bonginoreport--2020-06-17--LA Times Tells NFL Commissioner to Make Sure Kaepernick is Hired

On Tuesday , The Los Angeles Times , ever mindful of its obligation to push a leftist agenda , lectured the National Football League in an editorial , writing that National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell can only be taken seriously about his pledge to confront racism “ by ensuring Colin Kaepernick has a job again as an NFL quarterback.
” The Times editorial board , aware that Kaepernick ’ s record after his initial stellar start was nothing to write home about , hedged , “ We can spend hours dissecting Kaepernick ’ s abilities as a player , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t get a tryout with a single team , and that ’ s not because of his skills or his salary , ” citing “ various NFL insiders and analysts , ” concluding that the supposed lack of a tryout ( the NFL offered him a special tryout in November 2019 but Kaepernick skipped it ) was because “ he had the audacity during the 2016 season to ‘ take a knee ’ while the national anthem was playing.
” In February , as The Daily Wire reported , XFL Commissioner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NFL quarterback Andrew Luck , said during an interview with NPR ’ s Michael Martin that his league would have welcomed Kaepernick , but Kaepernick ’ s agent made “ exorbitant ” demands .
Asked why the XFL would not “ distinguish ” itself from the NFL “ by offering an opportunity to somebody who has a track record as a great player , who has a lot of following , ” Lick responded .
“ We gave it some thought .
We have some pretty significant salary restrictions , you know .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ so we want to make sure that we can be fiscally responsible and fiscally prudent .
And the , you know , salary requirements that some folks , you know , shared with us were in our case exorbitant , so we , you know , couldn ’ t go down that path.
” Martin pressed , “ Are you saying that you approached him or his representatives , and he wasn ’ t willing to talk to you because of salary requirements ?
” Luck replied , “ I ’ m saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the salary requirements that were broached in that conversation were exorbitant and certainly out of our range.
” The Daily Wire reported in December 2019 that after Kaepernick decided to skip a special workout offered to him by the league in November , Goodell stated , “ This was about creating an opportunity .
We created that opportunity .
It was a unique opportunity , a credible opportunity and he chose not to take it .
I understand that.
” He added , “ We ’ ve moved on.
” the commissioner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ league insiders consistently maintained that the league , particularly Goodell , had genuinely offered Kaepernick a real opportunity to play again , but “ distrust ” and “ resentment ” for the league within Kaepernick ’ s camp led to his decision to skip the NFL-organized event less than an hour before it began .
Former Jets head coach Rex Ryan added on ESPN ’ s “ Get Up , ” “ The NFL doesn ’ t have to have this kid play .
I ’ m sorry .
What I see on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to break down the little video , you see , you see , is he throwing the ball behind him , too much air on his deep ball , yeah all those type of things .
But that wasn ’ t about this .
As a coach , you don ’ t want this circus in the locker room .
And , I ’ m sorry , but that ’ s what it is .
Is it going to be worth all the extra media ?
You ’ re going to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kaepernick is still making politically charged statements ; on May 28 , Kaepernick tweeted during the violent Minneapolis protests after George Floyd ’ s death , “ ” When civility leads to death , revolting is the only logical reaction .
The cries for peace will rain down , and when they do , they will land on deaf ears , because your violence has brought this resistance .
We have the right to fight back !
” In August 2017 , NFL legend Jim Brown took issue with Kaepernick ’ s attitude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has to make up his mind whether he ’ s truly an activist or whether he ’ s a football player .
Football is commercial .
You have owners .
You have fans .
And you want to honor that if you ’ re making that kind of money .
… I ’ m going to give you the real deal : I ’ m an American .
I don ’ t desecrate my flag and my national anthem .
I ’ m not gon na do anything against the flag and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work within those situations .
But this is my country , and I ’ ll work out the problems , but I ’ ll do it in an intelligent manner .
The Times concluded , “ Goodell ’ s credibility , and the league ’ s , is on the line here ( which Goodell seems to recognize ; on Monday , he told ESPN that he would welcome a team signing Kaepernick , and ‘ I encourage them to do that ’ ) .
If the NFL wants the world to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voices and their protests , it needs Kaepernick back in uniform.
” The Daily Wire , headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro , is a leading provider of conservative news , cutting through the mainstream media ’ s rhetoric to provide readers the most important , relevant , and engaging stories of the day .
Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member .

On Tuesday, The Los Angeles Times, ever mindful of its obligation to push a leftist agenda, lectured the National Football League in an editorial, writing that National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell can only be taken seriously about his pledge to confront racism “by ensuring Colin Kaepernick has a job again as an NFL quarterback.”
The Times editorial board, aware that Kaepernick’s record after his initial stellar start was nothing to write home about, hedged, “We can spend hours dissecting Kaepernick’s abilities as a player,” but then surmised, “He didn’t get a tryout with a single team, and that’s not because of his skills or his salary,” citing “various NFL insiders and analysts,” concluding that the supposed lack of a tryout (the NFL offered him a special tryout in November 2019 but Kaepernick skipped it) was because “he had the audacity during the 2016 season to ‘take a knee’ while the national anthem was playing.”
In February, as The Daily Wire reported, XFL Commissioner Oliver Luck, the father of former NFL quarterback Andrew Luck, said during an interview with NPR’s Michael Martin that his league would have welcomed Kaepernick, but Kaepernick’s agent made “exorbitant” demands. Asked why the XFL would not “distinguish” itself from the NFL “by offering an opportunity to somebody who has a track record as a great player, who has a lot of following,” Lick responded. “We gave it some thought. We have some pretty significant salary restrictions, you know. We’re a start-up league, so we want to make sure that we can be fiscally responsible and fiscally prudent. And the, you know, salary requirements that some folks, you know, shared with us were in our case exorbitant, so we, you know, couldn’t go down that path.”
Martin pressed, “Are you saying that you approached him or his representatives, and he wasn’t willing to talk to you because of salary requirements?” Luck replied, “I’m saying that we spoke with his representative, and the salary requirements that were broached in that conversation were exorbitant and certainly out of our range.”
The Daily Wire reported in December 2019 that after Kaepernick decided to skip a special workout offered to him by the league in November, Goodell stated, “This was about creating an opportunity. We created that opportunity. It was a unique opportunity, a credible opportunity and he chose not to take it. I understand that.” He added, “We’ve moved on.” the commissioner added.
In an ESPN report, league insiders consistently maintained that the league, particularly Goodell, had genuinely offered Kaepernick a real opportunity to play again, but “distrust” and “resentment” for the league within Kaepernick’s camp led to his decision to skip the NFL-organized event less than an hour before it began.
Former Jets head coach Rex Ryan added on ESPN’s “Get Up,” “The NFL doesn’t have to have this kid play. I’m sorry. What I see on the video is look, if you want to break down the little video , you see, you see, is he throwing the ball behind him, too much air on his deep ball, yeah all those type of things. But that wasn’t about this. As a coach, you don’t want this circus in the locker room. And, I’m sorry, but that’s what it is. Is it going to be worth all the extra media? You’re going to have a backup quarterback having press conferences.”
Kaepernick is still making politically charged statements; on May 28, Kaepernick tweeted during the violent Minneapolis protests after George Floyd’s death, “”When civility leads to death, revolting is the only logical reaction. The cries for peace will rain down, and when they do, they will land on deaf ears, because your violence has brought this resistance. We have the right to fight back!”
When civility leads to death, revolting is the only logical reaction. The cries for peace will rain down, and when they do, they will land on deaf ears, because your violence has brought this resistance. We have the right to fight back! Rest in Power George Floyd — Colin Kaepernick (@Kaepernick7) May 28, 2020
In August 2017, NFL legend Jim Brown took issue with Kaepernick’s attitude, telling The Post Game:
Colin has to make up his mind whether he’s truly an activist or whether he’s a football player. Football is commercial. You have owners. You have fans. And you want to honor that if you’re making that kind of money. … I’m going to give you the real deal: I’m an American. I don’t desecrate my flag and my national anthem. I’m not gonna do anything against the flag and the national anthem. I’m going to work within those situations. But this is my country, and I’ll work out the problems, but I’ll do it in an intelligent manner.
The Times concluded, “Goodell’s credibility, and the league’s, is on the line here (which Goodell seems to recognize; on Monday, he told ESPN that he would welcome a team signing Kaepernick, and ‘I encourage them to do that’). If the NFL wants the world to believe that it respects its players’ voices and their protests, it needs Kaepernick back in uniform.”
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.


bonginoreport--2020-06-18--Dr. Fauci Says Americans Were Initially Misled About Masks – We “Wanted to Make Sure Health Care Wor

Dr. Fauci Says Americans Were Initially Misled About Masks – We “Wanted to Make Sure Health Care Workers” Had Enough

At the start of the coronavirus outbreak in the U.S. , federal officials told the public they did not need to wear face masks .
Dr. Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease , said they only made people feel better but were pretty much pointless .
U.S .
Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams even told Americans in a late February tweet that they need to “ STOP BUYING MASKS !
They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching coronavirus , but if healthcare providers can ’ t get them to care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and our communities at risk !
” As time went on , the tone changed , and Americans were encouraged to wear face masks , with many places requiring them .
Now Fauci has admitted that the reason Americans were initially discouraged from using them is because there was a shortage , as Adams acknowledged in the second part of his February tweet .
“ We were concerned the public health community , and many people were saying this , were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks , were in very short supply , ” Fauci told The Street .
`` We wanted to make sure the people , namely , the healthcare workers , who were brave enough to put themselves in harm 's way to take care of people who you know were infected with coronavirus , and the danger of them getting infected .
We did not want them to be without the equipment they needed . ''
The NIAID director again reiterated that masks are not 100 percent effective , but “ they certainly are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ”

