Michael Heup not only got his job back at Bitty & Beau’s Coffee, which was temporarily closed because of the COVID-19 crisis, but he also had the chance to talk about it at the White House on Tuesday.
“I love my job, and I am excited about going back to work,” Heup, a disabled employee, said at the East Room event. “At Bitty & Beau’s, we like to use the phrase called ‘not broken.’ That means me and all my amazing co-workers are not broken, and we have lots to offer. I know the great country of the United States isn’t broken either.”
The Wilmington, North Carolina-based Bitty & Beau’s Coffee had to temporarily close and lay off 120 employees at the company, most with intellectual and developmental disabilities. But it was able to rehire all the employees after getting a federal loan through the Paycheck Protection Program.
The White House had representatives from eight companies at the event sharing their stories of staying afloat after governments’ COVID-19 mitigation efforts forced much of the economy to close.
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 >>
Under the program, if businesses with fewer than 500 employees do not lay off employees, the principal on the loan is forgivable. Employers still have to pay the interest.
Bitty & Beau’s Coffee has locations in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Maryland. For most of the employees, it’s their first paying job. The employees are now “working from home, writing handwritten notes that we include with each online order we ship,” said Amy Wright, CEO of Bitty & Beau’s, also speaking at the event.
“I know everyone is ready to return to normal,” Wright said. “I believe it’s time for a new normal, one where people with disabilities are valued, especially in the workplace. As a recipient of the [Paycheck Protection Program] loan, we will continue to take up the charge and help everyone, especially people with disabilities, pursue the American dream.”
The Paycheck Protection Program has disbursed $350 billion to small businesses across the United States, and more than 1.6 million forgivable loans have been approved by the Small Business Administration. Trump said the SBA has issued more loans in the past 14 days than it has in the past 14 years.
However, the program has come under scrutiny for doling out loans to large employers, such as Harvard University and Shake Shack. Several of the big businesses returned the loans after the rash of bad publicity.
“The press has commented on a lot of big companies that inappropriately took the money,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said at the event. “We’ve been very clear. We’ve announced today that any loan over $2 million will have a full review for forgiveness before they are repaid because this is the story of small business here.”
When taking questions from reporters, Trump was asked about Democrats in Congress calling for guaranteed incomes that could go on for months.
“I like payroll tax cuts. I’ve liked that from the beginning. That was a thing that I would really love to see happen. Most economists agree with me,” Trump said.
The president expressed skepticism of bailing out states, but he said aid could come with the precondition of changing sanctuary policies, in which local jurisdictions refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
“We are not looking to recover 25 years of bad management and to give them the money they lost. That’s unfair to other states. Now, if it’s COVID-related, I guess we could talk about it,” Trump said, adding:
But we’d want certain things also, including sanctuary city adjustments, because we have so many people in sanctuary cities, which I don’t even think are popular by radical left folks.
What’s happening is, people are being protected that shouldn’t be protected, and a lot of bad things are happening with sanctuary cities.
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!
The news came down just in time for Sunday service. For all of the congregations, it had been a frustrating few weeks. Pastors in New York, North Carolina, and Mississippi had been fighting their state for the freedom they should have had all along: the right to gather, in their own creative and CDC-compliant ways, at church. But fortunately, while every locality is responding differently, every court is not. Religious liberty, they agreed, doesn’t stop when a virus starts.In Wake County, North Carolina, the response was almost immediate. In a matter of hours, local officials went from banning drive-through communion and offerings to completely reversing course. What changed? Attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom had sent a letter, explaining how “illogical” it is to say church giving is unsafe but exchanging money in a grocery or other business isn’t. “We support the efforts of public officials to prioritize health and safety,” ADF’s Ryan Tucker pointed out, “but it is… unconstitutional to apply government orders in a way that singles out churches for harsher treatment. We are asking the county to repeal its ban and avoid the need for any litigation over the matter.”
The county listened, responding that same day with an updated order. Praising the quick action of Wake officials, ADF said that locals looked forward to being able to host drive-in services “with the freedom to safely serve communion and receive donations this Sunday without fear of government punishment.”
Elsewhere in New York, another injustice toward churches was also fixed in record speed. Leaders in Chemung County had pulled a similar stunt, arguing that local congregations were putting the community at risk with their parking lot services. But they had a change of heart after First Liberty Institute got involved, reminding them what the law actually said about the matter. The next day, the targeting stopped.
Down in Mississippi, it took a little more prodding to get hostile officials in line. But, thanks to U.S. District Judge Michael Mills, Holly Springs — which had even shut down midweek Bible studies — was ordered to stop with the local tyranny. As far as Mills was concerned, they weren’t just violating the church’s religious freedom, but its free speech, its freedom to assemble, its rights of due process, and the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
For First Pentecostal Church, it had been an Easter like no other. Not only did the police interrupt the service, but it stopped to give Pastor Waldrop a citation. “These were outrageous violations of these parishioners’ rights,” Thomas More Society argued. “On both occasions, Holly Springs law enforcement personnel ignored the fact that all church members present were practicing social distancing and complying with all applicable health requirements.” From now on, Judge Mills ruled, neither Holly Springs, nor its police force, will interfere with drive-in services.
Even when the rest of the country is closed, one thing that America should never have to re-open is religious freedom. As more churches weigh their next steps in the virus fight, FRC is here to help. For more on how your congregation should think about the upcoming changes and challenges, check out our new publication, “Guidelines for Reopening Your Church.”
Tony Perkins’s Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2020-04-28 07:45:502020-04-28 07:45:50A Torrent of Tyrants: How Local Churches Are Fighting Back
For well over a year, The Daily Signal has published a monthly series highlighting lawful gun owners who used their firearms to protect their liberties, lives, or livelihoods.
Although these articles recount just a dozen or so stories each month, the incidents are selected from hundreds of other, similar examples.
Those defensive gun uses are worth highlighting, too. That’s why The Heritage Foundation is introducing its Defensive Gun Use Database, an interactive map featuring all of the news accounts from police reports that we couldn’t fit into installments of the monthly series.
What’s the Defensive Gun Use Database?
The database features an interactive map that allows users to locate instances of defensive gun use in their own states and cities.
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 >>
Clicking on a specific dot on the map provides the user with an instant breakdown of important information about the incident of defensive gun use that the dot represents.
For example, users can see the date and location of the defensive gun use, what type of firearm was involved, and the context in which the gun was used—including to defend against a home invasion, armed robbery, or domestic violence).
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost all major studies on defensive gun use have found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. Researchers have good reason to believe, however, that most defensive gun uses aren’t reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets.
