, but we’re starting to see the real-world implications of it from businesses that are reporting that they’ve had to close their doors, even though they want to be able to stay open and provide things to people like first responders or maybe it’s restaurants that some of those states now … allowed to start reopening and they aren’t able to get their workers to come back because some of them might be making 50% more on unemployment than they would if they went back to work.

Even just for the median earner, they can make an extra $2,300 over four months of unemployment, compared to being employed.

This is particularly true for the lower you go down the income scale. Somebody who’s at about the 25th percentile of earnings would get an extra $5,000 over this four-month period that the additional benefits are available.

So, clearly, it’s in their financial incentive to not come back to work once their employer says, “We’d like to rehire you.” That’s going to create all sorts of problems in terms of not being able to get the economy going again, once it’s safe to do so.

Allen: Rachel, you’re saying that if, let’s say, I work as a receptionist, it may be an auto part shop or something like that, and I go to my employer and I say I feel unsafe working right now during the pandemic, then I can quit. But I can still, under the CARES Act, receive unemployment, the regular unemployment benefits, plus that $600, and probably be making even more than I would be making from my employer.

Greszler: That’s exactly right. Under this new eligibility criteria, it really is more in workers’ hands to decide whether or not they’re going to keep working or to file for unemployment insurance.

Say you’re that receptionist, maybe making $600 per week coming into the office. You would be making $900 per week from unemployment and those additional benefits are available until July 31, so there’s going to be a big incentive for people to not go back to work until at least July 31 and we certainly hope that Congress doesn’t extend those benefits beyond July 31.

Allen: What about the Paycheck Protection [Program]? Because my understanding of the Paycheck Protection [Program] was that it was really put in place in order to keep employees attached to their employer, so that now, employers could keep paying their staff and we wouldn’t end up in a situation where so many people were filing for unemployment.

Greszler: Yes, and that was exactly the goal of the Paycheck Protection Program.

It’d aimed at smaller businesses, but it’s a resource for them to be able to keep all their workers on their paychecks, even if they’re not actually coming into work or maybe they’re only doing a few hours from home, to keep those connections so that workers don’t lose their health insurance, and that when it’s able to get things up and running again, everybody will be in place and able to resume more quickly.

But the problem is that these are competing with one another now. We’ve heard cases of a spa owner in Washington State, who went out and got a Paycheck Protection Program loan and she was announcing it to all of her employees on one of these Zoom calls and they got angry with her and they thought that she was taking something away from them by wanting them to remain employed and get their usual paychecks because they could have gotten more from unemployment insurance.

Similarly, a wood mill in Arkansas, they polled their workers and said, “Would you rather keep coming into work and keep your paychecks or do you want the unemployment insurance?” Because they had already heard from among the ranks that a lot of people didn’t really want to keep working.

They decided that they were going to lay off half of the people at one of those plants because they didn’t want to have that animosity in the workplace of people thinking, “I’d rather be at home and collecting these benefits.”

Allen: What should Congress have done differently? How could the Paycheck Protection [Program] been implemented in a way that it actually really was helping small businesses instead of hurting them?

Greszler: It was really an easy fix, and this was something that a group of senators provided an amendment for that just would have said the total amount of unemployment benefits … cannot exceed what you were previously getting in your paycheck.

This is very commonsense, but there was pushback against that.

Some people said it would make it harder to implement, but the reality is, the states already have formulas, whether it’s 50% or whatever it is, and so to just say that that new formula is going to be kept at 100% would not have been that much more administratively burdensome to implement.

It certainly would have helped prevent these situations where workers are being incentivized to quit.

Employers are being incentivized to lay workers off, instead of go through the application process of getting a loan, which were difficult to do and I know the money did run out there at one point. It’s an easy fix and, hopefully, Congress will still be looking at this and consider putting that fix into place.

Allen: Let’s talk about the long-term economic impacts from COVID-19—and these were really generous unemployment benefits.

Let’s say we get to July or August and businesses across America are given the green light to reopen. Are you worried that businesses are going to face challenges of actually getting employees to come back to work and that it’s going to be really challenging to actually get Americans off of unemployment?

Greszler: I think it is, especially before July 31, when this additional $600 per week runs out and, unfortunately, it’s going to be hardest to get those people back in the industries that have been hardest hurt—like restaurants, hotels, tourism, and travel—because then these tend to be the lower-paid workers and they are the ones who take home the biggest benefit by this additional $600 per week coming through to them.

In some ways, we can’t fault them if they’re able to collect more money from unemployment and save that up. That makes sense for them individually. But it might not actually make sense in the long term.