At the start of the coronavirus outbreak in the U.S., federal officials told the public they did not need to wear face masks. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, said they only made people feel better but were pretty much pointless.
U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams even told Americans in a late February tweet that they need to “STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!”
As time went on, the tone changed, and Americans were encouraged to wear face masks, with many places requiring them.
Now Fauci has admitted that the reason Americans were initially discouraged from using them is because there was a shortage, as Adams acknowledged in the second part of his February tweet.
“We were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply,” Fauci told The Street. "We wanted to make sure the people, namely, the healthcare workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in harm's way to take care of people who you know were infected with coronavirus, and the danger of them getting infected. We did not want them to be without the equipment they needed."
VIDEO - Fauci Admits Feds Initially Misled About Face Masks: ‘Wanted to Make Sure Health Care Workers’ Had Enough https://t.co/qO5G0G3arX — Grabien (@GrabienMedia) June 17, 2020
The NIAID director again reiterated that masks are not 100 percent effective, but “they certainly are better than not wearing a mask.”


bonginoreport--2020-06-18--Arizona Is Ready to Open

Arizona Is Ready to Open

The Left is apoplectic that Arizona and the rest of the country are moving to reopen our society .
Gov .
Doug Ducey is correct that Arizona needs to be open .
We have all have been denied fundamental rights during lockdowns .
As Arizona opens , we all must understand and mitigate the risks of the coronavirus .
But the numbers simply do not support the hysteria that left-wing pundits and their media allies are attempting to foment .
They keep shouting that the number of people who have been detected with the virus is up .
They are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measurements put that into context and undermine their panicked claims .
For instance , the raw number of people who have been detected with the virus is not as important as the percentage of people who test positive .
During the lockdown , the percentage who tested positive fluctuated between 5.5 % and 7.1 % .
Not remarkably , that is the same range we have seen since we have opened Arizona .
During the lockdown , when we had emptied out our hospitals , the highest percentage of ICU beds in use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2020 , the reported ICU bed usage was 80 % .
That ’ s fairly consistent , and the Health System Alliance of Arizona sent a letter recently indicating that they were adequately prepared for a surge if one materialized .
During the lockdown , the highest daily number of individuals hospitalized for COVID-19 was 66 .
In free Arizona , the highest number occurred on June 2 : 71 persons hospitalized .
The reported number for June 16 , 2020 , was only one additional hospitalization .
The two highest daily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April 30 and again on May 7 .
We suffered a similar number of fatalities on June 16 , 2020 , but were still fewer than those two days .
We have never used more than 40 % of the ventilators available in the state .
There are two hot spots that continue to be vexing in the persistence of the virus , border counties and the Navajo reservation .
We should continue to provide support for those jurisdictions .
the Telegraph concluded that more people will die because of the lockdown than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lockdown produced an increase in domestic violence , child abuse , alcohol and drug abuse , missed chemotherapy treatments , missed examination and detection of potential cancers , and a whole host of additional societal and health issues .
, “ I think the real virus was the panic virus .
For reasons that were not clear to me , I think the leaders panicked and the people panicked.
” As the lockdown progressed , we saw economic devastation .
Tens of millions of our countrymen lost their jobs .
The national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work just days before were suddenly unemployed .
People who had invested life savings in their businesses were shut down and lost those businesses .
Can anyone honestly deny the physical and emotional toll on those who face economic ruin ?
The uncertainty and stress accompanying economic loss are accompanied by enormous negative consequences .
Opening the economy and the entire society will be beneficial for public health .
The data points are available daily on the .
The data supports the reopening of Arizona .
The pathologies and public health consequences of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reopening of Arizona .
The economic ruin , with its accompanying toll on the lives of our citizens , also supports the reopening of Arizona .
Those who want to close up Arizona need to view the entire context of this serious issue .
Arizona must face this challenge with courage , respect , and wisdom .
Courage to make hard choices and trust the people of Arizona .
Respect for our freedom and the responsibility that accompanies our rights .
Wisdom to acknowledge that Arizona must continue to provide leadership to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Rep. Andy Biggs , a Republican , represents Arizona 's 5th District in Congress .
He is chairman of the House Freedom Caucus .
You can follow him on Twitter : @ RepAndyBiggsAZ .

The Left is apoplectic that Arizona and the rest of the country are moving to reopen our society. Gov. Doug Ducey is correct that Arizona needs to be open. We have all have been denied fundamental rights during lockdowns. As Arizona opens, we all must understand and mitigate the risks of the coronavirus. But the numbers simply do not support the hysteria that left-wing pundits and their media allies are attempting to foment. They keep shouting that the number of people who have been detected with the virus is up. They are correct, but all of the other measurements put that into context and undermine their panicked claims.
For instance, the raw number of people who have been detected with the virus is not as important as the percentage of people who test positive. During the lockdown, the percentage who tested positive fluctuated between 5.5% and 7.1%. Not remarkably, that is the same range we have seen since we have opened Arizona.
During the lockdown, when we had emptied out our hospitals, the highest percentage of ICU beds in use was 78%. On June 15, 2020, the reported ICU bed usage was 80%. That’s fairly consistent, and the Health System Alliance of Arizona sent a letter recently indicating that they were adequately prepared for a surge if one materialized.
During the lockdown, the highest daily number of individuals hospitalized for COVID-19 was 66 . In free Arizona, the highest number occurred on June 2: 71 persons hospitalized. The reported number for June 16, 2020, was only one additional hospitalization.
The two highest daily death counts were during the lockdown on April 30 and again on May 7. We suffered a similar number of fatalities on June 16, 2020, but were still fewer than those two days.
We have never used more than 40% of the ventilators available in the state.
There are two hot spots that continue to be vexing in the persistence of the virus, border counties and the Navajo reservation. We should continue to provide support for those jurisdictions.
A study reported in the Telegraph on May 23 concluded that more people will die because of the lockdown than COVID-19. In our Arizona communities, the lockdown produced an increase in domestic violence, child abuse, alcohol and drug abuse, missed chemotherapy treatments, missed examination and detection of potential cancers, and a whole host of additional societal and health issues.
As Nobel Laureate Michael Levitt said , “I think the real virus was the panic virus. For reasons that were not clear to me, I think the leaders panicked and the people panicked.”
As the lockdown progressed, we saw economic devastation. Tens of millions of our countrymen lost their jobs. The national economy shrunk. People who had enjoyed work just days before were suddenly unemployed. People who had invested life savings in their businesses were shut down and lost those businesses.
Can anyone honestly deny the physical and emotional toll on those who face economic ruin? The uncertainty and stress accompanying economic loss are accompanied by enormous negative consequences. Opening the economy and the entire society will be beneficial for public health.
The data points are available daily on the Arizona Department of Health Website . The data supports the reopening of Arizona.
The pathologies and public health consequences of the lockdown are abundant and also support the reopening of Arizona.
The economic ruin, with its accompanying toll on the lives of our citizens, also supports the reopening of Arizona.
Those who want to close up Arizona need to view the entire context of this serious issue. Arizona must face this challenge with courage, respect, and wisdom. Courage to make hard choices and trust the people of Arizona. Respect for our freedom and the responsibility that accompanies our rights. Wisdom to acknowledge that Arizona must continue to provide leadership to the nation in opening our great state.
Rep. Andy Biggs, a Republican, represents Arizona's 5th District in Congress. He is chairman of the House Freedom Caucus. You can follow him on Twitter: @RepAndyBiggsAZ.


bonginoreport--2020-06-18--Reports: MLB Owners Submit New Restart Offer for 60-Game Season

Major League Baseball ’ s team owners and players have made significant progress on a deal to return to play during the coronavirus pandemic after a lengthy dispute over compensation , according to multiple reports .
MLB submitted a new offer to players on Wednesday after earlier talks broke down amid disagreements on whether pay should be prorated or further reduced to the pandemic ’ s financial impact .
The proposal came one day after MLB Commissioner Robert Manfred and MLB Players Association executive director Tony Clark held productive talks in an effort to resolve the dispute .
NBA PLAYERS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FACE DISCIPLINE MLB ’ s latest offer calls for a shortened 60-game season that would begin around July 19 , FOX Sports reporter Ken Rosenthal and other outlets reported .
The proposal includes full prorated pay for players based on their 2020 seasons and an expanded postseason for both 2020 and 2021 .
“ At my request , Tony Clark and I met for several hours yesterday in Phoenix , '' Manfred said in a statement .
`` We left that meeting with a jointly developed framework that we agreed could form the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversations with our respective constituents .
I summarized that framework numerous times in the meeting and sent Tony a written summary today .
Consistent with our conversations yesterday , I am encouraging the Clubs to move forward and I trust Tony is doing the same.
” In addition , MLB is asking the players to waive any potential grievance filing over the terms of the restart .
Talks have yet to yield a final agreement and players are expected to make a counteroffer .
The MLBPA said any reports that a tentative deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Negotiations had turned contentious in recent days , with each side accusing the other of failing to deal in good faith .
The MLBPA rejected a plan last weekend that called for a 72-game season and 70 percent of prorated salaries for players .
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE The impasse led Manfred to declare earlier this week that he was “ not confident ” that a 2020 season would occur .
The league has said it would lose $ 4 billion in revenue if the season is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MLB and the players union granted Manfred the authority to mandate a 50-game season if necessary .
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXBUSINESS.COM This story has been updated .