For this reason, the Defensive Gun Use Database isn’t meant to be a comprehensive list of all such incidents occurring in the United States. Such a database would be nearly impossible to compile.
Instead, this database features only cases that could be discovered and verified through public sources, and where the evidence indicates no wrongdoing on the part of the gun owner.
Why Is This Database Important?
Despite the limitations on data, the Defensive Gun Use Database is an incredibly important tool because these confirmed cases help prove that the “good guy with a gun” is not a myth. Rather, lawful gun owners clearly play an integral role in promoting public safety and protecting individual rights.
As the database proves, every single day lawful gun owners use their firearms to defend themselves and others against criminals when the government simply could not get there in time.
These gun owners are not vigilantes who went looking for trouble. They did not intentionally place themselves in dangerous situations. Many of them even fail to fit the caricature of “typical gun owner.”
They are young mothers defending their children from home invaders.
They are disabled individuals whose firepower enabled them to stand toe-to-toe with criminals who thought they had the advantage.
They are abused women who protected themselves from violent ex-lovers who came to exact revenge.
They are elderly men outnumbered by would-be thieves who believed they picked an easy target.
They’re our mothers, daughters, brothers, and sons. They’re our neighbors, friends, and co-workers. They’re working jobs and living lives in our neighborhoods.
In short, the Defensive Gun Use Database and map provide powerful answers to the common question: “Why would any rational, law-abiding American ever need to own a gun or carry it in public?”
What Can We Expect in the Future?
First, The Daily Signal will continue to publish our monthly series of articles on defensive gun uses. The database will not replace the series, but instead will provide an opportunity for readers to dive deeper into stories we don’t highlight.
Second, the database will keep growing as we update it to include new or newly verified instances of defensive gun use. We also hope to expand the database to include defensive gun uses that occurred in years predating our series.
Finally, our goal is to create a mechanism for readers to send us reports about instances we may have missed or that occurred to them and can be verified independently.
Amy Swearer is a senior legal policy analyst at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: @AmySwearer.
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!
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2020-04-28 07:02:232020-04-28 07:02:23Loading a New Database of Defensive Gun Use
We began hearing of problems with the media covering the presidential coronavirus briefings in late March when KUOW radio, the NPR affiliate in Seattle, said they would no longer carry the live briefings as they contended the president was either spreading misinformation or lying to the public. Instead, they would interpret and report the briefings as they see fit, not necessarily in line with the president.
This went much further as MSNBC and CNN followed suit by presenting their interpretation of the briefing as opposed to showing it live. If you watch the live briefing and listen to the network analysis, you would think they were two separate meetings altogether. In other words, the news media is spinning the briefings to their liking, and not necessarily in alignment with what was actually said. Back in 2016, when I attended the Trump campaign rallys in Tampa with the press corps, I saw a similar phenomenon whereby what the press reported was unlike anything I saw or heard at the rally. It was a deliberate misrepresentation of what had occurred.
In a recent New York Times Op-Ed, “Stop Airing Trump’s Briefings!”, the writer contends, “Under no circumstance should these briefings be carried live,” and encouraged other media outlets to filter the briefing news a la CNN and MSNBC.
Likewise, Katie Couric tweeted, “Under no circumstance should these briefings be carried live. Doing so is a mistake bordering on journalistic malpractice. Everything a president does or says should be documented but airing all of it, unfiltered is irresponsible.” Couric later retracted her tweet, but her political leanings to the left are well known.
All of this is to be expected. Since the coronavirus became a major issue, President Trump has sucked all the political air out of the media, leaving the Democrats gasping for recognition. Knowing this to be a problem, particularly in a presidential election year, the news media is now working overtime to refute and demean the president, thereby compounding the problem. In other words, the main stream media’s coverage of the briefings have less to do with the coronavirus, and more to do with defusing the president’s political juggernaut. By spinning the news falsely, the press is stoking hate and division in the country and should be held accountable for their libelous actions.
The people understand this, and because they are frustrated with the fake news, they do not know who to believe and trust. Inevitably, a backlash occurs, such as the recent anti-shutdown demonstrations in Michigan, Minnesota, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, states all under Democrat control. Whether the demonstrations were justifiable or not is immaterial, but such a reaction is understandable as the people want their lives to return to normal and believe there are forces working overtime to stop them, including the press.
The people particularly do not trust the media’s spin on the news as they know the press openly opposes the president. It is no secret. Their interpretation may be eagerly received by the far Left, but everyone else dismisses it out of hand. People want the ability to access live coverage instead of depending on the press to interpret their news, often unreliably. This explains why people tend to trust news received by social media more than the press, which is also not the best, but considered more reliable than the news media.
The war with President Trump started during his campaign, and will continue unabated well into his retirement, whenever that may be. As the president represents the ultimate outsider to the nation’s capitol, the press considers it their duty to rein him in any way possible as he represents a threat to the Washington establishment, including Democrats, Republicans, lobbyists, the Deep State and, Yes, the news media.
Keep the Faith!
P.S. – Also, I have a NEW book, “Before You Vote: Know How Your Government Works”, What American youth should know about government, available in Printed, PDF and eBook form. DON’T FORGET GRADUATION DAY. This is the perfect gift!
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Tim Brycehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngTim Bryce2020-04-28 06:35:372020-04-28 06:42:49PODCAST: The Media’s Role in the Coronavirus
Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are notorious for their volatility. Their value fluctuates from time to time. There is always an air of uncertainty surrounding their value and future. But what exactly makes BTC priceso volatile? Will BTC ever stabilize?
If BTC is to become a global currency, it must overcome its volatility. Despite its market capitalization growing to its current $60B mark, BTC is still struggling with uncertainty and volatility putting its potency as a global currency into question. So, let’s discuss what exactly makes cryptocurrencies that volatile and how can BTC become stable?
Why Cryptocurrencies Are Highly Volatile
1. Cryptos Considered Store of Value and Not Value Transfer Media
One barrier that stands on a way of cryptos’ growth is the opinion of millions worldwide that cryptos are just a store of value. People don’t see them as a currency but as assets that will be valuable in the future. As such, they don’t freely exchange them but rather hold them waiting for their values to skyrocket.
Most holders of BTC don’t use their coins for daily transactions but rather stack them waiting for prices to hike before they sell them. This creates a precarious scenario where events and news massively affect the price of BTC because of mass actions of panic. For instance, if there is news of a government planning to ban BTC in a given country, all those holding BTC in that country will try to sell which will flood the market and cause a drop in the price of BTC.
If BTC is to be considered a global currency, then people need to freely use it to pay for goods and services. Simply put, people need to use the coin in their daily transactions. How often and willing people are to use a currency for their transactions is the true sign of a global currency.