Also because we know that the longer people are unemployed, the lower their opportunities and incomes are in the future. But also just in the short term, in terms of getting the economy going again and having us be productive and, in particular, being able to meet some of the needs.

We’ve already seen supply shortages in certain companies that are not able to deliver things or [make] what’s needed to be made as quickly as possible to meet the demands from COVID-19.

So that’s going to be an increasing fear going forward, especially as this is going to remain an issue into the fall flu season. We want to have the companies be prepared to be able to respond to COVD-19 in the ways that we need them to.

Allen: Yeah, and one of the other issues that we’re hearing a lot about in the news right now is state bailouts. There’s a great deal of controversy here. Is there a world where the federal government should consider baling some states out?

Greszler: Not a bailout. There’s definitely a role for the federal government to provide help for COVID-19-related expenses and we’ve already seen an unprecedented amount of money go toward that and the federal government is covering almost all the health care costs.

They’ve provided $150 billion in direct grants to the states, up to $500 billion in new lending. That is unprecedented, coming from the Federal Reserve.

But what the states are asking for now is unrestricted funds to use for whatever purpose they want, essentially, including if their revenues have gone down, which is something that states are supposed to plan for, and that’s why they have rainy day funds, and also covering things like pension obligations that they haven’t funded for decades.

Illinois sent a letter to Congress asking for $40 billion, including $10 billion to cover their unfunded pension obligation. That has nothing to do with COVID-19.

So, there is not a need and there’s no real excuse that the federal government would bail out states. That just sets a terrible precedent, going forward, that you’re going to penalize states who have acted in a responsible way fiscally and reward those who have been reckless.

Allen: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that states maybe should consider declaring bankruptcy if they really need to.

His exact words were, “I would certainly be in favor of allowing states to use the bankruptcy route.” McConnell has received a lot of backlash from this statement.

Do you think that the bankruptcy route is something that some states might need to consider?

Greszler: I think the important takeaway behind Sen. McConnell’s statement is that the federal government’s not responsible for states’ budgets.

So, to the extent that there have been states like Illinois or New York coming and saying, “We absolutely need you to give us this money or we’re not going to be able to operate,” that’s not true. You don’t get into a bankruptcy-like situation unless you have had decades worth of fiscal mismanagement.

The issue of bankruptcy itself, the states are actually not allowed to declare bankruptcy right now.

States can allow their cities or the municipalities to declare bankruptcy, but going forward, this is an issue that will remain something for Congress and the states to consider, because the reality is, there are some states that, prior to COVID-19, were already in a situation where they’re pretty rapidly approaching insolvency, and Illinois is the best example of that.

I really don’t see a way forward for that state to either raise taxes enough or cut services enough that they will be able to pay their debts and fulfill their pension obligations. So something will have to be done there.

Whether or not that’s a bankruptcy-type situation or if the state sits down and negotiates with its debtors and with its public employees, something will have to be done.

But I think that the issue of COVID-19, that in and of itself would not cause a state to become insolvent. I think that’s the point that was trying to be made here, is that “We will help you with the expenses related to this health pandemic, but we’re not going to cover those things that are your own responsibility to budget for.”

Allen: I see. That makes sense. Speaking of debt, America’s national debt now is over $24 trillion, last time I checked. That is higher than it’s ever been before and, frankly, a number that’s just … really hard to wrap your mind around.

Our federal government is spending a lot of money right now on these various stimulus packages. Where is this money coming from?

Greszler: It’s coming from you and me and the future, from our children, from anybody that’s working today on out into how many years, we don’t know because we don’t know when our debt becomes unsustainable.

Looking back decades ago, we would have said, “How could we ever get over $23 trillion in debt and have a single year in which we have $4 trillion in debt? That’s not possible.” And yet it seems like it’s possible now.

The problem is you just don’t know when these debt crises hit. Puerto Rico didn’t anticipate the timing of when there’s [hit], Greece, other countries.

When you get to the situation where creditors just decide that they’re not going to lend to you anymore at an unreasonable rate, that’s when you don’t have time to make the more rational decisions to pare back on certain expenses that you otherwise would have been able to if you acted sooner.

We’re already at a situation in the U.S. where each household in America owns about $187,000 worth of America’s debt, and that was before COVID-19, and now we’ve added on about another $27,000 per household. This is clearly an unsustainable level and a huge burden for future generations.

Allen: Is it possible to actually pay off that much debt?

Greszler: … It’s possible. You have to do it over time. It’s going to take a level of fiscal restraint that we’ve never seen before.

What we don’t want to get to is a situation where you have enormous tax rates that lead to a smaller economy and then it results in a downward spiral and you are more likely to face a bankruptcy-type situation or having the Fed need to print its way out of debt. That’s certainly not something that we want it to come to.