Major League Baseball’s team owners and players have made significant progress on a deal to return to play during the coronavirus pandemic after a lengthy dispute over compensation, according to multiple reports.
MLB submitted a new offer to players on Wednesday after earlier talks broke down amid disagreements on whether pay should be prorated or further reduced to the pandemic’s financial impact. The proposal came one day after MLB Commissioner Robert Manfred and MLB Players Association executive director Tony Clark held productive talks in an effort to resolve the dispute.
NBA PLAYERS WHO CHOSE NOT TO PLAY WON'T FACE DISCIPLINE
MLB’s latest offer calls for a shortened 60-game season that would begin around July 19, FOX Sports reporter Ken Rosenthal and other outlets reported. The proposal includes full prorated pay for players based on their 2020 seasons and an expanded postseason for both 2020 and 2021.
“At my request, Tony Clark and I met for several hours yesterday in Phoenix," Manfred said in a statement. "We left that meeting with a jointly developed framework that we agreed could form the basis of an agreement and subject to conversations with our respective constituents. I summarized that framework numerous times in the meeting and sent Tony a written summary today. Consistent with our conversations yesterday, I am encouraging the Clubs to move forward and I trust Tony is doing the same.”
In addition, MLB is asking the players to waive any potential grievance filing over the terms of the restart.
NFL'S ROGER GOODELL ENCOURAGES TEAMS TO SIGN KAEPERNICK
Talks have yet to yield a final agreement and players are expected to make a counteroffer. The MLBPA said any reports that a tentative deal was already in place were “false.”
Negotiations had turned contentious in recent days, with each side accusing the other of failing to deal in good faith. The MLBPA rejected a plan last weekend that called for a 72-game season and 70 percent of prorated salaries for players.
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE
The impasse led Manfred to declare earlier this week that he was “not confident” that a 2020 season would occur. The league has said it would lose $4 billion in revenue if the season is canceled.
A March 26 agreement between MLB and the players union granted Manfred the authority to mandate a 50-game season if necessary.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXBUSINESS.COM
This story has been updated.


bonginoreport--2020-06-18--Over 1,200 Flights Grounded in Beijing Amidst “New” Coronavirus Outbreak

More than 1,200 flights going in and out of Beijing have been canceled as a new coronavirus outbreak in China ’ s capital grows .
The number of confirmed cases of the illness in Beijing reached at least 137 this week , a dramatic increase after months of no reported cases , according to the New York Post .
The city has closed all schools and 11 markets in an attempt to stop a potentially enormous explosion of cases in the densely populated city of 22 million .
A total of 1,255 flights were canceled by Wednesday , a figure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outgoing flights and 68 % of incoming flights .
“ The risk of the outbreak spreading is huge , and controlling it is difficult , ” Pang Xinghuo , a senior disease control official , said .
“ [ We ] can ’ t rule out the possibility the number of cases will persist for a period of time.
” The city has also introduced “ medium ” and “ high-risk ” areas in parts of Beijing .
Residents who live within the areas are banned from leaving .
Beijing ’ s emergency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was also raised from level three to level two .
“ This has truly rung an alarm bell for us , ” said Cai Qi , the Communist Party secretary of Beijing .
Cai added that he has “ extremely grave ” concerns about the newest outbreak .
Some traces of COVID-19 were discovered on a salmon cutting board in the Xinfadi food market .
Some restaurants in the capital have reportedly stopped selling imported salmon , given the news .
China was the first country to be hit by the coronavirus pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year in the central Chinese city of Wuhan .
Since the pandemic began , some 8.2 million people have been infected , and at least 444,000 people have died , according to Johns Hopkins University .

More than 1,200 flights going in and out of Beijing have been canceled as a new coronavirus outbreak in China’s capital grows.
The number of confirmed cases of the illness in Beijing reached at least 137 this week, a dramatic increase after months of no reported cases, according to the New York Post. The city has closed all schools and 11 markets in an attempt to stop a potentially enormous explosion of cases in the densely populated city of 22 million.
A total of 1,255 flights were canceled by Wednesday, a figure that amounts to about 67% of outgoing flights and 68% of incoming flights.
“The risk of the outbreak spreading is huge, and controlling it is difficult,” Pang Xinghuo, a senior disease control official, said. “[We] can’t rule out the possibility the number of cases will persist for a period of time.”
The city has also introduced “medium” and “high-risk” areas in parts of Beijing. Residents who live within the areas are banned from leaving. Beijing’s emergency threat level, a four-tiered system, was also raised from level three to level two.
“This has truly rung an alarm bell for us,” said Cai Qi, the Communist Party secretary of Beijing. Cai added that he has “extremely grave” concerns about the newest outbreak.
Some traces of COVID-19 were discovered on a salmon cutting board in the Xinfadi food market. Some restaurants in the capital have reportedly stopped selling imported salmon, given the news.
China was the first country to be hit by the coronavirus pandemic after the virus first originated late last year in the central Chinese city of Wuhan. Since the pandemic began, some 8.2 million people have been infected, and at least 444,000 people have died, according to Johns Hopkins University.


bonginoreport--2020-06-18--Larry Elder: 10 Takeaways From the Anti-Police Brutality Protests

No .
10 : CNN 's Chris Cuomo believes people have a right to engage in violence .
About the anti-police protests , some violent , CNN 's Chris Cuomo said , `` And , please , show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful . ''
It 's called the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution : `` Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ; or abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press ; or the right of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances . ''
No .
9 : Democratic politicians and the media focus like a laser on the rare occurrence of unarmed blacks shot and killed by white cops .
When do the protests start over the approximately 2,600 blacks killed by blacks each year ?
And this is likely an understated number .
About the FBI 's annual crime data , U.S. News & World Report wrote in 2016 : `` The most detailed racial data have limits : They are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was killed and one person did the killing , eliminating about 17 percent of homicides .
Also , police have to know and provide the backgrounds of not only the victims but the perpetrators , too — meaning that thousands of cases left unsolved and with no description of the person who committed the crimes are discounted .
In total , about 61 percent of the 15,696 homicides committed in 2015 are excluded . ''
No .
8 : According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics , in 2015 , there were 53.5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interactions , over 10 million result in arrest and charges .
Annually , between 50,000 and 60,000 officers are assaulted .
Yet , despite all of these interactions — arrests , charges and officer assaults — `` only '' about 1,000 civilians are killed each year by the police .
That is .002 % of all of the police interactions .
No .
7 : Where were the `` defund the police/redirect the money '' advocates during the eight years President Barack Obama was in office ?
The Rev .
Al Sharpton visited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama 's first six years , and Obama was close to the Congressional Black Caucus .
What , the subject never came up ?
Did the `` systemic , structural , institutional police oppression against blacks '' take an eight-year holiday when Obama was president ?
About the Obama Department of Justice , in 2014 , the left-of-center Politico wrote a piece called `` A Lame Civil Rights Record '' : `` Indeed , a comprehensive review of all available records shows that the nature of the cases brought by the ( civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Bush administration .
In some areas the number of filings in traditional civil rights cases appears to be down — in some areas down significantly .
...
But much of the time , the vaunted Obama- ( Eric ) Holder civil rights division has been reactive — responding to complaints filed by outside parties , rather than initiating investigations on its own . ''
No .
6 : Perhaps at some point , `` black leaders '' might suggest : `` Comply .
You wo n't die . ''
Yes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for that matter — has heard what has been described as `` The Talk , '' where he or she received parental instruction on how to behave in an encounter with the police .
My parents told my brothers and me : `` Be polite .
Cooperate fully .
If you feel you 've been mistreated , get a badge number or a name , and you 'll be alive to do something about it . ''
Did we miss the part where our parents added , `` Violently resist , and , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
5 : During the Obama administration , the following black suspects were either killed by the police or died in police custody : Trayvon Martin ( by neighborhood watchman ) Michael Brown , Alton Sterling , Laquan McDonald , Eric Garner , Freddie Gray , Sandra Bland , Philando Castile and Tamir Rice .
Obama 's Department of Justice filed no civil rights charges against any of the cops .
In the case of Garner , the Obama DOJ left the decision to the Trump administration , which declined to file civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Garner 's death .
No .
4 : Consider the following fact pattern about a recent shooting and killing of an `` unarmed '' suspect Rayshard Brooks by the Atlanta police : ( Black ) suspect resists , takes ( white ) cop 's taser , points it at cop and gets shot and killed .
Put the question of whether the man should 've been shot and killed aside for the moment ; had the suspect been white and the cops black , would the outcome have been any different ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the part where those who looted and burned later accuse victimized businesses of `` racism '' should they choose not to rebuild ?
No .
2 : Thomas Sowell sees a massive gap between the reality of racism and the perception of racism : `` We have now reached the point where virtually everything that serves black 'leaders ' — dependency , grievance-hunting , racial hype and paranoia — are major disservices to the cause of advancing blacks , at a time when their opportunities have never been better . ''
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests are a combination of cabin fever from weeks of the coronavirus shutdown , Trump Derangement Syndrome and the `` cancel culture , '' more accurately described as the revenge culture .
The revenge culture demands reparations from those who were never slave owners to be given to those who were never slaves .
Larry Elder is a bestselling author and nationally syndicated radio talk show host .
His latest book , `` The New Trump Standard , '' is available in paperback from Amazon.com and for Nook , Kindle , iBooks and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Larry Elder , or become an `` Elderado , '' visit www.LarryElder.com .
Follow Larry on Twitter @ LarryElder .
To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists , visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com .