These losses are a big part of the volatility experienced in cryptocurrencies. The more significant are the losses in cryptos, the lower the confidence that people have in them.
Unless cryptocurrencies fix their systematic security vulnerabilities, they will always be subject to volatility. Any high profile scams or losses will always have a ripple effect and affect the price of a cryptocurrency.
3. Uncertainty
The lack of certainty regarding the future of cryptocurrencies leaves them open to season fluctuations. Not a single person is sure of what the future holds for cryptocurrencies, which leaves many people with a lot of questions concerning adopting the cryptocurrencies.
As it currently stands, too many factors affect the price of BTC. Government regulations, market factors, security breaches, ‘HODLing among many other factors. The lack of proper measures in place to ensure that the effects of all the aforementioned factors are mitigated leaves a cloud of uncertainty hanging over cryptocurrencies like BTC.
4. Fluctuating Demand
BTC’s demand is always bouncy. Therefore, there is always a fluctuation in its price. Since BTC’s supply is almost constant. Moreover, just like the real gold becomes harder to mine with time, bitcoin halving makes it harder to mine the digital gold as the reward will be two times smaller.
At the same time, huge fluctuations in the demand will always have a ripple effect on the price. This makes BTC a bad choice for a global currency. There is just too much uncertainty in its price for people to gladly accept and use BTC.
So, Will BTC Ever Stabilize?
Having seen why cryptos are so unstable, let’s discuss what does the future hold for BTC? Will Bitcoin ever stabilize?
As the leading cryptocurrency in the world, BTC is expected to be the first digital coin the price of which will stabilize. If BTC is to be considered a true global cryptocurrency, it has to overcome its volatility. But how can it achieve this?
Ways BTC Can Reduce Volatility
Increase Demand For BTC
Since there can only be 21 million BTC in existence, the community should work towards increasing the demand and usage of BTC to a global scale. Once the demand is on a global scale and its usage is frequent and ‘normal’, the fluctuation in the price will be lower and BTC will be deemed stable.
Address Security Breaches
Since BTC is open-source software, the community has the collective responsibility of ensuring that the platform is safe for public use. Loopholes in the network should be reported and any individuals engaging in unscrupulous deals should be permanently banned from using BTC. Once the whole ecosystem becomes safe for the use of all, the confidence levels will go up and more people will adopt BTC.
Mass Education
Although most people generally have an idea of what cryptocurrencies are, very few of them have proper knowledge of how to use BTC instead of fiat currencies. If the global usage of BTC is to increase, there is a need for proper mass education and sensitization programs. These programs will see an increased uptake of BTC and other cryptocurrencies.
Conclusion
BTC has a long way to go. Bitcoin is far from the point of long-lasting stability. Its volatility is too high for it to be used on a global scale. However, cryptocurrency is still a young technology that will show a massive potential once the stakeholders will start work towards making it stable.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Mary Ann Callahanhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMary Ann Callahan2020-04-28 05:52:532020-04-28 05:56:38Will Bitcoin Ever Stabilize?
“The main difference between a cat and a lie is that a cat only has nine lives.” – Mark Twain
“When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we in essence accept that the state owns our bodies.” – Ron Paul
“The more laws that governments pass, the less individual freedom there is. Any student of history will tell you that. Totalitarian countries ban pretty much everything.” – Bill O’Reilly
“It will not be denied that power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” – James Madison, Federalist 48, 1788
We’ve just been through the twilight zone with a taste of socialism, all based on lies sold to us by establishment globalist “experts” and their scientific models. A good friend said to me, “This is a political event, not a medical event.” How right he is! Healthy people should not have been quarantined despite what “experts” told us. Everything the country has done is backasswards. A lot of us are angry, others are sheeple who follow government orders implicitly without a thought of our freedoms, and buy exorbitant amounts of toilet paper for nothing.
Alexander Hamilton said, “Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
Personally, I rebel against government orders that take my God given freedoms from me. So, do we really have those God-given freedoms or are they only on loan from the feds? I fear the latter because most Americans no longer know the Almighty, nor do they know or cherish our Constitution.
2020 Lockdown
Healthy Americans have been quarantined, but officially, the definition of “quarantine” is very specific: It’s the seclusion of a person potentially exposed to a disease for a period of time to see if they become infected. A person under quarantine typically stays in one place to avoid nearly all contact with the outside world. When such a quarantine is ordered by the government, it’s illegal to violate them…but in 2020, the state governments have quarantined healthy people.
During the 1918-1919 Spanish flu epidemic, homes had signs on them that they were quarantined, everyone wore masks, and everything was done outdoors, including haircuts, church services and holding court, (check these photos). In America alone, 675,000 died when our population was a third less than today…but little was shut down.
The congregation prays on the steps of the Cathedral of Saint Mary of the Assumption, where they gathered to attend mass and pray during the influenza epidemic, in San Francisco, California.
Today, synagogues and churches are closed to parishioner’s with “social distancing,” but in 1918, church services were held outside and people prayed to end the scourge.
The state of Tennessee is shut down until the end of April, despite only having had 178 deaths in a state of 6.829 million people, and was it really Covid-19 that caused their deaths or underlying health issues?
Experts Wrong Again
Two new studies have proven the experts wrong again. The truth about the actual number of Americans infected with coronavirus via a Stanford University study, tells a totally different story. There were 3,300 people tested for antibodies and the results showed that 50 – 80 times more people are infected than the actual numbers officially reported as infected by Fauci, Birx and Gates.
Another study out of the University of Southern California is confirming the Stanford study. They reported that when they tested 863 people in Los Angeles County, about 4.1 percent tested positive. The population of LA County is about 8 million, so 4.1 percent, that means about 320,000 adults have had a Covid-19 infection before April 9th. Comparing this to the confirmed cases of Covid-19, the study shows that LA County cases are actually 40 times larger than reported.
The implications are two-fold. One is that mortality rates based on confirmed cases are going to be much lower than based on the number of infections or the estimated number of infections in the study. The good news is that the mortality rate is far lower than what was prognosticated.
Fox reporter John Roberts was caught on a hot mic in the White House talking about it. He told an employee he could take off the mask as the case fatality rate was .01 to .03 or 1/10th of what was forecast. He said USC and Los Angeles County Health did the study and they reported 7,000 cases and they really believe there were 221,000 to 442,000 people who were infected. What I want to know is why the worker with the mask said he didn’t have to worry because they’d been vaccinated anyway. This means the case fatality rates are far less than forecast than the models presented by “experts” Fauci and Birx. In reality, the death rate/fatality rate is way down.