Allen: Yeah. What does need to happen next? How can we come out of the coronavirus situation and really ensure that, like you say, we’re leaving our kids and our grandkids a prosperous America that has the same opportunities that you and I have enjoyed?

Greszler: I think, starting with the current crisis, is evaluating what’s been done to date and how has it worked or not worked.

There’s just constant urge by Congress to pass more and more stimulus bills, to try and have more assistance and aid and relief, and yet, we don’t even know.

Some of the money hasn’t gone out the door and we don’t know what the impact has been. We don’t know what it’s going to be like as states start reopening their economy.

I would say the first thing is, … unless it’s an absolute immediate need, directly-related to COVID-19, we shouldn’t be considering spending more money yet. We need to wait and see and hope that things will start reopening and rebounding.

Then, going forward, just as any time when a household would run out of its rainy day funds or have to take on debt, you have to budget in the future to account for that. You have to eventually pay that back.

Unfortunately, the U.S. has not ever been paying things back. It’s like we have an interest-only mortgage and we just keep increasing that mortgage every single year and never paying anything down.

We actually have a proposal at The Heritage Foundation called the “Blueprint for Balance” that we’ve put out each year, and we show how you could actually start balancing our annual budget within 10 years and get to a more sustainable pathway going forward.

Allen: We’ll be sure to link the “Blueprint for Balance” in our show notes so our audience can check that out. Rachel, we really appreciate your time today and your expertise on this subject.

Greszler: Thanks so much, Virginia.

PODCAST BY

Virginia Allen

Virginia Allen is a news producer for The Daily Signal. She is the co-host of The Daily Signal Podcast and Problematic Women. Send an email to Virginia. Twitter: @Virginia_Allen5.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Sen. Cruz Seeks to Flip the SCRIPT on Hollywood’s Kowtowing to Chinese Censors

Unless Health Care Workers Return to Work ASAP, More Hospitals Could Close

Here’s What We Know About a Possible Meat Shortage Amid 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.

VIDEO: White House Will Release ‘Conclusive’ Evidence Coronavirus Originated In Wuhan Lab, Trump Says

Interview: Donald Trump Joins a Fox Town Hall Interview at the Lincoln Memorial – May 3, 2020


President Donald Trump suggested during Sunday night’s Fox News town hall that his administration will soon release “conclusive” evidence showing how the coronavirus originally leaked out of China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.

“I don’t think there is any question about it,” Trump responded when asked a question on whether China’s action allowed the pandemic to spread across the globe. He proceeded to tell host Bret Baier that the administration “will be giving a very strong report on what we think happened, and I think it will be very conclusive.”

The president has repeatedly claimed to have seen evidence the virus leaked out of a research facility, and his latest comments come the same day that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo maintained the administration has compiled an extensive report on the virus’s lab origins.

“We have said from the beginning, this virus originated in Wuhan, China. We took a lot of grief for that from the outset. But I think the whole world can see now,” Pompeo said on ABC Sunday morning. “Remember, China has a history of infecting the world and they have a history of running sub-standard laboratories.”

“These aren’t the first times that we have had the world exposed to viruses as a result of failures in a Chinese lab.”

Trump clarified Sunday night that he doesn’t view the coronavirus as a malicious action from China.

US President Donald Trump gestures as he speaks during a Fox News virtual town hall “America Together: Returning to Work,” event, with anchors Bret Baier (R) and Martha MacCallum (L), from the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC on May 3, 2020. – Trump will answer questions submitted by viewers on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. (Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images)

“Personally I think they made a horrible mistake,” he told co-host Martha MacCallum. “They didn’t want to admit it. We wanted to go in but they didn’t want us there. World Health wanted to go in.”

“They tried to cover it, they tried to put it out,” he continued. “It’s like trying to put out a fire. They couldn’t put out the fire.”

The White House is actively investigating ways to hold China financially accountable for its role in allowing the pandemic to spread across the globe. Officials did not respond when asked by the Daily Caller when the president’s aforementioned report will be publicly released.

COLUMN BY

CHRISTIAN DATOC

Senior White House correspondent. Follow Christian on Twitter and Inst0gram.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Majority Of Intelligence Community Agencies Believe Coronavirus Leaked Out Of Wuhan Lab, Senior Intel Official Says

China Lied About Extent Of Pandemic In Order To Hoard Medical Supplies, DHS Report Says

‘I’m Not Playing’: Chicago Mayor Threatens Citations And Arrests For People Ignoring Stay-At-Home Orders

Mike Pompeo Says There’s ‘Enormous Evidence’ That Coronavirus Came From Wuhan Lab

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