No. 10: CNN's Chris Cuomo believes people have a right to engage in violence. About the anti-police protests, some violent, CNN's Chris Cuomo said, "And, please, show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful." It's called the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble (emphasis added), and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
No. 9: Democratic politicians and the media focus like a laser on the rare occurrence of unarmed blacks shot and killed by white cops. When do the protests start over the approximately 2,600 blacks killed by blacks each year? And this is likely an understated number. About the FBI's annual crime data, U.S. News & World Report wrote in 2016: "The most detailed racial data have limits: They are confined to cases in which one person was killed and one person did the killing, eliminating about 17 percent of homicides. Also, police have to know and provide the backgrounds of not only the victims but the perpetrators, too — meaning that thousands of cases left unsolved and with no description of the person who committed the crimes are discounted. In total, about 61 percent of the 15,696 homicides committed in 2015 are excluded."
No. 8: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2015, there were 53.5 million police/civilian contacts. Of those police/civilian interactions, over 10 million result in arrest and charges. Annually, between 50,000 and 60,000 officers are assaulted. Yet, despite all of these interactions — arrests, charges and officer assaults — "only" about 1,000 civilians are killed each year by the police. That is .002% of all of the police interactions.
No. 7: Where were the "defund the police/redirect the money" advocates during the eight years President Barack Obama was in office? The Rev. Al Sharpton visited the Obama White House 72 times in Obama's first six years, and Obama was close to the Congressional Black Caucus. What, the subject never came up? Did the "systemic, structural, institutional police oppression against blacks" take an eight-year holiday when Obama was president?
About the Obama Department of Justice, in 2014, the left-of-center Politico wrote a piece called "A Lame Civil Rights Record": "Indeed, a comprehensive review of all available records shows that the nature of the cases brought by the (civil rights) division has not differed much from the Bush administration. In some areas the number of filings in traditional civil rights cases appears to be down — in some areas down significantly. ... But much of the time, the vaunted Obama-(Eric) Holder civil rights division has been reactive — responding to complaints filed by outside parties, rather than initiating investigations on its own."
No. 6: Perhaps at some point, "black leaders" might suggest: "Comply. You won't die." Yes, every black child — every child, for that matter — has heard what has been described as "The Talk," where he or she received parental instruction on how to behave in an encounter with the police. My parents told my brothers and me: "Be polite. Cooperate fully. If you feel you've been mistreated, get a badge number or a name, and you'll be alive to do something about it." Did we miss the part where our parents added, "Violently resist, and, whenever possible, run"?
No. 5: During the Obama administration, the following black suspects were either killed by the police or died in police custody: Trayvon Martin (by neighborhood watchman) Michael Brown, Alton Sterling, Laquan McDonald, Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, Sandra Bland, Philando Castile and Tamir Rice. Obama's Department of Justice filed no civil rights charges against any of the cops. In the case of Garner, the Obama DOJ left the decision to the Trump administration, which declined to file civil rights charges against the NYPD officers involved in Garner's death.
No. 4: Consider the following fact pattern about a recent shooting and killing of an "unarmed" suspect Rayshard Brooks by the Atlanta police: (Black) suspect resists, takes (white) cop's taser, points it at cop and gets shot and killed. Put the question of whether the man should've been shot and killed aside for the moment; had the suspect been white and the cops black, would the outcome have been any different?
No. 3: Can we fast-forward to the part where those who looted and burned later accuse victimized businesses of "racism" should they choose not to rebuild?
No. 2: Thomas Sowell sees a massive gap between the reality of racism and the perception of racism: "We have now reached the point where virtually everything that serves black 'leaders' — dependency, grievance-hunting, racial hype and paranoia — are major disservices to the cause of advancing blacks, at a time when their opportunities have never been better."
No. 1: The continuing anti-police abuse protests are a combination of cabin fever from weeks of the coronavirus shutdown, Trump Derangement Syndrome and the "cancel culture," more accurately described as the revenge culture. The revenge culture demands reparations from those who were never slave owners to be given to those who were never slaves.
Larry Elder is a bestselling author and nationally syndicated radio talk show host. His latest book, "The New Trump Standard," is available in paperback from Amazon.com and for Nook, Kindle, iBooks and GooglePlay. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an "Elderado," visit www.LarryElder.com. Follow Larry on Twitter @LarryElder. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.


bonginoreport--2020-06-18--Judge Andrew Napolitano: The First Freedom

Here is a pop quiz on the Constitution .
What is the first freedom protected by the Bill of Rights ?
If you guessed speech or press , then you are close .
The first protected freedom is religion .
The two religion clauses in the First Amendment keep the government out of our pockets for religious purposes and out of our churches for all purposes .
That was , at least , the intent of the framers .
The tyrannical behavior of many state governors , who have issued executive orders purporting to regulate private behavior on private property @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worship — and in the process have enforced these orders as if they were laws , has ignored this .
In America , governors do not write laws ; only legislatures do .
There are no pandemic or public health or emergency exceptions in the Constitution .
Here in New Jersey , Catholics were permitted — permitted — to attend public Masses last Sunday for the first time in 88 days .
This has deeply troubled many of the faithful , and many non-adherents , who understand the concepts that only legislatures write @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a law telling a religious institution when and how to permit worship .
So , who closed all the houses of worship ?
Why did Catholic bishops dispense with a nearly 1,600-year-old rule — which survived all sorts of wars and pestilence — requiring attendance at Sunday Mass ?
What became of the wall of separation ?
Here is the backstory .
When first-year law students are asked the meaning of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment , they often argue that these clauses mandate a wall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some students even offer to find the `` wall of separation '' language in the Constitution .
They are still looking for it .
While it is accurate to use the wall of separation phrase , it is nowhere in the Constitution or in any federal statute .
It was first publicly used in an 1802 letter from President Thomas Jefferson to a congregation of Baptists in Danbury , Connecticut .
The congregation had written to Jefferson complaining that Connecticut was taxing all landowners to pay for the state-supported Congregationalist Church .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religious freedom as a privilege to be doled out , rather than as an inalienable right as the congregation believed it to be and as he had characterized it and other rights in the Declaration of Independence .
Jefferson understood the values underlying the religion clauses of the First Amendment to mean that while only Congress was prohibited from establishing a church or interfering with worship , the states should not do so either .
In his famous letter , he opined that the First Amendment erected `` a wall of separation between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the word `` state '' in that context meant all governments .
Though the imposition of state taxes to support churches ended during the 19th century , it was n't until 1947 that the Supreme Court ruled with clarity that the First Amendment — the language in which only restrains Congress — applies to the states as well .
We know that it does because the 14th Amendment prohibits all states from abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States .
The phrase `` privileges or immunities '' connotes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which are a prohibition on government establishing a religion or interfering with its free exercise .
Stated differently , the right to worship or not , and the right not to be charged for someone else 's worship , are personal human rights — as Jefferson called them , inalienable rights .
Now , back to the governors and the bishops .
The governors permitted crowds at Walmart and arrested folks for attending funerals .
They permitted thousands of demonstrators in public streets and arrested not one of them for marching without masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Professor John Rao of St. John 's University wrote : `` Our troubled world continues along its current revolutionary path with no clear idea as of yet just how far the diabolical disorientation that has been unleashed may go .
One thing and one thing alone seems definite to me in the midst of the general uncertainty .
With a few very notable exceptions , the leadership of our beloved Church , legitimate though that leadership is , has proven itself to be utterly subservient '' to the state .
It was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was — with some courageous exceptions — the gutless American Catholic bishops who did so .
Never before in the history of America has the Church become an arm of the state .
The governors told the bishops to close their churches , and they complied .
Their predecessors were martyrs .
They are cowards .
That is not rendering to Caesar what is Caesar 's .
That is rendering to Caesar what is God 's .
Faithful Catholics believe that we consume the Bread of Life at Mass .
The bishops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us that salvific sacrament than do the governors .
Faithful Catholics also believe that Holy Mother Church is the route to eternal salvation and the Bread of Life is the food for that route .
What mother would deny her children food ?
One in the hands of state-subservient bishops .
When the Supreme Court explained the two religion clauses , it ruled that they prohibit both conspicuous governmental aid to religion and all government interference with it , and all excessive entanglement between church and state .
In another time and place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One hundred years ago , the Church was outlawed in Mexico and militias hunted down priests .
Saying a public Mass then was the functional equivalent of a capital offense .
Yet , there were more Masses celebrated for the faithful per day in Mexico in those years than in America in the last 88 days .
The wall of separation insulates our religious beliefs and practices from governmental tyranny .
But without episcopal fidelity and courage , the wall crumbles .