It’s not a hoax, there is a real infection and it can kill the elderly and those with compromised immune systems, but it seems to be no more lethal than the common flu and is being spread more widely by those who show no symptoms. They have only tested people with symptoms and not even all of them, so their figures vary widely from factual infection and death. This proves the information from Drs. Shiva and Buttar are correct. We need true accountability.
Obviously, the catastrophic numbers have been exaggerated to crash the economy and control the people with fear, resulting in 26 million people out of work and destroying over 30% of our small businesses. All of which was planned with great precision to destroy the presidency of Donald J. Trump.
If fear ruled Americans, we would never have fought the Revolutionary War or World War II. Normandy, the Battle of Crete, of Anzio, of Monte Cassino, of Sedan, of the Bulge, and many others would have been lost along with Iwo Jima.
Get America Back to Work
Two doctors have collected data in clinics in California and they have presented their conclusions in two videos. You can listen to the first video here, and the second here. This article gives you only short portions from their conclusions.
Doctors Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi recently completed a 51-minute press conference. They said their facilities have tested over 5,200 patients for the coronavirus throughout the county, making up for over half of all testing in Kern, California. According to their data, the death rate of the coronavirus is similar in prevalence to the flu. “Now that we have the facts,” said Dr. Erickson. “It’s time to get back to work.”
Emphatically no, we do not need to continue to shelter in place and we never should have done it to begin with. Do we need businesses to be shut down? Again, emphatically no! Do we need to test people and get them back to work? Yes, we do! Is the flu less dangerous than Covid? No! It’s not! They are similar in prevalence and death rate. It’s time to open society and get back to work! Bill Gates funded globalist NIH Doctor, Anthony Fauci, says Covid-19 is ten times more lethal than the flu. People, we’ve been had! Their projected numbers created policies that are destroying far more lives than the virus itself. Their model has collapsed.
Fauci and Birx were brought in by Coronavirus Task Force leader, VP Mike Pence. Had he brought in MIT’s Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai; we would undoubtedly not be in this economic nightmare.
Rates of Infection in California
In California there are a reported 33,865 Covid cases out of a total of 285,900 tested; that’s 12 percent of Californians were positive for Covid. The initial models were woefully inaccurate. They predicted millions of cases of death, not of prevalence or incidence, but of death. That has not materialized. In California, 12 percent are positives, but the population is 39.5 million. A basic calculation extrapolated out gives us 4.7 million cases throughout California which means this virus is widespread. They’ve seen 1,227 deaths in California with a possible incidence or prevalence of 4.7 million. That means you have a 0.03 chance of dying from Covid-19 in the state of California.
Drs. Erickson and Massihi ask if this necessitates sheltering in place, does that necessitate shutting down the medical systems, does that necessitate people being out of work? We certainly didn’t react the same way with the flu!
Dr. Erickson continues, “If this is a typical extrapolation, 328 million people times 19.6 is 64 million and that’s a significant amount of people with Covid. It’s similar to the flu if you study the numbers from 2017-2018, we had 50-60 million sick with the flu and a similar death rate. The death rate was 43,545 and we have a death rate of 30 to 60,000 every year from flu in the United States. And there is no pandemic talk, no sheltering in place, no shutting down businesses and no sending our doctors home.”
Emergency rooms in California are empty, hospital floors are shut down, and basically hospital ICUs are empty. They are furloughing patients and doctors. In New York, the health system is working at maximum capacity, although we’re seeing the rates of infection drop exponentially, whereas California is at a minimal capacity.
Everything Dr. Erickson has said verifies the Stanford and University of Southern Cal study that talks about how widespread this virus really is and how this data needs to be shared with all of America. This virus is not as deadly as Fauci, Birx and Bill Gates have made it out to be. Once again, massive fear was sold to us by the “experts” and the mainstream media. The prevalence with this virus goes up and up, but the death rate gets smaller and smaller, millions of cases, but a small amount of death. The response to this virus was completely and totally misguided. The unnecessary lockdown will end up being more destructive than Covid-19.
Rates of Infection in New York
New York State cases of Covid as of April 22, are 256,272. According to public data on line, a total of 649,325 tests and 39 percent of New Yorkers tested positive for Covid. Even with social distancing, the “experts” totals were far out of range. The extrapolated-out figures are far closer to reality than the predictive models that have been nowhere in the ballpark. The deaths in New York are 19,010 out of 19 million people which is a 0.1 percent chance of dying of Covid in the state of New York and they have a 92 percent recovery rate if indeed you are diagnosed with Covid. Again, millions of cases, and a small number of deaths.
Sweden v. Norway
Sweden did not lockdown, and they have 15,325 cases of Covid and they did 74,600 tests and 21 percent of all those tested came up positive for Covid. Sweden’s population is about 10.4 million. Extrapolating out the data, there are about two million cases of Covid in Sweden. They did a bit of social distancing and mask wearing, but schools and stores were open, businesses openly functioned, their daily lives continued with a small amount of social distancing. The death rate was 1,765 and California had 1,220 with isolation. There are more people in California, but it’s still millions of cases and very small death rate.
Norway, which is next door to Sweden, shut down their entire economy. They had 7,991 cases, total tested 149,279. They came up with 4.9 percent of all Covid tests were positive in Norway. The population is 5.4 million. Extrapolating data gives Norway about 1.3 million cases and their deaths were 182, which is fairly low and statistically insignificant and a .003 chance of death in Norway and a 97 percent recovery. Norway’s numbers are a small bit better than Sweden, but it doesn’t necessitate shutdown, loss of jobs, destruction of the oil industry and furloughing doctors.
Basically the numbers worldwide are the same, but what Fauci, Birx and Gates didn’t take into consideration were the deaths from the lockdown, alcoholism, suicides, drug addiction and overdoses, bankruptcies, loss of jobs and businesses…all of which will be more devastating than Covid-19 whose figures are very close to yearly flus.
Secondary Effects of Covid-19
Covid-19 is only one aspect of our health sector, but what has social isolation caused? Dr. Erickson has collected data from ERs across the country and talked to fellow physicians. Child molestation is increasing at a severe rate. Unemployed family members are home with no paychecks, they’re angry and intoxicated and doing damage that will last a lifetime. Spousal abuse is also massively on the rise. Alcoholism, anxiety, depression, drug addiction, suicides, education has dropped off, economic collapse, the medical industry is suffering because the staff is not there and there is no volume of patients. These are all things Dr. Erickson and Massihi see every day in their clinics from Fresno to San Diego, and the lockdown results are spiking in every community across America.
This is the ripple effect of listening to Fauci and Birx and their false models. Remember in January Fauci said this virus was nothing to worry about, but his tune changed, and so did our economy…all because of their false forecasts of the death rates of this virus.
Covid-19 v. Seasonal Flu
Is Covid-19 significantly different asks Dr. Erickson…well no, it isn’t. Deaths per the CDC are 24,000 to 60,000 each year. We had about 45 million cases of flu in 2017, with 62,000 deaths or a 0.13 chance of death from flu in America. Our other numbers were 0.02 for Covid, so the lethality of Covid-19 is much less. They followed the true science.
Sadly, what was presented to our president by Fauci and Birx at the onset of this pandemic was outrageously wrong, and now we have 26 million people out of work, a totally destroyed economy, humongous additional debt, and inflation on the near horizon. They told him to either sacrifice his economy or two million lives, what choice did the man have? But here’s the thing, who the hell vetted these two before putting them in power over America and our president’s decisions? Certainly not Pence.
Conclusion
The death counts from Covid-19 have been hugely amplified to include people who were not even tested and died from other ailments. I believe this entire virus was planned and executed by Fauci and Birx who are hardcore leftists tied to WHO, the UN the Clintons, and Obama. This eight-minute video is unverified and may be false, but it tells a lot of truth, albeit I do not believe anything negative will happen to Fauci. Decide for yourselves.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Kelleigh Nelsonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngKelleigh Nelson2020-04-27 05:37:362020-04-29 05:55:20New Study Demolishes Fauci, Birx and Bill Gates’ Lies
Jeff Goldblum said: “Is there something in this religion that is anti-homosexuality and anti-woman? Does that complicate the issue? I’m just raising it and thinking out loud and maybe being stupid.”
In response, he is being denounced as “Islamophobic.”
This is just the latest example of a recurring phenomenon: any criticism, any questioning, the slightest hint of anything negative about Islam will get you excoriated as racist and bigoted. Meanwhile, criticism of Christianity will get you celebrated as “brave.”
And Jeff Goldblum raises perfectly valid questions. Can they not be asked at all? But then what about the people who are victimized because of Islam’s death penalty for homosexuals and institutionalized mistreatment of women? Do they not matter?
The Qur’an contains numerous condemnations of homosexual activity: “And [We had sent] Lot when he said to his people, ‘Do you commit such immorality as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds? Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people.’…And We rained upon them a rain [of stones]. Then see how was the end of the criminals.” (Qur’an 7:80-84)
Muhammad specifies the punishment for this in a hadith: “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, ‘Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.’” (Sunan Abu Dawud 4462)
The Qur’an teaches that men are superior to women and should beat those from whom they “fear disobedience”: “Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.” — Qur’an 4:34
The Qur’an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: “Your women are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth as you will” — Qur’an 2:223
It declares that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man: “Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as you choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” — Qur’an 2:282
It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: “If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if you fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly, then only one, or one that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” — Qur’an 4:3
It rules that a son’s inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: “Allah directs you as regards your children’s inheritance: to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” — Qur’an 4:11
It allows for marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that Islamic divorce procedures “shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated” — Qur’an 65:4
Also, a Muslim wife may not refuse sex. A hadith depicts Muhammad saying: “If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning” (Bukhari 4.54.460).
And: “By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel’s saddle” (Ibn Majah 1854).
Islamic law stipulates: “The husband may forbid his wife to leave the home…because of the hadith related by Bayhaqi that the Prophet…said, ‘It is not permissible for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to allow someone into her husband’s house if he is opposed, or to go out of it if he is averse” (Reliance of the Traveller m10.4).
“Jeff Goldblum is BLASTED by RuPaul’s Drag Race viewers for being ‘anti-Muslim’ after asking queen Jackie Cox about her hijab runway look,” by Roxy Simons, Mailonline, April 25, 2020 (thanks to Jill):
Jeff Goldblum has been hit by criticism from fans for being ‘anti-Muslim’ after his appearance on RuPaul’s Drag Race.
The actor, 67, was a guest judge on Friday’s edition of the show, and had asked drag queen Jackie Cox about her Stars And Stripes runway look which saw her wear a star-spangled hijab in reference to her Muslim background.
First asking if Jackie was ‘religious’, Jeff went on to comment on Islam and how the religion treats LGBTQ+ people like the Iranian-Canadian star, 34.
Of her ensemble, Jackie said: ‘This outfit really represents the importance that visibility for people of religious minorities need to have in this country.’
Jeff then asked: ‘Is there something in this religion that is anti-homosexuality and anti-woman? Does that complicate the issue? I’m just raising it and thinking out loud and maybe being stupid.’
While RuPaul commented that ‘drag has always shaken the tree’, Jackie became teary-eyed as she said it was ‘a complex issue’ and had her ‘own misgivings about the way LGBT people are treated in the Middle East….
Going on to talk about the U.S. travel ban that prohibited the entry of people from Muslim-majority countries, Jackie continued: ‘When the Muslim ban happened, it really destroyed a lot of my faith in this country. And really hurt my family. And that’s so wrong to me….
Criticising Jeff for his questions, fans took to Twitter to let their thoughts be known as they hit out at the Jurassic Park star….
Another commented: ‘Now would Jeff Goldblum have asked a Christian queen that same question that he asked Jackie? That was really ignorant.’
While one viewer hit out: ‘I am REALLY not here for Jeff Goldblum’s casually islamophobic critique of Jackie Cox tonight.’…
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2020-04-27 04:52:422020-04-27 04:54:15Jeff Goldblum slammed as ‘anti-Muslim’ for asking if Islam is ‘anti-homosexuality and anti-woman’
A debate is forming about the U.S. response to COVID-19 and it’s worthwhile to consider this debate early, as it develops, before battle lines harden.
On one side is the school of thought that shutdowns, lockdowns and closing of “nonessential” businesses either came too late to help or were an overreaction to inaccurate computer models on the spread of the new coronavirus. And the resulting impact on our economy is as bad, or worse, than the relative loss of life that would have occurred had less draconian measures been taken.
An offshoot of this argument is that even if the models were accurate, the government reaction should have taken a drastically different form: Instead of lockdowns, we should have focused on protecting our most vulnerable while allowing “herd immunity” to grow in the younger population.
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 >>
On the other side is the argument that the measures taken by government and private sector at all levels were a rational, prudent response to warnings from multiple credible public health experts that without mitigation, up to 2 million Americans could die from COVID-19.
Hampering our assessment of both arguments is the relative lack of information about the true nature of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes the disease.
We still, for example, do not fully understand its reproduction rate (R0), its case fatality and hospitalization rates with all variations for age and co-morbidities, the immunity conferred by infection, or relative penetration of the virus into the American population. Nor do we know whether there will be multiple waves of the virus, or just this one.