Here is a pop quiz on the Constitution. What is the first freedom protected by the Bill of Rights? If you guessed speech or press, then you are close. The first protected freedom is religion. The two religion clauses in the First Amendment keep the government out of our pockets for religious purposes and out of our churches for all purposes. That was, at least, the intent of the framers.
The tyrannical behavior of many state governors, who have issued executive orders purporting to regulate private behavior on private property — even religious behavior in houses of worship — and in the process have enforced these orders as if they were laws, has ignored this. In America, governors do not write laws; only legislatures do. There are no pandemic or public health or emergency exceptions in the Constitution.
Here in New Jersey, Catholics were permitted — permitted — to attend public Masses last Sunday for the first time in 88 days.
This has deeply troubled many of the faithful, and many non-adherents, who understand the concepts that only legislatures write laws and that no legislature can write a law telling a religious institution when and how to permit worship.
So, who closed all the houses of worship? Why did Catholic bishops dispense with a nearly 1,600-year-old rule — which survived all sorts of wars and pestilence — requiring attendance at Sunday Mass? What became of the wall of separation?
Here is the backstory.
When first-year law students are asked the meaning of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment, they often argue that these clauses mandate a wall of separation between church and state. Some students even offer to find the "wall of separation" language in the Constitution. They are still looking for it.
While it is accurate to use the wall of separation phrase, it is nowhere in the Constitution or in any federal statute. It was first publicly used in an 1802 letter from President Thomas Jefferson to a congregation of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut. The congregation had written to Jefferson complaining that Connecticut was taxing all landowners to pay for the state-supported Congregationalist Church.
They told him that the state regarded their religious freedom as a privilege to be doled out, rather than as an inalienable right as the congregation believed it to be and as he had characterized it and other rights in the Declaration of Independence.
Jefferson understood the values underlying the religion clauses of the First Amendment to mean that while only Congress was prohibited from establishing a church or interfering with worship, the states should not do so either. In his famous letter, he opined that the First Amendment erected "a wall of separation between church and state." To Jefferson, the word "state" in that context meant all governments.
Though the imposition of state taxes to support churches ended during the 19th century, it wasn't until 1947 that the Supreme Court ruled with clarity that the First Amendment — the language in which only restrains Congress — applies to the states as well.
We know that it does because the 14th Amendment prohibits all states from abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. The phrase "privileges or immunities" connotes attributes of national citizenship — first among which are a prohibition on government establishing a religion or interfering with its free exercise.
Stated differently, the right to worship or not, and the right not to be charged for someone else's worship, are personal human rights — as Jefferson called them, inalienable rights.
Now, back to the governors and the bishops.
The governors permitted crowds at Walmart and arrested folks for attending funerals. They permitted thousands of demonstrators in public streets and arrested not one of them for marching without masks or not socially distancing.
My friend Professor John Rao of St. John's University wrote: "Our troubled world continues along its current revolutionary path with no clear idea as of yet just how far the diabolical disorientation that has been unleashed may go. One thing and one thing alone seems definite to me in the midst of the general uncertainty. With a few very notable exceptions, the leadership of our beloved Church, legitimate though that leadership is, has proven itself to be utterly subservient" to the state.
It was not the governors who shut the churches; it was — with some courageous exceptions — the gutless American Catholic bishops who did so. Never before in the history of America has the Church become an arm of the state. The governors told the bishops to close their churches, and they complied. Their predecessors were martyrs. They are cowards.
That is not rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's. That is rendering to Caesar what is God's.
Faithful Catholics believe that we consume the Bread of Life at Mass. The bishops have no more moral right to deny us that salvific sacrament than do the governors. Faithful Catholics also believe that Holy Mother Church is the route to eternal salvation and the Bread of Life is the food for that route. What mother would deny her children food? One in the hands of state-subservient bishops.
When the Supreme Court explained the two religion clauses, it ruled that they prohibit both conspicuous governmental aid to religion and all government interference with it, and all excessive entanglement between church and state.
In another time and place, how different this might have been. One hundred years ago, the Church was outlawed in Mexico and militias hunted down priests. Saying a public Mass then was the functional equivalent of a capital offense. Yet, there were more Masses celebrated for the faithful per day in Mexico in those years than in America in the last 88 days.
The wall of separation insulates our religious beliefs and practices from governmental tyranny. But without episcopal fidelity and courage, the wall crumbles.


bonginoreport--2020-06-18--Ian Haworth: Rayshard Brooks Is Not George Floyd

In the aftermath of George Floyd ’ s death , the subject of racism and police brutality has been at the forefront of our political discourse .
While both are important matters to explore and discuss , the fact is that such debate is not being held on an objective foundation .
Instead , narrative has become more important than fact , with an intentional effort to conflate even the most dissimilar events in order to promote the political aims of the Black Lives Matter movement .
The reaction to Rayshard Brooks ’ death is an example of this conflation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were called to a Wendy ’ s restaurant in Atlanta .
Mr. Brooks had “ fallen asleep in his vehicle , which was parked in the drive-through , causing other customers to drive around him.
” After an initially civil interaction involving an alcohol test , Officer Brosnan and Officer Rolfe then started to arrest Mr. Brooks .
As they attempted to place him in handcuffs , Mr. Brooks grappled with the officers , violently resisting arrest .
He then seized a taser from Officer Brosnan , punched Officer Rolfe , and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a taser dart fired by Officer Rolfe .
While running , Mr Brooks turned and fired the Taser in Officer Rolfe ’ s direction , with Officer Rolfe returning fire with his handgun .
Mr. Brooks died later in hospital .
According to the Atlanta Police Department ’ s Standard Operating Procedures , the actions taken by the officers were clearly within departmental guidelines .
Under ADP SOP 3010 “ Use of Force.
” “ An employee may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when : 1 .
He or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a deadly weapon or any object , device , or instrument which , when used offensively against a person , is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others ; or… ” Regardless of Mr. Brooks ’ culpability for his death as the result of his violent actions , the underlying narrative of systematic and racist police brutality remains more powerful than even incontrovertible video evidence .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Erika Shields has stepped down , and Chassidy Evans , Rayshard Brooks ’ niece , stated “ Not only did we lose another black , unarmed male .
This time it landed on our front doorstep . ''
First , Rayshard Brooks was clearly not unarmed and was attempting to use a stolen weapon after violently resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer .
This detail alone sets Rayshard Brooks apart from George Floyd , whose murder occurred with no threat posed to the arresting officers .
By allowing two disparate scenarios to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone does disservice to the entire notion of police brutality by making the implicit claim that the use of force against every black man by police is unjust .
The unfortunate and brutal fact is that some people are killed without adequate justification by the police in appalling and morally abhorrent situations - such as George Floyd or Breonna Taylor - while others are killed with full justification in acts of self-defense .
Each case involves individual humans and their choices , and so we should judge them as such .
To apply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on skin color alone is both dangerous and fundamentally racist .
What makes matters worse is that there is a growing attempt to justify the act of resisting arrest by making the unsubstantiated claim that the individual in question is at a heightened risk of being killed .
Family attorney L. Chris Stewart stated , “ People ask , 'Why would ( Brooks ) resist if they 're trying to put him in handcuffs ? '
Well , they put George Floyd in handcuffs , and he was subsequently killed .
So just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 're African American -- does n't mean you 're going to be nicely taken to the back of a police car . ''
If we are seriously considering the notion that we should justify violent actions against police officers who are obeying the law , then we are truly opening the door to lawlessness and anarchy .
By conflating contrasting cases as evidence of a narrative with a complete disregard for facts or nuance , we are making it impossible for police officers to do their job .
Indeed , by justifying violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprised when many decide that placing their lives on the line on a daily basis is hardly worth the risk .
When that day comes , will narrative remain as important as reality ?

In the aftermath of George Floyd’s death, the subject of racism and police brutality has been at the forefront of our political discourse. While both are important matters to explore and discuss, the fact is that such debate is not being held on an objective foundation. Instead, narrative has become more important than fact, with an intentional effort to conflate even the most dissimilar events in order to promote the political aims of the Black Lives Matter movement.
The reaction to Rayshard Brooks’ death is an example of this conflation. On June 12th, police officers were called to a Wendy’s restaurant in Atlanta. Mr. Brooks had “fallen asleep in his vehicle, which was parked in the drive-through, causing other customers to drive around him.” After an initially civil interaction involving an alcohol test, Officer Brosnan and Officer Rolfe then started to arrest Mr. Brooks. As they attempted to place him in handcuffs, Mr. Brooks grappled with the officers, violently resisting arrest. He then seized a taser from Officer Brosnan, punched Officer Rolfe, and then fled the scene after being hit by a taser dart fired by Officer Rolfe. While running, Mr Brooks turned and fired the Taser in Officer Rolfe’s direction, with Officer Rolfe returning fire with his handgun. Mr. Brooks died later in hospital.
According to the Atlanta Police Department’s Standard Operating Procedures, the actions taken by the officers were clearly within departmental guidelines. Under ADP SOP 3010 “Use of Force.”
“An employee may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when: 1. He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others; or…”
Regardless of Mr. Brooks’ culpability for his death as the result of his violent actions, the underlying narrative of systematic and racist police brutality remains more powerful than even incontrovertible video evidence. The officer has been fired, police Chief Erika Shields has stepped down, and Chassidy Evans, Rayshard Brooks’ niece, stated “Not only did we lose another black, unarmed male. This time it landed on our front doorstep."
First, Rayshard Brooks was clearly not unarmed and was attempting to use a stolen weapon after violently resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer. This detail alone sets Rayshard Brooks apart from George Floyd, whose murder occurred with no threat posed to the arresting officers. By allowing two disparate scenarios to be compared by nature of skin color alone does disservice to the entire notion of police brutality by making the implicit claim that the use of force against every black man by police is unjust.
The unfortunate and brutal fact is that some people are killed without adequate justification by the police in appalling and morally abhorrent situations - such as George Floyd or Breonna Taylor - while others are killed with full justification in acts of self-defense. Each case involves individual humans and their choices, and so we should judge them as such. To apply subjective assumptions of innocence or guilt based on skin color alone is both dangerous and fundamentally racist.
What makes matters worse is that there is a growing attempt to justify the act of resisting arrest by making the unsubstantiated claim that the individual in question is at a heightened risk of being killed. Family attorney L. Chris Stewart stated, “People ask, 'Why would (Brooks) resist if they're trying to put him in handcuffs?' Well, they put George Floyd in handcuffs, and he was subsequently killed. So just getting put in handcuffs -- if you're African American -- doesn't mean you're going to be nicely taken to the back of a police car."
If we are seriously considering the notion that we should justify violent actions against police officers who are obeying the law, then we are truly opening the door to lawlessness and anarchy. By conflating contrasting cases as evidence of a narrative with a complete disregard for facts or nuance, we are making it impossible for police officers to do their job. Indeed, by justifying violence against officers, we should not be surprised when many decide that placing their lives on the line on a daily basis is hardly worth the risk. When that day comes, will narrative remain as important as reality?