Every hour another news story gives more credence to one side of the argument or the other. So here comes one that says the new coronavirus is more lethal that we initially believed. Now, here is another that says that a much greater percentage of Americans may already have been infected and recovered.
Well-meaning individuals forward these links to their friends and colleagues, and say “See?” And friends respond with, “Yes, OK, but have you seen this?”
How many times have you heard comparisons of the coronavirus to the flu? “It’s worse.” “No, it’s not.”
So, we are being buffeted hourly by multiple conflicting pieces of information. It’s exhausting to keep up.
In essence, we are being asked to make summary judgments concerning the initial U.S. response relating to a situation that is still evolving. And that has its pitfalls. We should know a lot more in four to five months about the propriety of the actions that were taken, but right now we are still in the eye of the hurricane with a great deal of uncertainty about how this comes out.
We know a few things, however.
COVID-19 is not some hypothetical threat. Many might still remember the “Y2K bug” scare. For those who don’t, the Y2K bug was the widely publicized danger that as the century turned over from 1999 to 2000 all the computerized systems we depend on to run our society would stop working due to some fatal flaw in their programming.
It never materialized.
This is not that. The scenes from Bergamo, Italy and Manhattan are stark evidence that when the virus runs unchecked through a city, it kills in large numbers and in a way that overwhelms our normal medical facilities, causing chaos and tragedy.
We also know that the economic devastation being wrought by COVID-19 is on an almost inconceivable scale. This was brought home Tuesday when oil hit minus $37 a barrel.
Millions are out of work and suffering for it. Hosts of businesses declaring bankruptcy is now a daily occurrence.
Leaders know that they live in a fishbowl when it comes to the decisions they make. Underreact to a threat and leaders are accused of placing American lives in undue danger. Overreact and they will be blamed for overreach and destroying the economy.
Monday morning quarterbacking is a professional sport in America, and leaders make decisions knowing they will be judged.
Americans are gaining a healthy skepticism of computer models and graphs. Family dinners now include discussions of the merits of the IHME versus Imperial College London’s epidemic models. People are learning that the various models are very sensitive to the variables made as inputs. In the future, as informed consumers, Americans should ask to see more models and to better understand the underlying assumptions.
Many Americans already have familiarity with weather models, the ones that say, for example, there is a 40% chance that Hurricane Roxanne will hit Charleston.
But it’s new ground when our own human behavior changes a model. So when social distancing is practiced, for example, it can drive the infection curve down. That’s the equivalent of saying that if the people in Charleston put plywood over their windows, the hurricane will go elsewhere.
Much will be written on both sides of this issue. Some of it will be informed and useful. But more time probably is necessary to establish a true perspective whether the initial government and private sector responses were appropriate.
When seeking to judge a leader’s actions, I find it useful to consider the circumstances of their decisions. Put yourself in a governor’s place in mid-March and consider the limited information available at the time–not now, with the clarity of hindsight. This exercise can provide a dimension of humility to the discussion.
In the meantime, it might be best to wait before making an ultimate judgment on the correctness of the decisions regarding lockdown or other mitigation measures.
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!
It is a great relief to realize that Israel no longer has to endure being bullied on matters of life and death by its American ally, as has happened in the past, especially during the administrations of distinctly unfriendly presidents, including Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. At last we have an administration that recognizes Israel’s need for strategic depth in the West Bank, and also understands that Israel has the historic, legal, and moral right, should it wish, to annex the entire West Bank.
Here, as reported by Reuters, is Secretary Pompeo’s most recent restatement of this recognition:
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Wednesday it was up to Israel whether to annex parts of the West Bank and said that Washington would offer its views privately to Israel’s new government, drawing a warning from Palestinians who vowed not to “stand handcuffed” if Israel formally took their land.
“As for the annexation of the West Bank, the Israelis will ultimately make those decisions,” Pompeo told reporters. “That’s an Israeli decision. And we will work closely with them to share with them our views of this in (a) private setting.”
Secretary Pompeo knows that there are two independent bases for Israel’s claim to Judea and Samaria (which the Jordanians renamed the “West Bank” in order to efface, toponymically, the Jewish connection to the land). The first is the Mandate for Palestine itself. That Mandate was created by the League of Nations for the sole purpose of establishing the Jewish National Home. A review of the system of mandates should prove useful, given how many now overlook the Mandate for Palestine’s intent. When the League of Nations established the Mandates system, following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, several mandates were created exclusively for the Arabs. France held the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon, Great Britain held the Mandate for Iraq. Those European powers were responsible for guiding the local populations to achieve independence. In the end, as we all know, the Arabs have managed to acquire 22 separate states, far more than any other people, states where they treat non-Arab Muslims – Kurds, Berbers, black Africans – with contumely or worse. And in many of those Arab states, non-Muslims are often humiliated, persecuted, and sometimes killed.
The territory reserved for the Mandate for Palestine originally extended from the Golan in the north to the Gulf of Aqaba in the south, and from an area east of the Jordan River “out into the desert” to the Mediterranean. The British then unilaterally decided that all the territory east of the Jordan — 78% of the original territory of the Mandate – would be closed to Jewish immigration, so that it would become part of the newly-created Emirate of Transjordan (later the Kingdom of Jordan). What was left in the Palestine Mandate for the Jews was 22% of the territory that was originally to have been included. This was the sliver of land that went from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, and from the Golan to the Gulf of Aqaba. That Mandatory territory, that was to have formed part of the future Jewish state, included all of what became known as the West Bank.
What did the Mandate itself say about its purpose? Look at the Preamble to the Mandate:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
The declaration of November 2, 1917, which is referred to in the preamble, is the Balfour Declaration, which declared British support for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
Note the phrase, too, about how “nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” The drafters quite deliberately left out any mention of “political rights” because, of course, a Jewish National Home, leading to the establishment of a Jewish state, would necessarily impinge on the political rights of local Arabs.
Article 4 of the Mandate makes clear that it is to lead to the creation of a single Jewish National Home, and not to the creation of two states, Jewish and Arab, in the territory west of the Jordan that was ultimately assigned to the Mandate:
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty’s Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
Article 6 of the Mandate calls on the mandatory authority to “facilitate Jewish immigration” and “encourage…close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands”:
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
So to repeat yet again – and it deserves this constant repetition — the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) was always supposed to constitute part of the Jewish National Home. Thus it was intended by the Mandates Commission, headed by the Swiss law professor William Rappard, who was greatly distressed when the British unilaterally ended Jewish immigration east of the Jordan. Had the Jews managed to hold onto the West Bank in the 1948-49 war, it would have become, as the Mandate always intended it to be, part of Israel, every bit as much as Tel Aviv or Haifa or Ashdod. When the Jordanian army seized and held territory west of the Jordan in the 1948-49 war, Jordan emulated the Romans, who had renamed “Judea” as “Syria Palaestina” or “Palestine” to efface the Jewish connection to the land. The Jordanians renamed the parts of Judea and Samaria it now controlled as “the West Bank.”