bonginoreport--2020-06-18--Michael Fumento: Erosion of Trust – 10 Things Public Health Establishment Got Wrong About Coronaviru

Michael Fumento: Erosion of Trust – 10 Things Public Health Establishment Got Wrong About Coronavirus

Time and again throughout the coronavirus pandemic you 've heard it .
As public health authorities and state and local elected officials blanketed the nation with restrictions on public mobility and assembly , work and worship , they waved aside doubts and objections with the assurance that they were simply following the “ data and the science ” ; this as if data are always complete , reliable , transparent and unambiguous , and scientific opinion is always monolithic , settled , and immune to challenge .
In reality , “ the data and the science ” pertaining to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ambiguous , sometimes arbitrary and misleading , even fraudulent — and continually shifting .
Mistakes , of course , were inevitable when trying to understand and contain an unfamiliar , complex and highly contagious new virus .
But when recurring expert error is coupled with an expectation that the public should mutely maintain an unquestioning faith in the claims of “ the data and the science ” — as has often been the case during the pandemic — the result may be a severe erosion in the credibility of public health authorities .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ establishment got wrong : 1 .
Threat level : On Jan. 21 , the day the first COVID-19 case in the U.S. was confirmed , National Institutes of Allergies and Infectious Diseases director Anthony Fauci appeared on conservative Newsmax TV and said : “ Obviously , you need to take it seriously and do the kind of things the CDC and the Department of Homeland Security is doing .
But this is not a major threat to the people of the United States , and this is not something that the citizens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worried about.
” By April 1 , CDC Director Robert Redfield would be saying , “ This is the greatest public health crisis that has hit this nation in more than 100 years.
” 2 .
Masks : “ Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS !
” So tweeted Surgeon General Jerome Adams on Feb. 29 .
“ They are NOT effective in preventing [ the ] general public from catching # Coronavirus , but if healthcare providers ca n't get them to care for sick patients , it puts them and our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initially said , “ If you are sick , you should wear a facemask when you are around other people ( e.g.
, sharing a room or vehicle ) and before you enter a healthcare provider 's office . ''
But `` if you are NOT sick , '' it added , `` you do not need to wear a facemask unless you are caring for someone who is sick ( and they are not able to wear a facemask ) .
” That link now leads to the declaration with a subheading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mouth and nose with a cloth face cover when around others.
” 3 .
Asymptomatic transmission : Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove , head of WHO ’ s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit , said at a June 8 news briefing , “ From the data we have , it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual , ” adding , “ It ’ s very rare.
” She explained the importance of this for policy purposes .
“ What we really want to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Van Kerkhove said .
“ If we actually followed all of the symptomatic cases , isolated those cases , followed the contacts and quarantined those contacts , we would drastically reduce ” the outbreak .
After a backlash that “ sent shock waves throughout the world ” , according to a CNBC report and sparked a “ furious scientific debate , ” according to The Washington Post , Kerhove executed a 180 within a day .
“ We don ’ t actually have that answer yet , ” she said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy of WHO or anything like that.
” 4 .
Mortality rate : WHO ’ s initial mortality rate for COVID-19 was 3.4 % , more than an order of magnitude higher than seasonal flu , which is usually pegged at about 0.1 % .
But recently the CDC put its “ best guess ” figure at 0.26 % .
That 's still higher than the seasonal flu but far lower than the 0.67 % death rate of the “ Asian flu ” of 1957-1958 ( H2N2 ) , which , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans and 3 million worldwide adjusted to today ’ s populations .
That pandemic led to no panic in the U.S. , no suspensions of civil liberties , no worldwide recession .
5 .
Death toll models : The most influential prediction of COVID-19 deaths was British epidemiologist Neil Ferguson ’ s unpublished model forecasting as many as 2.2 million American deaths and 510,000 in the U.K. Around the globe , countries quickly locked down to prevent the disease from overwhelming their health care systems and exacting almost apocalyptic death tolls .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ College professor said the U.K. figure was actually closer to just 20,000 with the equivalent being 80,000 U.S. deaths .
Defenders claim that if you read the fine print in Ferguson ’ s model , he technically allowed for that under an essentially perfect case scenario .
But Ferguson walked back his alarmist projection on March 25 , just two days after the U.K. locked down , and therefore long before the authoritarian measures could have had any impact .
In yet another flip , Ferguson now says locking down a week earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths .
He has published nothing to support that assertion .
6 .
Cause of death : Initially there were no tests for COVID-19 , so it ’ s understandable that there might have been confusion , especially between coronavirus and flu that was in season at the same time .
But after tests became available , both the WHO and the CDC issued advisories saying that no test was necessary to officially certify a death as COVID-19-caused .
Then , Medicare began providing a 20 % bonus for putting COVID-19 on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is quite important given that most U.S. coronavirus deaths are in persons over age 65 .
Ultimately , anything from lethal alcohol poisoning to homicide were being classified as coronavirus deaths .
Moreover , it is inevitable that many of those dying with the virus actually died from something else , given that the vast majority of those dying with a positive COVID-19 test had at least one , and usually more , preexisting conditions , or co-morbidities , that could have been the direct cause of death .
The CDC has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths attributed to COVID-19 didn ’ t have preexisting conditions , while in Italy a study found merely one percent didn ’ t .
7 .
Ventilators : New York City , we were told , was about to face a “ bullet train ” to use Andrew Cuomo ’ s awkward metaphor .
That is , based on modeling by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington , the city by early April would have more than 70,000 hospitalized with COVID-19 .
The actual number proved to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even today , the cumulative total is still about 16,000 cases shy .
With such huge numbers , Cuomo said there would be a tremendous shortage of ventilators .
As many as 40,000 would be needed , he claimed , saying on April 2 that the state would run out of ventilators by within 6 days at the prevailing usage rate .
President Trump disputed that , saying “ I don ’ t believe you need 40,000 or 30,000 ventilators.
” By April 6 , Cuomo was conceding , “ We ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reserve.
” By the middle of the month , Cuomo was sending surplus ventilators to other states .
8 .
Surface Spread : Originally , on its “ How Covid-19 Spreads ” page , the CDC had “ Spread from contact with contaminated surfaces and objects ” under its own subheading , just below a similar subhead on “ Person-to-person spread.
” Now it ’ s tucked away under the subheading “ The Virus May Be Spread in Other Ways.
” The CDC could have admitted that its understanding of transmission mechanics has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it took a tip from a John Wayne character : “ Never apologize , Mister ; it ’ s a sign of weakness.
” “ Our transmission language has not changed , ” CDC spokesman Benjamin Haynes told NPR .
Narrowly speaking , he is right , but ... you be the judge .
9 .
Hydroxychlororquine : You can ’ t rush good science — a lesson for those speculating about a speedy and highly effective COVID-19 vaccine .
That ’ s what we saw with HCL .
President Trump gave the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ autoimmune diseases , a boost , based on limited evidence that it might have been effective against SARS .
Individual physicians told reporters that they “ thought ” the drug seemed effective , which doesn ’ t mean much given that the vast majority of COVID-19 patients recover in any case .
But whether because Trump was prematurely promoting the drug or because Trump is Trump , there seemed a concerted effort to disprove him .
The highlight was when one of the world ’ s most respected medical journals , The Lancet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ headlines as “ Hydroxychloroquine : Trump ’ s Covid-19 ‘ cure ' increases deaths , global study finds.
” Within days three of the four authors published a retraction .
Outside scientists had noted that the study claimed to have data that would have been almost impossible to gather during that time frame .
The writers explained in their retraction that those figures came from a fourth author , who , tellingly , would not let them access the raw data .
Additionally , the New England Journal of Medicine also retracted a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it also used data from the same company .
The latest : The drug doesn ’ t seem effective as a COVID-19 treatment , but there ’ s still hope it can be used as a prophylaxis .
10 .
Cruise ships : Ocean cruise liners go back to Noah ’ s Ark , but there ’ s talk they may not survive COVID-19 .
Or , perhaps , whatever new pathogen eventually emerges and throws the world into another panic .
Carnival , the world ’ s largest cruise company , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 billion a month to maintain its fleet .
That may not have been the case if there were just one narrative that everyone stuck to .
Asked about cruises in a March 8 press conference , Fauci said , “ If you are a healthy young person , there is no reason if you want to go on a cruise ship , go on a cruise ship .
But the fact is that if you have … an individual who has an underlying condition , particularly an elderly person who has an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they do not go on a cruise ship.
” Then , the U.S. State Department flipped the script with a warning starkly different in tone and emphasis : “ U.S .
citizens , particularly travelers with underlying health conditions , should not travel by cruise ship .
”

Time and again throughout the coronavirus pandemic you've heard it. As public health authorities and state and local elected officials blanketed the nation with restrictions on public mobility and assembly, work and worship, they waved aside doubts and objections with the assurance that they were simply following the “data and the science”; this as if data are always complete, reliable, transparent and unambiguous, and scientific opinion is always monolithic, settled, and immune to challenge.
In reality, “the data and the science” pertaining to the new coronavirus have been partial, often ambiguous, sometimes arbitrary and misleading, even fraudulent — and continually shifting. Mistakes, of course, were inevitable when trying to understand and contain an unfamiliar, complex and highly contagious new virus. But when recurring expert error is coupled with an expectation that the public should mutely maintain an unquestioning faith in the claims of “the data and the science” — as has often been the case during the pandemic — the result may be a severe erosion in the credibility of public health authorities. Here are 10 things the public health establishment got wrong:
1. Threat level: On Jan. 21, the day the first COVID-19 case in the U.S. was confirmed, National Institutes of Allergies and Infectious Diseases director Anthony Fauci appeared on conservative Newsmax TV and said: “Obviously, you need to take it seriously and do the kind of things the CDC and the Department of Homeland Security is doing. But this is not a major threat to the people of the United States, and this is not something that the citizens of the United States right now should be worried about.”
By April 1, CDC Director Robert Redfield would be saying, “This is the greatest public health crisis that has hit this nation in more than 100 years.”
2. Masks: “Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS!” So tweeted Surgeon General Jerome Adams on Feb. 29. “They are NOT effective in preventing [the] general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can't get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!” The CDC initially said, “If you are sick, you should wear a facemask when you are around other people (e.g., sharing a room or vehicle) and before you enter a healthcare provider's office." But "if you are NOT sick," it added, "you do not need to wear a facemask unless you are caring for someone who is sick (and they are not able to wear a facemask).” That link now leads to the declaration with a subheading in large letters: “Cover your mouth and nose with a cloth face cover when around others.”
3. Asymptomatic transmission: Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said at a June 8 news briefing, “From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” adding, “It’s very rare.” She explained the importance of this for policy purposes. “What we really want to be focused on is following the symptomatic cases,” Van Kerkhove said. “If we actually followed all of the symptomatic cases, isolated those cases, followed the contacts and quarantined those contacts, we would drastically reduce” the outbreak.
After a backlash that “sent shock waves throughout the world”, according to a CNBC report and sparked a “furious scientific debate,” according to The Washington Post, Kerhove executed a 180 within a day. “We don’t actually have that answer yet,” she said. “I wasn’t stating a policy of WHO or anything like that.”
4. Mortality rate: WHO’s initial mortality rate for COVID-19 was 3.4%, more than an order of magnitude higher than seasonal flu, which is usually pegged at about 0.1%. But recently the CDC put its “best guess” figure at 0.26%. That's still higher than the seasonal flu but far lower than the 0.67% death rate of the “Asian flu” of 1957-1958 (H2N2), which, according to the CDC, killed an estimated 223,000 Americans and 3 million worldwide adjusted to today’s populations. That pandemic led to no panic in the U.S., no suspensions of civil liberties, no worldwide recession.
5. Death toll models: The most influential prediction of COVID-19 deaths was British epidemiologist Neil Ferguson’s unpublished model forecasting as many as 2.2 million American deaths and 510,000 in the U.K. Around the globe, countries quickly locked down to prevent the disease from overwhelming their health care systems and exacting almost apocalyptic death tolls. As soon as they had, the Imperial College professor said the U.K. figure was actually closer to just 20,000 with the equivalent being 80,000 U.S. deaths. Defenders claim that if you read the fine print in Ferguson’s model, he technically allowed for that under an essentially perfect case scenario. But Ferguson walked back his alarmist projection on March 25, just two days after the U.K. locked down, and therefore long before the authoritarian measures could have had any impact. In yet another flip, Ferguson now says locking down a week earlier could have prevented half the actual U.K. deaths. He has published nothing to support that assertion.
6. Cause of death: Initially there were no tests for COVID-19, so it’s understandable that there might have been confusion, especially between coronavirus and flu that was in season at the same time. But after tests became available, both the WHO and the CDC issued advisories saying that no test was necessary to officially certify a death as COVID-19-caused. Then, Medicare began providing a 20% bonus for putting COVID-19 on the first line of the death certificate, which is quite important given that most U.S. coronavirus deaths are in persons over age 65. Ultimately, anything from lethal alcohol poisoning to homicide were being classified as coronavirus deaths. Moreover, it is inevitable that many of those dying with the virus actually died from something else, given that the vast majority of those dying with a positive COVID-19 test had at least one, and usually more, preexisting conditions, or co-morbidities, that could have been the direct cause of death. The CDC has found that only seven percent of American deaths attributed to COVID-19 didn’t have preexisting conditions, while in Italy a study found merely one percent didn’t.
7. Ventilators: New York City, we were told, was about to face a “bullet train” to use Andrew Cuomo’s awkward metaphor. That is, based on modeling by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, the city by early April would have more than 70,000 hospitalized with COVID-19. The actual number proved to be less than a fourth that. Even today, the cumulative total is still about 16,000 cases shy.
With such huge numbers, Cuomo said there would be a tremendous shortage of ventilators. As many as 40,000 would be needed, he claimed, saying on April 2 that the state would run out of ventilators by within 6 days at the prevailing usage rate. President Trump disputed that, saying “I don’t believe you need 40,000 or 30,000 ventilators.” By April 6, Cuomo was conceding, “We’re OK, and we have some in reserve.” By the middle of the month, Cuomo was sending surplus ventilators to other states.
8. Surface Spread: Originally, on its “How Covid-19 Spreads” page, the CDC had “Spread from contact with contaminated surfaces and objects” under its own subheading, just below a similar subhead on “Person-to-person spread.” Now it’s tucked away under the subheading “The Virus May Be Spread in Other Ways.” The CDC could have admitted that its understanding of transmission mechanics has changed with new studies. Instead, it took a tip from a John Wayne character: “Never apologize, Mister; it’s a sign of weakness.” “Our transmission language has not changed,” CDC spokesman Benjamin Haynes told NPR. Narrowly speaking, he is right, but ... you be the judge.
9. Hydroxychlororquine: You can’t rush good science — a lesson for those speculating about a speedy and highly effective COVID-19 vaccine. That’s what we saw with HCQ. President Trump gave the drug, used for treating malaria and autoimmune diseases, a boost, based on limited evidence that it might have been effective against SARS. Individual physicians told reporters that they “thought” the drug seemed effective, which doesn’t mean much given that the vast majority of COVID-19 patients recover in any case.
But whether because Trump was prematurely promoting the drug or because Trump is Trump, there seemed a concerted effort to disprove him. The highlight was when one of the world’s most respected medical journals, The Lancet, published a paper leading to such headlines as “Hydroxychloroquine: Trump’s Covid-19 ‘cure' increases deaths, global study finds.”
Within days three of the four authors published a retraction. Outside scientists had noted that the study claimed to have data that would have been almost impossible to gather during that time frame. The writers explained in their retraction that those figures came from a fourth author, who, tellingly, would not let them access the raw data. Additionally, the New England Journal of Medicine also retracted a study on COVID-19 and cardiovascular health since it also used data from the same company.
The latest: The drug doesn’t seem effective as a COVID-19 treatment, but there’s still hope it can be used as a prophylaxis.
10. Cruise ships: Ocean cruise liners go back to Noah’s Ark, but there’s talk they may not survive COVID-19. Or, perhaps, whatever new pathogen eventually emerges and throws the world into another panic. Carnival, the world’s largest cruise company, is bleeding out at a rate of $1 billion a month to maintain its fleet. That may not have been the case if there were just one narrative that everyone stuck to. Asked about cruises in a March 8 press conference, Fauci said, “If you are a healthy young person, there is no reason if you want to go on a cruise ship, go on a cruise ship. But the fact is that if you have … an individual who has an underlying condition, particularly an elderly person who has an underlying condition, I would recommend strongly that they do not go on a cruise ship.” Then, the U.S. State Department flipped the script with a warning starkly different in tone and emphasis: “U.S. citizens, particularly travelers with underlying health conditions, should not travel by cruise ship.”


bonginoreport--2020-06-18--Gavin Wax: The Conservative Supreme Court Strategy Failed, So Now It’s Time For Reform