Jordan was the illegal “occupier” of the West Bank from 1948 to 1967; its only claim was that of military possession. The juridical situation was quite different for Israel, its claim was based on the Mandate for Palestine itself. But, someone might object, hadn’t the Mandates system expired when the League of Nations, which had created the system of mandates, ceased to operate in 1946 and was soon replaced by the United Nations?
No, because by its own charter, the United Nations recognized the continued relevance of the Mandates system. The UN Charter, and specifically Article 80 of that Charter, implicitly recognize the “Mandate for Palestine” of the League of Nations. This Mandate granted Jews the irrevocable right to settle in the area of Palestine, anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Professor Eugene Rostow, then the Dean of Yale Law School, explained the significance of Article 80:
This right [of settlement by the Jews] is protected by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter. The Mandates of the League of Nations have a special status in international law, considered to be trusts, indeed ‘sacred trusts.’
Under international law, neither Jordan nor the Palestinian Arab ‘people’ of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have a substantial claim to the sovereign possession of the occupied territories.
To sum up: the Jewish claim to the “West Bank” is based clearly on the Palestine Mandate of the League of Nations, which gave Jews the right to settle anywhere between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. That right was not extinguished when the League of Nations came to an end. Article 80 of the U.N. Charter recognized the continuing relevance of the Mandate’s provisions. The West Bank always formed part of the territory assigned to the Jewish National Home, where the British were to “facilitate Jewish immigration” and to “encourage close settlement by Jews on the land.” Jordan was an “illegal occupier” of the West Bank from 1948 to 1967. In 1967, through its military victory, Israel at last became able to enforce the claim it had never relinquished. Even though the British had closed off the territory immediately to the east of the Jordan to Jewish settlement, effectively taking it out of the Mandate, the territory from the Jordan River westward to the Mediterranean (and from the Golan in the north to the Gulf of Aqaba in the south) remained, without further alteration, as the territory which was assigned to become the Jewish National Home. That is why Pompeo knows that it is up to Israel alone to decide how much of the West Bank it will annex.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2020-04-26 07:16:122020-04-27 04:48:24Secretary of State Pompeo: West Bank Annexation is Israel’s Decision
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Tad MacKiehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngTad MacKie2020-04-25 05:34:532020-04-25 05:38:33VIDEO: Some Facts and Reality about the COVID Outbreak and Lockdowns
Osama bin Laden had money, a name, and a certain amount of charisma. But Al Qaeda’s successes had at best a limited amount to do with him, as opposed to the more experienced and pragmatic terrorist leaders. And by this point, he had long since become irrelevant, harbored by Pakistan, too dangerous to keep, too dangerous to get rid of, until Obama decided that he could get reelected by arresting Osama and putting him on trial. The men on the ground had other ideas and the rest is history.
But Osama had his own stupid plan for bringing America to its knees. Kill Obama.
Osama bin Laden wanted to assassinate then-President Barack Obama so that the “totally unprepared” Joe Biden would take over as president and plunge the United States “into a crisis,” according to documents seized from bin Laden’s Pakistan compound when he was killed in May 2011.
The secretive documents, first reported in 2012 by The Washington Post, outlined a plan to take out Obama and top U.S. military commander David Petraeus as they traveled by plane.
“The reason for concentrating on them is that Obama is the head of infidelity and killing him automatically will make [Vice President] Biden take over the presidency,” bin Laden wrote to a top deputy. “Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the U.S. into a crisis.”
As opposed to Obama, who was really prepared.
Then again, Osama was getting his info on American politics from Michael Moore.
Sure having Biden take over would wreck the country, but a lot less so than Obama had. Unless Osama had a plan to get Carter back into office, that probably wasn’t happening.
Intelligence officials told the Post that bin Laden’s plan never progressed past the aspirational stage.
True of all his plans at that date, except his plan to listen to bad music and get shot by the infidels.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2020-04-25 05:22:552020-04-25 05:23:35Osama bin Laden’s Plan for Destroying America: Make Joe Biden President
How does a lifelong conservative voter in Chicago switch to being a liberal voter? He dies.
If the left is so great and their ideas are so wonderful, then how come they often have to cheat to win elections?
During the coronavirus, with its extraordinary upending of our regular life, some want to use this crisis to permanently change how we vote in this country. This reminds me of the left’s slogan, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”
On March 16, the A.P. reported on a new law in Chicago whereby prisoners can vote in prison (not just by absentee ballot):
“A state law enacted last summer requires that Illinois’ 20,000 pretrial detainees be given the opportunity to vote. That means absentee ballots must be distributed in every jail in the state. But the law also requires that any county with more than 3 million residents set up voting machines in the jail. Cook was the only county to qualify.”
On April 3, CNN observed,
“The coronavirus crisis has prompted new calls to expand access to voting ahead of November’s election and intensified the long-running partisan fight over voting rights…. And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she wants money dedicated to vote-by-mail to be part of the next coronavirus bill.”
It may sound good, but some of the left’s tactics have been designed to basically steal the vote.
The left has been pushing for illegal immigrants to be able to vote. And every time an illegitimate vote is cast it nullifies a legitimate vote that is cast.
If there is cheating by Republicans against Democrats, I’m not aware of it. If you answer, “Watergate,” please note that was about half a century ago.
As we face the critical election this year, 2020, we do well to stay on guard against any means from anybody to steal our vote. Veteran journalist Bob Knight wrote a book, Liberty on the Brink, on the left’s efforts to falsify elections.
In a TV interview, he told me, “One thing is to allow millions of illegal immigrants into the country, not keep track of them, and then weaken the voting laws….In the book, I go through a number of ways they do this. They fight voter ID laws, which are very common sense laws because everybody agrees on them.”
Scott Powell, a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute, told me: “In America you have to have an identification to fly, to buy alcohol, to drive a car. Voting in an election is one of the more important things an American citizen can do, and there should be unanimous support for voter identification. Without voter identification, we are more likely to have electoral fraud, and that can swing elections in key areas.”
One of the key strategies of the left to try and sway the outcome of upcoming elections is a movement to abolish the Electoral College. But that was a brilliant concept by the founders in the Constitution itself to allow for states across the nation to have their say in the outcome of the election for president. The left just wants the big cities (usually liberal) to decide.
As constitutional attorney Jenna Ellis points out, “The Electoral College is a process that was put in place to safeguard the safety of the voters and to make sure that every state has a voice and has representation.”