The Supreme Court ’ s radical betrayal of justice , freedom of association , and the plain letter of the law make clear that reform will have to precede any prospect for a truly conservative judiciary .
For a long time , conservatives have worked and sacrificed to bring the Supreme Court to its current 5-4 right-leaning majority .
They held their noses and supported moderates for president like Bush , McCain , and Romney , in hopes of principled high court appointments .
Similarly , many who were skeptical of candidate Donald Trump voted for him for the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to show for their victorious takeover of the Supreme Court ?
Not much .
On Monday , three of five conservative justices neglected to hear an important Second Amendment case .
Then , in another case , Trump-appointee Neil Gorsuch redefined “ sex ” in federal discrimination law to include transgenderism and sexual orientation .
It is the height of naivete to underestimate the long-term consequences of this case , Bostock v. Clayton County , Georgia .
If it doesn ’ t explicitly state that religious schools must hire transgender teachers , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If it doesn ’ t outright declare all bathrooms to be transgender safe spaces , it makes it inevitable .
Don ’ t call it a slippery slope fallacy when gay marriage was supposed to be the end all be all less than a decade ago .
It ’ s not easy or popular to defend freedom of speech or association in America today , as a careful consideration of the Constitution requires , but that ’ s what judges are supposed to do !
This is especially true for the nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top of the American judicial system .
Why isn ’ t a conservative Supreme Court adhering to the Constitution ?
Because there are deep-rooted problems with this institution , and conservatives can ’ t ignore them anymore .
It ’ s time for judicial reform .
The founding fathers wouldn ’ t recognize the Supreme Court as we know it today .
It has evolved into something at odds with the American form of republican government .
For example , most Americans today believe the Supreme Court has the final say on what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That is half-true at best .
The states get to have their say as well , at least under the system the founders thought they created .
James Madison , the Father of the Constitution , wrote in his Report of 1800 that the Supreme Court was the “ last resort ” in relation to the legislative and executive branches of the federal government , but not in relation to the peoples of the several states , “ from which the judicial as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal government , not the other way around .
That is to say , “ the created can not be greater than the creator , ” as Michael Boldin , founder of the Tenth Amendment Center , has put it .
The Supreme Court tacitly recognizes this under its anti-commandeering doctrine , which finds much of its origin in the 1842 case Prigg v. Pennsylvania when Chief Justice Joseph Story ruled “ the states can not ... be compelled to enforce ” federal law .
Today , this balance between the states and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Supreme Court justices are viewed as demigods , so merely by setting “ precedent , ” they are allowed to make law instead of interpret it .
The following are just a few of the suggested reforms that have floated around for some time .
- One idea championed by Texas Governor Greg Abbott is that when two-thirds of the states , through their legislatures , vote against a Supreme Court decision , that decision ought to be overturned nationwide .
This reaffirms the states ’ power to be a check on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limit the court ’ s judicial review power , the doctrine which states the Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional .
In 1868 , the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill that said only a two-thirds majority of the Supreme Court could declare a congressional act unconstitutional .
At the time , the Senate declined to pass the new rule , unsure of how the bill ’ s own constitutionality would be determined .
Why not find out now ?
- A super-majority on the Supreme Court should also be required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the citizenry through referenda , such as preserving traditional marriage , is invalidated .
- There should be more transparency , to do away with this shroud of awe over the court .
The non-profit Fix the Court wants video recording during cases .
Why not make all proceedings and deliberations public ?
Perhaps a compromise would air recordings after a case is decided .
- Each justice should issue his or her own opinion , not hide amongst the majority or minority .
This would revert back to the way the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practice of seriatim .
- And to prevent dereliction of duty , the court ought to be compelled to hear all cases and not pick and choose .
To accomplish this we would need to repeal the Judiciary Act of 1925 .
It would also mean the court would have to write short orders and not write social discourses .
- The court should also be limited in its ability to amend the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure , a power granted to them by the Rules Enabling Act of 1934 .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amended , the court would return to the “ conformity principle ” and this would return powers to the states .
The American system must be renewed from time to time , but there is not enough time to wait around every four or eight years for a new president to come along and change the face of the court .
These justices , whose current average age is 69 , have access to the best healthcare in the world and are living longer than ever before .
It ’ s obvious that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today over the lives of 320 million Americans , not to mention their elected representatives of all levels .
Every decision , far-removed from society , is a glory for one side of the country and a derogation for the other .
This never ending bloodless civil war isn ’ t worth the struggle either side has put in .
If there is hope for mending the divides in America , it is in downsizing , decentralizing , and demystifying the Supreme Court ’ s power .
Conservatives are fortunate to have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this mission .

The Supreme Court’s radical betrayal of justice, freedom of association, and the plain letter of the law make clear that reform will have to precede any prospect for a truly conservative judiciary.
For a long time, conservatives have worked and sacrificed to bring the Supreme Court to its current 5-4 right-leaning majority. They held their noses and supported moderates for president like Bush, McCain, and Romney, in hopes of principled high court appointments. Similarly, many who were skeptical of candidate Donald Trump voted for him for the same reason.
But what do conservatives have to show for their victorious takeover of the Supreme Court? Not much.
On Monday, three of five conservative justices neglected to hear an important Second Amendment case. Then, in another case, Trump-appointee Neil Gorsuch redefined “sex” in federal discrimination law to include transgenderism and sexual orientation.
It is the height of naivete to underestimate the long-term consequences of this case, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. If it doesn’t explicitly state that religious schools must hire transgender teachers, that is the road it puts us on. If it doesn’t outright declare all bathrooms to be transgender safe spaces, it makes it inevitable.
Don’t call it a slippery slope fallacy when gay marriage was supposed to be the end all be all less than a decade ago.
It’s not easy or popular to defend freedom of speech or association in America today, as a careful consideration of the Constitution requires, but that’s what judges are supposed to do! This is especially true for the nearly unimpeachable ones with lifetime appointments at the top of the American judicial system.
Why isn’t a conservative Supreme Court adhering to the Constitution? Because there are deep-rooted problems with this institution, and conservatives can’t ignore them anymore. It’s time for judicial reform.
The founding fathers wouldn’t recognize the Supreme Court as we know it today. It has evolved into something at odds with the American form of republican government.
For example, most Americans today believe the Supreme Court has the final say on what is or isn’t constitutional. That is half-true at best. The states get to have their say as well, at least under the system the founders thought they created.
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, wrote in his Report of 1800 that the Supreme Court was the “last resort” in relation to the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, but not in relation to the peoples of the several states, “from which the judicial as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts.”
Madison understood that the states created the federal government, not the other way around.
That is to say, “the created cannot be greater than the creator,” as Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, has put it.
The Supreme Court tacitly recognizes this under its anti-commandeering doctrine, which finds much of its origin in the 1842 case Prigg v. Pennsylvania when Chief Justice Joseph Story ruled “the states cannot...be compelled to enforce” federal law.
Today, this balance between the states and the federal government is out of whack. Supreme Court justices are viewed as demigods, so merely by setting “precedent,” they are allowed to make law instead of interpret it.
The following are just a few of the suggested reforms that have floated around for some time.
- One idea championed by Texas Governor Greg Abbott is that when two-thirds of the states, through their legislatures, vote against a Supreme Court decision, that decision ought to be overturned nationwide. This reaffirms the states’ power to be a check on judicial overreach.
- Congress should also limit the court’s judicial review power, the doctrine which states the Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional. In 1868, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill that said only a two-thirds majority of the Supreme Court could declare a congressional act unconstitutional. At the time, the Senate declined to pass the new rule, unsure of how the bill’s own constitutionality would be determined. Why not find out now?
- A super-majority on the Supreme Court should also be required before any law directly voted on by the citizenry through referenda, such as preserving traditional marriage, is invalidated.
- There should be more transparency, to do away with this shroud of awe over the court. The non-profit Fix the Court wants video recording during cases. Why not make all proceedings and deliberations public? Perhaps a compromise would air recordings after a case is decided.
- Each justice should issue his or her own opinion, not hide amongst the majority or minority. This would revert back to the way the court operated before Justice John Marshall abandoned the practice of seriatim.
- And to prevent dereliction of duty, the court ought to be compelled to hear all cases and not pick and choose. To accomplish this we would need to repeal the Judiciary Act of 1925. It would also mean the court would have to write short orders and not write social discourses.
- The court should also be limited in its ability to amend the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a power granted to them by the Rules Enabling Act of 1934. If that act were to be repealed or amended, the court would return to the “conformity principle” and this would return powers to the states.
The American system must be renewed from time to time, but there is not enough time to wait around every four or eight years for a new president to come along and change the face of the court. These justices, whose current average age is 69, have access to the best healthcare in the world and are living longer than ever before.
It’s obvious that nine black robes wield too much power today over the lives of 320 million Americans, not to mention their elected representatives of all levels. Every decision, far-removed from society, is a glory for one side of the country and a derogation for the other. This never ending bloodless civil war isn’t worth the struggle either side has put in.
If there is hope for mending the divides in America, it is in downsizing, decentralizing, and demystifying the Supreme Court’s power. Conservatives are fortunate to have the American tradition to look to for guidance in this mission.


bonginoreport--2020-06-18--California Orders All Citizens Wear Face Masks

Starting June 18 , Californians must wear face coverings in common and public indoor spaces and outdoors when distancing is not possible , Gov .
Gavin Newsom announced Thursday .
“ Science shows that face coverings and masks work , ” said Governor Gavin Newsom .
“ They are critical to keeping those who are around you safe , keeping businesses open and restarting our economy.
” Governor Newsom also addressed why he took this action now .
“ Simply put , we are seeing too many people with faces uncovered – putting at risk the real progress we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s strategy to restart the economy and get people back to work will only be successful if people act safely and follow health recommendations .
That means wearing a face covering , washing your hands and practicing physical distancing.
” “ As Californians venture into our communities more , wearing face coverings is another important way we can help protect one another , ” said Dr. Sonia Angell , State Public Health Officer and Director of the California Department of Public Health .
“ Combined with physical distancing and frequent hand washing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are with others outside of our household will reduce the spread of COVID-19 , which is still a very real threat across our state .
”

Starting June 18, Californians must wear face coverings in common and public indoor spaces and outdoors when distancing is not possible, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Thursday.
“Science shows that face coverings and masks work,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “They are critical to keeping those who are around you safe, keeping businesses open and restarting our economy.”
Governor Newsom also addressed why he took this action now. “Simply put, we are seeing too many people with faces uncovered – putting at risk the real progress we have made in fighting the disease. California’s strategy to restart the economy and get people back to work will only be successful if people act safely and follow health recommendations. That means wearing a face covering, washing your hands and practicing physical distancing.”
“As Californians venture into our communities more, wearing face coverings is another important way we can help protect one another,” said Dr. Sonia Angell, State Public Health Officer and Director of the California Department of Public Health. “Combined with physical distancing and frequent hand washing, wearing cloth face coverings when we are with others outside of our household will reduce the spread of COVID-19, which is still a very real threat across our state.”
Read the guidelines HERE.
Facebook Comments