Bob Knight gives an example of a practice rife with the potential for voter fraud: “Ballot harvesting is one of the latest techniques that the left is using to, I believe, steal elections. Ballot harvesting is legal in some jurisdictions, and it means you can go out and collect ballots from people you’re not related to. Usually you cannot vote, you cannot turn in a ballot for someone you’re not related to, and that’s to prevent vote fraud.”
He points out that on election night 2018, in normally conservative Orange County, California, several Republicans were leading—one of them by 14%. And then, says Knight: “Thousands of ballots came in [later] that were harvested by volunteers, usually union leaders. And that swept the Democrats to power in all congressional districts in Orange County. Now I can’t believe that Orange County overnight became a Democratic county, other than the ballot harvesting that facilitated it.”
Yes, the coronavirus may alter some of how voting is done in this critical election year. But it ought not to be the means by which the left tries to steal our vote.
Knight notes how serious this threat of voter fraud is: “The left is trying to take over the country and impose a socialist state on America. If they win this time around, I’m not sure we’ll ever get the American freedom we’re used to back.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jerry Newcombe, D. Min.http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJerry Newcombe, D. Min.2020-04-24 06:37:482020-04-24 06:43:01The Cheating Factor in the Elections
President Trump has unveiled Guidelines for Opening Up America Again, a three-phased approach based on the advice of public health experts. These steps will help state and local officials when reopening their economies, getting people back to work, and continuing to protect American lives.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png001600 Daily - The White Househttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png1600 Daily - The White House2020-04-24 06:30:582020-04-24 06:32:20Guidelines for Opening Up America Again
On Wednesday morning, Earth Day no less, when any responsible president would have been hectoring people about global warming, President Trump had other concerns on his mind. “I have instructed the United States Navy,” he tweeted, “to shoot down and destroy any and all Iranian gunboats if they harass our ships at sea.”
Predictable scorn ensued from the Left. Writer Nick Jack Pappas was just one of the many who focused on Trump’s choice of words, tweeting, “Trump is giving the order to shoot down boats. I didn’t realize Iran had flying boats now.” They ignored the fact that one can shoot a man down without his being able to fly, but anything will do for a dig at the President. Iranian freedom activist and journalist Heshmat Alavi was more focused, tweeting: “The mullahs’ regime ruling #Iran harasses UN [sic] Navy ships for propaganda purposes. Thank you, President Trump, for reminding this regime that the Obama years are gone. And BTW, this regime does not represent the Iranian people.”
Alavi was right. The Iranian mullahs, apparently having forgotten that Barack Obama is no longer President, were at it again just last week. According to Business Insider, “nearly a dozen Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy vessels sailed out Wednesday to harass a collection of US Navy and Coast Guard vessels conducting operations in international waters.”
The U.S. Navy stated that eleven Iranian boats of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy (IRGCN) “conducted dangerous and harassing approaches,” and added that “the IRGCN’s dangerous and provocative actions increased the risk of miscalculation and collision.” The Iranians, said the Navy statement, were violating the “rules of the road.”
This was not, however, a simple traffic dispute. Leftists will no doubt ascribe it to an increase of tensions over President Trump’s targeting earlier this year of Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani. However, all those who are blaming Trump for ramping up tensions with Iran are ignoring the fact that Iran has been working toward a war with the U.S. for decades, as The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran demonstrates in detail.
On November 2, 2015, a commanding majority of the Majlis, 192 of its 290 members, agreed to a statement saying that “Death to America,” which continues to be chanted at every Friday prayer in Iranian mosques as well as at anti-American protests, was not just a slogan: it had “turned into the symbol of the Islamic Republic and all struggling nations.”
A communal desire to destroy the United States and commit mass murder of its citizens is the Islamic Republic of Iran’s very identity.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2020-04-24 05:40:232020-04-24 05:45:45Trump Orders Navy to Destroy Any Iranian Gunboats That Harass U.S. Ships
A new Department of Homeland Security study shows that heat, humidity, and sunlight could help to kill the coronavirus, offering a potential literal ray of hope against the pandemic as summer nears.
“Our most striking observation to date is the powerful effect that solar light appears to have on killing the virus both [on] surfaces and in the air,” Bill Bryan, the head of the DHS science and technology directorate, said Thursday at the White House press briefing. “We’ve seen a similar effect with both temperature and humidity as well where increasing the temperature or humidity or both is generally less favorable to the virus.”
Bryan pointed to displayed charts that showed on surfaces with temperature between 70-75 degrees Fahrenheit, and 20% humidity, the half-life of the coronavirus was 18 hours.
When humidity was cranked up to 80%, the half-life dropped to six hours. With temperature at 95 degrees and 80% humidity, the half-life of the virus was only one hour. It even worked with no sunlight.
In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>
>>> When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out.Learn more here.
Bryan said the test was done on nonporous surfaces such as door handles and stainless steel.
“As the temperature increases, as the humidity increases, with no sun involved, you can see how drastically that half-life goes down on that virus,” Bryan said. “The virus is dying at a much more rapid pace just from exposure to higher temperatures and just from exposure to humidity.”
President Donald Trump was enthusiastic that outdoors might be preferred to indoors.
“I think a lot of people are going to go outside all of a sudden. People that didn’t want to go outside, they’ll be going,” Trump said.
Even before Bryan’s presentation, Vice President Mike Pence said the White House coronavirus task force looked forward to early summer.
“Our task force actually believes, Mr. President, that if we continue these mitigation efforts in the days ahead as states implement their policies, including phased reopenings that will preserve those gains, we do believe that by early summer we can be in a much better place as a nation with much of this coronavirus pandemic behind us,” Pence said.
Pence said that 16 states have released formal reopening plans—13 of those since the Trump administration issued its three-phase “Opening up America” guidelines for governors last week.
“To your point, Mr. President, states are beginning to make those plans,” Pence said. “We are encouraged to see so many states embrace the phased approach to reopen their economies.”
“I want the states to open more than he does,” Trump said, adding, “I wasn’t happy with it and I wasn’t happy with Brian Kemp. I wasn’t at all happy, and I could have done something about it if I wanted to, but I’m saying let the governors do it. But I wasn’t happy with Brian Kemp.”
On another front, many hospitals across the country feeling financial strain from the COVID-19 virus heard welcome news.
“Given the unique burden on hospitals, we are now encouraging states to restart elective surgeries wherever possible, either statewide or on a county-by-county basis,” Pence said. “We recognize the role elective surgeries play in finances for local hospitals. We will be working with states to enable that.”
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!
Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are notorious for their volatility. Their value fluctuates from time to time. There is always an air of uncertainty surrounding their value and future. But what exactly makes 
